One Belt, Many Roads to Development: How China’s Grand Scheme Can Create Constructive Social Change

These days especially, politics and comedy seem to share a lot of similarities. One old rule for both hasn’t changed, however: the secret is in the timing. Xi Jinping’s belt and road forum was clearly intended to shine as a beacon of internationalism, stability, and cooperation while the global mood is becoming increasingly uncooperative. Duterte’s unexpected pro-China pivot (until recently Phillippines was China’s largest rival in the South China Sea disputes), European fears of an American retreat from the world stage, and increasing acceptance of China’s sea claims among Asian powers are some of the dominant global trends that leave world leaders doubting America’s willingness to help ensure cooperation, leadership and stability and fearful of an authoritarian and expansionist China.

Last month’s unfortunately-acronymed Belt and Road forum, therefore, seems like a diplomatic coup for its chief backer, China’s president Xi Jinping. Setting the stage for the forum at January’s gloomy World Economic Forum summit,  Xi drew cautious applause from westerners for his full-throated defense of international cooperation and free trade (although the irony that this came from the world’s largest nominally communist country was not lost on some). Certainly, Xi was playing to the audience of assembled bankers, business owners, journalists and Western politicians, but the speech fell in line with Xi’s more general re-introduction of China to the world stage.

As momentous as this speech was, however, it went little noticed in America. The United States only joined in a few days before the event and media coverage was scant. Google searches for “Belt and Road” received a small bump during the forum itself, but never became a dominant search term.

But what, exactly, does this project entail and why should it be getting more attention from American news outlets? Sadly, American news media framed the event almost solely in terms of American foreign policy. However, the regions the plan is attempting to integrate lie largely beyond the realm of core US strategic interests (security in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, Middle East and East Asia). While a discussion of the political positioning of this moment (and the unprecedented surge of an avowedly authoritarian governing ethic) is certainly warranted, it has been done better elsewhere. Moreover, the economic and social ramifications for the benefactor countries will be more significant for some 5 billion people who live in the Eurasian supercontinent.

The project is laudably ambitious and contains little that is in itself controversial. China’s goal is essentially to connect the entire Eurasian continent in a vast market through infrastructure and telecommunications projects to facilitate the movement of goods, services and people across borders. Xi highlighted some major projects already underway:

“We have accelerated the building of Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, China-Laos railway, Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, and Hungary-Serbia railway, and upgraded Gwadar and Piraeus ports in cooperation with relevant countries.”

Another proposed rail line from factories on China’s east coast across the deserts, mountains, and steppes of Central Asia to Europe could cut travel times for freight from months to days and integrate landlocked markets into the network of global commerce which has largely been born by ocean currents rather than over land.

The key reason this is so important is the historical role that access to markets has played in the process of countries becoming wealthier. Within Europe, capitalism and wealth spread slowly in areas with smaller markets. Villages in central Europe even in the 19th century were far apart and mostly small which made it prohibitively expensive for villagers to find better prices for their goods. Consumers, meanwhile, were largely stuck with whatever price the local butcher offered which left them vulnerable to massive swings in price due to disasters or shocks. Indeed, the process that most often kick-started industrial growth was simply access: to larger markets, to raw materials, to technical know-how. For this reason, the spread of railroads in Europe was an epoch-defining feature of industrial capitalism: railroads brought access.

China’s project, therefore, represents in many ways an attempt to bring this process of industrial development to a long-neglected part of the world: central and south Asia.

All Aboard the Engine of Growth

The fact that many of the new transportation initiatives involve rail linkages is not a coincidence. Not only do railways open new markets to local firms and create fairly high-paying jobs, this mode of transport typically supports related heavy industries which can themselves become economic backbones. Although the other overland method of transportation— trucking— is typically cheaper over the vast distances required of these new connections, railways have historically offered the cheapest ticket to economic development. Railways featured heavily in America’s, Britain’s and Germany’s rapid industrializations (although granted, this was prior to the invention of the automobile) and countries with high per-hour productivity growth like Japan, Germany, and France tend to have more advanced railway infrastructure than countries which rely more on roads like America and the UK.

