Geopolitical Risk Theater Links: Thailand’s Hunger Games, ISIS Expansion, US 500th Drone Strike, Terror Not Excuse for Foreign Wars and more…

1 Hunger Games Thailand edition? : When Life Imitates 'The Hunger Games' in Thailand, the Atlantic November 21, 2014

2 Geopolitical blackmail continues: North Korea Conducts Ejection Test of Sub-Launched Missile Test indicates progress in submarine missile development Freebeacon.com November 21,2014

3 The nuclear race is ON: China's Nuclear Weapons Are Getting Bigger And More Destructive Business Insider November 20,2014

4 Hasn’t it been obvious? A Russia-China Military Alliance May Not Be As Far-Fetched As Many Think Business Insider November 21,2014 They are already part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which according to Wikipedia “is a Eurasian political, economic and military organization”

5 Like stocks, ISIS momentum keeps rollin’: ISIS Has An Important Iraqi City Surrounded Business Insider November 21, 2014

6 ISIS draws criticism from peer (ally?) Al Qaeda in Yemen rebukes ISIS CNN.com November 21, 2014 

7 If ISIS has international recruits, so does the Kurdish forces: Canadian veterans join Kurdish battle against ISIS RT.com November 22, 2014 

8 US government’s favorite assassin: America’s 500th Drone Strike Launched in Pakistan Six 'Suspects' Killed in Latest Attack Antiwar.com November 21, 2014 Question is who gets killed; militants or innocent bystanders labeled as militants? 

9 Oops, developing cracks on Western Sanctions against Russia? Serbia won’t join anti-Russian sanctions club despite EU pressure - Nikolic RT.com November 20, 2014 

Serbia is not planning to impose sanctions on Russia, said its President Tomislav Nikolic after meeting EU Commissioner Johannes Hahn. The latter said the EU expects Serbia to bring its policy in line with the European one if it seeks to enter the union.

Nikolic said that Serbia is not planning to introduce sanctions at the moment, though admitting the country is seeking EU membership which implies an obligation to pursue common policies, including foreign.

10 More beating of the war drums: Russia warns US against supplying ‘lethal defensive aid’ to Ukraine RT.com November 21, 2014

Moscow has warned Washington a potential policy shift from supplying Kiev with “non-lethal aid” to “defensive lethal weapons”, mulled as US Vice President visits Ukraine, would be a direct violation of all international agreements.

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that reports of possible deliveries of American “defensive weapons” to Ukraine would be viewed by Russia as a “very serious signal.”

11 More testing of tolerance limits: NATO scrambles jets 400 times in 2014 as Russian air activity jumps Yahoo.com November 21, 2014

12 The slippery slope to totalitariansism: Terror Is Also Not a Reason or Argument for Foreign Wars Michael S. Rozeff Lew Rockwell Blog November 21,2014

Writes Michael Rozeff

But terror and terrorists cannot possibly justify such wars, and preventive wars at that. Terrorists are a problem that is unsettling, but it also has limited and sporadic sources, even if they can inflict great damage at times. The problem requires identification and location of terrorists. How can war, which is such a blunt instrument, an instrument of mass destruction, be justified against such a threat? How can the U.S. possibly use terrorist threats to justify the unseating and destroying of entire governments, the destroying of whole infrastructures, the throwing of countries and societies into massive turmoil, and the killing and wounding of innocent civilians in large numbers? How can the U.S. justify exacerbating religious and ethnic differences, ruining landmarks and turning countries into armed camps engaged in internecine warfare? There is absolutely no excuse for this. Terror, terrorism, terrorists and terror events provide absolutely no excuse for such huge human rights violations. 9/11 doesn’t justify this. Nothing can be brought forward that justifies it. There is zero moral justification for what America has done in the name of fighting terror.

Here at home, the federal government has militarized every force within all of its many agencies that do any kind of policing. Not only have local police forces become militarized, but so have every possible arm of the federal government. The Department of Homeland Security is but one umbrella for these many forces. By one count there are now more than 70 such militarized federal agencies. 

