Vice President Biden’s trip to China would have been as forgettable as most high-level U.S.-China dialogues were it not for the Beijing Brawl and the Press-Conference Pusher, which revealed the biggest challenge we face in dealing with China: its attitude. When the People’s Liberation Army basketball team started stomping on Georgetown University players after what even a casual fan could see was the most biased officiating since Roy Jones Jr. was robbed of a gold medal in boxing at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the imperative for the Chinese to humble their visitors was evident. Just as egregiously, Chinese security officials started physically shoving foreign reporters and then White House and U.S. Embassy staff out of the conference room where Biden was giving his prepared — and hence expected — remarks along with Xi Jinping, the putative next leader of China.
Advertisement
The optics of the trip now set, the rest of Biden’s visit only confirmed in the eyes of some the relative decline of the United States and rise of China. One Asian observer wrote that Biden came as a “supplicant,” not quite the image of building a personal relationship with Xi that the White House had hoped for.
For the past several years, China watchers have engaged in “Beijingology,” the successor to the Cold War Kremlinology, wherein every pundit worth his salt tried to explain what was going on in Moscow through supposed clues such as who stood next to whom on top of Lenin’s Tomb. Like priests in ancient Rome, today’s Beijingologists divine through signs and portents, though not yet bird entrails, what the leaders inside the Forbidden City are really thinking. Every action must have some grand ulterior plan; every slight, like those which marred Barack Obama’s 2009 trip to Beijing, is a move in a game of geopolitical go whereby China not only is increasing the territory it controls on the board of the Indo-Pacific, but is simultaneously reducing American maneuvering space.
Yet if we see all of China’s leaders as budding Henry Kissingers, we miss that China has an attitude problem as clear as the Bayi Military Rockets basketball team’s anger-management problem. China is like a lottery winner who goes from being the weak and regularly dissed George McFly in Back to the Future to being Al Czervik, Rodney Dangerfield’s nouveau-riche country-club boor in Caddyshack.
China may indeed want to supplant America on the world stage, but it is doing so at least as much through an unpredictable, often reflexive, attitude that is both opportunistic and emotional as it is through any master orchestrated approach. How else to explain China’s foreign minister telling Southeast Asian nations that China was big and they were small, the diplomatic equivalent of saying, “We really hope nothing happens to your nice new car”? Or Beijing’s refusal to let U.S. Navy ships in distress haul into the nearest port? Or Beijing’s choosing the visit of America’s secretary of defense as the best moment to unveil its new stealth fighter?
Beijing’s plan since the early 1980s has been clear: Get strong. But in its success, China has developed the idea that the world’s rules don’t apply to it. Imagine a China that respected human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. A China that pressured North Korea, Burma, Sudan, and Iran to behave responsibly, instead of acting as a sugar daddy to them. A China that protected intellectual property rights and upheld its contracts in foreign joint ventures. A China that didn’t point more than a thousand missiles at Taiwan. Instead, today we have a China that is undermining the global system that allowed it to get rich and powerful, a China that now feels a sense of grievance every time it is called to account for its disruptive behavior.
Yet in another way that psychologists love, we can see that China’s attitude stems not from its strength, but from its weaknesses. The Communist party is a brittle oligarchy distrusted if not hated by millions and millions of the people it rules. Thousands of protests and revolts reverberate through China each year, while ethnic and religious separatists in Xinjiang, Tibet, and other regions keep alive the great fear of civil war and the splintering of the country. When China’s rulers say their country is still weak and developing, they mean it. They know just how tenuous their hold on power is, and how much they depend on continued economic growth. Hence, trash talking about the U.S. and smacking down some American college basketball players (along with jailing Nobel Prize winners) is a way of showing everyone that this is a country not to be trifled with.