The reason for this is that railways are far more demanding of industrial goods and mechanical expertise and help to create industrial hubs from which supporting sectors and industries can spring. Think of Chicago which sits at the center of America’s vast market and boasts a mammoth freight train hub. It plays host to a well-diversified and dynamic economy and, like other urban areas tends to adapt extraordinarily well to economic shocks. Central Asia, largely locked out of international markets and mired in poverty, has no Chicago. Trains also consume metric tons upon metric tons of steel and demand engineering and electronics expertise to build and maintain the behemoths. Such jobs compose the human capital and industrial base necessary to create well-paying jobs and a motivated, empowered working class that is likely to innovate and adapt their skills to new industries.  

Due to the extensive linkages the rail sector has to many service and industrial sectors, expertise in this industry easily translates to others. The skills generated from engineering or building a train engine, for example, can easily translate to building a jet should the train industry collapse and jobs be lost.

China’s big bet on infrastructure, therefore, yields enormous potential benefits to the beneficiaries of its largesse. Predicting precisely how or where new industry clusters develop in central Asia, however, is incredibly difficult (for the record: my money is on Almaty) and countries that choose not to participate would be at a significant disadvantage in developing their own industrial or economic base. China’s plan in this way benefits from the network effect: the more nations that sign up to it (the larger the market and the more money governments put up) the more successful the plan will be which increases the diplomatic and economic costs of skipping it.

Socio-Economic Game Changer?

China-watchers in the West openly debate whether this initiative will remake the economic landscape of the world and create an entirely new balance of global power with China at the center and a global arena ringed by dictators in Turkey, the Middle East, and Russia. While probably a bridge too far, Mr. Xi’s “project of the century” would radically transform the markets of Central Asia and, therefore, social relationships.

Historically, middle class and merchant interests have created political pressure for increased democracy and limited government (as explored in this Yale lecture). Limited governments are less likely to malinvest and more likely to waste precious social resources propping up failed investments (see: India) choking growth. Middle classes demand the freedom to pursue profits and material gain which increases pressure on the government to shrink.

China’s economically prosperous authoritarianism has only benefitted with the aid of free market zones and deeply intelligent economic management supported by a highly educated and competent (if corrupt) civil service. Thus, the open markets and industrial development China’s initiative seeks to create could change social and political relationships in Eurasian countries from Kazakhstan to Iran to support a democratic transition.

Iran in particular possesses a robust democratic culture and the young, urban class looks west for its values and political ideas. Campaigns are hotly contested and feature clear choices for voters; the public frequently chooses candidates that are perceived to provide a bulwark against the Supreme Leader; the ultra-conservatives must be careful not to stray too far from the bounds of public opinion. Increased access to global markets could facilitate a broader middle class and increased urbanization which would create new challenges for the government to address which, if it fails to do so, would help the pro-democracy elements of Iranian society.

Yet Westerners are understandably cautious about welcoming an economic nationalist, illiberal and authoritarian China into a place of global leadership in promoting the next wave of globalization. Indeed, the narrative of a globally responsible, benign economic hegemon is precisely on that China wishes to promote and commentators are reasonably wary of promoting the narrative China wishes to push. China suppresses minority cultures and Xi Jinping has embarked on a campaign of political repression which featured throwing human rights lawyers into torture dungeons and banning textbooks deemed too “western.” Xi is hardly the beacon of democracy and liberal values that many Westerners hope to see in him.

However, commentators and politicians must remember that countries’ internal dynamics are far more important in shaping culture, politics, and society than external forces. The radical economic transformation of Central Asia that Xi is undertaking would create internal changes that help foster both economic dynamism and democracy. Given the scale and promise the Belt and Road Initiative holds for some of the world’s poorest and least stable regions, Western leaders should at least give China a fair hearing.

 

 

 

India: The Most Important One

Besides my obvious crush on Narendra Modi, I’ve been thinking a lot about India in terms of US foreign policy. Despite being fucking gigantic, not a lot of attention has been paid to this country of 1.3 billion people because they’ve never really been a country capable- or willing- to project its power. Its always been a US ally- sort of- and lately its been weak- sort of (unless you ask Pakistan).  In the 1990s, India was one of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) the five somewhat arbitrarily picked countries whose economies were set to join the Asian Tigers as some of the world’s “newly developed” economies. For India, this didn’t turn out so well as political corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency plagued the Congress government in the 2000s. So while China grew from about $300 in per capita GDP in 1990 to nearly $7,000, India remained relatively stagnant, only growing from $300 in 1990 to about $1,500 today. Meanwhile, the border friction with Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as the fractured, regional nature of Indian politics kept India from having a coherent foreign policy.