The government has used terror and terrorism as an excuse or pretext for militarizing itself and arming itself to the teeth. These forces stand ready to dominate Americans at every turn and create a nightmare police state in this country. Any excuse from a bomb threat to a hurricane can be used to mobilize one or more of these forces. One vindictive word or one phone call can unleash a number of SWAT teams against some innocent person or get them detained or get their names placed on a no-fly list or some other list.

Geopolitical Risk Theater Watch: Article Links October 28

From now on, I will be occasionally posting links on articles covering geopolitical risk theater. This should give us an idea of the evolving risks developments. I'll start with 12 articles

1 Jane.com NATO completes largest naval exercise in five years October 26

2 Aseanbriefing.com ASEAN Update: Understanding the Geopolitics of the South China Sea Dispute – October 27

A quote:

During the 2012 ASEAN summit in Phnom Penh, four member nations – Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brunei – all declared there were conflicting territorial claims with China in the South China Sea. This did not include ongoing disputes with Taiwan, whose claims are generally excluded from ASEAN dialogue. Yet, the ASEAN states were unable to agree on an appropriate response. Internal squabbling reached new heights when, for the first time in the group’s 45-year history, they were not even able to agree on a language for the summit’s concluding communiqué.

Aside from creating antagonism internally, ASEAN’s response – or lack thereof – clearly signaled to China the alliance’s key shortcoming: the incompatibility of individual interests with regional loyalty. Indeed, in addition to diluting US influence, China’s insistence on bilateral resolution of the South China Sea disputes deliberately takes advantage of this vulnerability.

3 FreeBeacon.com China's Alarming Military Buildup Is Shifting The Balance Of Power In Asia October 13

An excerpt

On China’s strategic nuclear buildup, the report identifies China’s large-scale buildup of both conventional and nuclear-armed missiles as a serious threat.

China’s has as many as 1,895 ballistic and cruise missiles, including up to 1,200 short-range missiles, up to 100 medium-range missiles, up to 20 intermediate-range missiles, up to 75 intercontinental missiles, and up to 500 ground-launched land attack cruise missiles.

The Pentagon after 2010 halted releasing annual assessments of Chinese missile forces that one expert said undercuts the Obama administration’s policy of seeking a more open Chinese military by “indirectly assisting Chinese secrecy.”

For short-range missiles, China currently is developing five new systems with ranges between 94 and 174 miles. The new missiles will have greater accuracy and lethality.

For targeting US forces in Japan and South Korea, China has deployed DF-21C theater-range missiles with ranges of about 1,240 miles and appears to have developed a second system, the DF-16.

Its new intermediate-range missile, to be deployed in the next five years, will be able to hit US forces on Guam, Northern Australia, Alaska, and US forces in the Middle East and Indian Ocean.

A variant of the DF-21D is a unique anti-ship ballistic missile that has been deployed in two brigades in southeastern and northeast China.

China’s nuclear strike forces remain couched in secrecy, the report said. “China’s official statements about its nuclear forces and nuclear capabilities are rare and vague in order to maintain ‘strategic ambiguity,’” the report says.

4 Moscow Times Russia Inches Toward Permanent Naval Presence in Mediterranean October 16

5 Inquisitr.com Russian Spy Plane Violates NATO Airspace, Estonia Alarmed October 23

Fighters scrambled to intercept a Russian spy plane in Estonia’s airspace and escort it back to Russia in what’s being considered the most serious violation of NATO airspace since the Cold War…

For the year 2014, the deployment of NATO fighters for interceptions like this one are up by around 300 percent from 2013. It’s not clear if there will be any lasting consequence for the Russian spy plane, except one: Baltic states will continue to be worried.

