Is Conflict With China Inevitable?

Is China Charting a Collision Course?—————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Will The United States and China co-exist peacefully forever, given the issues that divide us? The world’s two largest economies are linked in matters of trade and commerce but little else of significance and even that is now threatened by Trump’s tariff wars. Will our many differences eventually lead to armed conflict?

 

No one knows the answer to that, of course, and conflict should never be considered inevitable. China needs American markets and to a decreasing extent its technology but that may not always be the case. What then? There are many flashpoints that could trigger conflict, among them freedom of navigation in the international waters of the South China Sea claimed by China as its territorial waters, attempts to occupy Taiwan by force, continued theft of our technology, cyber warfare directed at us and the recent heavy-handed efforts to weaken Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status.

 

The U.S. is a maritime nation bounded by three oceans and highly dependent upon ocean-borne commerce. Freedom of navigation is not just a principle we support but something we must defend by force if necessary. China’s efforts to colonize the vast South China Sea, through which about one-third of the world’s shipping passes, and its claim to sovereignty over it is a threat to freedom of navigation. Continued harassment of our naval vessels transiting this area that connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans could quickly escalate into conflict.

 

We shamefully withdrew diplomatic recognition to an ally, The Republic of China, now known as Taiwan, to comply with Beijing’s so-called One China Policy. Since then we have followed a policy that can only be described as benign ambiguity. We have, however, warned the Democratic Peoples Republic that we would oppose any effort to occupy the island, which they regard as a renegade province, by force. Chinese leaders fly into a rage whenever we provide even modest military aid to Taiwan. When I visited China, our party was warned by our guide to not even mention Taiwan or we could be detained. Taiwan has never been under Communist rule and its people would resist any attempt to occupy the island. Would we stand by our former ally?

 

Detaining, it seems, is something that authorities in the Peoples Republic do a lot of. With all the effort expended to convince Americans that China is an economic partner and not an enemy or even a rival, it’s easy to forget that, while it dabbles at capitalism when necessary to facilitates growth, it remains a repressive, Communist nation where the Communist Party rules supreme. It is intolerant of dissent and often even of criticism. It will put down demonstrators with whatever force it deems necessary as it did during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

 

Now, thirty years later, Xi Jinping is using tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators in Hong Kong who are protesting a proposed law which would permit Hong Kong residents and even visitors accused of crimes to be extradited to mainland China to be subject to the tender mercies of the Peoples Republic’s justice system. When the British turned its former crown colony, the “Pearl of the Orient”, over to China, it was designated a special semi-autonomous region under the so-called “One Country, Two Systems” principle, a concept just about as ambiguous as the “On China” policy. About one million of Hong Kong’s seven million people turned out for the peaceful demonstration, a pretty good indication of how much Hong Kong’s people cherish retaining  the freedoms they enjoyed under British rule.

 

Washington may settle for an ambiguous policy in these matters but Beijing probably will not forever tolerate Taiwan’s independence or Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy. Would we stand idly by and watch those freedoms trampled? Hong Kong is the world’s third largest financial center and hosts about 85,000 Americans.

 

Beijing has made it brutally clear over the years that while it values American markets and technology, it will do whatever it takes, legally or otherwise, including by bribing or stealing, to advance China’s interests and those of its Communist Party. They will always accept whatever concessions we make and demand more. They will honor agreements only so long as it benefits them to do so. They doubtlessly look forward to a future time when they can dictate the terms of continued peaceful co-existence. These realities should help inform our policies in dealing with the Peoples Republic.

June 26, 2019

Suicide Bridge

San Diego’s Suicide Span——————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The two-mile, graceful span that connects the coastal resort city of Coronado with what is often hilariously referred to as “America’s Finest City” will celebrate its 50^th anniversary this year. It will also probably overtake San Francisco’s Golden Gate as the deadliest bridge in America. Safety nets are being installed on the San Francisco span at a cost of about $200 million. The San Diego Bay Bridge will soon claim that dubious distinction as the number of recorded suicides by jumpers approaches 500.

 

The five lanes of the bridge, one lane less than what’s needed, comprise part of State Route 75 which continues through the heart of Coronado and down the Silver Strand to Imperial Beach. It replaced the car ferry system that used to provide the only access to Coronado beside the land route up the 10-mile Silver Strand and opened up Coronado to myriad traffic and parking problems, noise and air pollution. The city has never been quite the same since, but that’s progress I guess. The bridge has also been the scene of hundreds of suicides while officials dither over ways to prevent them. At issue are the cost and the aesthetics of possible remedies. But how do you measure the value of a human life compared to the cost of a solution?

 

Courtney Douglas, a senior at Stanford and former editor-in-chief of the Stanford Daily, in an op-ed appearing in the San Diego Union-Tribune, discussed these depressing statistics and the lack of progress in dealing with the problem, deciding on a remedy and finding the funding for it. As she noted, the five-inch spikes installed recently along the short concrete barrier walls are not enough to deter jumpers. She also mentions public concern that some or all of the proposed fixes will detract from the bridge’s aesthetic qualities but, like her, when I look at the bridge, I tend to think of the tragic suicides it has prompted and the traffic jams it has caused while authorities try to talk a jumper down. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, but when a structure, graceful or not, becomes an attractive nuisance prompting tortured souls to end it all, I’ll take safety over beauty. Meanwhile, plans are being made to raise money for decorative lighting for the bridge. Where are our priorities?

