|
Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Team
As this blog is often concerned with U.S. foreign policy and the damage it causes, a look at Biden's foreign policy team seems adequate.
In short – it is awful.
Susan Rice of Benghazi fame, National Security Advisor under Obama, is said to become Secretary of State.
Michele Flournoy, co-founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), will become Secretary of Defense. Flournoy is a hawk. CNAS is financed by donations from the who-is-who of the military industrial complex. She also co-founded WestExec Advisors, a consultancy that pulls strings to help companies to win Pentagon contracts.
Also at WestExec Advisors was Tony Blinken who is set to become the National Security Advisor. He was National Security Advisor for then Vice President Biden, Deputy National Security Advisor for Obama and Deputy Secretary of State.
All three, together with Joe Biden, promoted the 2003 war on Iraq and supported the wars the Obama administration launched or continued against some seven countries.
They will continue to wage those wars and will probably add a few new ones.
Biden has said that he will re-instate the nuclear agreement with Iran but with 'amendments'. A realistic analysis shows that Iran is likely to reject any modification of the original deal:
The Biden administration will face the harsh reality that the amendments to the JCPOA that it needs to make its return to the agreement politically viable are unacceptable to Iran. The new US administration will more than likely find itself in a situation in which sanctions, including those on oil exports, must be maintained in an effort to pressure Iran to yield to US demands to modify the JCPOA.
There will be much pressure from the liberal hawks to finish the war they had launched against Syria by again intensifying it. Trump had ended the CIA's Jihadi supply program. The Biden team may well reintroduce such a scheme.
Susan Rice has criticized Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban. Under a Biden administration U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are therefore likely to again increase.
One possible change may come in the U.S. support for the Saudi war on Yemen. The Democrats dislike Mohammad bin Salman and may try to use the Yemen issue to push him out of his Crown Prince position.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
After four years of Russiagate nonsense, which Susan Rice had helped to launch, it is impossible to again 'reset' the relations with Russia. Biden could immediately agree to renew the New START treaty which limits strategic nuclear weapons but it is more likely that he will want to add, like with Iran's nuclear deal, certain 'amendments' which will be hard to negotiate. Under Biden the Ukraine may be pushed into another war against its eastern citizens. Belarus will remain on the 'regime change' target list.
Asia is the place where Biden's policies may be less confrontational than Trump's:
China would heave a big sigh of relief if Biden picks Rice as his secretary of state. Beijing knows her well, as she had a hands-on role in remoulding the relationship from engagement to selective competition, which could well be the post-Trump China policies.
For the Indian audience, which is obsessive about Biden’s China policy, I would recommend the following YouTube on Rice’s oral history where she narrates her experience as NSA on how the US and China could effectively coordinate despite their strategic rivalry and how China actually helped America battle Ebola.
Interestingly, the recording was made in April this year amidst the “Wuhan virus” pandemic in the US and Trump’s trade and tech war with China. Simply put, Rice highlighted a productive relationship with Beijing while probably sharing the more Sino-skeptic sentiment of many of America’s foreign policy experts and lawmakers.
All together the Biden/Harris regime will be a continuation of the Obama regime. It's foreign policies will have awful consequences for a lot of people on this planet.
Domestically Biden/Harris will revive all the bad feelings that led to the election of Donald Trump. The demographics of the election show no sign of a permanent majority for Democrats.
It is therefore highly probable that Trump, or a more competent and thereby more dangerous populist republican, will again win in 2024.
@ptb, 196
I just can’t see a direct invasion by PRC as a logical possibility in any scenario, including even something as provocative as US giving diplomatic recognition and setting up overt military base. That is not to say there would not be a response, it just wouldn’t be an invasion or attack.
There are basically three scenarios in which war breaks out over Taiwan. All of them are quite possible, in today’s environment–largely due to the insane foreign policy pursued by the US.
First, there is the possibility that Taiwan “declares independence.” As I have indicated before, for all intents and purposes Taiwan is already independent; so the “declaration” would actually be nothing more than a thumb in the eye of China, and a declaration by Taiwan that going forward, any Chinese security considerations regarding Taiwan’s foreign and military policies would be entirely ignored. Essentially, it would be a declaration of hostility against the mainland, and a determination to join a de facto (not de jure) alliance with the US. Yes–if that happens, the CCP will invade, and there are quite a few scenarios in which that might happen. Not every Taiwanese thinks independence is the right way forward, and there are many people in Taiwan’s military who feel this way.
