The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Can America Fight Two Cold Wars at Once?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Kim Jong Un, angered by the newest U.S. sanctions, is warning that North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization could be imperiled and we could be headed for “exchanges of fire.”

Iran, warns Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is testing ballistic missiles that are forbidden to them by the U.N. Security Council.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that, within days, he will launch a military thrust against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria, regarding them as allies of the PKK terrorist organization inside Turkey.

Vladimir Putin just flew two Tu-160 nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela. Ukraine claims Russia is amassing tanks on its border.

How did the United States, triumphant in the Cold War, find itself beset on so many fronts?

First, by intervening militarily and repeatedly in a Mideast where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, and thereby ensnaring ourselves in that Muslim region’s forever war.

Second, by extending our NATO alliance deep into Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Baltics, thereby igniting a Cold War II with Russia.

Third, by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.

The question, then, for our time is this: Can the U.S. pursue a Cold War policy of containment against both of the other great military powers, even as we maintain our Cold War commitments to defend scores of countries around the globe?

And, if so, for how long can we continue to do this, and at what cost?

Belatedly, the U.S. establishment has recognized the historic folly of having chaperoned China onto the world stage and seeking to buy her lasting friendship with $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense since Bush 41.

Consider how China has reciprocated America’s courtship.

She has annexed the South China Sea, built air and missile bases on half a dozen disputed islets, and told U.S. ships and planes to stay clear.

She has built and leased ports and bases from the Indian Ocean to Africa. She has lent billions to poor Asian and African countries like the Maldives, and then demanded basing concessions when these nations default on the debts owed for building their facilities.

She has sent hundreds of thousand of students to U.S. colleges and universities, where many have allegedly engaged in espionage.

She kept her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage and entice U.S. corporations to China where they are shaken down to transfer their technology secrets.

China has engaged in cyber theft of the personnel files of 20 million U.S. federal applicants and employees. She apparently thieved the credit card and passport numbers of 500 million guests at Marriott hotels over the years.

She has sought to steal the secrets of America’s defense contractors, especially those working with the Navy whose 7th Fleet patrols the Western Pacific off China’s coast.

She is believed to be behind the cybersecurity breaches that facilitated the theft of data on the U.S. F-22 and F-35, information now suspected of having played a role in Beijing’s development of its fifth-generation stealth fighters.

Christians are persecuted in China. And Beijing has established internment camps for the Uighur minority, where these Turkic Muslim peoples are subjected to brainwashing with Chinese propaganda.

China’s interests, as manifest in her behavior, are thus in conflict with U.S. interests. And the notion that we should continue to cede her an annual trade surplus at our expense of $400 billion seems an absurdity.

ORDER IT NOW

We have, for decades, been financing the buildup of a Communist China whose ambition is to expel us from East Asia and the Western Pacific, achieve dominance over peoples we have regarded as friends and allies since World War II, and to displace us as the world’s first power.

Yet if engagement with China has failed and left us facing a new adversary with 10 times Russia’s population, and an economy nearly 10 times Russia’s size, what should be our policy?

Can we, should we, pursue a Cold War with Russia and China, using Kennan’s containment policy and threatening war if U.S. red lines are crossed by either or both?

Should we cut back on our treaty commitments, terminating U.S. war guarantees until they comport with what are true vital U.S. interests?

Should we, faced with two great power adversaries, do as Nixon did and seek to separate them?

If, however, we conclude, as this city seems to be concluding, that the long-term threat to U.S. interests is China, not Putin’s Russia, President Trump cannot continue a trade relationship that provides the Communist Party of Xi Jinping with a yearly $400 billion trade surplus.

For that would constitute a policy of almost suicidal appeasement.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Russia 
Hide 78 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. It is already too late to stop Eurasian integration led by Russia and China. Eurasia will dominate the world going into the 22nd century – economically, politically, culturally, and militarily.

    The oceans that once protected north america will be seen to be walls. With advances in anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, US military forces will have a very difficult if not impossible task crossing these oceans unscathed. Force projection will be severely impaired

    Trade with the eastern hemisphere will be necessarily more expensive as overseas and air transport cannot compete with pipelines and high speed rail. Furthermore, the bulk of available raw materials and natural resources will be closer to Eurasia

    Political systems where advancement is somewhat based on merit will be more nimble and responsive than those where advancement is based on being a cutout for wealthy special interests.

    Intelligent cultures with 10 times the population of the north america will, given equal opportunity, out create, out perform, and overwhelm western efforts.

    • Agree: NZLex
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
  2. Franz says:

    Belatedly, the U.S. establishment has recognized the historic folly of having chaperoned China onto the world stage and seeking to buy her lasting friendship with $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense since Bush 41.

    Try eight years earlier.

    When the Adam Smith Necktie fellows in the Reagan Administration decided America would go into “competition” with the labor force of the whole world, the result was inevitable.

    At least the Japanese were grateful and gave Ron his multi-million dollar payday after he left office.

    Bush 41 and the rest were just the mop up crew. Their payday is every day. That’s what Sheldon and the rest are there for.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @franzisrael
  3. “by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.”

    We didn’t nurture China–ever.

    We invaded China, sure, and bombed China and embargoed China and blocked China from the UN and international finance for 30 years.