 

Of lesser, but still serious concern is the inconvenience and delay caused by the frequent bridge closures. Having to take the longer land route around the Strand is a small price to pay while authorities try to prevent a suicide but being stuck on the bridge for hours is quite another matter. Among those stuck on the bridge can include sick and elderly persons, pregnant women, people in need of medical attention and people needing to use toilet facilities, not to mention the missed medical appointments and flights.

 

Ms. Douglas proposes organizing a team of stakeholders to select the best deterrence option, noting that State Senate Bill 656, authored by State Sen. Ben Hueso calls for CALTRANS to convene such a committee. I disagree. This issue has been discussed and debated for decades. Lives will be lost while a committee dithers. Committees often have trouble agreeing on what to have for lunch and It has been said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. It is time for action, not further study, and action by responsible officials at CALTRANS, not a committee.. If CALTRANS officials are incapable of making a decision without the help of a committee, they really should consider some other line of work.

 

Here’s a humble suggestion: If it was decided, presumably after some study, that safety nets were the best solution for the Golden Gate, why wouldn’t they work here?  As for funding, take it from some other project where fewer lives are at stake.

 

For every day that passes without action, not just talk, on a suicide deterrent fix, this bridge will remain an attractive nuisance, inviting suicidal persons to end it all quickly. It will continue to reflect poorly on our community that we tolerate such inaction while lives are being lost.

June 23, 2019

The Trade Wars

Trump’s Trade and Tariff Tactics————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

China and Russia are often referred to as our principal rivals and potential adversaries. That may be true for China, but Russia today isn’t even in the same league. China, the world’s most populous nation and second largest economy, is still a growing economy and military power. Russia, by comparison, is no longer a great power. Its economy is moribund and its population is ageing. We are rivals only in terms of the size of our nuclear arsenals.

 

While liberal critics of the Trump Administration and their friends in the mainstream media imagine that Trump’s expressed admiration of Vladimir Putin’s domestic support and raw political power is proof of a cozy relationship, Donald Trump has been more like Putin’s worse nightmare. He surely must regret having supported his election over the more predictable and docile Hillary Clinton. As the U.S. has become, under Trump, the world’s largest producer and exporter of clean liquid natural gas, it is threatening to end Russia’s lucrative monopoly on supplying energy to energy-starved Western Europe. Energy is about all that Russia has left to sell other than weapons and vodka. It has become merely a regional power and a declining one at that.

 

China, on the other hand, will continue to develop as a growing rival and economic and military powerhouse which has the potential to displace us as the world’s largest economy. It has already displaced Russia as our primary geo-political rival.  Economic competition and its associated tensions have, historically, often led to military conflict. Trade imbalances and competition for markets have provided the economic flashpoints along with those growing out of territorial and sovereignty issues like Taiwan and territorial claims to the South China Sea, the latter posing a threat to freedom of navigation. Freedom of navigation is a fundamental U.S. issue which to us is, like Taiwan is to the  Chinese , non-negotiable.

 

In a perfect world, the two economic giants should prosper together in peace and tranquility through win/win trade agreements but this world is far from perfect and there are usually losers as well as winners. The Trump Administration’s trade policies with China need to viewed from this perspective. Trump was elected as, among other things, a dealmaker. His negotiators will invariably put America’s interests first. That may not always please the globalists, but it should please American workers and those who are tired of seeing America’s interests subordinated by lopsided trade imbalances, foreign governments subsidizing their industries and the theft of our technology. China has a right to grow and compete with us at every level but we are under no obligation to help them to our disadvantage. China is stealing technology from us that they could use to harm us. The Trump Administration has decided to draw the line and attempt to level the playing field by imposing tariffs on goods imported from China.

 

Economists are divided over who pays the costs of those tariffs, but economists seldom agree on anything. Perhaps that’s why economics is called the dismal science, Most agree, however, that most of the cost is passed on to customers through higher prices, but that’s not necessarily so if exporters want to retain market share and America is the biggest and most robust market in the game.

 

China has far more to lose in the trade wars than the U.S. does. It exports over three times more to us than we export to them. It needs the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for about a quarter of the world’s gross domestic product and our economy is more resilient than theirs or any other by far. The U.S. is now energy independent. China, by comparison, is not and has relied heavily on cheap, dirty coal for its industrial growth and eventually must address its serious pollution problem which renders some of its cities almost uninhabitable.

 

The U.S. clearly has the upper hand in the trade wars and if tariffs force China to open more of its markets and stop stealing our technology or at least stop demanding that our companies share technology with them as a condition of doing business, it may be worth some price pain to customers buying Chinese goods. We can also turn to sources other than China for some imports and, of course, it would help to buy more American-made goods.

 

It would also be helpful if the loyal opposition and their scribes in the liberal media held off on their reflexive condemnation of every administration policy long enough to see whether or not it just might have a chance of working.

June 4, 2019