That power balance looks set to change as Narendra Modi begins the sweeping overhaul of the Indian economy necessary to accelerate growth and lift millions out of poverty. His party will begin the elephantine task of overhauling 60 years of economic tradition and socialist policies without cutting the hefty social safety net too much. Slashing regulatory red tape and improving the effectiveness of individual bureaucrats is a laudable if unromantic goal and is probably the best thing he can do to unleash the latent potential of the Indian economy.

So while China and the US-aligned nations (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and- to a lesser extent Vietnam) look set to duke it out over territorial and trade disputes, the region’s sleeping giant India is finally stirring from its slumber. Modi is a savvy politician and recognizes this power dynamic as well as the very fortunate position that puts India. The US and China will both be willing to give a lot to India to keep India from aligning with the other and to Modi this likely represents huge opportunity. He’ll be able to play both nations off each other to get the most favorable trade deals and will be incentived to remain neutral for as long as possible. He knows the message cozying up with the US and building up a military presence on the China border will send to China and that will make China more willing to grant India serious concessions in deals.

India and the US are definitely set to become stronger partners- trade has skyrocketed and the US is India’s #1 military partner- but Modi’s chief concern- economic growth- requires good trade relations with China as well as ‘Merica. Interestingly, however, since Modi’s election, he has been more bristly than anticipated towards outside threats to Indian sovereignty (including serving up cold servings of passive aggressiveness about a Sino-Indian border crisis during a visit by China’s president Xi Jinping.) My guess is that this is part of Modi’s tactic of playing hard-to-get but, in all honesty, it’s still too early to put a finger on what exactly Modi’s foreign policy is or will be. Whatever it is, though, I gaurantee it will be interesting.

North Korea: On the Brink?

The US government is almost certainly preparing its response for a collapse of the North Korean regime on the peninsula. As voters and as citizens, it’s important to think about this scenario as well. First, a few reasons why I don’t think North Korea is as stable as it seems.

Reason 1: The Big Guy at the Top

If you’re gonna pretend to be a literal god to command the complete and total respect of those whom he commands…you’re gonna have to look the part. Kim Jong Un? Doesn’t. Fat jokes about North Korea’s young leader are not limited to the West. The little insight we have about North Koreans’ views on their leader (mostly from undercover interviews and defectors) reflect a waning sense of respect for the Kim dynasty. North Koreans are doubtful that this pudgy little boy raised in Switzerland has what it takes to lead North Korea the way his father did. Even some die-hard Kim Jong Il supporters reached in interviews admit that they have doubts about his quality of leadership and charisma. Bottom line is, if you’re gonna have a state based on a cult of personality, you better have a good personality.

Reason 2: The Little Guys at the Bottom

Notoriously, North Korea has a pretty…checkered human rights history. As I’m sure y’all well know, they also tend to have a pretty strict control over what its citizens are allowed to see and do. It does this mostly by enforcing the belief that the Kim dynasty are literal gods with supernatural powers who can read the minds of their subjects.

That said, though, it’s quite impossible for any state to have complete control over the media, and now more than ever, South Korean culture is seeping its way from the bottom up into the minds of the urban youth via smuggled VHSes and CD Roms (turns out they still exist). This makes the status quo very unstable because if history has taught us anything its that when the urban youth get upset with the status quo…things start to happen. And when things start to happen too quickly, you have revolution. We din’t want revolution.

Reason 3: The Military

Obviously, not much is known about how the government of the hermit nation (and half of what IS known is educated speculation) but there are signs that the government is fracturing at the top. The military shares the view of the public that Kim Jong Un is not the man to lead Korea and, in many ways, they are right. Un has failed to build bridges within the government and insists on a “with me or against me” leadership style. This is never a recipe for stability- even Hitler, the most charismatic and popular dictator in recent history- failed to maintain a grip on his military using this logic.