    Then we made China wait 12 years to join the WTO then imposed humiliating terms of accession while continuing to threaten China with atomic attacks and bombed China’s embassy in Belgrade and threatened atomic attacks again then accused China of stealing our IP when it didn’t ‘cos there’s zero evidence anywhere and accused China of human rights abuses when its un human rights score is 26-2 in favor or China and spent billions badmouthing China for decades and now we’ve kidnapped a Chinese Princess but, hey! China is demonic because, though two-thirds[1] of Chinese are atheists (in the Western sense) and one-fourth are non-religious Taoists, the Constitution guarantees freedom of worship in government-sanctioned religious organizations and the government supports seventy-four seminaries, one thousand seven hundred Tibetan monasteries, three thousand religious organizations, 85,000 religious sites and 300,000 full time Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Ancient Chinese, Taoist and Moslem clergy.

    China is whipping our asses, face it honestly and don’t pull that stupid demonization crap. It is vastly more trusted by its neighbors than we are, it can destroy every US city in 52 minutes, its economy is 50% bigger and growing three times faster and, guess what?

    Sometime between 2020-2025 every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education, safe streets, health and old age care.  On that day there will be more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.

    By 2021, 450,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American, their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years ahead of–and outlive–American kids.

    As Kishore Mahbubani, former President, UN Security Council, says, “The key question the West must ask is: how was the relative over-performance of Western societies in the second half of the 20th century replaced by underperformance in the 21st century? The answer will not come from looking at China. It will come from looking in the mirror”.


    [1] Gallup

    • Agree: Realist, Denis
  4. Realist says:

    She has annexed the South China Sea, built air and missile bases on half a dozen disputed islets, and told U.S. ships and planes to stay clear.

    She has built and leased ports and bases from the Indian Ocean to Africa. She has lent billions to poor Asian and African countries like the Maldives, and then demanded basing concessions when these nations default on the debts owed for building their facilities

    My god China is acting almost like the US.

    She kept her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage and entice U.S. corporations to China where they are shaken down to transfer their technology secrets.

    China has engaged in cyber theft of the personnel files of 20 million U.S. federal applicants and employees. She apparently thieved the credit card and passport numbers of 500 million guests at Marriott hotels over the years.

    She has sought to steal the secrets of America’s defense contractors, especially those working with the Navy whose 7th Fleet patrols the Western Pacific off China’s coast.

    She is believed to be behind the cybersecurity breaches that facilitated the theft of data on the U.S. F-22 and F-35, information now suspected of having played a role in Beijing’s development of its fifth-generation stealth fighters.

    Pat, so you have chosen to believe our lying government after all the bullshit they have been sling?

    We have, for decades, been financing the buildup of a Communist China whose ambition is to expel us from East Asia and the Western Pacific, achieve dominance over peoples we have regarded as friends and allies since World War II, and to displace us as the world’s first power.

    This brings up a damn good question….what the hell are we doing in their backyard?

  5. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    “ … even as we maintain our Cold War commitments to defend scores of countries around the globe?”

    Defend? That’s become such a sick joke that Mr. Buchanan may have needed to set a new record for the pronoun propaganda — “we, us, our” — that marinates Americans in the sense that, because they live in Nebraska, they should root for Uncle Sam.

    And note the equally corny feminine personification — “she” — of China. One can almost see Minister Pat in powdered wig, using his saber to move little tin tanks around on the board there in the War Room.

    Finally, and as always, it’s “Putin’s Russia.”

    If he doesn’t wish to retire, then Mr. Buchanan should stick to his country’s internal problems, where his reputation for foresight and courage has been well earned. In publicly contemplating whether “we” should be at war with Eastasia or Eurasia, he serves to prop up our ruling Establishment, a right-sizing imperialist trapped in Beltway amber.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  6. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Kim Jong Un… is warning that North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization could be imperiled …”
    Iran… is testing ballistic missiles that are forbidden to them by the U.N. Security Council.
    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned… he will launch a military thrust against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria.
    Vladimir Putin just flew two Tu-160 nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela. Ukraine claims Russia is amassing tanks on its border. How did the United States, triumphant in the Cold War, find itself beset on so many fronts?

    We know but most in media and government can’t say it. It’s Jewish globalist-supremacism.

    Jewish globalists hate North Korea because a ‘rogue nation’ has developed nukes on its own. NK’s feat might embolden Israel’s rivals.

    Jewish globalists hate Iran because it is the second most powerful nation in the Middle East. Also, Iran is potentially a great power.

    Jewish globalists are pissing off Turkey by exploiting crisis in Syria to keep that nation divided. And part of the strategy is to aid Kurds.

    Jewish globalists hate Russia because it slipped out of Jewish globalist hegemonic orbit. For them, Russia represents a powerful example of national autonomy that might spread to other European nations.

    If not for petty tribal obsessions of Jewish Globalists, the US could easily have good relations with all the nations mentioned above: NK, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Turkey.

    It seems there is nothing Trump can do about this. Jewish globalists and their Deep State cronies keep him checked from all sides with all sorts of nonsense investigations with collusion with courts and big media. All he has left is bluster, but bluster without power makes one’s impotency seem more pitiful.

  7. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Third, by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.

    Here, Pat Buchanan is sounding like a dishonest Neocon. Buchanan is right to criticize US economic policy that allowed China to grow into a rival power.

