|
China’s Move In Hong Kong Illustrates The End Of U.S. Superiority
Blaming China for the Covid-19 pandemic is false. But the U.S. will continue to do so as a part of its larger anti-China strategy.
As the U.S. is busy countering the epidemic at home China has already defeated it within its borders. It now uses the moment to remove an issue the U.S. has long used to harass it. Hong Kong will finally be liberated from its U.S. supported racists disguised as liberals.
In late 1984 Britain and China signed a formal agreement which approved the 1997 release of Britain's colony Hong Kong to China. Britain had to agree to the pact because it had lost the capability to defend the colony. The Sino British Joint Declaration stipulated that China would create a formal law that would allow Hong Kong to largely govern itself.
The 'Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China' is the de facto constitution of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. But it is a national law of China adopted by the Chinese National People's Congress in 1990 and introduced in Hong Kong in 1997 after the British rule ran out. If necessary the law can be changed.
Chapter II of the Basic Law regulates the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulated that Hong Kong will have to implement certain measures for internal security:
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.
Hong Kong has failed to create any of the laws demanded by Article 23. Each time its government tried to even partially implement such laws, in 2003, 2014 and 2019, protests and large scale riots in the streets of Hong Kong prevented it.
China was always concerned about the foreign directed unrest in Hong Kong but it did not press the issue while it was still depending on Hong Kong for access to money and markets.
In the year 2000 Hong Kong's GDP stood at $171 billion while China's was just 7 times larger at $1.200 billion. Last year Hong Kong's GDP had nearly doubled to $365 billion. But China's GDP had grown more than tenfold to $14,200 billion, nearly 40 times larger than Hong Kong's. Expressed in purchase power parity the divergence is even bigger. As an economic outlet for China Hong Kong has lost its importance.
Another factor that held China back from deeper meddling in Hong Kong was its concern about negative consequences from the U.S. and Britain. But under the Trump administration the U.S. has introduced more and more measures to shackle China's development. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed last year by the U.S. Congress demands that the U.S. government reports on Hong Kong and punishes those who it deems to be human right violators. The sanctions against Chinese companies and especially Huawei, recently expanded to a total economic blockade of 5G chip deliveries to that company, demonstrate that the U.S. will do anything it can to hinder China's economic success.
The Obama administration's 'pivot to Asia' was already a somewhat disguised move against China. The Trump administration's National Defense Strategy openly declared China a "strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea".
The U.S. Marine Corps is being reconfigured into specialized units designed to blockade China's access to the sea:
Thus, small Marine forces would deploy around the islands of the first island chain and the South China Sea, each element having the ability to contest the surrounding air and naval space using anti-air and antiship missiles. Collectively, these forces would attrite Chinese forces, inhibit them from moving outward, and ultimately, as part of a joint campaign, squeeze them back to the Chinese homeland.
bigger
The 'Cold War 2.0' the U.S. launched against China will now see significant counter moves.
Last year's violent riots in Hong Kong, cheered on by the borg in Washington DC, have demonstrated that the development in Hong Kong is on a bad trajectory that may endanger China.
There is no longer a reason for China to hold back on countering the nonsense. Hong Kong's economy is no longer relevant. U.S. sanctions are coming independent of what China does or does not do in Hong Kong. The U.S. military designs are now an obvious threat.
As the laws that Hong Kong was supposed to implement are not forthcoming, China will now create and implement them itself:
The central government is to table a resolution on Friday to enable the apex of its top legislative body, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), to craft and pass a new national security law tailor-made for Hong Kong, it announced late on Thursday.
Sources earlier told the Post the new law would proscribe secessionist and subversive activity as well as foreign interference and terrorism in the city – all developments that had been troubling Beijing for some time, but most pressingly over the past year of increasingly violent anti-government protests.
…
According to a mainland source familiar with Hong Kong affairs, Beijing had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for the city’s Legislative Council to pass a national security law to enact Article 23 of the city’s Basic Law given the political climate. This was why it was turning to the NPC to take on the responsibility.
On May 28 the NPC will vote on a resolution asking its Standing Committee to write the relevant law for Hong Kong. It is likely to be enacted by promulgation at the end of June. The law will become part of Annex III of the Basic Law which lists "National Laws to be Applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".
Under the new law the U.S. will have to stop its financing of student organization, anti-government unions and media in Hong Kong. The opposition parties will no longer be allowed to have relations with U.S. influence operations.
