“Gentlemen may cry peace, peace,
— Patrick Henrybut there is no peace.”
The 2023 Chicago Council Survey shows 58 percent of us view China as “a critical threat” and a “plurality of Americans (46%) say that US leaders are not paying enough attention to the issue of US competition with China.”
On the other hand, libertarian political scientist Joseph Solis-Mullen pooh-poohs these fears, which he sees as manufactured by the powers that be, the military-industrial complex, the Deep State. Since our un-beloved Deep State has been known to wander to and fro about the Earth manufacturing crises and conflicts, the case possesses a surface plausibility.
Still, “The Fake China Threat,” an episode of The Tom Woods Show* from last month, failed to convince. See if you can detect the reason.
“This is something maybe we should mention,” Solis-Mullen told Woods, before disclosing that China “fought a border war” with India in 2020 with “hundreds” dead.
“The Philippines is a big one,” he added, “because there’s also a lot of conflict over the South and East China Seas.”
“Conflict”? You don’t say.
“So, it’s not just Taiwan,” explained this researcher and journalist. “There’s danger everywhere over there — because Washington really wants to be involved in these disputes.”
Wait a second . . . how many disputes?
“There’s disputes with Japan, disputes with Korea, disputes with Vietnam, disputes with Philippines, India,” Solis-Mullen recalled. “I think one or two more. I can’t remember off the top of my head.”
It does appear to be a lot to keep up with!
Nor is the problem that “Washington really wants to be involved,” certainly not for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, etc. . . . even Vietnam. Instead, every dispute, conflict, danger, and threat that Solis-Mullen cites has a singular cause: China.
Heck, someone might dedicate an entire website to “Tracking Chinese Communist Party Aggression Worldwide.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* The discussion centered on Solis-Mullen’s new book, The Fake China Threat and Its Very Real Dangers, published by the Libertarian Institute.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
1 reply on “Mostly Peaceful Indo-Pacific”
The map, as Korzybski noted, is not the territory. And the jurisdictional lines that we add to the map are not features of the Earth. Even if we draw literal lines in the sand, why those lines ought to have been drawn where they have is not always clear.
I have repeatedly asked why the lines around what the people in the jurisdiction of one American state should defend include the jurisdiction of any other American state, if not also the jurisdiction of some non-American states.
(Perhaps Mr Ramaswamy could tell the Chinese that he will defend California until 2028, by which time he will lead the rest of America to indepence in computing and raisin technology.)
In all the times that I have asked, I have only got one response, and that response (from a military isolationist) was simply that I were a fool if I didn’t see the answer. I then explained a wider advantage to his publicly providing answer, but he retreated to silence.
I don’t mean to claim that no answer is to be found to the question of where lines ought to be drawn, but that most people have arrived at some supposed answer by thoughtless blundering, that the proper answer is likely to be somewhat surprising, and that until and unless we arrive at a proper argument we ought to be respectful of a variety of proposed answers, and at least tolerant of still others.
All that said, yes, I agree that Messrs Solis-Mullen and Woods are framing the one issue inappropriately.
But I will also object that you have slipt back into the terrible practice of referring to the Chinese state by the name of the subject nation.