Second, the US decides to fight a war with China–and there are many, many people in Washington who desire this (such as Michele Flournoy, and all her fellow neocons). This would certainly arise if, as you posit, the US decided to “recognize Taiwan” and “put a military base” here. In fact, the moment the US might try to move any active US military equipment or personnel here (not even under the rubric of recognition, or establishment of a base) would trigger an invasion by the CCP. Just look at what happened during the Obama administration–H. Clinton went to Vietnam and declared that the S. China Sea territorial waters must be divided up by a “neutral” international commission, and within a few weeks China quite literally started staking out islets there and establishing military bases–something the US was quite unprepared for, and which it has howled about ever since.
The third is that Taiwan waits too long, the US economy crashes, China’s power continues to rise, and the CCP decides it has been far too patient for far too long. This is likely the third “best” forcible annexation of Taiwan because it would result in the fewest number of casualties. Essentially, the Chinese would wage their own color revolution and take the island with a minimum of casualties on either side. This is the scenario you hypothesize as the most likely outcome later on in your post.
For China’s part, it currently has a law in place that flatly states that China will only invade Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence or seeks independent state recognition at the international level. So China has staked out its limits in transparent and open form: Taiwan can do whatever it wants, for however long it wants, so long as it doesn’t attempt “independence.” Once it seeks recognition as an independent state in international legal bodies, that will trigger an invasion–and currently, the Red Army has quite a few weapons at its disposal which virtually guarantee overwhelming victory over the US Navy.
Depending on how provocative a policy US makes, it might range from economic, military buildup (match US %GDP for example), seizure of small islands, air patrol overflights, and in the most extreme eventuality, some form of soft blockade (inspection of ships coming and going) that dares the US to fire the first shot or else accept a degree of Chinese control 360 degrees around the island, kind of a West Berlin situation.
I’m not sure what you mean by the first “match US GDP” stuff, but all of the other actions are overt declarations of war and would trigger all-out war with the US.
US obviously fears this is the end game regardless of who initiates the provocation.
No. The US desires this outcome, and this is the situation the neocons are trying to provoke. The reasoning in DC is that China will lose a direct military engagement with the US. I happen to firmly believe–with a lot of evidence to back me up–that they are wrong, on that.
But that thinking is the reason for the would-be SecDef’s inflammatory public statement that US needs to “credibly” threaten sinking 300 ships in 3 days — without fearing a response of comparable magnitude, unstated but equally important.
The folks in DC think their weapons systems are a lot stronger than they actually are. Both Russia and China have developed hi-tech asymmetric systems that target the US military at its most vulnerable. The Chinese, for instance, shot a satellite out of mid-earth orbit back some 15 years ago–as a demonstration for the whole world. They also have the Dong Feng ballistic missile system.
I think everyone agrees that one of the biggest strategic levers is Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor mfg.
Yes, Taiwan currently dominates in this. However, remember that during the 90s, it was the Koreans who dominated chip production–and within a few short years, that entire industry collapsed b/c the Koreans failed to predict and adapt for advances in technology. Currently, the PRC is actively developing its own chip mfg industries, but–and this is critical–it is also the only country currently working on 6g networking tech (and was also the first country to have reliable, affordable, trustworthy 5g tech). Rest assured, none of that tech is being shared with Taiwanese chip manufacturers, so expect for Taiwan’s chip mfg industries to rapidly take a back-seat to China’s some time in the relatively near future.
But if PRC believes this industry dominance has an expiration date in the next decade (either from mainland Chinese or Korean competition), PRC simply waits.
Yes, that is the Chinese approach: Taiwan’s capitulation is inevitable as it becomes increasingly isolated, and the US economy becomes increasingly shallow and frail.
I largely agree with c1ue, except in one regard: Taiwan is an ongoing and constant belligerent (i.e. “threat”) to the PRC because it hosts the 5 Eyes PRC SIGIN base here–the largest SIGINT base on the planet. Further, Taiwan’s current independence means that it may invite any navy in the world into its territorial waters–putting any navy in the world within easy swimming distance of the Chinese coastline off Fujian/Guangdong.
Posted by: Pacifica Advocate | Nov 18 2020 21:08 utc | 211
@vk, 147
I’ve been waiting for you to chime in.