6 RT.com Poland to move thousands of troops to border with Ukraine October 27

7 Businessinsider.com Sweden's Epic Hunt For A 'Russian' Sub Shows Europe Is Terrified Of Putin October 24

8 Inquisitr.com Russian Jets Invading Japan Airspace In Record Numbers Over Past Year, Japan Wants To Know Why October 19

Russian jets flying perilously close to Japan airspace forced Japanese fighters to take to the skies 533 times over the past six months — a number up from 308 in the same time period a year earlier. Now Japan is trying to figure out why the Russian military jets have made Japan a target

9 BBC.co.uk Why is the US Navy practising for war with China? October 15

10 Wall Street Journal As China Deploys Nuclear Submarines, U.S. P-8 Poseidon Jets Snoop on Them October 24

The P-8s’ operations can bring them into confrontation with Chinese forces. In August, the Pentagon said a Chinese jet fighter had flown dangerously close to a U.S. P-8 during an interception near Hainan island, site of one of China’s submarine bases. China’s defense ministry publicly said its pilot flew safely and demanded that the U.S. cease surveillance operations near its base.

11 Wall Street Journal  China’s Submarines Add Nuclear-Strike Capability, Altering Strategic Balance October 24

The message was clear: China had fulfilled its four-decade quest to join the elite club of countries with nuclear subs that can ply the high seas. The defense ministry summoned attachés again to disclose another Chinese deployment to the Indian Ocean in September—this time a diesel-powered sub, which stopped off in Sri Lanka…

China’s nuclear attack subs, in particular, are integral to what Washington sees as an emerging strategy to prevent the U.S. from intervening in a conflict over Taiwan, or with Japan and the Philippines—both U.S. allies locked in territorial disputes with Beijing…

China's nuclear-sub deployments, some naval experts say, may become the opening gambits of an undersea contest in Asia that echoes the cat-and-mouse game between U.S. and Soviet subs during the Cold War—a history popularized by Tom Clancy's 1984 novel "The Hunt for Red October."

Chinese officials say their subs don’t threaten other countries and are part of a program to protect China’s territory and expanding global interests. Chinese defense officials told foreign attachés that the subs entering the Indian Ocean would assist antipiracy patrols off Somalia, say people briefed on the meetings.

12 Paul Craig Roberts: Vladimir Putin Is The Leader Of the Moral World lewrockwell.com October 27, 2014

Excerpts from Mr. Putin's speech:

On Western Foreign policies:

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals…

On brinkmanship politics:

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.   The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries…

On the growing risks of nuclear war:

From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

Have a nice day.

China’s Cheap Drones: A Threat to Whom?

This article is worried that China’s cheap clones may end up in the wrong hands, or could be owned and used by the adversaries of the US government.

From Technewsdaily.com

Cheap drones made in China could end up arming potential U.S. foes such as North Korea, Iran and terrorist organizations.

China already makes drones that don't quite match up to U.S. military drones, but for a fraction of the cost. The Chinese military envisions such unmanned autonomous vehicles (UAVs) scouting out battlefield targets, guiding missile and artillery strikes, and swarming potential adversaries, such as U.S. carrier battle groups…

China has built a huge military-industrial complex to support its growing drone fleet, which consisted of about 280 military drones as of mid-2011, according to a report released by the Project 2049 Institute on March 11. Chinese manufacturers supplying the military and state agencies also have begun seeking foreign buyers in a global drone market that aerospace and defense market research firm Teal Group estimates to be worth $89 billion over the next 10 years…

The idea of cheap, China-made drones may not tempt countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia or NATO allies that want to buy the best U.S. or Israeli drone hardware. Instead, China is seeking buyers in the Middle East and Africa at glitzy expositions such as China’s biennial Zhuhai Air Show.

While such concern could partially be true, considering the estimated $89 billion market, my guess is that China’s cheap drones will likely threaten politically connected US drone providers/suppliers more than terrorists or US foes having access to them. 

Besides, anti-drone laser weapon system has already been developed. Foes of the governments are likely to use them than use drones.

Yet demand for commercial drones has been estimated to reach 10,000 according to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Many of such demand come from hobbyists.