The U.S. State Department promptly condemned the step:
Hong Kong has flourished as a bastion of liberty. The United States strongly urges Beijing to reconsider its disastrous proposal, abide by its international obligations, and respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, democratic institutions, and civil liberties, which are key to preserving its special status under U.S. law. Any decision impinging on Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms as guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law would inevitably impact our assessment of One Country, Two Systems and the status of the territory.
We stand with the people of Hong Kong.
It is not (yet?) The Coming War On China (video) but some hapless huffing and puffing that is strong on rhetoric but has little effect. No U.S. action can prevent China's government from securing its realm. Hong Kong is a Chinese city where China's laws, not U.S. dollars, are supreme.
The U.S. seems to believe it can win a cold war with China. But that understanding is wrong.
On the economic front it is not the U.S. that is winning by decoupling from China but Asia that is decoupling from the U.S.:
Since the US-China tech war began in April 2018 with Washington’s ban on chip exports to China’s ZTE Corporation, “de-Americanization of supply chains” has been the buzzword in the semiconductor industry.
Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia purchased about 50% more Chinese products in April 2020 than they did in the year-earlier month. Japan and Korea showed 20% gains. Exports to the US rose year-on-year, but from a very low 2019 base.
China’s imports from Asia also rose sharply.
When the U.S. prohibits companies, which use U.S. software or machines to design and make chips, from selling them to China then those companies will seek to buy such software and machines elsewhere. When the U.S. tries to hinder China's access to computer chips, China will build its own chip industry. Ten years from now it will be the U.S. which will have lost access to the then most modern ones as all of those will come from China. Already today it is China that dominates global trade.
The chaotic way in which the U.S. handles its Covid crisis is widely observed abroad. Those who see clearly recognized that it is now China, not the U.S., that is the responsible superpower. The U.S. is overwhelmed and will continue to be so for a long time:
This is why I don’t see the talk about a possible “Cold War 2.0” as meaningful or relevant. If there were to be any sort of “cold war” between the United States and China, then U.S. policymakers would still be able credibly to start planning how to manage this complex relationship with China. But in reality, the options for “managing” the core of this relationship are pitifully few, since the central task of whatever U.S. leadership emerges from this Covid nightmare will be to manage the precipitous collapse of the globe-circling empire the United States has sat atop of since 1945.
…
So here in Washington in Spring of 2020, I say, Let ’em huff and puff with their new flatulations of childish Sinophobia. Let them threaten this or that version of a new “Cold War”. Let them compete in elections– if these are to be held– on versions of “Who can be tougher on China.” But the cold reality shows that, as Banquo said, “It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
In his 2003 book After the Empire Emmanuel Todd described why the U.S. was moving towards the loss of its superpower status:
Todd calmly and straightforwardly takes stock of many negative trends, including America's weakened commitment to the socio-economic integration of African Americans, a bulimic economy that increasingly relies on smoke and mirrors and the goodwill of foreign investors, and a foreign policy that squanders the country's reserves of "soft power" while its militaristic arsonist-fireman behavior is met with increasing resistance.
The Covid-19 crisis has laid all this bare for everyone to see.
Will the U.S., as Todd predicted, now have to give up its superpower status? Or will it start a big war against China to divert the attention elsewhere and to prove its presumed superiority?
China is still in great danger. Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3 (see 6:48). It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a developing country.
So, yes, the West still has a realistic chance of destroying China and inaugurating a new cycle of capitalist prosperity.
What happens with the “decoupling”/”Pivot to Asia” is that, in the West, there’s a scatological theory [go to 10th paragraph] – of Keynesian origin – that socialism can only play “catch up” with capitalism, but never surpass it when a “toyotist phase” of technological innovation comes (this is obviously based on the USSR’s case). This theory states that, if there’s innovation in socialism, it is residual and by accident, and that only in capitalism is significant technological advancement possible. From this, they posit that, if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon “go back to its place” – which is probably to Brazil or India level.
If China will be able to get out of the “Toyotist Trap” that destroyed the USSR, only time will tell. Regardless, decoupling is clearly not working, and China is not showing any signs so far of slowing down. Hence Trump is now embracing a more direct approach.
