Tag Archives: foreign policy

An Area for Sales Increases

Posted on by
Reply

We must be on the right track.  Now it’s time to push the pace.  The People’s Republic of China doesn’t want us to sell to the Republic of China the wherewithal to defend itself against aggression, not even the pittance that is the $1.4 billion arms deal that the Trump administration is contemplating.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang on Friday said Washington should immediately stop the sale to avoid harming relations with Beijing.

He said the deal would severely damage China’s sovereignty and security interests and runs contrary to Washington’s commitment to a “one-China” policy.

That’s risible.  Leaving aside whether good relations with the PRC should come at a cost as steep as meekly abandoning an ally and friend would be, what’s harming those relations is the PRC’s constant drumbeat of threat against the RoC; the PRC’s occupation of international waters and of islands that belong to the sovereign nations surrounding the South China Sea to the east, south, and west (although the RoC has conflicting claims to some of those islands); and the PRC’s aggressions against Japanese islands in the East China Sea.

Further, there’s no threat to any “one-China” policy.  There’s only one China on the Asian mainland, and there’s only one China on the island of Taiwan.  No one is arguing otherwise.

Our next step should be to help the RoC to upgrade their defense forces and equipage into something that truly can defend the nation.

It’s About Time, Ollie

Posted on by
Reply

In a move met by applause from at least one congressman, the Energy Department announced a pilot program for research into domestic mining of rare earth elements.

Rare earths are minerals critical to computing technologies and to various military and civilian sensor technologies.  China currently dominates the production and market for these elements, with about 85% of the world’s production from its domestic mines.

Another major source for rare earths, not yet exploited, is the South China Sea floor.  Part of the purpose of the PRC’s seizure of the South China Sea and of its island-building and militarization of those constructs is to control access to those rare earths and to reserve them for itself.

The US has about 13% of the world’s total reserves, but very little of this is in production: mining efforts aren’t extensive because it hasn’t been economically feasible (or yet politically necessary) to mine seriously.  Instead, we’ve been buying our rare earths almost exclusively from the PRC.

We’re very late to this production party, but with Secretary Rick Perry’s announcement, we need to jump in with both feet.  This is another area where we have to cease our dependence on our enemies for our own prosperity.

South China Sea Nonsense

Posted on by
Reply

In response to Secretary of Defense James Mattis’, on his recent trip to the region, calling out the People’s Republic of China for its aggressions in the South China Sea, the PRC’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, had this to say.

China’s defense is for safeguarding China’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity[.]

This, of course, is nonsense, since the People’s Republic of China has no territory, and so no territorial integrity or sovereignty interests, in the South China Sea.

She went on to criticize us for our “Cold War mentality.”  If the PRC is truly concerned about a new cold war, it should desist from making one and withdraw from its occupation of international waters and islands.

At Least Some Integrity

Posted on by
Reply

David Rank, Chargé d’affaires at our embassy in the People’s Republic of China, has resigned his position and is retiring from the foreign service over President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Accord.

Although Rank is wrong on the matter, he has displayed considerable with his retirement: unlike so many Obama administration hold-overs (he held several senior diplomatic positions throughout Asia during those eight years), he’s chosen to leave the service rather than stay on and sabotage the new administration’s policies from within.

Related to this, albeit tangentially, is the AP’s carefully slanted final paragraph in its piece carrying this report of Rank’s resignation and retirement.

China and the US are the world’s two largest emitters of man-made carbon dioxide, considered a top cause of climate change, and agreement between them on capping emissions helped pave the way for the Paris agreement among more than 190 nations.

What the AP chose to elide here are two things: one is the fact that atmospheric CO2’s classification as a pollutant is based on pseudo-science.  The other is the fact that the US’ emissions rate has been on a downward path since the 1990s, while the PRC’s emissions have been growing markedly, and the PRC has no plan to begin reducing its emission rate until 2030—if then.

Disingenuousity in Asia

Posted on by
Reply

Japan is working with the US to develop its own ballistic missile defenses, including one that can defeat incoming ICBMs.  The People’s Republic of China doesn’t like that.

Addressing a monthly press briefing at China’s Defense Ministry recently, spokesman Ren Guoqiang said Japan’s development of advanced radar systems designed to counteract incoming ballistic missiles would have a negative impact on strategic stability and damage trust between nations in the region.

Because a sound defense is a destabilizing threat to peace.  Because every nation being able to defend itself means no one can trust anyone—there’s no offensive threat with which to force “trust.”

Sure.

Never mind that, in addition to the PRC’s rapid development of its own nuclear offensive capabilities, including mobile ICBM systems and tunnel systems in which to secrete them; the PRC’s aggressions against Japanese islands in the East China Sea; and the PRC’s active occupation of the South China Sea and other nations’ islands within it, the PRC has been actively supporting (successfully) northern Korea’s drive to develop its own nuclear weapons and (nearing success) northern Korea’s drive to develop missile systems—including intercontinental-capable missiles—with which to deliver those nuclear warheads.

No, the only thing being destabilized is the PRC’s ability to threaten, to intimidate, other nations.