{"id":57431,"date":"2015-05-04T12:00:57","date_gmt":"2015-05-04T11:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=57431"},"modified":"2015-05-05T21:24:41","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T20:24:41","slug":"us-grand-strategy-for-war-against-china-laid-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/05\/us-grand-strategy-for-war-against-china-laid-out\/","title":{"rendered":"US \u201cGrand Strategy\u201d for War against China Laid Out"},"content":{"rendered":"

2 May 2015 – <\/em>The advanced stage of discussions in US foreign policy circles over the pursuit of an ever-more aggressive policy toward China has been revealed by the recent release of a chilling report under the auspices of the influential Council on Foreign Relations.<\/p>\n

Entitled \u201cRevising US Grand Strategy Toward China,\u201d the report is nothing less than an agenda for war. It is authored by Robert D. Blackwill and Ashley J. Tellis, both of whom have close connections to the US State Department and various American foreign policy think tanks.<\/p>\n

The report cites a publication produced during World War II defining \u201cgrand strategy\u201d as one that \u201cso integrates the policies and armaments of a nation that the resort to war is either rendered unnecessary or is undertaken with the maximum chance of victory.\u201d This is not merely a concept of war but \u201can inherent element of statecraft at all times.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report\u2019s central theme is that US global dominance is threatened by the rise of China and this process must be reversed by economic, diplomatic and military means.<\/p>\n

Significantly, at the beginning of the report, its authors cite the Pentagon\u2019s Defence Planning Guidance document of 1992, produced in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which insisted that US strategy had to \u201crefocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.\u201d<\/p>\n

While asserting that China has a \u201cgrand strategy\u201d for regional and ultimately global domination, the authors make clear they regard the threat to the US position as arising from China\u2019s economic growth within the present international order.<\/p>\n

This analysis recalls that advanced at the beginning of 1907 by the senior British Foreign Office official Eyre Crowe about the impact on Britain of the rise of Germany. Crowe concluded that, whatever the intentions of its leaders, Germany\u2019s economic expansion, in and of itself, constituted a threat to the British Empire. Seven years later, the two major powers were at war.<\/p>\n

China is not an imperialist power as Germany was, but its very economic rise is undermining the US position.<\/p>\n

According to the report: \u201cBecause the American effort to \u2018integrate\u2019 China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to US primacy in Asia\u2014and could eventually result in a consequential challenge to American power globally\u2014Washington needs a grand strategy toward China that centres on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.\u201d<\/p>\n

A repeat of the Cold War policy based on \u201ccontainment\u201d is not possible because that was grounded on the autarkic policies of the Soviet Union, whereas China\u2019s economic growth is bound up with economic globalisation and China\u2019s integration into world markets.<\/p>\n

In its own way, this assertion is a direct confirmation of the Marxist analysis that the origins of war lie in the very modus operandi of the capitalist system itself. China has operated within the framework of the global market, established not least by the United States, but this integration has itself undermined US primacy.<\/p>\n

In the report\u2019s words: \u201cUS support for China\u2019s entry into the global trading system has thus created the awkward situation in which Washington has contributed towards hastening Beijing\u2019s economic growth and, by extension, accelerated its rise as a geopolitical rival.\u201d<\/p>\n

Accordingly, in advancing the core elements of an American \u201cgrand strategy,\u201d the authors place considerable importance on economic issues. As part of a plan to \u201cvitalize\u201d the economy, the US should \u201cconstruct a new set of trading relationships in Asia that exclude China, fashion effective tools to deal with China\u2019s pervasive use of geo-economic tools in Asia and beyond, and, in partnership with US allies and like-minded partners, create a new technology-control mechanism vis-a-vis China.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which currently excludes China and for which Obama is now seeking fast-track authority from the US Congress to negotiate, is regarded as essential. Failure to deliver it would \u201cseriously weaken\u201d the US grand strategy.<\/p>\n

The report\u2019s focus on the underlying economic issues by no means implies any downgrading of military means. On the contrary, the authors spell out detailed measures, both in terms of US policy and those it must secure from its allies in the region.<\/p>\n

The relationship with Japan is regarded as occupying first place. The report\u2019s proposals include an expansion of the US-Japan security relationship to encompass all of Asia, the upgrading of the Japanese military, aligning Japan with concepts such as Air-Sea battle\u2014a massive attack on military facilities in mainland China\u2014and intensifying Japanese cooperation with ballistic missile defence (BMD). Anti-missile systems are seen as vital for a first-strike strategy, which aims to render inoperable any retaliation.<\/p>\n

With regard to South Korea, the report calls for increased BMD capacity, as well as a comprehensive strategy, developed with Japan, to bring about \u201cregime change\u201d in North Korea.<\/p>\n

Australia is described as the \u201csouthern anchor\u201d of US relationships in the Pacific. The report calls for the use of the Stirling naval base in Western Australia to support \u201cUS naval force structure in the region.\u201d The US and Australia should deploy surveillance and unmanned aerial vehicles on Australia\u2019s Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean and \u201cthe two countries should work together to more rapidly identify potential Australian contributions to ballistic missile defence.\u201d<\/p>\n

And the list goes on. Indian nuclear weapons must be seen as an \u201casset\u201d in the current balance of power, and US-India military co-operation should increase. Indonesia\u2019s role in joint military exercises must be expanded, naval exercises with Vietnam stepped up and the Philippines must develop a full range of defence capabilities.<\/p>\n

On the political front, the report calls for the reinforcement of trusted strategic relationships and partnerships throughout the Indo-Pacific region that include traditional US alliances but go beyond them. It advocates strengthening Asian states\u2019 \u201cability to cope with China independently\u201d and building new forms of intra-Asian co-operation\u2014clearly directed to counter China\u2014that do not always involve the US but are systematically supported by it.<\/p>\n

After detailing these anti-China measures on the economic, military and political fronts, the report states that the US must energise \u201chigh-level diplomacy\u201d with China to \u201cmitigate the inherently profound tensions\u201d and to \u201creassure US allies and friends in Asia and beyond that its objective is to avoid a confrontation with China.\u201d<\/p>\n

The source of this blatant contradiction lies in a no less significant component of the US war drive\u2014the offensive on the ideological front. The purpose of the \u201chigh-level diplomacy\u201d and even possible joint ventures with China on some issues, is to manufacture the propaganda lie that the cause of war is the fault of America\u2019s enemy\u2014in this case Chinese assertiveness and aggression. That lie has been central to the launching of US military activity ever since it became an imperialist power at the end of the 19th century.<\/p>\n

In reality, the report itself specifically rules out any accommodation with China. In their conclusion, the authors state: \u201c[T]here is no real prospect of building fundamental trust, \u2018peaceful coexistence,\u2019 \u2018mutual understanding,\u2019 a strategic partnership, or a \u2018new type of major country relations\u2019 between the United States and China.\u201d<\/p>\n

The release of this report and its clear elaboration of the US war drive underscore the necessity for the development of a socialist strategy against war by the international working class. This will be at the centre of tomorrow\u2019s May Day Online International Rally called by the International Committee of the Fourth International.<\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 wsws.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Council on Foreign Relations report cites a publication produced during World War II defining \u201cgrand strategy\u201d as one that \u201cso integrates the policies and armaments of a nation that the resort to war is either rendered unnecessary or is undertaken with the maximum chance of victory.\u201d This is not merely a concept of war but \u201can inherent element of statecraft at all times.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-militarism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}