    But WHAT MALEVOLENT ambitions does China have? At most, it has squabbles with Vietnam and Philippines over some islands. China has no plan to invade neighboring nations, and it has no military bases in other nations. It is the US that is malevolently encircling China militarily with bases in worthless cuck-nations like Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and Philippines(which at least has patriotic Duterte).

    Also, Buchanan contradicts himself. He’s said over and over that US has no reason to have military bases in Japan and S. Korea because the Cold War is over. But if indeed China is so malevolent, doesn’t it good cause for the US to protect its ‘allies’ or puppets?

    Even if China does grow into a great power, it has no global military ambitions. It is the US that is still based all over Asia as part of imperialist legacy. If the Chinese can use their power to pressure the US to depart from Asia, then its rise will have been a good thing.

  8. franzisrael [AKA "onepassport"] says:

    Wow Grandpa Pat!

    For a second there I thought you were describing Israel and not China – ’cause if any one has looted the United States of it’s blood, treasure, technology and morals, it’s been that tiny client state. The U.S. been “failed” alright, but “betrayed” is a better word.

    The only hot “forever wars” that the U.S. ever seems to fight are on behalf of Israel.

    Still, in your old age, targeting “China” is a lot more convenient and far safer for you in your rocking chair.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. She has annexed the South China Sea …

    That’s over near China, ain’t in? You’ve got a valid complaint about the US, via NATO, boxing in the Russians, but then you complain about American warships being challenged in China’s back yard. What’s the diff?

    She has built and leased ports and bases from the Indian Ocean to Africa…

    This would not be our damn business, were the American Feral government not still deigning itself the world’s police force still (coincidentally, a force funded via loans from China).

    She has sent hundreds of thousand of students to U.S. colleges and universities, where many have allegedly engaged in espionage.

    Very true, but who invited them? Who runs the customs/immigration offices underneath the airports of entry? Not her.

    She has sought to steal the secrets of America’s defense contractors …

    Yeah, like we wouldn’t. Yes, they’ve been very successful at it, but you don’t hire Chinese nationals out of grad school to work in defense and not expect this.

    She kept her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage …

    Sure, you give away most of your manufacturing economic might and you make unfair (to Americans) trade deals for 20 years. What do you expect?

    I may sound like Fred Reed or one of the Commies under the Godfree Roberts’ threads, but one can read my comments about China here on unz, and Peak Stupidity to know I’m pretty impartial about her. Which bring up: What IS with all this “she” business? You old dog, Pat, I think you’ve got the yellow fever!

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @anon
  10. Can we, should we, pursue a Cold War with Russia and China, using Kennan’s containment policy and threatening war if U.S. red lines are crossed by either or both?

    No (due to being completely freakin’ broke) and No.

    Should we cut back on our treaty commitments, terminating U.S. war guarantees until they comport with what are true vital U.S. interests?

    Yes.

    Should we, faced with two great power adversaries, do as Nixon did and seek to separate them?

    No, we should STFO.

    President Trump cannot continue a trade relationship that provides the Communist Party of Xi Jinping with a yearly $400 billion trade surplus.

    True, but not just for your foreign policy reasons, Mr. Buchanan. At some point, the world will quit thinking of the US Dollar as worth a damn thing, or the Chinese will have bought up our farmland*, infrastructure, and pretty much the whole damn country. You can get something for nothing (by making up dollars at the FED), but you can’t KEEP GETTING something for nothing.

    .

    * See also Part 1 and Part 2.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
  11. It’s always a hoot to read Paddy.

    It seems his main complaint is that the Chines Govt. is behaving like the U.S. Govt (who he persists in referring to as “Us”)

  12. franzisrael [AKA "lobbyistslastplease"] says:
    @Franz

    “Bush 41 and the rest were just the mop up crew. Their payday is every day. That’s what Sheldon and the rest are there for.”

    Hmmm, you mean Sheldon is the “payday” for Israel-firster Trump – yes? (the Israel lobby sugar-daddies sure weren’t there for Poppy Bush and James Baker – they hated ’em)

    • Replies: @Franz
  13. @anonymous

    And note the equally corny feminine personification — “she” — of China.

    Yeah, I was making fun of him in my comment, but this old-fashioned way is amusing, if nothing else.

    I agree with your comment and especially with the last paragraph. Mr. Buchanan has been a stalwart conservative and a guy who I wish had gotten farther in those ’92 and ’94 elections. However, contrary to the commenters explaining this column as being due to Mr. Buchanan being in his rocking chair, I think he is off of that chair here.

    You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and Mr. Buchanan still fancies the US as being the sole great, economically powerful country that we were in 1990.

  14. @Godfree Roberts

    Agree. (The Agree Button doesn’t work for me for some reason.)

    People still think they can jawbone their way out of this mess. They keep throwing shade on China, talking it down and shouting patriotic urahs.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-18/defiant-speech-president-xi-declares-no-one-can-dictate-reforms-china

  15. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @franzisrael

    America’s blood, treasure, and technology is owed to the Jews.

    • Replies: @franzisrael
  16. franzisrael [AKA "rustupidormerelyforeign"] says:
    @Anonymous

    So, let me get this straight according to your reading of the Bible:

    If the United States shares Israel’s “spiritual blessings” viz. Israel’s wars of aggression with its neighbours, its slaughter and maiming of unarmed protesters, its apartheid, its illegal seizure of personal and sovereign territory, its illegal nuclear and chemical weapons programmes – not to mention its suppression of free speech which violates of the Constitution of the United States – it is entitled to foot the whole bill for any wars it wages on behalf of Israel (and then some)?