Of course, Washington is encouraging China’s attitude by ignoring its bad behavior, and it is making it easy for Beijing to act the responsible world power (and lecture us) by bankrupting our country and refusing to recognize it. When we follow that up by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the budgets of our Navy and Air Force, which keep the big peace in Asia, then the Chinese seem to be making a pretty good calculation that they just have to wait us out for a while before we’re too weak to oppose whatever whim they have on a given day. While they’re at it, they may as well kick sand in our faces if that will get us to go home more quickly.
Joe Biden’s trip and the China-U.S. Basketball Friendship Match simply confirmed for the Chinese that attitude is what you need. Maybe in this media-driven world they’re right. But more likely they’re wrong, because if you don’t have the seasoning to know when to pack it in, someone someday will call your bluff. And that may be a very messy day.
A very good piece of analystic commentary with a lucid insight and beautiful, expressive language. But frankly speaking, the article tapers off at the end while failing to provide any remedy to the China problem such as cutting the dependence of US on Chinese imports so as to rebuild the tattered US industries and end the massive wealth amassed by Chian from its predatory trade with US to be used on developing military sinew against US in the future. The article is about all good analysis of a glaring symptom but no proposal of countering treatment.
To concur and corroborate the main theme of the author, China is indeed the largest existential threat to US as a whole naiton in the next 30 to 50 years. As the single most ruthless and immoral, unscrupulous and rancorous, disingenuous and duplicitous nation in the world, the Chinese are more than willing to lie, cheat and steal, and also to kill its way to the top be if for global domination by defeating and subjugating US militarily or the gold medal 1st rank in Olympic Games.
US must stop feeding and subsidizing the monstrous evil i.e. the Chinese communist/ultra-nationalist regime, an absolutely heinous and thuggish and exceptionally cunning and deceptive foe adept at feigning friendship and hiding its true color while building its muscle whose ultimate goal is to seek nothing short of the total destruction and/or subjugation of the United States on which the ChiCom regime is hellbent for the sake of its super-egoistic ambition and the perpetual cling to power.
There is no room for compromise with China because of its satanic nature and fiendish conviction. It can't be dissuaded from trying to do evil. Either we sit there doing nothing, which is tantamount to committing a national suicide, or we brace up and exert to confront and defeat this archfiend and exterminate the gravest danger in a resolute, resourceful and timely manner in order to save ourselves and our civilization and preclude possibly the biggest calamity to the whole mankind ever since the demise of dinosaurs.
Appeasing Beijing is hopeless and will backfire. The very nature of the Chinese government is violence and villainy. You can't train a wolf to be a vegetarian. So many people think that if you feed the dragon, the dragon will be nice. But it won't -- it will bite your hand off, and then devour you.
This is what we get when our leaders are pusillanimous weaklings, unable to grasp, much less act with confidence in the American strengths. If I were China, I'd be acting the same way.
> "China not only is increasing the territory it controls on the board of the Indo-Pacific, but is simultaneously reducing American maneuvering space."
Please give some examples.
The US has at least 100 military bases in Japan & South Korea; whereas China has no military bases outside its borders. Just exactly how is China increasing the territory it controls and squeezing US wiggle room?
> "When we follow that up by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the budgets of our Navy and Air Force..."
The US Navy is larger than the combined navies of Russia, China, India and the UK.
The military aircraft of the US is larger than the next 9 largest military powers combined.
Just exactly how is China a threat to that? It would take over 30 years for China to produce a military arsenal equivalent to the US.
I don't see a lot of facts here to back-up the assertions made.
Hey, are you kidding us all? I wonder where did you get all your hackneyed and shopworn platitudinous information on China. But if the whole nation views China like you do with your share of outdated knowledge, we will all go to hell in one hand-basket.
