[Please see note in footer]
I
n May of this year, James Mann stated in an article
for the Washington Post, “The
Iraq war isn’t over, but one thing’s clear:
China
won.” The principal being that as the
US
struggles to polish its mottled status and sway around
the globe,
China
’s stepping into the spotlight. As each
month passes, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that’s not
true.
Hell,
the Middle Kingdom might be winning the War on Terror, too.
There is
little good news for the
US
coming out of the
Middle East
. In 2002, Michael
Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, criticized
Western media outlets for hastily declaring “the Taliban’s complete
military and political collapse” — one of the War on Terror’s most
decisive victories at the time — noting, for example, that there was no
account of “more than forty thousand soldiers the Taliban still had under
arms when Kandahar fell.” Today, as news of an ever-strengthening
Taliban continue to flow out of the black hole where Afghanistan ends
and Pakistan begins — a place more aptly known as “Talibanistan”
— Scheuer’s assessment seems to have been justified.
Not to
mention that opium production, and most recently that of marijuana,
has skyrocketed in the years since 9-11. According to the UN,
Afghanistan
’s production
of illicit opium accounted for 92 percent of the world total in 2005, up
from 70 percent in 2000. This is even worse when you consider how
easy it is for troops to get a hit.
In
Iraq
, there is perhaps even less to be hopeful about. Aside
from ongoing violence and no end in sight, a recent report puts the cost of
the war in
Iraq
— including “hidden costs” like interest on loans,
misplaced funds, and healthcare for wounded soldiers — at $1.6
trillion, or $20,900 for a family of four. Of course, many
find these numbers suspect, their being the product of Democrats on
Congress' Joint Economic Committee. Other estimates, though,
have ranged from the American Enterprise Institute’s nearly $500 billion
— which, with the National Priorities Project pegging the current price
tag at $470
billion and counting, seems low — to well
over $2
trillion. If I'm not mistaken, the initial estimated cost was $50
billion dollars.
In spite
of all of this, on the other side of the world,
China
is quietly winning its battles in the War on Terror.
Indeed, it isn’t actually “fighting” a war on terror, so much
as it is profiting from being far removed from the ideological and political
histories that are trying to end one another.
Most
people are well aware of the crucial role
China
plays in globalized production lines — for better and
for worse (mostly the former). Many are also conscious of
China
’s current push to modernize and restructure its
military. It was noted recently in the
New York Times that
China
’s “production and acquisition of submarines is now
five times that of
America
’s” — a fact that has many military analysts
believing that “it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval
technology that could erode [the
US
’s] qualitative one.”
However,
many people seem to be in the dark when it comes to the role
China
plays in the War on Terror. Well, I am too, I guess.
As long as I’ve been studying conflict around the world, I’ve
been finding that
China
pops up nearly everywhere. So, I decided to delve
into it a little more.
Take
Sudan
, a country with a history of supporting different
terrorist organizations — most notably harboring Osama bin Laden from 1991
to 1996. While most of the world has condemned
Sudan
’s roving militias as genocide — one of the first
among those being President Bush —
China
has vetoed
UN resolutions that would have brought sanctions against the
Khartoum
government.
Sudan
is one of
China
’s largest sources of oil abroad, which
China
reciprocates through its role as the African nation’s
largest supplier of arms. According to Human Rights Watch,
China
has been selling “ammunition,
tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft” to oppressive Sudanese
regimes for decades.
This
will come as little surprise, though, to people around the world who watched
as
China
reluctantly, and hypocritically, called for democracy in
Myanmar
in response to the government’s ruthless crackdown on
peaceful protestors. After all, this came not long after
China
blocked the
US
’s call at the UN for
Myanmar
’s human rights violations to be put on the Security
Council docket.
Moving
to
Afghanistan
, there were reports in September that Chinese weapons
had made their way to the Taliban. According
to the BBC, the Taliban made claims — corroborated by Afghan officials
— boasting a stock of “Chinese-made suface-to-air missiles,
anti-aircraft guns, landmines, rocket-propelled genades and components for
roadside bombs.”
On the
other side of the border in Pakistan —one of America’s most stalwart
allies in the war on terror and, at present, one of the region’s most
unstable governments — plans are being drawn up for a sale of French
Thales RC400 radar and MBDA Mica missiles. The one hitch is
that, according to The
Weekly Standard, “the Pakistani Aeronautical Complex and its
Chinese partners have comprehensive agreements that grant access for both
parties to any technology acquired by the other.”
This
sale, being orchestrated by France's Délégation Générale pour l'Armement
(DGA), is problematic enough considering the current state of turmoil
Pakistan is in. In a recent study by Foreign
Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress, seventy-five
percent of the experts interviewed — nearly twice as many as any other
country on the list — believed that
Pakistan
was most likely to transfer nuclear technology to
terrorists in the next three to five years.
North Korea
,
Russia
, and
Iran
came next with forty-two, thirty-eight, and thirty-one
percent, respectively.