Conclusion

We have a military and a public that sees Kim Jong Un as weak and a public that is beginning to become aware of the outside world. Little by little, the chips in the wall North Korea built around itself are causing structural instability. All North Korea needs is a catalyzing event- a famine, an assassination, a defection- for the whole system to come collapsing down upon itself. The three-way war within the government (hardline military figures, moderate Kim family members and the big-little guy himself) will likely paralyze the government in a time of severe crisis. I don’t think it will be more than a decade before North Korea collapses.

China v. America (Pt. 2): China’s Long Term Edge Over The US

One word: Infrastructure. China is still going through a lot of urbanization and industrialization and in order to support this they need to build infrastructure. Duh. What’s important here, though, is that China has an inherent advantage over American infrastructure. China will be using the most advanced techniques and the best technology in order to complete the construction. Or, at the very least, their newly built infrastructure- especially their energy infrastructure- will be better equipped than ours, much of which is reaching or has exceeded normal “retiring age.” It’s much more expensive to replace old equipment than it is to build it, so in terms of that, we should actually expect China to have an easy time growing their capacity for industrialization in a more economically stable manner than we can.

Most of our infrastructure was built as far back as the Eisenhower administration and has not been upgraded significantly since. That’s why it’s easier for China to advance economically in a more environmentally sustainable manner. China is using coal-fire power plants, but they have also invested heavily in cleaner natural gas, hydro power and renewables. China has pledged to decrease the carbon intensity of its energy generated by as much as 20% and plans are going into effect to develop a form of cap-and-trade system, a form of carbon pricing far more effective than anything that is politically possible within the US.

Their second edge is decision-making. They are not a democracy, but they are very good at not being a democracy. Their high-level bureaucrats- while corrupt- are pretty good at what they do. The communist party knows that the one source of legitimacy it has is its ability to deliver economic growth to the nation. When the recession rocked the world and China’s economic growth fell to around 6% (which is still double the avg. US growth during the entire 20th century), the capitol was rocked by protests. The Chinese leadership knows that not reforming their economically (in particular, eliminating graft and “shadow bankers”) would be a disaster. At the same time, they know that too much reform would upset the powers that be (themselves) and could lead to anti-reformist backlash. Unlike the Russian government, China’s government is not centered around one person or even one source of power. The government is more “demoractic” than Russia in that power and influence is very much divided among members of the communist party at the national and local levels. As such, there is more debate and more well-thought through actions taken regarding the economy.

Here in America- because of democracy and the power that extreme edges of the constituency have over their elected leaders- we have a very polarized congress that- in the best of circumstances- works slowly to get things done. Democracies have always had trouble making long-term investments in their society and at this rate China is doing a much better job than we are with incremental reforms which have long-lasting impacts.

China’s one problem is an ineffective and unmotivated civil service. Rather than administrators who simply line their own pockets, China needs to train people who can make sure laws are implemented effectively as well as created effectively. Master this (as China is currently trying to do) and it is very well poised to dominate international trade.

“Democracy” in Thailand

So the Thai military has stepped in to quell months of protests in Bangkok by imposing martial law. Good! Vice has recently reported that civil war is imminent. I disagree. The opposition currently supports the military because they know very well that they are being anything but democratic.

The protesters on the streets of Bangkok are not like those on the streets of Syria or Egypt or Venezuela or even Ukraine. These represent a minority faction protesting against a democratically elected government which favors the majority of the people. In a real democracy, you suck it up and wait for elections. The protesters seem to know this and some believe they are deliberately sowing chaos to create the condition for a coup that would install a government whom they support. Whether or not that’s the case, what is clear is that the refusal of the current administration to step down represents their support for true democratic ideals. The protesters represent urban, middle class interests and believe they have been left behind while the government appeals to the rural poor which by far constitute the majority of the population. In other words, they represent Thailand’s elite and the Thai military serves this interest. Thailand is the victim of a complex bureaucracy which is threatened by democracy.

