All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by
activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of
our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
The US and its allies continue beating the drums of war
in regards to China, but how serious is this? Will it really lead to
war, or is it merely posturing meant to give the US the most favorable
position on the other side of a fully ascendant China?
A critical inflection point identified by US war planners
for years is approaching, where China’s economic and military might will
irreversibly surpass the US and the center of global power will
likewise irreversibly shift from West to East creating a global balance
of power unseen for centuries. A closing window of opportunity estimated
to close between 2025 and 2030 allows the US to carry out a limited war
with China, resulting in a favorable outcome for Washington. Beyond
that, the US will find itself outmatched and any attempt to curb China’s
rise rendered futile.
The propaganda war, and the war itself this propaganda aims
to justify and rally support for, is unmistakable, particularly for
those who have witnessed similar buildups ahead of the US-led invasion
of Iraq in 2003, or US-led military interventions in nations like Libya
and Syria from 2011 onward.
A recent 60 Minutes Australia segment titled, “War with
China: Are we closer than we think?,” presented an amalgamation of this
ongoing propaganda used to vilify the Chinese government, dehumanize the
Chinese people, and create sufficient anger, fear, paranoia, distrust,
and hatred in hearts and minds across the planet to justify what would
be for the 21st century, an unprecedented war.
For the United States, a war with China would be the first
of its kind, a war with a peer or near-peer competitor armed with
nuclear weapons.
Yet US war planners are fairly confident that the conflict
could be confined to East Asia, remain conventional, and see a favorable
outcome for the US that would secure its primacy over Asia for decades
to come.
A victory for the US would not be military in nature, but
rather hinge on “nonmilitary factors,” and focus on disrupting and
setting back China’s economy and thus the power propelling China past
the United States at the moment.
The 2016 US War Plan Coming to Life
These conclusions were laid out in a 2016 RAND Corporation document
titled, “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable,”
commissioned by the Office of the Undersecretary of the Army and carried
out by the RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources
Program. The report notes that the RAND Arroyo Center is part of the
RAND Corporation and is a federally-funded research and development
center sponsored by the United States Army.
The report notes that America’s military advantage is in
decline vis-a-vis China, but also lays out several current realities
that would favor the US should hostilities unfold.
It states on page 9 of the PDF document:
We postulate that a war would
be regional and conventional. It would be waged mainly by ships on and
beneath the sea, by aircraft and missiles of many sorts, and in space
(against satellites) and cyberspace (against computer systems). We
assume that fighting would start and remain in East Asia, where
potential Sino-USflash points and nearly all Chinese forces are located.
The RAND document admits that China’s forces are
concentrated in Chinese territory and that virtually all flash points
that could trigger a conflict are likewise located in the region. This
implies that US forces would need to be more or less right up to China’s
shores and regional claims, and insist on interfering in regional
disputes or intervene in matters between Taiwan and mainland China.
The Nuclear Question
Many assume any war between China and the United States
would escalate into a nuclear exchange. However, this is unlikely except
under the most extreme conditions.
Regarding nuclear and conventional warfare, the RAND document makes a compelling argument, stating:
It is unlikely that nuclear
weapons would be used: Even in an intensely violent conventional
conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its
prospects so dire, or the stakes so vital that it would run the risk of
devastating nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. We also
assume that China would not attack the US homeland, except via
cyberspace, given its minimal capability to do so with conventional
weapons. In contrast, US nonnuclear attacks against military targets in
China could be extensive.
The report studies a window of opportunity that began in
2015 and stretches to 2025. Current developments seem to indicate the US
may see this window extend as far as 2030, including the recent
announcement of the “AUKUS” alliance where US-UK-built Australian
nuclear-powered submarines would be coming online and ready to
participate in such a conflict around the early 2030’s.
US May Trade Heavy Military Losses for China’s Economic Ruination
Under a section titled, “The Importance of Nonmilitary Factors,” the RAND report notes:
The prospect of a military
standoff means that war could eventually be decided by nonmilitary
factors. These should favor the United States now and in the future.
Although war would harm both economies, damage to China’s could be
catastrophic and lasting: on the order of a 25–35 percent reduction in
Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) in a yearlong war, compared with a
reduction in US GDP on the order of 5–10 percent. Even a mild conflict,
unless ended promptly, could weaken China’s economy. A long and severe
war could ravage China’s economy, stall its hard-earned development, and
cause widespread hardship and dislocation.
Considering the current shape of US-Chinese relations, the
emphasis on economics and trade, and the persistent, even desperate
attempts by the US to not only inflict as much damage on China’s economy
ahead of a potential conflict as possible, but also its attempts to
“decouple” from China’s economy as fast as possible could be interpreted
as tying off a limb before amputation.