To address your questions, No.1, While US has numerous overseas military bases here and there, they are stationed under the request of the hosting nations who wishes US bases to be there continually in their defense and all such countries are democratic allies of America. Now China, it is flatly laughable and ignorant to claim China has no overseas bases. The fact is that China has a number of them in Bangladesh and Pakistan, all under hefty Chinese payroll. The so-called Shanghai Treaty Organization, a political-military alliance having existed for years and based on the model of former Warsaw Treaty of USSR is headed by China and includes several Central Asian nations whose soils all see a heavy and increasing presence of Chinese military personnel. China is also actively building new military bases in the African Continent by pouring out heavy investments and bribes in several African countries along their Indian Ocean-facing seashores in a strategically aggressive move against India. In one word, the trend of China's building military bases abroad is patent and rising phenomenon with potentially grievous and complicated consequences.
No.2, while US still leads China in Navy and Air Force scale and weaponry generally, the gap is being rapidly and alarmingly shortened with China's conscious, strenuous and unreserved effort. China has already developed numerous "Killer" weapons such as powerful super-sonic ballistic anti-ship missiles being able to carry tactic nuclear warheads to specifically target US navy fleets centered on aircraft career in a deliberate and calculated future war with America. Even you yourself noted, in your predictably worry-free mentality to downplay the Chinese menace, that it will take just 30 years for China to catch up with US in overall military strength, not exactly a long time for US to sleep at ease in international power rivalry. The fact is that the pace of magnitude of China's military expansion and active war preparation is unprecedented and beyond the usual forecast of Western experts. The sole purpose of Chinese is to completely displace and if necessary, to utterly defeat US in real hot wars, to win the all-round aggressive war with US ultimately regardless of losses, and in the process to clench global domination as a crowned master race.
By the way, while I agree with a gentleman on his view on the increasingly frequent encounters of Chinese "attitude" of in their ribald exemplification of ultra-nationalism, I don't think the best policy is to continue to engage them, let alone to intensify such engagement. The so-called engagement policy with China practiced from Nixon to Clinton to Bush years till this day has been a proven failure and diplomatic folly and disaster and an intellectually bankrupt idea. The reason is simple and glaring. China, premeditated and hell-bent on world conquest, will only get more empowered, emboldened and flagrant to carry out its agenda as a result of our continued engagement which undoubtedly strengthens it with incessant capital and technological investment. On the contrary, if we disengage with China and concentrates on contain, undermine and weaken it with all non-hot war means, China will cease to be a prominent threat in a mid future for having lost all the means and capacity of posing as such a threat, its intention notwithstanding.
> “In one word, the trend of China's building military bases abroad is patent and rising phenomenon with potentially grievous and complicated consequences.”
The US has at least 1000 overseas military bases and over 100 on China’s borders. China might one day be a threat, but it will be at least 30 years before they are. And I am asking is 30 more years of deficit defense spending a necessary reaction to a unclarified threat.
> “the gap is being rapidly and alarmingly shortened with China's conscious, strenuous and unreserved effort”
China’s present mastery of modern technology is somewhere around 1970; 20 years ago they were somewhere around 1950. Recently their highly vaulted bullet trains failed because they can’t keep up with the pace of modernization. Most of China’s domestic products are mama huhu, only products made for the west by western supervision are up to modern standards. China is at least 50 years from parity with the US.
> “The fact is that the pace of magnitude of China's military expansion and active war preparation is unprecedented and beyond the usual forecast of Western experts.”
In the last ten years no military has expanded faster and invaded more countries than the USA. Plus, as you know, China’s military has hardly ever operated very far from their traditional boarders. In the next 50 years China’s ability to master modernity may pose a problem for the US, but only if the US can remain fiscally solvent in that period.
> ”By the way, while I agree with a gentleman on his view on the increasingly frequent encounters of Chinese "attitude" of in their ribald exemplification of ultra-nationalism…”
The same could be said about the US.
I am not pro-China but I am opposed to jingoism that distorts the picture in favor of deficit defense spending. Given the disparity between the US and other military powers and the disparity of defense spending, it would be conservative to reduce spending and monitor the situation closely.