So…how is that “solved”? Well, that depends upon whether you think its a problem. Unlike in the Middle East, the problems in Thailand probably won’t spread to other nations. This is a problem of intense political divides between the elite urban class and the majority rural class and is not based on ethnic divisions that are reflected across the region. It isn’t like a military coup is a new thing in Thailand, either. This marks the 12th coup since independence in 1932 (the last one was in 2011), so this isn’t a cataclysmic shift in Thai politics. It’s something of a norm. What it does do is to reinforce a political system corrupted by inefficiencies and entrenched interests. If this is going to change, however, it will probably take more than democratic elections. It’ll take either decades of somewhat of a generational shift in the attitudes of the elite and the military (which doesn’t seem likely) or violent overthrow of the military (which also doesn’t seem likely). There is only one figure in Thai politics who has the political capacity to change the system and that is the highly respected king of Thailand who is little more than a puppet of the military. Will he have a change of heart?

BEWARE NORTH KOREA! (But not for the reasons you think)

Very few foreign policy analysts take North Korea seriously. Sure, their leader is hilariously overweight, a bit of a whiny bitch, and their military can’t fight for shit, but they are nevertheless a powerful force to be reckoned with. And no, not because of the nukes. It’s because they are incompetent.

Analyzing political dynamics within the nation is a bit difficult. What little information that has come out of the nation has mostly come from the handful of refugees that were able to make it out of the nation or undercover interviews with people inside the country. What is most notable about these encounters is that some of even the most hard-line supporters of the regime doubt the ability of this fatty from Switzerland to lead the country. I mean, look at him, he doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. The military is notorious for urging a firm control over the population and an aggressive foreign policy and also doubt Kim Jong Un’s resolve to lead the nation. He is almost universally considered weak. It doesn’t come as a shock, therefore, that he has been deliberately escalating tensions in order to dispel these beliefs.

Within his own administration, it appears as though he is suffering from a lack of confidence of a different sort. You may recall when Un ordered the death of his uncle (ostensibly death by pack of dogs). This may have been the culmination of a long-standing power struggle between him and his uncle and possibly other parts of the government- it’s unclear, as are most things about the DRK. It is probable that this uncle of his had long been in favor of developing closer ties to China, reforming the nation’s economy and opening up the system a bit- a sort of North Korean Gorbachev. Except dead. Now, with the most powerful reformist silenced, Kim Jong Un may have solidified his control over the government- at least as long as he keeps the military in check.

So why should this make us worry? Because the regime is headed for collapse. The economy is inherently unsustainable and now, for the first time in decades, the people are beginning to doubt their leadership. In Korea, order is kept because the people believe that Kim Jong Un is literally a god who can read the minds of his people. Thoughts can be a powerful thing and if people no longer think that Un can read their minds- what else might the state be lying about? Add to this a steadily increasing supply of South Korean contraband and you have a potential eruption. Not likely soon, but not in the too distant future either. The fact is that Kim Jong Un is far less competent that his father or grand father and is not intelligent enough to deliver reforms necessary without getting shoved aside by the military. He’s also a megalomaniac and wouldn’t stand for delegating power to more competent people. Furthermore the Kim dynasty cannot be edged out of power because the people believe them to be gods- how can you oust a god and expect legitimacy?

What would a Kim Jong Un- faced with regime instability- do? It’s a frustrating question because we know so little. He could escalate tensions too much and reopen the Korean war, he could simply waffle and disappear, leaving a power crisis within the nation causing it to implode. You could see a massive exodus of people to China and South Korea, causing huge refugee and political problems in both nations (China could simply turn them back over to the regime). The regime in the DRK don’t know how to deal with stress other than the use of brute force and this will spell disaster. What is clear is that- whatever will happen- it will not be good when North Korea falls.

So, who the hell is this Modi guy anyway?

Apart from governance concerns regarding increasing corruption and complacency within the ruling Indian National Congress party, why is it I’m so excited about Modi- a center-right leader? I’m no conservative, hell, I’m barely a moderate. However, Modi brings some interesting ideas into Indian politics- not for the first time certainly- but has a clear mandate to make them work.