    Is that the “worst deal in history” and does Trump know about it?

    Sorry, nix that question – it’s his deal…

  17. KenH says:

    We should ban Chinese and most foreign students from attending U.S. universities. Our universities should be for U.S. students and not the entire world.

    Given the rapid demographic transformation of America it’s won’t be long before the nation will be unable to adopt a coherent foreign policy with all the competing third world tribalisms. The Jews will have one helluva time trying to corral all of the disparate groups they’ve imported into supporting endless war for greater Israel and war against any nation that gives Israel a hissy fit. Like Russia.

    Guilt trips about the alleged holocaust and anti-semitism will have no effect on them and won’t have them on their knees or running for the hills like it does cowardly white people.

    I think militarily speaking it’s mostly downhill from here for Jewish occupied and controlled merica. American air power wins most battles before they’re even fought but Russia and China have formidable air forces and air defense systems. N. Korea’s is formidable but from what I understand still very capable of inflicting losses on the U.S. air force.

  18. Yee says:

    It’s getting disgusting reading US politicians keep saying US money has built up China’s economy.

    From1990 to 2017, the US TOTAL investments in China is 240 billions, and China’s investments in US is 110 billions. So we get a net US investment of 130 billion over 27 years, avg. 4.8 billion a year. While that’s enough money to build a subway in one city, but 4.8 billion a year to build an economy?

    Actually, the country received most foreign investments over the past few decades is the US, not China.

    The author should have analyze why the most foreign investments in the world haven’t done much good for the average Americans, instead of telling lie to get them into war with China, cold or hot ones.

    • Agree: Vidi
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  19. You mean a belligerent nation like the United States that blatantly uses propaganda against it’s own citizens is at the end of it’s rope after 20 years?

    That’s about how long any fascist state CAN last, and the United States federal government is fascist in it’s structure. It represents the interests of certain favored corporations, it ignores the rule of law in favor of them, and uses tax money to support them. This is why the banking system hasn’t yet collapsed, or why Amazon exists even though it’s subsidized not only by the postal system, but the intelligence agencies – it’s why US citizens no longer have a 4th amendment, and why the 1st amendment is under attack.

    If this cancerous group of criminals is about to collapse, so much the better. It’s nothing but a group of war criminals anyhow, with a slobbering lapdog media desperately, for decades, dutifully pushing it’s lies. Find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet? Find out who was responsible for that “mistake” and remove them from the government yet?

    The only real reason the United States is really at odds with Russia and China is because the group of scum who have gotten us into this mess need somebody to blame the collapse on, and so they incessantly poke the dragon and bear hoping they will strike once, just so they don’t end up hanging from lamp-posts, as they deserve to be. Of course, with Russia, they are also competing with them to place in a natural gas pipeline to Europe, which is why there was a coup in Ukraine and an attempted coup in Turkey, and that’s the main reason the US is at war with Syria and why Genie Energy is run by a bunch of criminal scum.

  20. Mr. Buchanan, I appreciate your concern for our country.
    But, the way I see it, China is not the highest priority for the American people. The number one priority for the US is to take our country back from the traitorous invaders who have hijacked it. To do that we must apprehend and hold to account the real perpetrators of the 911 attacks. These people are still running things here and their interests are not the interests of Americans. Their interests are to loot the US while using its military and financial resources to their own ends. And ultimately to leave it as a hollowed out hulk with no way to seek revenge for the crimes committed against it.
    Until this is accomplished, railing against China or Russia or global warming or any other supposed threat is just a distraction to keep the Americans reeling.
    If and when we take our country back then we can begin to reevaluate our place in the world. Then perhaps we can look out for the interests of our own country, sort of like China is looking out for its interests.

    • Agree: NoseytheDuke
  21. tjoe says:

    Wow…so many informed comments. Pat could learn something if he reads them.

    I read Texas has fired a teacher for not signing a pledge she would not boycott Israel. You know who controls you by who you are not allowed to criticize….I didn’t think it would be Texas first to require allegiance to a foreign country…but it’s there…Texas looses their First Amendment rights first.

    • Replies: @Realist
  22. anonymous[653] • Disclaimer says:

    Nixon went to China and shook Mao’s hand to counterbalance the Russians and drive a wedge between them. The prospect of investment there was inviting with China’s large and willing workforce. That they’ve developed into a peer competitor shouldn’t surprise anyone. Their behavior as a world power isn’t unlike that of the US and all claims against them in this regard are equalled or dwarfed by the behavior of the US. The US has slipped in power in relation to other countries and holding onto it’s preeminent position is no longer possible. Recognizing this would make for a softer landing for the US. America inserted itself into Asia as a result of the Spanish-American war and now the danger is that it may be edged out by China, a prospect that could lead to military conflict. Dangerous times are ahead.

  23. Communist China’s . . . ambition is to expel us from East Asia and the Western Pacific, achieve dominance over peoples we have regarded as friends and allies since World War II, and to displace us as the world’s first power.