Mr. Thorndyke, thanks for your response to my response to your comment and your politeness in doing that. I would like to apologize in advance for any possibly harsh or rash words in my writing with no intention to offense at all but due to my somehow temperament particularly on the issue of China. Here I would like to make two points in light of your various arguments.
One, I believe you have seriously underestimated China, similar to quite many China watchers and experts in the West. First China's military is no longer fit to be described dismissively as "puny" like you did, even pitted against the only existing military superpower on earth i.e. US. It is said with much credibility that China's overall military strengths has already surpassed that of Russia and become the runner-up in today's world, only second to US, and it is catching up rapidly. I can't see there should be any doubt on that. Secondly, in spite of the example of the high speed train derailing accident of China you enlisted to highlight the shoddy and defected production of Chinese industry to which I partly agree, you failed to penetrate the surface and perceive the deeper phenomenon, which is that while China might have hurried to make some substandard junkies out of haste and driven by vainglory, it did make something which it really cared more seriously and earnestly, a good example is China's victoriously marching space technology, in both military and civil fronts, with brilliant successes one after another. China has maintained one of, if not the single highest success ratio in the world on satellite launches with space rockets in the last two decades, and the memory about its successful testifying of an advanced satellite-killing kinetic weapon in the outer space less than two years ago remains fresh in mind.
Two, it should be known that China's military modernization and advancement process has one notable feature of unique Chinese character i.e. comparatively much lower expenses on soldiers' salaries and welfare compared to the Western countries (lower not only in absolute amount but also in percentage), a revelation of traditional concept of belittling human lives as dispensable tools. The major proportion of rise of the Chinese military budget mostly has gone to the research and development of advanced weapons of better speed, stealth, maneuverability and firepower. This is something America should bear in mind in reforming our military and downsizing out defense budget, which I don't completely object to but firmly believe should be approached with great discretion and in a prudent and measured fashion. My core belief is that US must cut wastes in the huge projects and shall also reduce the expenses by withdrawing our military bases from Europe and elsewhere but NOT from Asia-Pacific, and large amounts should also be saved in some logistics and welfare accounts. On the other hand, US not only must NOT cut the fund for the R&D of advanced military hardware but shall strive to maintain a sustainable growth of it within our best capacity and exertion as it is crucial to maintain the critical edge over China, the only realistic and material challenger with both the ability and the will to mount a real threat to the peaceful existence and national security of US in this century.
The United States has military bases in Japan and Korea in large part to defend them against China.
China is #1 in the world in active military manpower, towed artillery, self-propelled guns, rocket artillery, frigates, mine warfare craft (over half the world's supply of these), patrol craft, and amphibious assault craft (a large share of the world's supply of these). See www.globalfirepower.com . If the real world were a board game, the first thing one would expect China to do would be to exclude everyone else from the Western Pacific, and were it not for U.S. superiority in aircraft carriers and (a steadily declining) advantage in submarine warfare, this is just what would happen.
This is understandably a concern to the other countries in East Asia.
You wrote "...whereas China has no military bases outside its borders."
Not true. China has at least one base in Burma, an ELINT post to monitor the Indian navy.
As far as your other assertions are concerned regarding relative Sino-American military postures, you fail to consider:
1) The U.S. forces engaged in other parts of the world cannot be counted in your calculus, and
2) The Chinese are preparing for asymmetric warfare, which is their only hope for defeating the U.S. What is worrisome about this trend is not that it would lead to a U.S. defeat but rather that it would cause the Chinese to incorrectly assess their relative position and embolden them into aggressive acts. Until China truly democratizes it would be better for world peace to not see any further diminishing of U.S. forces.
Mr Tom D:
Nice answer but it doesn’t address the central facts. The US has over 100 military bases in close proximity to the Chinese boarders. When China gets that many bases that close to the US there is a threat to the US.
