Donald Hank
Divide and conquer not working out for US elites
By Donald Hank
Something smelled rotten back in the 70s when Nixon and Kissinger started pushing Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China, claiming, absurdly, that China was a potential market for US goods, even though China couldn't afford them at the time. It was an obvious lie and naturally, smart people knew there had to be an ulterior motive. As time went on and after the MFN was ratified by Congress, it became fairly clear that the whole idea was to make China rich while keeping Russia poor, thus driving a wedge between Russia and China using an economic carrot for China and a military stick against Russia. If this long-shot strategy had worked, China would be kowtowing to its no. 1 trade partner by now while moving further and further away from Russia. Shortly after the introduction of MFN status for China, Neocons had devised their puzzling strategy of "encircling" Russia as if Russia were the most formidable threat on the horizon – yet they totally ignored the much bigger Chinese threat. So why not encircle China as well? One can only surmise that what would later be dubbed the Wolfowitz doctrine (encirclement of Russia) was already part of a rigid ideology with a life of its own. The elites needed no justification for Russophobic policies, which had become their own justification and are now adopted unquestioningly by both US political parties and by the puppets in the EU.
Of course, no one's fool, China was on its best behavior as long as the economic incentive was there and as long as it was still the underdog.
But now China is, as could easily be predicted in the 70s, the number one economy in the world.
So how did that plan work out to turn China against Russia?
Well, we are patting China on the back while kicking Russia for a kind of "aggression" in Ukraine that is much more justified than China's blatant aggression. Unlike the islands in the South China sea, for example, whose peoples reject Chinese domination, Crimea was culturally and linguistically tied to its "aggressor" and wanted to be annexed. If you don't believe that the Russian speakers in Ukraine are emotionally and sentimentally tied to Russia, kindly explain why the vast majority of refugees from Southeastern Ukraine are voluntarily emigrating to Russia and not to other parts of Ukraine.
Now if I were Russia, I'd be jealous of China for getting this special treatment that it in no way deserved – unlimited trade with the richest country in the world plus no sanctions when it behaves aggressively toward its neighbors – and, in contrast to Russia, unjustifiably to boot. In fact, the US, which openly supported the bloody coup in Ukraine and supports a government that bombs Russian-speaking civilians, sanctions Russia for protecting these civilians, but hardly protests when China builds an oil platform in Vietnamese coastal waters against the protests of the Vietnamese! It is hard to think of a more inconsistent and unfair policy. It is as if a parent rewarded a child who bullied his classmates but punished a child who protected other students from bullies. But Russia and China know that this lopsided US policy does not reflect real friendship and are not about to be divided and conquered.
The elites certainly expected to ignite animosity between Russia and China when they began their campaign to turn these two allies against each other and capture China as a loyal ally.
But instead, what has happened is that China and Russia are both turning against the US, outraged that a grown nation would attempt this childish game with the obvious intent of souring relations between two friends with more in common with each other than they will ever have with the US.
Ironically, what the two nations have in common now is an economic and geopolitical strategy based on common sense rather than ideology – in stark contrast to the past when they were both driven by a hardline communist ideology. Specifically, what they share now is the kind of economic and social pragmatism that the US once displayed, while the US has completely abandoned all reason and logic in its economic policies and is racing toward implementing a socialism not much different from the former Soviet Union and Red China, except that it's much more squandrous and absurd.
It is a role reversal, with the US now paying its people $1 trillion a year as a reward for not working at all (which is more socialist than either of these countries ever were) while Russia and China pay to their unemployed, only a fraction of that paid in the US. According to a CNN report, China pays only 17% of the average salary in unemployment, compared to 47% in the US and 60% in Germany. Russia's system is even less socialist, as I showed here (while some of the data in that article need updating by now, Russia has not moved significantly closer to socialism since then).
Result? The Chinese RMB looks poised to compete mightily with the US dollar in a few short years, as I showed here, and when that happens, there will be no earthly reason for other countries to accept dollars – backed up by nothing but debt – in trade when they can have the RMB, backed up by a truly viable and dynamic economy.
To sum it up, the behind-the-scenes skullduggery of US foreign policy toward Russia vs China has been an abject failure and the elites who devised it and implement it are looking increasingly like the deer in the headlights. A perfect example of their bewilderment was on display when George Soros, the man who would be a god, was interviewed by Fareed Zakarias and had to admit that the world he thought he controlled was collapsing.
No one illustrates better than Soros the ancient proverb: there is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.