A good example of the growing commercial use of drones has been in photography or cinematography particularly in the covering of field events. The Golf Channel used a drone to film a recently held tournament, according to the Business Insider.

The point is commercialization of drones will likely mean more price competition, more innovation, more applications and an increasing use of them by the markets. China's cheap drones may be one factor in driving the commercialization of drones.

Charts of the Day: World Military Spending and Arms Trade

Two related charts of the day

First world defense spending

The Economist speculates that if the current rate of growth persists, China will surpass the US in terms of military budget. 

AMERICA still spends over four times as much on defence as China, the world’s second-biggest military spender. But it has been clear for some time that on current trends China’s defence spending will overtake America’s sooner than most people think. What is less clear is when that date will be reached. It all depends on the underlying assumptions. The 2013 edition of the Military Balance published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) shows convergence could come as soon as 2023. That is based on extrapolating the rate of Chinese military spending since 2001—a 15.6% annual growth rate—and assuming that the cuts in the America's defence budget required under sequestration are not modified. The latter is more likely than the former. The latest Chinese defence budget is based on spending increasing by a more modest 10.7% annually. That would mean that China overtakes America in 2032.

However, if China’s headlong economic growth stalls or if more money is needed to serve the health and social needs of rapidly-ageing population, China might slow spending on its military by something like half its current projection. If that happens, the crossover point could be delayed by up to a decade. It is also possible (though at present America’s fiscal travails suggest otherwise), that as China rises, America will feel forced to start spending more if the security guarantees it currently makes to allies such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are to retain their credibility into the third decade of the century. Already, China spends more on defence than all of those three together. It is all very well for America to talk about a strategic rebalancing towards Asia, but if the money is not there to buy the ships, the aircraft and all the expensive systems that go with them, it will eventually sound hollow.

The Economist is right to suggest that this trend may not continue as this will likely depend on the state of the China's economy. Of course this will really depend on priorities of the Chinese government.

But what they sorely missed is of the real nature of “strategic rebalancing”, which is not supposed to be about military buildup but about trade.

They forget about Bastiat’s wisdom where “if goods don’t cross borders, armies will”

Second chart global arms trade.

The Reuters notes that China has taken the fifth spot in arms exports with Pakistan being the main recipient.

An arms race serves as dangerous signal for world peace. Such also functions as a thermometer of the desperate state of welfare-warfare governments, who by resorting to inflationism, attempts to divert domestic political economic problems towards geopolitics. And they do this primarily through nationalist overtones.

The sad part is that instead of the remedy of channeling resources into productive uses, an arms race means more economic hardship for society, aside from greater risk of war.

As the illustrious American author Ernest Hemingway rightly admonished,

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists

Unfortunately people hardly ever learn.

Chart of the Day: China’s Defense Spending

From Reuters (chart included)

China will raise military spending by 10.7% this year to 740.6 billion yuan ($119 billion). China’s defense spending is contained at about 5.4% of total expenditure, up from 5.3% last year, and remains at about one-fifth of the Pentagon’s spending 

This compares to the Philippines at $1.8 billion (2010) which represents .81% of GDP (Index Mundi) or $209 billion in 2011 or 1.08% of GDP (Wikipedia.org)

I am not suggesting that the Philippines should compete with China to bolster her military expenditures.

What I am also saying is that the Philippines lacks the capability to match China’s armed forces.

On the contrary the Philippines should cut government spending which should include that of the military’s. The focus instead should be on fostering trade relations with the every nation in this world. Trade relations will reduce the opportunities for conflict because trade promotes harmonious relations even among diversified interest groups.

Nevertheless expanding and nurturing a huge army will eventually take a toll on the economy as scarce resources are diverted for non-productive activities.

Moreover, huge armies become a temptation for adventurism and domestic instability. Japan’s pre-World War II political and economic policies which led to the dominance of the military in shaping national decisions should serve as example.

The ‘late’ al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden once predicted that the overall strategy of guerilla warfare has been a war of attrition meant to bankrupt or financially bleed her foes, particularly the US. In the same way the Soviet Russia lost the Afghan War.

