Human rights isn’t exactly China’s strong suit, so their exhortation to the UN to back off the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for the war-crimes arrest of Sudan’s President Al-Bashir seems pretty much par for the course. China’s in deep in Sudan, as they are all over Africa spreading around their wealth and patronage and laying waste to the land.

Chinese style colonialism is very much your run of the mill old-school exploitation without the actual raising the flag bit (it’s always the silly part that really pisses off the locals). Their MO? Bribe the hell out of the government, bosses and warlords, put some personnel with big smiles and bigger wallets on the ground and grab every shred of natural resources they can get their hands on. So far the world has been far too preoccupied with other issues like our Iraq disaster and the small matter of the economic meltdown to get a bead on China’s resource-grab, but as of today that might just change.

If nothing else China’s very loyal to Al-Bashir. Not many world powers are going to back a guy indicted on charges of genocide. But China’s sticking its neck out for this guy even though from a PR perspective it seems like a bad idea. Of course, the Chinese don’t do anything without a damn good reason, and that reason usually has to do an awful lot with money. Perhaps the alternative to Al-Bashir is less China friendly, but whatever Beijing’s motivation, China has the ability to neuter the arrest warrant by vetoing it as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If they do they run the risk of becoming indelibly linked to the Darfur genocide, and not in a good way.

That possibility opens up some interesting avenues for the United States. As the State Department looks to recalibrate our relationship with China – and stop them loading the dice in their favor, this Al-Bashir moment might just give us the focus we need. As mentioned on this blog a number of times, China is our number one adversary, and we need a much more forthright policy that emphasizes what America needs out of the relationship rather than merely what China can offer us. A big part of the problem we face with Beijing is China’s virtual invasion of Africa which has gone on uncontested for far too long. It’s time to shine some light on it, challenge it, and most importantly do what should have been done years ago – use US military forces to stop the genocide in Darfur.

The first thing that many people will say is that US forces are overextended, but if we had a draw-down of 100,000 troops from Iraq, we could spare at least a couple of light combat brigades for deployment to Darfur as the core of an international coalition strike force. As for US air support, we have a major base in Djibouti, and could easily augment its contribution with at least one aircraft carrier.  The Janjaweed on their horses and Toyota pickups would either be smart and bail, or would be foolish and get wiped out in a few serious confrontations, then get smart and bail. We’d impose a cordon which in a matter of months would be handed over to a strong and committed OAS and UN combined force (under the watchful eye of a remaining US and coalition contingent).

Of course, China won’t like the idea of all this one bit, which is a damn good reason to consider it. Now is the time to go to the Security Council and build a coalition to end the Darfur nightmare for once and for all. Of course America would appeal to China to join such a mission and that would put Beijing in an intolerable position. Do they veto a humanitarian mission or join it? Do they abstain and reduce their influence? Or do they aggressively seek to protect their resource grab in Sudan, even as a force is being put together purely for humanitarian reasons.

At the same time as the Chinese fret, the US would boost intellligent and targeted aid to key African countries, mainly in the form of microloans and other support for local private enterprise. We’ll engage with nations that so far have seen very little of us, and way too much of the Chinese, and earn their loyalty and respect as part of a worldwide push to rebuild American power through friendship and largesse. With the help of a President whose father was Kenyan, we have the leader we need to help make that a reality.

In many respects, a push on Darfur would be an aggressive move by the US. But there’s a genuine humanitarian reason to move forward which provides the moral basis and the political cover, as well an opportunity to act in the shape of the ICC indictment of Bashir. Not only that, but the US draw-down in Iraq would free up forces for a Darfur mission. French and British support would be almost guaranteed, Russian support would be likely too. After all, there’s little love lost between Moscow and Beijing, and the US is working on a stronger, more symbiotic relationship with the Russians. That would leave China in a jam, and turn a great big Kleig light on their under the table African colonialism.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

it all starts right here

The Neo-Cons are dead. Long live the Neo-Libs.