    Color me skeptical. China has traditionally been non-expansionist and I see little sign that that position is changing. China is fairly assertive over matters that it considers Chinese (e.g., the South China Sea or Taiwan) but the notion that China is just itching to invade Japan or Vietnam is fanciful. There is no need for the United States to be the “world’s first power,” and no reason for it to have any military presence in the western Padific. The vast majority of Americans would be better off if the United States carried out the foreign policy of a large Switzerland. Unfortunately, Imperial Washington has other ideas and has been able to constript Mid-West and Southern patriotism to its ends.

    Pat’s point that Imperial Washington is overextending itself is, however, fundamentally correct. I just wish he’d drop “we,” “us,” and “our” from his posts.

    • Replies: @anon
  24. Realist says:
    @Realist

    Pat, so you have chosen to believe our lying government after all the bullshit they have been sling?

    Should read slinging.

  25. Realist says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    That’s over near China, ain’t in? You’ve got a valid complaint about the US, via NATO, boxing in the Russians, but then you complain about American warships being challenged in China’s back yard. What’s the diff?

    China has it’s own version of the Monroe Doctrine.

  26. What is it about Buchanan that brings out the weirdos? His comment section at Human Events was so cancerous they had to disable the comment section entirely.

    • Replies: @franzisrael
  27. franzisrael [AKA "offtheygo"] says:
    @Futurethirdworlder

    I dunno about Buchanan’s columns, but the whole Unz site really brings out team hasbara. Clearly, they believe that this is ground zero.

    Their attempts to distract, deflect and lead off various threads (24/7) are nothing short of hilarious.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. super happy to read sensible comments about China. from commenters not Mr. “West is Best” Buchanan.

  29. Antiwar7 says:
    @Realist

    I think China just wants to be secure in its borders. Just a century ago, they were helpless before Western armies. Look at the putting down of the Boxer Rebellion, and the Opium Wars. Securing the South China Sea seems that it could be strategically motivated by trying to prevent any power from being able to choke their trade through there, a major source of their wealth. The US in particular has a history of imposing economic sanctions on its enemies.

    Similarly, Russia is no doubt edgy about having hostile military alliances right up to their borders, considering what happened to them in WW II, WW I, and Napoleon’s time.

    Those are legitimate concerns. Why constantly attempt to frustrate them?

    • Agree: Realist
  30. I see that commenting is only a pretense here, and not actually allowed..

  31. Regula says:

    While admittedly China has done many of the enumerated actions, it is also true that nobody was forced into giving up tech secrets: nobody forced US corporations to move to China. What Buchanan objects to is that the Chinese didn’t want to be the US’s slaves forever.

    Nobody worked as hard for their rise as the Asian nations – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China. These nations’s rise Is entirely their own achievement. As to tech and other espionage: the US is doing more of that than China. Yes, both Japan and China retro engineered US tech. But that was as much to the US’s benefit as to China’s as it made their export products better. And the US is dependent on these imports or the US standard of living will suffer greatly. What the US didn’t understand is China’s longterm vision and now that this vision, conceived 40 years ago, succeeded in China’s rise, the US is horrified, all the more that it cannot fight it because it depends financially on China’s loans and parts industry.

    As to China’s more recent militarization of some islands in the South China Sea, that is entirely a response to US belligerence and threats to China.

    As to the US trade deficit with China – there is not much that can be done to avoid it. But it would be of no consequence if the US had built other export markets to compensate – just as every individual has to compensate for the unilateral costs of living with income from a job or business. But the US relied on importing promising students and educated scientists to save the costs of educating its own. Now that the Chinese prefer to move back to China after studying in the US, the latter is faced with a talent deficit. And that will take at least 20 years to overcome. How is that China’s fault?

    Instead of investing its money into research and development, it all goes into war for a hegemony that is and always was a pipe dream. The costs of these wars and MIC suck the money from vital inland development of infrastructure, education, healthcare and development of the inland and wider America’s economy. The US could well participate in the BRI and extend the scheme to the Americas for a wider world integration of trade. Instead the US focuses on destroying and disrupting the BRI and that will not likely work as most nations in the ME and Asia and Africa, and South America want to join it.

    Which leaves the US no alternative for hegemony than to destroy the entire world – and that will end any trade balance and prevent most US exports.

    Which leaves China’s way of peaceful rise as the stronger policy.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  32. Once China achieves supremacy in AI, a top national program, they will clean our clocks.

  33. The US is like a circus master who repeatedly sticks his head in the lion’s mouth.
    When the lion gets hungry and angry enough, it will bite.

  34. Anon[271] • Disclaimer says:

    Your first phrase on China states “China told U.S. ships and planes to stay clear”, You couldn’t write one single phrase without a lie, could you?

    And how did these squinty-eyed Chinese dare claim South China Sea? (IRL or in your imagination.) I mean, it’s in the name – South CHINA Sea! It belongs to Jared.

    And then, these bastard Communists stole private data for Marriott. I wonder what would they use those dates of birth and zipcodes. Maybe they will feed them into diabolic software, in that malefic Cambridge Analytica / Putin manner, to influence to cleanest elections humanity ever had. Murrican elections!

    I wish there were a cure for Alzheimer’s. Apparently, after forgetfulness comes depression. SO SAD!

    • Agree: bluedog
  35. Jason Liu says:

    How did the United States, triumphant in the Cold War, find itself beset on so many fronts?

    Because it tries to spread its values and style of government all over the world under the mask of universalism and concern trolling? The “liberal world order” is evil on a global scale.