Developing political economic conditions in the US, predicated on the growing warfare and welfare state, have been indicating the path of such politics dictated internal decay.

And it must be remembered we are in the nuclear age, where the character of military conflict has changed relative to the 20th century.

As a final note charts of the US-China arms race in Asia I have previously posted here

A US-Philippines Bases Treaty (2012 Edition) in the Making?

From the Washington Post,

Two decades after evicting U.S. forces from their biggest base in the Pacific, the Philippines is in talks with the Obama administration about expanding the American military presence in the island nation, the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China.

Although negotiations are in the early stages, officials from both governments said they are favorably inclined toward a deal. They are scheduled to intensify the discussions Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March. If an arrangement is reached, it would follow other recent agreements to base thousands of U.S. Marines in northern Australia and to station Navy warships in Singapore.

Among the options under consideration are operating Navy ships from the Philippines, deploying troops on a rotational basis and staging more frequent joint exercises. Under each scenario, U.S. forces would effectively be guests at existing foreign bases.

The sudden rush by many in the Asia-Pacific region to embrace Washington is a direct reaction to China’s rise as a military power and its assertiveness in staking claims to disputed territories, such as the energy-rich South China Sea.

“We can point to other countries: Australia, Japan, Singapore,” said a senior Philippine official involved in the talks, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the deliberations. “We’re not the only one doing this, and for good reason. We all want to see a peaceful and stable region. Nobody wants to have to face China or confront China.”

The strategic talks with the Philippines are in addition to feelers that the Obama administration has put out to other Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam and Thailand, about possibly bolstering military partnerships.

What seems to be the common denominator between now and two decades ago when the Bases Extension Treaty was rejected by the Philippine Senate?

Well both has the Aquino administration (mother and son) taking on the side of—or has fought for an extension of—US foreign policy in the country.

Not that this about the Aquino administration being an American stooge, although they may well be, but about the developing trend in US foreign policy and the possible implications here.

Obama’s foreign policy has increasingly been militant just as the Presidential election approaches.

Last night at the State of the Union address President Obama threatened Iran with ‘no options off the table’ rhetoric. In addition, President Obama seems to having an on-off or love-hate affair with China with the latter being painted as a potential adversary.

Military aggression as China’s foreign policy path is unlikely, despite some caustic international incidences at the Spratlys Island.

As pointed out before, such incidences could be indicative of China’s reaction to what seems to be an encirclement strategy being applied by the US and or the heated rhetoric by President Obama of charging China as a currency manipulator.

Also China could testing the responses of her neighbors to see where their loyalty lies and to what degree they have been, which could be part of 37 war strategies of “beating the grass to startle the snake strategy”, or that China could be flaunting her new weapons to signal her newfound geopolitical muscle.

But most importantly, I think China could be using the Spratlys to gain negotiation leverage.

In politics, what you see is hardly what you get.

Nevertheless, actions serve as best indicators of intent or what Austrian economists calls as the demonstrated preference.

China won’t likely kill the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs for the simple reason that China’s trade with the region has been burgeoning substantially. (charts above from ADB)

To add, China has even taken further steps to increase the usage of her country’s currency as the region’s medium of exchange in the path towards regional integration.

China will surely not attain integration by invading her neighbors. Two major World Wars of the 20^th century should serve as painful lessons.

Integration can only be achieved through social cooperation via the division of labor or free trade.

And unless China’s leaders have lost their senses, perhaps out of desperation or becomes mentally deranged, a bellicose foreign policy would translate to their political suicide considering that today’s state of warfare. So this isn’t a rational or even a viable option.

In addition, the thought of foreign bases as functional deterrent to military aggression is essentially obsolete in a nuclear war.

In reality, military bases have mostly been used as a staging point for political interventions in local affairs and for justifying the maintenance and or growth of the defense budget for the US federal government.