> ” U.S. forces engaged in other parts of the world cannot be counted in your calculus”
Why not? The strength of the US forces is one of the key issues of this article. The article implies that proposed defense cuts will impede the USA’s ability to defend itself and its interests. It seems unlikely, given the disparity between the US and any other country that this is true.
> Until China truly democratizes it would be better for world peace to not see any further diminishing of U.S. forces.
Given China’s puny military compared to US forces it would be best cut spending and reduce the size of the military until a real threat exists.
Being a conservative does not necessarily require one to be as jingoist.
Mr. Thorndyke, if you'll allow my unsolicited remark of curiosity, I would take the liberty and venture to say that you have an awesome muscular Nordic surname and I hope you will speak and act like a really brave American. Now to the points, forgive my bluntness but the so-called central facts you accused others of having failed to address strike me as merely insignificant if not totally irrelevant and unconvincing. Indeed, US has a number of military bases close or not too far from China, but again, all of them exist because of the requests from the hosting countries fearing military attacks from an increasingly aggressive and swashbuckling China. US would never use such bases to fire a first shot at China and only use them as defense and deterrence against reckless Chinese military provocations and outright aggressive wars against its neighbors, a scenario of increasing likelihood judged on the concrete actions of the Chinese military the PLA in recent years resulting in escalating tension and trepidations in the region. China is also aware of the defensive and deterring nature of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific in its heart despite its reluctance to admit it openly. On the contrary, in case China might station it military base in Cuba or Panama in a foreseeable future, the nature would be totally different, it would only be for the purpose of strategically and aggressively targeting US.
You wrote: "The US has over 100 military bases in close proximity to the Chinese boarders. When China gets that many bases that close to the US there is a threat to the US."
What 100 bases? The large bases we had in the Philippines are long closed. The large bases in Korea and Japan that we can use for force projection probably number around a dozen. You must be counting every PX and weather station in Japan to get that number. You must also be counting the bases on Guam and the Aleutians as "near" - which they are, and which show that many Chinese bases are already "close to the U.S."
BTW, the value of bases can be overrated. The Chinese are constructing underground submarine bases on Hainan Island. U.S. analysts see them as a waste of money, as a defense that can be easily penetrated. It would seem that your view of bases mirrors the Chinese view rather than the American view.
Finally, your reply to my initial statement ”U.S. forces engaged in other parts of the world cannot be counted in your calculus” is a "Why not?". Here's why not: because they are ENGAGED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, and therefore cannot be made available for use in a crisis with China. China is aware of this, and it is the likely reason why China has done nothing to discourage crises in other parts of the world and has even subtly encouraged them. The Chinese WANT the U.S. tied down.
China's military is may seem puny in some ways, but it's more modern branches are growing at a rate much faster than most other nations. China will not be puny much longer.
It is really very sad. China faces many of the same threats that face the U.S., including that of Islamism. China would benefit economically by adopting Western economic arrangements with its neighbors (imagine sharing the South China Sea resources the way that European nations share the North Sea - Vietnam and the Philippines would have extra cash to buy Chinese goods). China has real interests that it needs to protect with a modern military, not the least of which are the lives of Chinese descendants who experience pogroms in Malaysia and Indonesia. And a seriously democratizing China would entice Taiwan to rejoin in a matter of months (where else will inexperienced Chinese democrats hire the political consultants they will need to run campaigns?). The Chinese foreign policy claims to want equality with the U.S.; true equality (in all spheres, including democracy) would benefit both nations, but the attitudes shown in this article and in many postings display a Chinese desire for some kind of supremacy. It is so sad that China is so mired in the past, it still has so much opportunity.
I think you can see from my last paragraph that I am fairly liberal and in no way am a jingoist.
As a frequent traveler to China, I have noticed increasing signs of the "attitude" described here. Somebody always seems to be designated to give an anti-American tirade at any event where Americans are present, regardless of how multinational, scholarly or neutral the event was supposed to be. Sometimes the speakers are encouraged, other times local officials are embarrassed and suppress them, at which point they immediately turn friendly. There are still millions of younger Chinese who are open and do not share these attitudes, and it is worthwhile to continue to engage them.