It’s not just conservatives who believe that the continued hegemony of the United States is critical to the wellbeing of human-kind.  But the Neo-Lib prescription veers from the Neo-Cons very substantially after that. We neo-libs do not feel that military power is the key to our continued dominance. Instead Neo-Liberalism calls for a Wilsonesque revival of America’s power through goodwill and largesse, backed by  a Rooseveltian (and I mean Teddy) “big stick”. For too long, under the Neo-Cons, we talked loudly and carried a stick that frankly got smaller and smaller the deeper we fell into the morass of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It may seem like an odd time to be talking about American hegemony.  Our nation is in an economic crisis unlike any it has experienced in decades. The threat to our continued power is probably at its highest point since the Second World War, which would seem a perfect time to reassert it. Fortunately, our adversaries around the globe aren’t in any better shape than we are, and in many respects have further to fall. Even more fortuitous is the presence of a new President who could be the beacon for Neo-Liberalism. While Obama may have shown some early weakness on the domestic policy front, particularly with his reluctance to detach himself from tried-and-failed centrism, but on the foreign stage, he has an opportunity to rebuild and reinvigorate US power.

So let us begin to forge a plan for the rebuilding of American power. Here’s how.

China: Our main adversary is China. Indeed there may be a developing zero-sum relationship developing in Sino-US relations. America must stop its policy of appeasement towards Beijing and use the threat of internal dissent in the Chinese hinterland to drive a rebalancing of our trading and military relationships with China – to our advantage. We must regain the political and financial initiative in our dealings with Beijing, and expose their charlatnism and double standards for our own ends, and those of our allies. Finally, we must seek to compete with China in Africa, and not cede ground there.

The Middle East: Instead of segmenting the various theatres, from East to West, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis, we should see them as part of an ongoing war (whether cold, diplomatic, economic, or hot) for stability in the region. The interconnectedness of every part of the Mid East to virtually every other, requires a more supple diplomatic and economic approach, sharpened by the use of economic warfare for pursuit of our political ends. Our priorities in the region should be a) a rapid two-state solution to the Palestinian issue, forcing Israel’s hand if necessary. b) normalization of trading and diplomatic relations with Iran regardless of their nuclear ambitions c) The weakening of the Taliban by choking their opium funding. d) achieving stability and strength in Pakistan by developing close ties with the Pakistani Army and undermining the ISI.

Europe: We must actively seek to reforge our partnership with Europe in trading terms, while recognizing the political differences we have with the EU, particularly on diplomatic and military strategy. Europe is not a viable military partner, and must not be seen as such. However, the US must commit itself to preserving European stability in the face of rising internal terrorist threats, and current and future economic instability. Our main conduit to influence in Europe will continue to be the UK. Our relationship with London should be strengthened.

The World Environment: In the face of global warming, America must take the lead on the Environment, forcing China and India to follow suit, or face international consequences. We must make massive investment in a post-fossil fuel economy, and aggressively export and control world innovation in the green economy. It will also strengthen our domestic economy.

International Bodies: America should begin to withdraw its support for the UN and over time should seek to replace it with a new international body with less of an accent on peacekeeping and cooperation, and more on effective military and political action. The various UN agencies need to reconstituted and folded into a new international structure. The IMF and World Bank need to be repackaged, with greater authority, under US auspices, to preserve financial and economic stability.

International Communications: America must maintain its control of the Internet, and be responsible for its regeneration and development. It remains the bedrock of America’s innovation advantage, which the US must leverage to the maximum degree by being highly competitive in the world marketplace.

Foreign Aid: We have just committed nearly a trillion dollars to a “stimulus package”. Half of that money carefully invested in our more strategic allies, such as Pakistan, Afghan farmers, and Iran, over a presidential term will help to drive America’s campaign to rebuild its goodwill, and give us a powerful foothold in what could otherwise be troublesome nations.

Foreign Debt: Over time the US should seek to reduce and restructure its debts away from adversarial creditor nations, such as China, and Middle Eastern Sovereign Funds and towards friendlier debtor nations such as the UK, Taiwan, and Japan.

Domestic Policy: Strengthening US infrastructure, developing a viable universal health care system, boosting effective education, rebuilding the middle class, and reforming the US regulatory framework are a keystone to projecting US power abroad. The new President should use his virtual lock on Congress to push through required reforms.

The broad framework of neo-liberalism is simple. We believe that the goal of US hegemony is worthwhile, achievable, and necessary for the stability of the globe. Achieving our ends will be through rebuilding and projecting US economic power, the extension of US economic, diplomatic and technological influence, and the development of a more supple, lethal military to back-up our ambitions.

Share on Facebook