    What does Syria, Venezuela, North Korea or Ukraine have to do with you? If those countries want to fight their neighbors, or run themselves like a shithole, LET THEM.

    • Agree: MarkinLA
  36. Hail says: • Website
    @Godfree Roberts

    [China] is vastly more trusted by its neighbors than we are

    I presume by this you mean the nations on or near China’s borders trust China more than those same nations trust the USA (rather than the USA being distrusted by Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, etc.). This is clearly false in several, shooting-fish-in-a-barrel cases so obvious they need not even be named.

    I actually can’t think of any significant cases (excl. North Korea), of a state on China’s periphery that loves China and fears or dislikes the USA. I’d like to hear even one.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  37. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    It should be called Kosher Wars.

  38. Hail says: • Website

    by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.

    This really is a dilemma.

    I think a lot of U.S. Deep State policymaker types would probably quietly admit it may not have been a good idea to to gather up so many “friends” among peoples and regimes who could hold U.S. foreign policy hostage,* to which ulimited commitments were due. But I don’t see an easy way out. If the U.S. ‘abandons’ them, U.S. prestige goes with it, is the idea.

    – – – –

    * – e.g., Truman may have made the wrong choice in late June 1950. But understandable given the circumstances. There is lately, though, a twist to the South Korea case, as the government there has made moves that may mean the defacto end of the alliance with the U.S. anyway. The new South Korean government understands the dilemma for the U.S. and is milking it. It is all prestige; the U.S. cannot be seen to be exiting Asia and handing over the keys to Red China.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  39. @Achmed E. Newman

    “To be fair, though, to Mrs. Wantanabe & Gal Pals, it might be the ChiComs up
    to their dirty tricks, that I’ve outlined before on the blog, that’s at play here.
    Briefly to summarize, they buy in Asia on Pacific Rim futures exchanges, intent
    on taking delivery, and then use useless dollars gained via their trade surplus
    [$1.5 billion dollars per day] to sell in New York via their BFF’s the bullion
    banks, to suppress price lower … they don’t really care about paper losses in
    New York, cuz that to them is simply a cost of doing biz, and besides, it’s in
    practically worthless dollars so who gives a shit? … no, the aim is to suppress
    price to buy physical metal via delivery without causing a panic price move
    higher … they simply do this up and until they control most of the world’s gold
    supply … at that point, the Yuan gets gold backing and the U.S. is burnt toast
    with their petrodollar hegemony … and in essence, this is how you defeat the
    U.S. without firing a single shot, and making them a third world nation
    shithole like Britain and/or France. “Them that has the gold makes the rules”!
    [And just as a side note, Russia & India have joined them, so the Chicoms got
    some company.]”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  40. @Godfree Roberts

    Thank you for your honest portrait of modern China. Couldn’t have said it better! Bravo!

  41. @Hail

    DPRK, Pakistan and Afghanistan come to mind..

    • LOL: Bliss
  42. Franz says:
    @franzisrael

    Yes they did. I see it (maybe not clearly) as a carrot-stick situation more than total hate.

    As:

    The ADL taped a phone call from a “friendly senator” in the 1970s. This was when Gerald Ford (“can’t fart and chew gum at the same time” — Barry Goldwater) was the interim appointed president.

    President Ford was calling on the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia, which The Lobby was greatly trying to block. Ford told this particular one that “We need your vote here, let’s not let the Jews win this one.” Pre-internet and they had the whole thing covered in a few hours with old phone taps! From the Oval Office!

    I found that impressive. And Carter beat Ford fair and square; so far as we know Jimmy was the one they trusted less.

    Ford was never blackballed for it, and the ADL didn’t consider it a major transgression. I’m guessing they pick their battles carefully… they got plenty of practice.

    • Replies: @franzisrael
  43. franzisrael [AKA "clearuporclearout"] says:
    @Franz

    You stated that the Israel lobby “payday”-ers like Sheldon Adelson rewarded folk like G.H.W. Bush aka “41” aka “Poppy” Bush.

    Sorry, they hated 41, but just adore this nation’s first “Israeli” President – Trump.

    How can you mention Sheldon Adelson’s big buck donations, but make no mention of Trump and instead try to associate Adelson’s huge political donations with 41?

    You make no sense.

    • Replies: @Franz
  44. bjondo says:

    many conflicts will disappear
    when guantanamo
    is filled with “neo”cons
    wearing orange or dirty burlap
    hanging upside down
    never the sun to see again

    i can hear the angels singing

    5ds

  45. @Oleaginous Outrager

    Sounds like some Zerohedge there. It was one of my favorite websites (until the software scripts/ads whatever got out of hand, making it unusable on some computers/devices). The commenters were my favorite about 3-5 years ago. Now, you can’t even cuss on there, I mean what the f***?

  46. Franz says:
    @franzisrael

    You make no sense.

    I’m saying they probably despise all of them, some more so.

    Daddy Bush “hated”? Too strong; the man was CIA infested, Mossad and the like. He never meddled with the extortion program sending Israel and Egypt, for instance, but was cranky about other things. This is all being overblown now.

    There is a predisposition to believe Reagan was unhappy with the Israel/Egypt deal but couldn’t break the logjam between AIPAC (Democrat) and the Evangelical-Zionist (Republican) so he said the hell with it. Basically he let it all ride. No Zionist had to pay him off. Ron was not hands on.