Modi is first and foremost a very good administrator. He is able to analyze why policies fail, why they succeed, and was largely responsible for delivering not just 24/7 electricity in the province he governed (Gujarat), but also brought to it massive economic growth. He is determined upon increasing the competence of government administrators- bringing in technocrats on many levels.Reform within the Indian economy and government is needed badly. It has stood by the wayside and watched China outpace Indian growth in almost every single living standard indicator and now, Modi plans to radically reform the way government policies are implemented- this is a new and refreshing change to Congress’ method which has been focusing on policy itself, not necessarily how well it was carried out.

To this end, he plans to deliver far more economic autonomy to provinces and localities in carrying out economic policies. This is especially important for India because its economic situation cannot be described accurately by taking a snapshot of national economic indicators. Modi recognizes that what is important is to give local leaders more power to deal with local issues. However, he goes beyond this. Recognizing that many local leaders are very corrupt, he also wants to improve their technical expertise and improve the overall governance of India in order to tame corruption and perhaps make it much more democratic on a local level. Not only are there huge economic differences between each of the states, but India is also an insanely diverse country culturally, ethnically and religiously- more so than the United States, as a matter of fact. This makes it near-impossible for the national government to legislate nationwide policy that can appropriately address the grievances of all ethnicities.

Sure, he is less interested in delivering on policies of economic redistribution but, on the other hand, he has promised not to touch the very popular massive social welfare programs that support rural areas suffering extreme poverty and has even proposed an increase in farm subsidies. In fact, the greater administrative quality that he expects from the states and from his own cabinet should be able to improve the social welfare system and cut waste without cutting service.

Finally, he is NOT a Hindu nationalist. There are concerns over what he did- or didn’t do- in Gujarat in 2002 when massive anti-Muslim riots swept the province, killing 1000 people and he stood by and refused to send in the police or state guard. However, he was elected upon one thing: economic reform. He has received a MASSIVE mandate from the people and expectations in India are higher of him than expectations were of Obama in 2008. He will need to focus his massive administrative talent on streamlining trade and business restrictions and cracking down on corruption and improving local autonomy and administrative talent. He cannot- and probably will not- allow his Hindu nationalist ideology to get in the way of this.

All Hail Narendra Modi!

Coming as a surprise to absolutely no one, Narendra Modi- leader of India’s center-right BJP- has unseated the powerful Indian National Congress party that has ruled India virtually uninterrupted since independence. The BJP has won elections before, of course, but back then the Congress Party quickly regained the seats they lost in Parliament and the presidency. So what makes this time so special?

Well, first of all, corruption. Social media has spread the word on corruption scandals regarding Congress politicians. India is a BIG country and with so much power in local governments, it’s hard for the party leadership to reign in corruption. The other problem is that Congress has been in Parliament for so long that local politicians, secure in re-election, have grown complacent and therefore corrupt.

Second is the weakening of the Gandhi dynasty. Although not related to the Great Soul himself, the Gandhi dynasty has formed the political backbone of Congress. The current, younger generation of Gandhis have not been able to utilize social media and take advantage of the 100M new voters that surged to the polls over the last month or so. These people do not remember the huge role the dynasty played in Indian independence. For the first time, a generation that does not remember independence has played a major role in India’s election and, without truly charismatic leadership, the Gandhi dynasty will weaken further. In a stunning turn, Rahul Gandhi- the supposed future leader of Congress- barely managed to win his own seat back, a stronghold for Congress.

Third, the results. The results were a landslide. For the first time since independence, a non-Congress, non-coalition government has taken full control of Parliament- Modi will need no help from the other minor parties for his legislation. There are concerns over Modi’s apparent Hindu nationalist rhetoric, but, overall, he stormed into power on promises of economic growth, something which Congress’ leader Mr. Singh (ironically a prestigious economist) have been unable to deliver upon. Modi is not proposing to undo the social welfare programs which defined Congress’ economic legacy, but he is promising to bring the economic growth he delivered in his own province to India as a whole. His policies will favor the booming urban middle class rather than the rural lower castes who received support from the Indian National Congress.

This election could very well signal a great change in Indian politics- urban interests are beginning to dominate Indian politics and for the first time Congress is in serious danger of losing its prestige and position as India’s dominant political force.