© Donald Hank
February 7, 2015
Something smelled rotten back in the 70s when Nixon and Kissinger started pushing Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China, claiming, absurdly, that China was a potential market for US goods, even though China couldn't afford them at the time. It was an obvious lie and naturally, smart people knew there had to be an ulterior motive. As time went on and after the MFN was ratified by Congress, it became fairly clear that the whole idea was to make China rich while keeping Russia poor, thus driving a wedge between Russia and China using an economic carrot for China and a military stick against Russia. If this long-shot strategy had worked, China would be kowtowing to its no. 1 trade partner by now while moving further and further away from Russia. Shortly after the introduction of MFN status for China, Neocons had devised their puzzling strategy of "encircling" Russia as if Russia were the most formidable threat on the horizon – yet they totally ignored the much bigger Chinese threat. So why not encircle China as well? One can only surmise that what would later be dubbed the Wolfowitz doctrine (encirclement of Russia) was already part of a rigid ideology with a life of its own. The elites needed no justification for Russophobic policies, which had become their own justification and are now adopted unquestioningly by both US political parties and by the puppets in the EU.
Of course, no one's fool, China was on its best behavior as long as the economic incentive was there and as long as it was still the underdog.
But now China is, as could easily be predicted in the 70s, the number one economy in the world.
So how did that plan work out to turn China against Russia?
Well, we are patting China on the back while kicking Russia for a kind of "aggression" in Ukraine that is much more justified than China's blatant aggression. Unlike the islands in the South China sea, for example, whose peoples reject Chinese domination, Crimea was culturally and linguistically tied to its "aggressor" and wanted to be annexed. If you don't believe that the Russian speakers in Ukraine are emotionally and sentimentally tied to Russia, kindly explain why the vast majority of refugees from Southeastern Ukraine are voluntarily emigrating to Russia and not to other parts of Ukraine.
Now if I were Russia, I'd be jealous of China for getting this special treatment that it in no way deserved – unlimited trade with the richest country in the world plus no sanctions when it behaves aggressively toward its neighbors – and, in contrast to Russia, unjustifiably to boot. In fact, the US, which openly supported the bloody coup in Ukraine and supports a government that bombs Russian-speaking civilians, sanctions Russia for protecting these civilians, but hardly protests when China builds an oil platform in Vietnamese coastal waters against the protests of the Vietnamese! It is hard to think of a more inconsistent and unfair policy. It is as if a parent rewarded a child who bullied his classmates but punished a child who protected other students from bullies. But Russia and China know that this lopsided US policy does not reflect real friendship and are not about to be divided and conquered.
The elites certainly expected to ignite animosity between Russia and China when they began their campaign to turn these two allies against each other and capture China as a loyal ally.
But instead, what has happened is that China and Russia are both turning against the US, outraged that a grown nation would attempt this childish game with the obvious intent of souring relations between two friends with more in common with each other than they will ever have with the US.
Ironically, what the two nations have in common now is an economic and geopolitical strategy based on common sense rather than ideology – in stark contrast to the past when they were both driven by a hardline communist ideology. Specifically, what they share now is the kind of economic and social pragmatism that the US once displayed, while the US has completely abandoned all reason and logic in its economic policies and is racing toward implementing a socialism not much different from the former Soviet Union and Red China, except that it's much more squandrous and absurd.
It is a role reversal, with the US now paying its people $1 trillion a year as a reward for not working at all (which is more socialist than either of these countries ever were) while Russia and China pay to their unemployed, only a fraction of that paid in the US. According to a CNN report, China pays only 17% of the average salary in unemployment, compared to 47% in the US and 60% in Germany. Russia's system is even less socialist, as I showed here (while some of the data in that article need updating by now, Russia has not moved significantly closer to socialism since then).
Result? The Chinese RMB looks poised to compete mightily with the US dollar in a few short years, as I showed here, and when that happens, there will be no earthly reason for other countries to accept dollars – backed up by nothing but debt – in trade when they can have the RMB, backed up by a truly viable and dynamic economy.
To sum it up, the behind-the-scenes skullduggery of US foreign policy toward Russia vs China has been an abject failure and the elites who devised it and implement it are looking increasingly like the deer in the headlights. A perfect example of their bewilderment was on display when George Soros, the man who would be a god, was interviewed by Fareed Zakarias and had to admit that the world he thought he controlled was collapsing.
No one illustrates better than Soros the ancient proverb: there is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