First, comparing Taiwan to Cuba is apt and germaine. Both are small, independent islands located just off the coast of a superpower. Both remain independently allied with superpower rivals to the nearby mainland. As for Taiwanese “having full citizenship,” the fact is most don’t want it–just like most Cubans don’t want US citizenship. Flip it around, and Cuban “refugees” are welcomed in the US, and rapidly fast-tracked to citizenship–so, effectively the same thing.
In every regard, the relationship of US<==>Cuba/PRC<==>ROC is analogous.
But you really lose the plot with this utterly uninformed screed:
The problem with Taiwan is the same problem Chiang Kaishek had: a messianic, genocidal ideology (liberalism), that envisions a small chosen people (in Chiang/Taiwan’s case, the old post-imperial elite) to subjugate and conquer the entire China while “natural law” (capitalism) takes care of the rest (economy).
Literally none of this is true. Yes, Taiwan has a (mostly) capitalist economy, but neither the leadership nor the people here are charachterized by messianism, genocidal impulses, racist bigotry against mainland Chinese (nor, in fact, most other people–though there are certainly strong tensions between the Han majority and austronesian minorities, to say nothing of what the foreign workers here have suffered).
To think that anyone here in Taiwan currently harbors some sort of inclination to “subjugate and conquer” China is the height of absurdly misplaced confidence and utterly uninformed fantasy.
Nothing in this little screed of yours approaches any kind of truth about what is or is not characteristic of the leadership, government, and people of Taiwan.
To assert that “modern Taiwan wants the same” as Chiang Kai Shek just shows you are utterly deluded and uninformed about what the Taiwanese people actually want, think, and feel. Chiang is a largely discarded figure, in Taiwan: those who are taught about him at a young age are taught to hate him, and those families that don’t hate him just don’t talk about him. Most kids don’t even know who he is before they hit the later years of Jr. High School.
Now, your next “analysis” is even more absurd and uninformed:
That China is salivating at the prospect of reuniting with Taiwan by force is preposterous.
Taiwan’s reputation among ordinary Chinese–largely due to the effect of PLA propaganda–is that it’s a hostile rebel province that must be reunited with the mainland by force, if necessary. Multiple PLA generals have made public statements urging the CCP to initiate a war of aggression against the island. So no, not only is it not “preposterous,” but yes: much of the PLA is indeed salivating at the prospect of invading Taiwan.
…the PLA’s top general…publicly…listed the…greatest to lowest of risk(s) to China’s territorial integrity:
1) Xinjiang and Tibet (by far, he stated);
2) South China Sea;
3) Taiwan;
4) Hong Kong.
First observation: you write “In other words, Taiwan is not even in the PLA’s top 3 national security concerns“, but your list there puts Taiwan at number 3. Maybe you wanted to write “Taiwan is not even in the PLA’s top 2 national security concerns”? Doesn’t quite sound as good, though, right? Personally, I’d feel more comfortable if it wasn’t even in the top 10.
Yet you aren’t really connecting the dots elsewhere, either. Tibet/Xinjiang are security threats because US, Turkish, and Indian intel operatives have been destabilizing those regions for generations. The South China Sea is only a “threat” b/c the US has made it one. Additionally, possession of Taiwan secures a big part of China’s claim to the South China Sea. So 3 and 2 are connected.
But wait, there’s more! Taiwan is currently a threat because, as I stated before, there is the 5 Eyes SIGINT base here (a direct inheritance from the Japanese era, btw), and because of the security weakness to coastal sovereignty introduced by Taiwan’s independent claim to half the Taiwan Strait.
Your little list, there, shows that outside of active aggression by foreign, Taiwan is China’s first security risk.
There’s no need to rush to reunite with Taiwan by force for the simple reason it is already reunited: its economic dependence on the Mainland is such, and its brain drain to the Mainland is such, that Taiwan already is de facto reunited. If there is to be military operation in the island, it will be just a simple decapitation operation (kill the head of the government and the ideological elite, dissolve the State machine).
Truly, written like a happy little Western Imperialist!
Posted by: Pacifica Advocate | Nov 18 2020 21:48 utc | 214
@pfb, 224
That is not to celebrate the possibility of another Cuba missile crisis etc, but rather to not take the idea of the “invasion” rhetoric literally. I.e., I’m questioning the expectation that, once begun, the typical series of escalations goes all the way to full conventional war. As opposed to being able to stabilize at some low or intermediate level, at which the hawks have been satisfied.
Thank you for this question; it provoked an “a-ha!” moment.