As for the USA, I’ve put my big picture opinion about it some days ago, so I won’t repeat myself. Here, it suffices to say that, yes, I believe the USA can continue to survive as an empire – even if, worst case scenario, in a “byzantine” form. To its favor, it has: 1) the third largest world population 2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely (for comparison, the USSR only had 10% of arable land, and of worse quality) 3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans (Pacific and Atlantic), plus a direct exit to the Arctic (Alaska and, de facto, Greenland and Canada) 4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea), bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if the situation asks to 4) still the financial superpower 5) still a robust “real” economy – specially if compared to the micro-nations of Western Europe and East-Asia 6) a big fucking Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.
I don’t see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else. The Star-and-Stripes is still a very strong ideal to the average American, and nobody takes the idea of territory loss for real. If that happens, though, it would change my equation on the survival of the American Empire completely.
As for Hong Kong. I watched a video by the chief of the PLA last year (unfortunately, I watched it on Twitter and don’t have the link with me anymore). He was very clear: Hong Kong does not present an existential threat to China. The greatest existential threat to China are, by far, Xinjiang and Tibet, followed by Taiwan and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is a distant fourth place.
Those liberal clowns were never close.
Posted by: vk | May 22 2020 21:02 utc | 27
Posted by: vk | May 22 2020 21:02 utc | 28 Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3 (see 6:48). It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a developing country.
Based on what I’ve read, China is on a fast track to develop technology on their own. In addition, technology development is world-wide these days. What China can not develop itself – quickly enough, time is the only real problem – it can buy with its economic power.
“if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon “go back to its place” – which is probably to Brazil or India level.”
Ah, but that’s where hackers come in. China can *not* be blocked out of Western IP. First, as I said, China can *buy* it. Unless there is a general prohibition across the entire Western world, and by extension sanctions against any other nation from selling to China – which is an unenforceable policy, as Iran has shown – China can buy what it doesn’t have and then reverse-engineer it. Russia will sell it if no one else will.
Second, China can continue to simply acquire technology through industrial espionage. Every country and every industry engages in this sort of thing. Ever watch the movie “Duplicity”? That shit actually happens. I read about industrial espionage years ago and it’s only gotten fancier since the old days of paper files. I would be happy to breach any US or EU industrial sector and sell what I find to the Chinese, the Malaysians or anyone else interested. It’s called “leveling the playing field” and that is advantageous for everyone. If the US industrial sector employees can’t keep up, that’s their problem. No one is guaranteed a job for life – and shouldn’t be.
“1) the third largest world population”
Which is mostly engaged in unproductive activities like finance, law, etc. I’ve read that if you visit the main US universities teaching science and technology, who are the students? Chinese. Indians. Not Americans. Americans only want to “make money” in law and finance, not “make things.”
“2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely”
In military terms, given current military technology, territory doesn’t matter. China has enough nuclear missiles to destroy the 50 Major Metropolitan Areas in this country. Losing 100-200 millions citizens kinda puts a damper on US productivity. Losing the same number in China merely means more for the rest.
“3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans (Pacific and Atlantic)”
Which submarines can make irrelevant. Good for economic matters – *if* your economy can continue competing. China has one coast – but its Belt and Road Initiative gives it economic clout on the back-end and the front-end. I don’t see the US successfully countering that Initiative.
“4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea)”
Which only means the US can’t be “invaded”. That’s WWI and WWII thinking the US is mired in. Today, you destroy an opponent’s military and, if necessary, his civilian population, or at least its ability to “project” force against you. You don’t “invade” unless it’s some weak Third World country. And if the US can’t “project” its power via its navy or air force, having a lot of territory doesn’t mean much. This is where Russia is right now. Very defensible but limited in force projection (but getting better fast.) The problem for the US is China and Russia are developing military technology that can prevent US force projection around *their* borders.
“bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if the situation asks”
LOL I can just see the US “absorbing” Mexico. Canada, maybe – they’re allies anyway. Mexico, not so much. You want a “quagmire”, send the US troops to take on the Mexican drug gangs. They aren’t Pancho Villa.
“4) still the financial superpower”
Uhm, what part of “Depression” did you miss? And even if that doesn’t happen now, continued financial success is unlikely. Like pandemics, shit happens in economics and monetary policy.
“a big fucking Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.”
That can be sunk in a heartbeat and is virtually a colossal money pit with limited strategic value given current military technology which both China and Russia are as advanced as the US is, if not more so. Plus China is developing its own navy quickly. I read somewhere a description of one Chinese naval shipyard. There were several advanced destroyers being developed. Then the article noted that China has several more large shipyards. That Chinese long coast comes in handy for that sort of thing.
China Now Has More Warships Than the U.S.