    So who was? Bush had the contacts to get things run, he was in insider. It only makes sense that the outsider, Reagan, got paid off by other outsiders, the Japanese. Bush was in up to his neck from the beginning.

    It’s not likely they engage in personalities like humans do. Bush was just a preppy and a bit of an embarrassment so they moved on to Clinton who was much more likeable. The “hate” was for show.

    • Replies: @franzisrael
  47. Vidi says:

    Third, by nurturing China for decades before recognizing she was becoming a malevolent superpower whose Asian-Pacific ambitions could be realized only at the expense of friends of the United States.

    (Emphasis added.)

    When the U.S. bombed (ok, missiled) the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and killed some Chinese citizens, that wasn’t malevolent?

    But when the U.S. voluntarily buys some products manufactured by the Chinese, China is being malevolent?

    Pat, I think your Christian moral compass is not working.

  48. franzisrael [AKA "simplesimon"] says:
    @Franz

    Did you even bother to read Phil Giraldi’s very recent column (December 11th) on this website about the elder Bush’s confrontation with the Israel lobby?

    p.s. Bush pere was not “a bit of an embarrassment” – that would be Trump (who you cannot seem to admit received Sheldon’s big bucks).

    • Replies: @Franz
  49. MarkinLA says:
    @Yee

    How much in dollars are the forced technology transfers worth?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  50. MarkinLA says:
    @Regula

    it is also true that nobody was forced into giving up tech secrets: nobody forced US corporations to move to China.

    No this was the kind of stupidity that could only come from university economics departments and business schools. The US was supposed to be perpetually ahead of the Chinese where all China would be was the production floor. However stupid corporate execs having exhausted the labor savings on the assembly line started to look higher up the food chain to the quality control people and production engineering people. Don’t worry all the R&D will still be done by the smart engineers in the US. Then you bring them over on H1-Bs and give them jobs in American corporations (to undercut American engineers) where they do sometimes steal the companies documents and head back to China.

    https://www.law360.com/articles/241073/st-jude-wins-2-3b-verdict-in-trade-secrets-trial

  51. MarkinLA says:
    @Hail

    If the U.S. ‘abandons’ them, U.S. prestige goes with it, is the idea.

    Isn’t this how we got ourselves into Vietnam? We were too afraid to admit that SEATO wasn’t worth it.

    We have very few real areas we need to give assurances to. Europe is no longer one of them. If Russia is a threat the EU is powerful enough to deal with them. That only leaves Australia – New Zealand and Japan – South Korea. The Koreans and Japanese can defend themselves . Nobody has any plans to attack Australia or New Zealand.

    • Replies: @Hail
  52. lysias says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    In a war against China and Russia, the U.S. will lose. If the U.S. is stupid enough to resort to nukes when it is losing a conventional war, everyone will lose everything.

    The intelligent thing to do is to strike a deal with Russia and China while it is still worth something to them to avoid a war with us. We should seek a deal with them that preserves as much as possible the U.S. standard of living.

    Our ruling class will probably be unwilling to surrender America’s global hegemony. If they stay stuck in their stupidity, that means they have to go. May be the only way to restore American democracy anyway.

  53. @Realist

    Reading this missive I’m thinking, Buchanan the old Cold War Warrior is Back! Only this time his ire is directed at China, instead of his old nemesis the USSR, when he worked for Nixon then Reagan. I know that Pat is a true USA loving patriot, but sometimes patriotism may get in the way of looking at the situation objectively. Judging by Pat’s synopsis, perhaps Trump should nuke China now before it’s too late.

    • Replies: @lysias
  54. Yee says:

    MarkinLA,

    “How much in dollars are the forced technology transfers worth?”

    I should think they worth less than what they could make from transfering them.

    Countless patents got sold everyday. How can anyone “force” you to transfer technology? They are transfered because the owners can gain profits from doing so.

    Have you forgotten that technologies are private property? The owners can do whatever they want with their properties. It’s capitalism.

    Anyway, except England which started industrial revolution, I don’t think any country can complain about technology transfers, not France, not Germany, not Japan, not America….

  55. How can anyone expect anything other than constant turmoil in the world, and hatred of the USA from both abroad and within, as long as Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton have Mr. Trump’s ear.

  56. lysias says:
    @follyofwar

    Given the way the U.S. has degenerated in recent years, I wonder why Pat thinks the U.S. is any better than China. I’m a retired naval officer and used to be a true believer in the Cold War, but I cannot see how the current U.S. is worth fighting for. What I care about is the lives of my fellow Americans, which is why I suggest a deal that preserves as much as possible our standard of living. I would also like to see restored the democracy that we have lost.

  57. Franz says:
    @franzisrael

    p.s. Bush pere was not “a bit of an embarrassment” – that would be Trump (who you cannot seem to admit received Sheldon’s big bucks).

    Sure I read Giraldi’s piece and liked it a lot. But “how they hated” Bush 41 is part of a broad act that’s been going on since Babylon.

    And anyway I did say all, right? Trump surely included. For a good time, check out Gordon Duff’s stuff at Veteran’s Today. Gordon heard that Trump is actually bankrupt, which would make Sheldon all the more valuable. And Trump all the more vulnerable.

