The PRC, American Business, and Decoupling

Matt Pottinger, former President Donald Trump’s Deputy White House National Security Adviser, had a number of thoughts concerning the People’s Republic of China, and its targeting of American businesses, with unusual bluntness.

Beijing’s message is unmistakable: you must choose. If you want to do business in China, it must be at the expense of American values. You will meticulously ignore the genocide of ethnic and religious minorities inside China’s borders; you must disregard that Beijing has reneged on its major promises—including the international treaty guaranteeing a “high degree of autonomy” for Hong Kong; and you must stop engaging with security-minded officials in your own capital unless it’s to lobby them on Beijing’s behalf.
Another notable element of Beijing’s approach is its explicit goal of making the world permanently dependent on China, and exploiting that dependency for political ends.

RTWT.

What also drew my eye is this, near the end of his op-ed, in response to a PRC strawman that the US was working on decoupling our economy from the PRC’s.

No one in Washington is seriously threatening a wholesale decoupling of the two economies.

That’s sadly true, regardless of the fact that Pottinger, with that sentence, was setting aside the PRC’s nonsensical claim. Pottinger did suggest that we are decoupling in key technologies, but I think that’s inadequate.

Washington—and private enterprise—should be moving apace to decouple from the People’s Republic of China. Not just in “key technologies,” too, but all across our economy, from strategic minerals, through those key technologies, to ordinary consumer products, components, and raw materials.

It’s a wide world, and we have no need to trade with our enemies, much less one who’s clearly stated goal is to conquer us and that wide world.

One More Last Chance

Britain, France, and Germany decided Thursday not to present a resolution censuring Iran that they had floated to other International Atomic Energy Agency member states earlier in the week. Iran had warned the move could lead it to further curtail international inspections of the country and dissuade it from engaging in direct talks with the US on its nuclear program.

This meek surrender is being masqueraded as a renewing effort.

The US and European powers are giving Iran a last chance to start cooperating with a United Nations atomic agency probe of Tehran’s nuclear activities, backing away from a formal censure of Iran in a bid to revive nuclear diplomacy between Washington and Tehran.

The decision was backed by Washington, senior diplomats said, reflecting US concerns that renewed pressure on Iran could derail diplomacy.

We’ll mean it next time, guys.

Nah. No we won’t.

Wrong Move

On a related note now Congress wants in on the action.

A pair of US senators, a Democrat and a Republican [Tim Kaine, D, VA, and Todd Young, R, IN], have moved to strip President Biden of the power to unilaterally use military force.
The move comes after Biden used decades-old authorizations to “stretch his war powers” when he launched his first airstrike in Syria without congressional approval.

This would be a mistake, and Kaine illustrates a part of its nature.

Congress has a responsibility to not only vote to authorize new military action, but to repeal old authorizations that are no longer necessary.

Not at all. Congress has sole authority to declare war, not to authorize “new military action,” and Congress has the sole power to fund continuing military action. The President has the sole responsibility, and authority, to respond to imminent threats to the United States, including with “new military action.”

Related to this, Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D, CA) led a letter, cosigned by some 30 Representatives, to President Joe Biden, in which he said, in part,

While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so. The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of US nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.

This illustrates another aspect of the mistake. It’s too often necessary to decide and execute within those minutes; there’s too often no time for consultations—not with missiles only 20 minutes away from impacting on our cities and military installations, and with even less time to a high altitude detonation or series of detonations for a nuclear-originated EMP strike.

Which emphasizes another aspect of the need for prompt decision-making rather than accepting the delays of contacting legislative-mandated consultants and the dithering in which a committee of those consultants would engage. That is the need, for our nation’s security, to carry out a preemptive attack. Today’s technology, and especially tomorrow’s, compress reaction time to the point that often it’s non-existent, and proaction—preemption—is necessary for national survival.

It would be a serious degradation to our national security to degrade a President’s war powers capacity. And, given Article II of our Constitution, such an effort easily could become unconstitutional.

Bureaucracy is What’s Important

In a piece about President Joe Biden’s decision to bomb two targets in Syria that was reduced in real-time to one because imagery had identified two civilians in a courtyard of the other, there’s this eye-opener:

Throughout the deliberations, officials said, they sought to strike a bureaucratic balance. The goal was to ensure that all of the interagency machinery was fully engaged while avoiding both the drawn-out deliberations that sometimes occurred during the Obama administration and the quick decisions by the president and smaller groups of aides that often took place during the Trump administration.

Because interagency machinery is more important than decisive—and prompt—action based on predetermined recognition keys and preplanned criteria which make responses specific to a realized situation able to be quickly laid out and executed.

And this second eye-opener, which explains in some degree the above:

…Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin…is the only senior member of Mr Biden’s cabinet with military experience….

Planning ahead, developing contingency plans, takes a military mindset, apparently, and Biden has only the one military mindset, by his choice. And there’s that bureaucratic imperative, again.

It boggles my peabrain that this administration has no framework outlining responses to terrorism and terrorists or to states that harbor or support terrorist entities. Instead, each case seems to be individually analyzed de nihilo and a response individually developed, also de nihilo, and done so in reaction rather than in anticipation. And apparently completely without regard for any other situation, regardless of how similar it might be.

Wow.

Testing, Testing

The People’s Republic of China is doing that of the Biden administration.

Last week, after the PLA air force flew a fleet of 10+ bombers on a “practice strike” mission over the international waters of the South China Sea, the US sailed the USS Curtis Wilbur through the international Taiwan Strait. The PLA navy proceeded to track our destroyer on its transit.

Nor were the PRC’s government men happy about the transit. The PLA’s Eastern Theater Spokesperson, Air Force Colonel Zhang Chunhui:

The move artificially creates risk factors in the Taiwan Strait, deliberately undermines regional peace and stability, we are firmly opposed to this[.]

There’s nothing inherently risky in ships sailing international waters. Contra Zhang, the “risk factors” are those artificially created by the equally artificial angst projected by the PLA. That artificial nature is demonstrated by retired PLA colonel Yue Gang:

This is to show that the Chinese military is capable of countering and closely following what the US is doing, and that it is in control of the situation.

With the PLA claiming to be “in control,” it is demonstrating that it doesn’t believe there are any more artificial risk factors than there are with our naval ships peacefully sailing international waters.

The PRC’s conflicting messages are just part of its ongoing testing of the new Biden administration, as the PRC pushes Biden as it seeks to learn the degree of his understanding of the US-PRC relationship and to learn his limits and the point at which he’ll begin to back down.