But sometimes quantity doesn’t trump quality. [My note: But sometimes it does.]
https://tinyurl.com/y7numhef
That’s just the first article I found, from a crappy source. There are better analyses, of course.
“I don’t see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else.”
I’d agree with that. I hear this “California secession” crap periodically and never believe it. However, for state politicians, the notion of being “President” of your own country versus a “Governor” probably is tempting to these morons. State populations are frequently idiots as well, as the current lockdown response is demonstrating. All in all, though, if there are perceived external military threats, that is likely to make the states prefer to remain under US central control.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | May 22 2020 23:51 utc | 38
This is an interesting look at the situation in the military as related to the militaries place in society. It is written in Marxist language of class struggle which is one way to look at it. There does seem to be pressure for some sort of social reform.
Also similar things could be said about the working conditions of many of our ‘essential workers’
The Coronavirus Crisis Is Creating Dissent Within The Ranks Of The Armed Forces.
https://popularresistance.org/the-growing-outbreak-of-discontent-in-the-us-military/
“”It is a well-known feature of revolutionary history that the individual soldiers and sailors who make up the armed forces can be affected by the overarching mood in society and play a key role in the class struggle. The cramped quarters of Navy warships have been likened to “floating factories,” and given the proletarian background of most of their crews, these conditions can breed a fierce class hatred.
Add a deadly virus to the already volatile mix, and the stage is set for a social explosion.
On April 2, Thomas Modly, the then-Acting Secretary of the Navy, relieved Crozier of command and ordered him removed from the vessel. An online video was posted of Crozier leaving the vessel, with the Roosevelt’s crew on deck cheering him and chanting his name. To the rank and file, an officer standing up to leadership at such a high level to advocate on their behalf is almost unheard of. Then, Modly, who previously sat on the Defense Business Board of a $42 billion consulting firm, actually flew all the way out to Guam—at a reported cost of $243,000—to personally berate the crew, calling them “stupid,” and Captain Crozier “naïve.” His profanity-laden rebuke was also leaked by members of the crew.
Modly was defiantly heckled by the sailors, and after the subsequent public outcry, he resigned on April 7. As of the writing of this article, there have been over 1,100 positive cases of COVID-19 among the crew of the Roosevelt—including Crozier himself. One crew member, a junior enlisted sailor, has died. The crew continues to languish in port as Crozier’s dire prediction came true. This saga of higher-level commanders ignoring the warnings of the people “on the ground” is all too familiar to the military rank and file.
Plummeting Morale, Rising Discontent
The public heckling of Thomas Modly was a significant event. No matter how unpopular the leader, service members will almost always “sit there and take it,” both out of a sense of professionalism—and out of fear of punishment. The response of the Roosevelt’s crew reflects a population on edge
In these conditions of dysfunction and discontent, military leaders are undoubtedly haunted by the recent 45th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon, which marked the defeat of the US in Vietnam amid widespread mutinies and soldier resistance. In the course of that war, the Pentagon documented half a million cases of desertion, and at least 900 incidents of “fragging”—the deliberate killing of officers by soldiers.
As a result, the Pentagon drew certain conclusions and the entire military was restructured in an attempt to cut across a repeat of those events. The military is no longer made up of conscripts, most combat missions are performed by special forces or drones, and information is effectively sanitized and kept out of public view. And yet, despite these measures, service member opposition to the current wars, has been on the rise, especially among veterans.
In many cases, soldiers are recruited on the predatory basis of the “poverty draft,” with the promise of a stable income, housing, healthcare, education opportunities, and an escape from the deprivations of capitalism. But the empty nature of these promises is revealed by the rates of homelessness and mental illness among veterans.
According to a “Political Risk Outlook” published by the strategic consulting firm Maplecroft, a quarter of the countries on the earth’s surface experienced a surge in civil unrest, mass protests, and revolutionary situations last year. The report summary concluded by describing 2019 as the “new normal”:“
The pent-up rage that has boiled over into street protests over the past year has caught most governments by surprise. Policymakers across the globe have mostly reacted with limited concessions and a clampdown by security forces, but without addressing the underlying causes. However, even if tackled immediately, most of the grievances are deeply entrenched and would take years to address. With this in mind, 2019 is unlikely to be a flash in the pan. The next 12 months are likely to yield more of the same, and companies and investors will have to learn to adapt and live with this “new normal.” “
Posted by: financial matters | May 23 2020 0:36 utc | 47
|