At a high level meeting of the CIRD, there were a surprising number of speakers who were advocating a return to the the Stalinist line of the 1950s that I roundly disputed. Afterwords I was accosted and accused of not being an American.
Let's look in the mirror for a second. In free market societies consumers at all levels of the market look for the best deal. When our own labor force, through militant collective bargaining, decided that their "customer" (their employer) was the enemy they set in motion the entire concept of outsourcing on a global scale. None of this is "new", the world has been trading with each other since the dawn of time. What collective bargaining ultimately achieved was to make our Made in America products uncompetitive by eliminating the one on one negotiation between employee & employer and instead used threats or worse to coerce employers to pay higher than market wage rates. This is de facto restraint of trade and thus created a new market first for Japanese automobiles and then for Sam Walton who recognized that if American companies were telling the American consumer to shove it through higher prices and poor quality then we'll find another way to satisfy the market. The Chicoms are an evil and despicable lot but we have only ourselves to blame for inviting them to the feast.
I'm with Billy Li up to the point where he starts calling China "satanic" ... I'll save that adjective for Beelzebub.
But - NRO - paaallleeeasse ... get with it. For years you - your authors and your magazine, have peddled and defended "strong China" policies.
Everywhere someone is to point these truths out, and to point out what we should really do about them, NR And NRO are found acting as apologists for Strong China through PNTR or free trade or Wal-mart-knows-no-evil or even assuring itself and readers that buying Chinese does not fund the PLA (seriously - you published an article that said this - pa-thetic!).
If China's attitude since 1980 is "get strong", then the American attitude, American zeitgeist and the Republican party platform, policies and party lines have been "get rich".
Of course - get rich only works for some. Gone is good old anglo-virtues like "public good", "common wealth" or, as a proud center-righter could abide: "strong America".
Strong America sometimes means that the rich must make do and canNOT get still richer off the dividends from the stock of companies that close shop in the US to open up in China for lower labor costs while Americans of lesser means comfort themselves with low prices at Wal-Mart.
Strong America means we all put up with slightly higher prices, so that our bottom 50% stays strong and our productive manufacturing base stays strong and HERE.
That's the trade off. NR and NRO should decide what kind of Republicans it wants to be: "strong America" or "rich America". If you think you can have it both ways, or you think being rich equals being strong, you really don't get it, or you do and you've just sold out - in which case: please stop publishing articles like this - it just makes you seem like hypocrites.
Unfortunately, if we keep going down this road it won't just be you who eats your just desert - we all will, Koch brothers, Tea Party and all.
Davincismonkey, thank you for your kind words and your appreciation of my candid view on China despite our minor differences on the choice of word to describe the monstrously vicious and ruthless communist/ultra-nationalist regime of that nation and its poisonous indoctrination of its own youngsters which we both recognize as of enormous danger and threatening nature to the national security of US and other democratic peaceful nations in the Asian-Pacific region. This clear understanding we share is far more important than the different usage of word. Furthermore, I heartily and strongly salute your courageous outspokenness and straightforwardness in pointing out the erroneous stance of NRO on China throughout these years, which has also been a source to my righteous alarm and worry all along.
The long harped Panda-hugging and China-engaging mantra is a proven failure which only served to strengthen China materially, and embolden and reward its appalling and increasingly aggressive behavior on the international stage further and further with no evident benefit in helping to democratize or enlighten it toward more responsible and honest conduct. Of course, another conspicuous by-product of this engagement policy to China is it has cost US dearly, having severely and persistently undermined and compromised us politically, economically and technologically with unabated investment of capital and high-techs to China and the rampant China espionage and theft as a result of US opening itself up for grabs from China. What a lamentable and deplorable state of pathology and perversity! That must be changed or we as a nation will risk further decline and degradation internally and lethal military and economic challenges externally as a result of our willful and irredeemable folly.