    Bush 41 not an embarrassment? Been a quarter-century ago now, but the “Wimp Factor” tag was all over the Bush in the runup to his unprecedented defeat to Bill and Hill. People who voted for him in ’88 just threw their vote to Ross Perot out of shame.

    Too bad in a way, I agree. But they hated Bush no more than they hate any tool they use for awhile and throw out — Trump included.

    • Replies: @franzisrael
    , @franzisrael
  58. The latest news is that Mr. Trump will withdraw all the troops from Syria. I’ll believe it when I see it. POTUS announced this before, then two false flag chemical attacks were quickly engineered, followed by the usual US bombing before any of the facts were in. The war-loving NY Times and most of the MSM are already saying that pulling the troops out will be a disaster. Just like Trump’s pledges to build the Wall, remove the troops from Afghanistan, and his more recent one to sign an Order banning Birthright Citizenship, this pledge will probably die a quick, ignoble death. If the Plutocrats don’t want us to leave, we won’t.

  59. franzisrael [AKA "bygoneera"] says:

    Poppy wasn’t a wimp – he didn’t have heel spurs during WWII and he won his Mideast conflict handily, decisively and extremely cheaply.

    More importantly, he and Jim Baker didn’t believe that the United States should take orders from a client state midget which it was financing and favouring.

    Some WASP clarity and manners would prove most refreshing tonics for today’s hyper-hasbara and other nonsense.

  60. franzisrael [AKA "nopocketstofill"] says:

    Yes, there were and are some things that big, foreign lobbying bucks simply can’t buy.

    What an old-fashioned notion – quaint.

  61. Erebus says:
    @MarkinLA

    How much in dollars are the forced technology transfers worth?

    Probably pretty close to zero. If you don’t want to hand over your IP, don’t start a business in China. If you need/want the sales, you can export into China instead. Quite a few companies do that quite successfully.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  62. Arioch says:

    > continue to cede her an annual trade surplus at our expense

    I damn so like this audacious ode to the famous free world’s free market which famously autonomously and automagically sets all the trade currents by the omniscient free market’s Invisible Hand.

    Now all of a sudden it is called “to cede”

    My, my….

    I gonna re-read some flat-earthers, maybe it soon will turn out they were right all those centuries :-DDDD

  63. @Franz

    Franz, talking of Ross Perot, you do remember this – yes?:

    Perot Praises Israel in Speech to Jewish Group
    May 13, 1992 – John J. Goldman – Los Angeles Times (Staff Writer)

    NEW YORK — In a staunch defense of Israel, Texas billionaire Ross Perot said Tuesday that Israel is a beacon and role model for democracy in the troubled Middle East.

    “Israel is our friend. Israel has been our friend during the recent war” the potential presidential candidate told an award dinner of the American Jewish Committee in Manhattan. “And you stand by your friends. It’s just that simple.

    Israel is a beacon in its part of the world in terms of its democratic government. It is a role model to the others there,” Perot said, calling on Americans to figure out ways to help economically strengthen the Jewish state……..

  64. MarkinLA says:
    @Erebus

    It wasn’t as easy to export into China as it was to build a factory there. Still US business leaders are to blame for putting their personal interests ahead of the long term health of their companies.

  65. Hail says: • Website
    @MarkinLA

    Another common argument in favor of the need for unending U.S. passive defense commitments abroad (a centrist view in the USA by now):

    While the ‘carrot’ is nice, the implied threat of a military ‘stick’ at the ready serves to guarantee the U.S. Dollar world reserve currency system remain in place.

  66. franzisrael [AKA "heretheyarenaked"] says:
    @Franz

    Hey franz you dim-tard – where you been?

    – Playin’ golf at trumptard-a-lago?

    Alas, it used to be owned by M.M.P – a WASP – but heck, we’ll let you out on parole if you’ve been admitted to the K or the R&T…….

  67. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @franzisrael

    “I dunno about Buchanan’s columns, but the whole Unz site really brings out team hasbara.”

    Is hasbara rabidly pro Chinese? Mostly Pat just brings out the anti US loons who have convinced themselves that they are patriots who have been betrayed. Mix in all the paid agitators and you have a sort of abnormal pathology stew. No point in trying to talk any sense around here. Sad, because a moderator could make this a productive column.

  68. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    What, then, is the point in your comment?

    You’ve neither proven, refuted, nor even asserted anything.

  69. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    “How did the United States, triumphant in the cold war, find itself beset on so many fronts”?

    By not minding its own business.

  70. franzisrael [AKA "hihichichi"] says:
    @Anonymous

    Nah, hasbara ain’t Chinese – it comes from Israeli troll rooms and payrolls,

    Still, that never stopped the Israelis from selling U.S. secrets to China. After all, they’re “allies”…

  71. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    ..In their backyard.

    Could not agree more, how is any of the things China is doing a threat to the USA ITSELF?

  72. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I mean its IS called the South China sea, not the South USA sea. Of what concern is it to Americans what country owns a few islands there?

  73. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Rather then being the “world’s first power” (that and a quarter will buy ordinary Americans a cup of coffee), why not try doing something of tangible benefit for ordinary Americans like providing them with free health care. You know something every single other country in the modern world does?

  74. franzisrael [AKA "jerusabara"] says:
    @Anonymous

    Which hasbara “moderator” sent you?

    Or, was it a military censor?

  75. hey butthead I have sent this juvenile article of yours to the NY times to show them what a jackass you are .

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?