And importantly, encirclement strategies to contain China’s so-called growing military capability are not helpful, they signify signs of (US) insecurity that only promotes antagonism that could lead to genuine confrontation.

The point is, any military base agreements will serve as a magnet for any prospective war or military hostility, incentivize more foreign interventions in local (Philippine) affairs and would create social friction between the average Filipinos and US military.

Military bases for whose benefit?

Again as stated earlier, wars benefit the military industrial complex who as rent seekers, needs politics induced wars to sell their products and services to generate profit. Peace is an anathema to them.

War and imperialist policies also benefit the (local and foreign) political class who use wars (or the threat of wars) to expand to control over society through various interventions and taxation, to curb civil liberties, and to justify the budgets extracted from society for their personal benefits.

As Murray N. Rothbard once wrote,

Imperialism will ensure for the United States the existence of perpetual "enemies," of waging what Charles A. Beard was later to call "perpetual war for perpetual peace." For, Flynn pointed out, "we have managed to acquire bases all over the world…. There is no part of the world where trouble can break out where… we cannot claim that our interests are menaced. Thus menaced there must remain when the war is over a continuing argument in the hands of the imperialists for a vast naval establishment and a huge army ready to attack anywhere or to resist an attack from all the enemies we shall be obliged to have

Niall Ferguson: Excessive Debt Predictor Of US Decline, China's Transitioning Role As A Rival

This interesting interview with Professor Niall Ferguson by Yahoo Tech Ticker

From Yahoo

``The U.S. is an empire in decline, according to Niall Ferguson, Harvard professor and author of The Ascent of Money.

"People have predicted the end of America in the past and been wrong," Ferguson concedes. "But let's face it: If you're trying to borrow $9 trillion to save your financial system...and already half your public debt held by foreigners, it's not really the conduct of rising empires, is it?"

Given its massive deficits and overseas military adventures, America today is similar to the Spanish Empire in the 17th century and Britain's in the 20th, he says. "Excessive debt is usually a predictor of subsequent trouble."

Putting a finer point on it, Ferguson says America today is comparable to Britain circa 1900: a dominant empire underestimating the rise of a new power. In Britain's case back then it was Germany; in America's case today, it's China.

"When China's economy is equal in size to that of the U.S., which could come as early as 2027...it means China becomes not only a major economic competitor - it's that already, it then becomes a diplomatic competitor and a military competitor," the history professor declares.

The most obvious sign of this is China's major naval construction program, featuring next generation submarines and up to three aircraft carriers, Ferguson says. "There's no other way of interpreting this than as a challenge to the hegemony of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region."

As to analysts like Stratfor's George Friedman, who downplay China's naval ambitions, Ferguson notes British experts - including Winston Churchill - were similarly complacent about Germany at the dawn of the 20th century.

"I'm not predicting World War III but we have to recognize...China is becoming more assertive, a rival not a partner," he says, adding that China's navy doesn't have to be as large as America's to pose a problem. "They don't have to have an equally large navy, just big enough to pose a strategic threat [and] cause trouble" for the U.S. Navy."

Additional noteworthy quotes:

“Excessive debt is usually a predictor of subsequent trouble”

“The more debt you have the more interest payments you have to make especially if interest rates move up”

On military: “They [China-mine] don’t have to catch up… they just have to have a big enough…to pose a strategic threat… can you handle two major challenges [debt and geopolitics-mine] simultaneously?”

My notes and comments:

-Interest payment burdens alone can translate to a self fulfilling prophecy for the US empire's decline

-Professor Ferguson comments that as China’s economy grows to reach parity with US, the character of relationship will transition from today's partnership to one of rivalry, i.e. from economic, to diplomatic, to military and to the naval sphere.

-The Soviet Union never rose to the occasion to challenge the US in terms of matching economic growth and military power.

-China's military doesn't have to reach the scalability of the US, it only needs to reach a critical mass to pose a serious threat.

-Besides, the US will be challenged by fighting its inner demons aside from coping with evolving realities of geopolitics.