Outsourcing has shown to be a complete failure to our society: the once great idea that we can get others to do our work and we make money has caught up to us.
I remember in 1999-2000 listening to all of the operations managers continuously state how their organizations can increase their profits (and the operations managers’ yearly bonuses) by setting up “shop” in Asia, primarily China. Observing the results over the years, I saw engineers lose jobs, companies go out of business or get swallowed up, and a LOT of poorly crafted products with the “made in China” seal of failure.
I have a Maytag made in the US from a long time ago and it works great. A new Maytag made in China already had several warranty replacements. I will never buy that product line again.
What happened? US companies move manufacturing to China. The workers get a job and start making money. Another US manufacturer pulls in and hires that worker for 10¢ more an hour and the worker jumps ship. There is no loyalty in the worker. They do not care what they are building, just the paycheck. A drop in pride.
There are workers who take the product idea off, build cheap knock offs and infringe on someone’s intellectual property. I can name a few. We all can. No respect for other’s ideas. And the knock off counterfeit products are just as poorly made as the legitimate company products made in China; junk.
The US is the first to get the slap in the face treatment. It will not last long. The Chinese are rude to their investors and customers. So we “owe” them money. How are they going to get it? It will never happen.
So a lot of short timer businessmen made a lot of money emptying our trade base. So these ops managers sold out their own for a bonus. None of these two are still at it. I know a bunch of them who are out of work, burnt bridges and all, and have no clue as to what they are going to do next.
What I do know is that the US goes through phases. We may not get out of this one soon, but we are proud, compassionate, and with a Constitution that no other nation has and that is why we are still around and strong.
Thanks for your sharp observation based on personal experience. I fully agree to and appreciate your insightful opinion on the problematic nature of US’s disastrous and self-defeating trade relations with China who is indeed our arch rival and ultimate adversary in this century judged from both its ability and active intention to displace and defeat US in a carefully calculated and anxiously awaited war against America sometime not too faraway from now. There is only one outright and thorough solution to the China menace, that is to achieve a thorough incapacitation of it by totally disengaging with it and cutting out all the supplies of capital and technologies to it.
However, this is a recipe easy to identify but so difficult to actually implement given the existence of a large number of pro-China political and business lobbies constantly and shamelessly apologizing and shilling for China and sparing no effort in order to prevent American public from discerning the brutal truth of China and taking the right and effective approach to counter the problems because these bigwigs only care about fattening their own bellies through utilizing cheap labor etc. of China while not caring a hoot about the strategic interest of US, her national security and the well-being of average working Americans, and they won’t feel a slight pain or guilt however vitiated, undermined, disemboweled and hollowed out the country will have become.
These people are nothing but traitors and criminals. All Americans need to understand this brutal and lethal truth and take united and resolute action to stop those wretched and hideous people and their treasonous sellout. National consensus needs to be reached and laws need to be made to hold the unpatriotic and unscrupulous, corrupt and manipulative ilk accountable and penalize them severely. Hard lessons must be given and scathing punishments must be handed out. I reckon there is still a pretty long way for the general public to get to that point of understanding, but let’s start working toward that goal right away for we have no other choice to save our nation from the otherwise inevitable destruction inside-out wrought by such internal enemies of fifth column.
Some thirty years ago, when mainland Chinese students first started coming to Japan, they were anxious but eager, knowing that they had much to learn here, not only useful technical facts but also the culture of a free society. The Chinese students I have now tend to be singularly ambitious and very nationalistic. I asked one young lady what she thinks of the Uighurs. She responded in angry Japanese: "We did everything for those ungrateful savages!" As a Japanese citizen, I don't want this country to depend forever on the US for its defense against Chinese imperialism. Japan, a democratic country that the Obamanistas take for granted, must seriously rearm.
