Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
Why are we threatening this? Is who controls Mischief Reef or Scarborough Shoal a matter of such vital U.S. interest as to justify war between us and China?
In his final state of the nation speech Monday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte defended his refusal to confront China over Beijing’s seizure and fortification of his country’s islets in the South China Sea.
“It will be a massacre if I go and fight a war now,” said Duterte. “We are not yet a competent and able enemy of the other side.”
Duterte is a realist. He will not challenge China to retrieve his lost territories, as his country would be crushed. But Duterte has a hole card: a U.S. guarantee to fight China, should he stumble into war with China.
Consider. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured Manila we would invoke the U.S.-Philippines mutual security pact in the event of Chinese military action against Philippine assets.
“We also reaffirm,” said Blinken, “that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.”
Is this an American war guarantee to fight the People’s Republic of China, if the Philippines engage a Chinese warship over one of a disputed half-dozen rocks and reefs in the South China Sea? So it would appear.
Why are we threatening this?
Is who controls Mischief Reef or Scarborough Shoal a matter of such vital U.S. interest as to justify war between us and China?
Tuesday, in Singapore, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reaffirmed the American commitment to go to war on behalf of the Philippines, should Manila attempt, militarily, to retrieve its stolen property.
Said Austin: “Beijing’s claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea has no basis in international law. … We remain committed to the treaty obligations that we have to Japan in the Senkaku Islands and to the Philippines in the South China Sea.”
Austin went on: “Beijing’s unwillingness to … respect the rule of law isn’t just occurring on the water. We have also seen aggression against India … destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan … and genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.”
The Defense secretary is publicly accusing China of crimes against its Uyghur population in Xinjiang comparable to those for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg.
Austin has also informed Beijing, yet again, that the U.S. is obligated by a 70-year-old treaty to go to war to defend Japan’s claims to the Senkakus, half a dozen rocks Tokyo now occupies and Beijing claims historically belong to China.
The secretary also introduced the matter of Taiwan, with which President Jimmy Carter broke relations and let lapse our mutual security treaty in 1979.
There remains, however, ambiguity on what the U.S. is prepared to do if China moves on Taiwan. Would we fight China for Taiwan’s independence, an island President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger said in 1972 was “part of China”?
And if China ignores our protests of its “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” against the Uyghurs, and of its human rights violations in Tibet, and of its crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, what are we prepared to do?
Sanctions? A decoupling of our economies? Confrontation? War?
This is not an argument for threatening war, but for an avoidance of war by providing greater clarity and certitude as to what the U.S. response will be if China ignores our protests and remains on its present course.
Some of us can still recall how President Dwight Eisenhower refused to intervene when Nikita Khrushchev ordered Russian tanks into Budapest to drown the 1956 Hungarian revolution in blood. Instead, we welcomed Hungarian refugees.
When the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called up the reserves and went to Berlin to make a famous speech, but did nothing.
“Less profile, more courage!” was the response of Cold War hawks.
But Kennedy was saying, as Eisenhower had said by his inaction in Hungary, that America does not go to war with a great nuclear power such as the Soviet Union over the right of East Germans to flee to West Berlin.
Which brings us back to Taiwan.
In the Shanghai Communique signed by Nixon, Taiwan was conceded to be a “part of China.” Are we now going to fight a war to prevent Beijing from bringing the island home to the “embrace of the motherland”?
And if we are prepared to fight, Beijing should not be left in the dark. China ought to know the risks it would be taking.
Cuba is an island, across the Florida Strait, with historic ties to the United States. Taiwan is an island 7,000 miles away, on the other side of the Pacific.
This month, Cubans rose up against the 62-year-old Communist regime fastened upon them by Fidel and Raul Castro.
By what yardstick would we threaten war for the independence of Taiwan but continue to tolerate 60 years of totalitarian repression in Cuba, 90 miles away?
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
This is why the Royal Navy, currently defending British shores in the South China Sea with a mini-carrier group, is laughable;
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/it-failed-miserably-after-wargaming-loss-joint-chiefs-are-overhauling-how-us-military-will-fight/184050/
Any threat to the dollar real or perceived. The realization that it’s to late to save the dollar may stop a war. But I doubt it.
Maybe we should trade our old fat women for the young skinny women of Taiwan. Then China would have no incentive to attack Taiwan.
If we’re gonna go play war wif someone …. can we at least do so against someone with 1.1 BILLION fewer people? Like … maybe Russia?
Let us predict the future by looking at the past, mmmkay?
When was the last time the USA!USAUSA! went to war with a big country, who had a real economy to support the war, who had a functioning and formidable Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the willpower to execute the war?
I believe that would be WWII. I believe that was over 75 years ago.
Since then our military doctrine has been “Swing A Big Dick But Go Small”; Grenada, Serbia, M.E. shitholes, Liechtenstein (one of these days), etc.
Tucker showed a bit last night with that cookie-eating coon, Austin greeting American officers somewhere. He was wearing a mask and face shield. They didn’t shake hands, bumping fists instead. It was fucking pathetic. I can only imagine his Russian and Chinese counterparts doubled over with laughter.
A better article than what lightweight Buchanan wrote.
“Is the US-China rivalry doomed to fall into the Thucydides Trap, meaning that war between them is inevitable? ”
In ancient Greece, a general surmised that war between Athens and Sparta was inescapable because of Spartan fears about the growth of Athenian power. Is what’s happening with Washington and Beijing the 21st century equivalent?
This phenomenon between an existing power and a rising power is often referred to as the “Thucydides Trap” – a term taken from Ancient Greece which argues such geopolitical competition has a high, although not always inevitable, risk of descending into war. But will that happen in this case?
Rest of article at link below …
.
.
.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/530484-thucydides-trap-us-china-rivalry/
I would be ok with giving California to China if China would build a wall to keep Californians out of AZ.
Just joking? It’s easy to imagine us living in a Chinese system with the way things are going right now.
I think our President and many others are bought and paid for by the Chicoms.
Who owns the Chicoms?
I mean, Epstein wasn’t sending those videos of our politicians screwing kids to Beijing – we was sending them to Tel Aviv.