Preparations Already Underway to Exploit China’s Economic Damage
The report notes the follow-on effects of the economic damage such a
conflict would inflict on China. It would open the door for already
on-going US machinations to undermine China’s social and political
stability to expand and do tremendous damage, perhaps even threatening
the cohesion of Chinese society.
It states specifically:
Such economic damage could in
turn aggravate political turmoil and embolden separatists in China.
Although the regime and its security forces presumably could withstand
such challenges, doing so might necessitate increased oppressiveness,
tax the capacity, and undermine the legitimacy of the Chinese regime in
the midst of a very difficult war. In contrast, US domestic partisan
skirmishing could handicap the war effort but not endanger societal
stability, much less the survival of the state, no matter how long and
harsh the conflict, so long as it remains conventional. Escalating
cyberwarfare, while injurious to both sides, could worsen China’s
economic problems and impede the government’s ability to control a
restive population.
The mention of “separatists in China” is particularly
important. These groups, often made up of armed extremists, are
supported by an extensive international network funded by the US
government itself.
Separatism in China’s Xinjiang and Tibetan regions is
openly supported by the US government and has been sponsored by
Washington for decades. The US National Endowment for Democracy’s
official website lists its programs for Xinjiang,
China as, “Xinjiang/East Turkestan,” “East Turkestan” being the
separatist name for Xinjiang. The organizations listed, including the
Uyghur Human Rights Project and the World Uyghur Congress openly admit
on their respective websites that they view Xinjiang – contrary to
international law – as “occupied” by China rather than a territory of
China.
In a move that could very likely be a warning of just how
close to a US-provoked conflict with China we may be, the US State
Department de-listed the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) in 2020
claiming it had not been active for over a decade.
Yet by the US’ own admission US military forces struck ETIM targets
in Afghanistan as recently as 2018, and just this year ETIM
representatives gave an interview with US-based Newsweek magazine.
ETIM is still listed by a number of nations as well as the UN itself as a terrorist organization.
Economic turmoil, armed insurrection, and socio-political
instability are factors the US has openly attempted to impose on China
for decades and is still placing pieces on the gameboard toward this
objective. If a conflict were to break out, those pieces would clearly
already be in place to maximize Washington’s ability to exploit economic
damage inflicted by the conflict.
Targeting China’s Trade Lanes at Sea
The RAND paper notes specifically the impact on Chinese trade a
conventional conflict confined to East Asia would have. The report
notes:
…while the United States has
sophisticated sensors to distinguish military from nonmilitary targets,
during war it will focus on finding and tracking the former; moreover,
Chinese ISR is less sophisticated and discriminating, especially at a
distance. This suggests very hazardous airspace and sea space, perhaps
ranging from the Yellow Sea to the South China Sea. Assuming that
non-Chinese commercial enterprises would rather lose revenue than ships
or planes, the United States would not need to use force to stop trade
to and from China.16 China would lose a substantial amount of trade that
would be required to transit the war zone. The United States expressly
threatening commercial shipping would be provocative, hazardous, and
largely unnecessary. So we posit no US blockade, as such.
Of course, the US has a variety of tools at its disposal
that it regularly uses upon the international stage to impede free
commerce. It is an irony since Washington often accuses Beijing of
“threatening” such commerce in regions like the South China Sea while
Washington is actually impeding it on a global scale.
NPR in its 2020 article, “US Seizes Iranian Fuel From 4 Tankers Bound For Venezuela,” would note:
According to The Associated
Press, quoting unnamed USofficials, no military force was used in the
seizure of the cargo, and none of the ships was physically impounded.
Instead, US officials threatened ship owners, insurers and captains with
sanctions to force them to hand over their cargo, the AP reported.
Because of America’s still formidable grip over
international media, it would be extremely easy to sink vessels engaged
in commerce and blame it on China or claim it was accidental. A total
blockade would not be necessary to deter the majority of commerce in the
region, only a few examples would be needed for the self-preservation
of shipping companies to de facto cut off trade.
Another concerning warning sign was the Pentagon
restructuring an entire branch of the US armed forces, the US Marine
Corps, to specifically fight a single nation (China), in a very specific
region (East Asia), with very specific tactics (shutting down straits
used for commercial shipping).
Defense News in a 2020 article titled, “Here’s the US Marine Corps’ plan for sinking Chinese ships with drone missile launchers,” would claim:
The US Marine Corps is getting
into the ship-killing business, and a new project in development is
aimed at making their dreams of harrying the People’s Liberation Army
Navy a reality.
The article also noted:
Marine Corps requirements and development
chief Lt. Gen. Eric Smith told reporters last year during the
Expeditionary Warfare Conference that the Marines want to fight on
ground of their choosing and then maneuver before forces can concentrate
against them.