From a US tactical perspective, the most problematic question of a hot war between China and the US is China’s tactical nukes. The Chinese Dong Feng ballistic anti-ship nuke can be described as “tactical” because it targets ships and not cities, but in point of fact it is a ballistic nuke. Similarly, the hypersonic ship destroyers that China has developed also have, presumably, nuclear capability, and I would suspect that these are the two Chinese systems the US currently most fears.
Now, remember when b posted about how the US was trying to sabotage or “delay” the New START treaty negotiations by demanding China be included? In light of your question, that now takes on a whole new angle: it seems that the US wants to include China in the New-New START treaty precisely because of China’s overwhelming deterrence of US Navy force-projection into the western Pacific and East Asia, as a whole.
Prior to US and Russia negotiating nuclear agreements (which I hope we can both agree have been sabotaged by US withdrawal and cheating), the only guarantee against full-scale nuclear war was MAD. Currently, that is the only principle keeping the US and China from waging nuclear war–and that, of course, has always been the threat of tactical nuclear warheads: that once a tactical nuke is used, the war will inevitably escalate to full-scale nuclear war.
But what if a tactical nuke is used on a naval ship? The logic of full-scale escalation doesn’t really make much sense, then, because the ships disappear, fall into the Mariana Trench, and cease to be any kind of bother for anything except deep-ocean life forms. Can the US justify a nuclear response on Chinese civilians? That seems a hard line to sell to the world, and I’m sure the Pentagon has recently woken up to that fact. If a bunch of US ships simply disappear in the middle of the Pacific, and then a US sub surfaces and wipes out Shanghai, that would certainly result in an international outcry and isolation of the US–the blowback would be nearly inconceivable, from today’s perspective.
To address your core question: the Chinese position, that’s crystal clear: war will be declared the moment there is any Taiwanese declaration of independence, or any recognition of Taiwan as an independent state by NATO/the US. Any attempt to place troops in Taiwan will be interpreted as an act of war. That is its clearly stated position, and it is fully prepared to follow through, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
The US perspective is not so easy to state. In the past the US believed that the miracle of US capitalism would persuade China to abandon the CCP and reform the nation so that popular elections based on a Western model would be put into place–elections which, as the recent US election amply showed, Western elites excel at manipulating and rigging. The reasoning was that this would make the Chinese portion of the world safe and compliant for US/uk/NATO bankers and corporations. Now, however, it is clear the CCP isn’t going away and that China is going to continue to grow in strength without such a transition, and this is going to significantly erode the already fragile US economy. Rather than reform itself and curb the overweening wealth and hubris of its elites, the US is getting desperate to counter that growth in any way possible. Unfortunately, the US is no longer a “modern” nation: it is essentially a 3rd world country with an export economy entirely subservient to weapons technology/production, oil, and grain (which it uses to extort other nations), along with some niche technology sectors.
So the US seems destined to push things in the west Pacific until some sort of hot war erupts, wherein it can re-assert dominance over the region and “put China in its place.”
Meanwhile, China has made it clear that it does not fear a hot war with the US.
Back when the US and Soviet Union were prancing around, creating proxy wars in foreign lands, both countries were fearful of coming into direct conflict with one another; I don’t get the sense that the US fears a hot war with China, but I honestly don’t see how it could win one, in any conceivable scenario. The oceans that surround China are too large, the mountains too high, the deserts too barren. Any conflict that might arise in Taiwan would be a short and quick affair; there are too many people here in Taiwan who would happily defect, when offered a chance at advancement, and there is little will to fight.
So the idea of using Taiwan as a sort of “Vietnam,” to tie China down in some sort of quagmire, is rather silly: Taiwan’s an island, and it’s damned close to China. Quarantining the island from outside forces would be a relatively simple affair, and the only way the US would be able to break such a blockade would be direct attacks with its navy. Taiwan has some awesome mountain redoubts, but how useful would those be? Taiwan couldn’t be turned into a Lebanon, or an Iraq, for the same reason: it’s an island, and boats are easy to detect.
So the way I see it, if there is some sort of war over Taiwan between the US and China, it will be either a hot war in response to a declaration of independence, a US attempt to set up shop here, or a full-scale Chinese preemptive invasion. In each case, the length and scale of the war will be determined primarily by what belligerents get involved: Taiwan vs China? It’ll be over in weeks, with martial law in place perhaps a decade or more.
China vs the US? God only knows….
Posted by: Pacifica Advocate | Nov 19 2020 0:58 utc | 229
|