It’s
bad enough that the DGA is trying to sell such technology to a government
that’s already on shaky ground and has a history of misplacing weapons.
Yet, more disquieting over
here in
Taiwan
is the fact that both
India
and
Taiwan
use French Mirage 2000 aircraft, which are outfitted
with the same missile and radar technology that the DGA hopes to sell to
Pakistan
and ipso facto
China
. Such a sale would counteract
India
and
Taiwan
’s investment in the technology, making it more or less
worthless.
Perhaps
the most ironic of these recent developments, though, comes in the form of a
Chinese jet reportedly being sold to
Syria
and
Iran
. In a strange turn of events, the technical details of a
shelved Israeli fighter jet called the Lavi — which had been being
developed with $1.3
billion in funding from the US — were “provided” to the Chinese.
Nearly two decades later, in a ceremony in
Beijing
, the PRC rolled out the Jian-10 fighter, which —
according to The Weekly Standard —
bore a “striking resemblance” to the Israeli fighter, right down to the
missile guidance system that “allows missiles to be aimed in the direction
of the pilot’s eyes.”
In
October, it was reported the Russian newspaper Kommersant
that the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group would sell 24 Jian-10s to
Iran
. Another report from the French defense
publication TTU claims another sale
going down between
China
and
Syria
.
Let’s
run through that one more time. The Lavi was drawn up in Israel
with funding from the US, realized — with additional American, Russian,
and Chinese technology — in China as the Jian-10, then sold to Iran and
Syria.
So, is
China
winning the War on Terror or at least winning from it?
In light of all this, it seems as such.
China
seems to sit blissfully on the banks of conflict,
stirring the waters, yet never getting caught in the current.
China
could possibly be the only country in the world that openly
does business with the
US
and the EU as well as with
Sudan
and
Myanmar
.
But it
doesn’t seem that
China
will be able to carry on like this for good. After
all, most analysts roundly reject that
America
was targeted for its freedoms or its democracy, rather
for how our exploits in the
Middle East
were perceived. As the former chief of the
CIA’s bin Laden Unit wrote in his book Imperial
Hubris:
[al-Qaeda's]
goal is not to wipe out our secular democracy, but to deter us by
military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al. are
not eternal warriors; there is no evidence they are fighting for
fighting's sake, or that they would be lost for things to do without a
war to wage. There is evidence to the contrary, in fact, showing bin
Laden and other Islamist leaders would like to end the war, get back to
their families, and live a less martial lifestyle.
China
’s barking up the same trees the
US
was for so many decades before. As long as
they fall into the same trap of propping up dictators in return for the oil
they need so badly, it’s only a matter of time before they too are
targets. After all, China
does already have a war on terror. The more they entangle
themselves, the more likely this is to become a reality, and unfortunately
for
China
they lack one very important tool that
America
still has in spades: soft
power.
No
matter how bad things have gotten for the
US
, it still has millions of successful Muslim-American
immigrants who, despite the problems they/we all may have with our country,
will speak highly of it. No matter how tarnished the
US
’s image gets, people will scramble to come study in
its universities, find work in its companies, and eventually apply to be one
of its citizens.
While
economists may salivate, and pause, over 10 percent GDP growth, nobody
dreams of moving their family to a country with 13 of the 20 most polluted
cities in the world, where free speech is silenced and corruption is so
rampant that it has to ban companies for offering sexual favors to fire
department officials for “special protection.”
*NOTE
This is not a "China is the root of all evil" article. Nearly
every one of the instances brought up in this article could be equally, if
not even more facilely, applied to the United States. This is simply an
exercise, for me, to look at a side of the war on terror that I've never
really studied. I started it as a result of looking into difference
between European and American relations with China and Taiwan (because of
M. Sarkozy's recent séjour
in
China). The European, especially French, aspect of that research is in the
process of becoming an article.
I'm
a firm believer that everything is
connected and that too many people view the war on terror, for instance,
as Middle East v. West. I think it's much more complicated than that.
I
repeat, China is not the root of all evil. Just read the 9-11
Comission Report,
Scheuer's
books, Robert Baer's See
No Evil,
and you'll see how much of this stuff America's been involved in.
As
usual, I look forward to any criticism.
3 comments:
I agree that China (and the EU) are the big winners in America's wars. The more the US weakens itself, the less of a true hegemon it becomes, and that's good for other would be great powers.
One thing I'm not quite sure about, is what you think China should have done with Myanmar. Or for that matter, what do you think the UN should have done about Myanmar?
I'm not sure what the UN or China *should* have done, but I think that it's reprehensible to block actions against Myanmar for what was going on.
Sure, UN resolutions have very little function aside from slapping people on the wrists, but blocking them in light of what the government was doing isn't exactly upstanding.
On that note, I'm well aware of the fact that the US has a storied veto history in the UN for a number of questionable initiatives. Several of which were probably meant to protect equally corrupt and violent governments.
I think sanctions on Myanmar would have been absolutely unconscionable. They only increase the suffering and death of the common people, while leaving those in power largely isolated of the effects.