“They are mobile and small, they are not looking to grab a
piece of ground and sit on it,” Smith said of his Marine units. “I’m not
looking to block a strait permanently. I’m looking to maneuver. The
German concept is ‘Schwerpunkt,’ which is applying the appropriate
amount of pressure and force at the time and place of your choosing to
get maximum effect.”
The US Marine Corps has already decommissioned all of their main battle tanks as part of this restructuring which took less than a year – signifying the urgency of US preparations.
The US taking ships out in busy commerce straits and
creating an environment that would cripple trade between China and the
rest of the world would have a heavy impact on China’s economy.
On page 67 of the PDF document, RAND includes a graphic depiction of
China’s projected GDP losses versus the US, giving us a compelling
motive for the US to wage a war it knows it will suffer heavy military
losses amidst, but emerge economically stronger than a China that will
otherwise, barring such a conflict, surpass the US within this window of
opportunity.
China Knows, But Can China Beat the Clock?
It is very obvious that China’s Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) is an attempt for China to diversify away from Asia-Pacific trade
routes the US is clearly making preparations to attack and disrupt.
Pipelines running through Pakistan as part of the
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and through Myanmar to Kunming
in Yunnan Province would help move hydrocarbons bound for China from the
Middle East without passing through waters the US could disrupt in the
conflict it is clearly preparing for.
However, these alternative routes are already under attack.
US-sponsored separatists operating in Pakistan’s southwest
province of Baluchistan regularly attack and kill Chinese engineers and
the infrastructure itself.
Protests organized by US-sponsored opposition groups target Gwadar Port, CPEC’s terminal.
Just this year alone, France 24 would report
in April a bombing targeting a hotel the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan
was staying at but who luckily wasn’t at the hotel at the time of the
bombing. In July, the BBC reported that 9 Chinese engineers working on CPEC projects were killed in a targeted attack. And according to Reuters, in August, 2 children were killed during a suicide bombing targeting Chinese engineers in Baluchistan.
US-backed opposition groups have been attacking Chinese
investments in Myanmar since the military ousted the US client regime
headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NDL).
CNN would report in March, just a month after the military took over, that the opposition was lighting Chinese factories ablaze.
US government-funded Myanmar opposition media outlet, The Irrawaddy, published an article in May titled, “Deadly Attack on Pipeline Station Spotlights China’s High Stakes in Myanmar,” claiming:
The importance of the project
was highlighted in February when Chinese officials held an emergency
meeting with Myanmar officials, at which they urged the military regime
to tighten security measures for the pipelines. They said the project is
a crucial part of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Myanmar
and insisted that “any damage to the pipelines would cause huge losses
for both countries.” The request came amid growing anti-China sentiment
in Myanmar, where protesters—angered by Beijing’s blocking of the UN
Security Council (UNSC)’s efforts to take action against the coup
leaders—have threatened to blow up the pipelines.
The article concludes by quoting a Swedish journalist claiming:
It would come as no surprise if
attacks were carried out against, for instance, the pipelines, he said.
“And attitudes will not change unless the Chinese government stops its
support for the Myanmar military. That should be a real concern.”
Xinjiang, China, also serves as a critical juncture for
China’s BRI and we can clearly see the US promoting separatism there.
The recent “Uyghur Tribunal” organized by the abovementioned US-funded
World Uyghur Congress aims at further undermining Beijing’s efforts to
counter US-sponsored armed separatism in Xinjiang by placing additional
international pressure on China for implementing necessary security
measures to prevent it.
The continued US-sponsored attacks on China’s BRI, the
US-led military build-up along China’s coasts, and the propaganda war
the US is waging to control the narratives surrounding both, represents a
race against time for both Washington and Beijing.
For Washington, it is attempting to create the conditions in which
RAND predictions of China’s economic devastation following a
conventional conflict confined to East Asia can be transformed into
reality.
For Beijing, it is attempting to run out the clock and
assume the economic, military, and political power it needs to fully
deter any such conflict, and assume its position as the largest, most
powerful economy on Earth.
All things being equal, China has the world’s largest
population – a population that is hardworking and well-educated. China’s
educational institutions are producing millions more science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates than the US per year.
China’s massive trade networks ensure its economy has plenty of
resources. It should become the largest economy. And only a war of
aggression, chosen to be waged by Washington will stop this from coming
to pass.
US foreign policy in the 21st century has demonstrated in
action the true nature of its foreign policy versus what Washington’s
politicians say with words from behind podiums or its media says in
front of cameras about a “rules-based international order.” The only
rule we can see demonstrably upheld is “might makes right.” Only time
will tell whether or not the US “makes right” its smaller nation with
its smaller economy clinging to primacy over China for decades to come
before it no longer has the “might” to do so.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share
buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch.
Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site,
internet forums. etc.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Featured image is from NEO
Post