Pakistan and Post-USA Afghanistan

So basically once the US leaves Afghanistan, the government will face collapse and the Taliban will become far more powerful. Yay. A country in which 35% are unemployed and 36% live below the poverty line is not a country that can be very stable for very long- despite the very democratic process that occurred earlier this year which moved a strongly anti-Karzai pro-US candidate into first place. This is a $33 Billion economy with a $6 Billion trade deficit and a $50 government deficit. To say its balances are “in the hole” is a bit of an understatement.

But the war in Afghanistan was misguided from the start. In many ways, it was similar to Vietnam (although not nearly in terms of the scale of our commitment). Afghanistan was never the stronghold of Al Qaeda- that distinction always went to Pakistan. Our mission was to take out Bin Laden and cripple Al Qaeda (and while we were there, caught up in post-Cold War zeal, we might as well establish a democracy). However, we could never do this without an equally large invasion of the far more stable, far more powerful (and far more nuclear) Pakistan. An invasion of Afghanistan alone simply allowed the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan, making sure that we could never stabilize the country in the long-term after we left. This is why we have drones. As part of the war in Afghanistan, drones proved absolutely essential. A drone strike late last year which killed a very prominent member of the Pakistani Taliban, for example, crippled their ability to project fear and power into Afghanistan for the foreseeable future and exacerbated political rivalries within the group. Score one for ‘Murica.

Pakistan was the real problem. There the government is far more powerful,  more democratic (ironically) and far less manipulable by the United States. Also they have nukes. Their intelligence services are under the delusion that they will be able to control the Taliban to use as a proxy to keep their rival Afghanistan weak and to constantly needle India (Pakistan is very paranoid).

Long-term, the United States needs to focus on stabilizing the relationship between Pakistan and India: the risk for nuclear exchange is, while not as dire as it was in the 90s, certainly still a grave concern for all in the region. Our drone program is a source of serious anger within the nation (despite its efficacy against the Taliban and Al Qaeda). We need to recognize that Al Qaeda is, because of the sectarian violence in Syria/Iraq, far less of a threat to the United States than it was a few years ago. Their leadership is broken and far less charismatic than Bin Laden, and they are far too focused on fighting amongst themselves and against Shia Muslims to launch a  major attack against the US. It’s time to cut back our drone program and step up Pakistan’s economic development because, through a developing middle class, we can tame the influences of radical Islam and paranoid anti-Hinduism.

China and the inevitable conflict with the US

So China.

A lot of my focus has been on the Middle East and hey, let’s be honest, that’s where the cool stuff is happening. But recent events in China definitely deserve the attention of American public. The Chinese government, although is moves at a snails pace at times, is moving much faster than we are in reforming itself and the economy. It is continuing down the path of privatization and decentralization which would unleash a wave of productive power from the Chinese economy. If history is any guide, this also would unleash a wave of democratic further. A capitalist society and an autocratic regime can’t stand with much stability for very long. There is a cognitive dissonance that exists in China and compels people to want a more democratic government.
So when does the Chinese democratic revolution start? Not any time soon, that is for sure. The government’s control of power is absolute, and the military is unquestionably loyal to the government (as they receive a very large share of the economic pie). Change must come by reformers within the government, What China needs is another Deng Xiaoping.

In the mean time, however, China’s meteoric rise as a world super power will inevitably lead to conflict with the only other world super power- us.
That doesn’t mean that China will send its army to launch a land invasion of California or that we will engage in nuclear warfare, but some sort of conflict between American or Allied forces of Japan, Taiwan, and India and Chinese forces.
China is trying to become a regional hegemon, just like the good ol’ days, but without the warring feudal lords and this time with lots more money. China’s action in the west against Muslims, against Tibetans, and its claims to all territories in the South China Sea. China has also made aggressive surveillance moves against the Philippines and other pacific islands.
Hence, Obama’s “pivot to Asia.” Strategic priorities for the United States include preventing regional  hegemons from arising in other parts of the world, and we are willing to side with almost anyone to prevent that from happening. India and Japan are the two most important countries that are interested in stopping the expansion of Chinese influence. The conflicting interests of China’s expansion and our determined anti-Hegemon policy is reminiscent of the Cold War. While a stand-off on the scale of the Cold War is not likely, it IS likely that the “Obama Doctrine” in the region will be a similar form of containment the US employed against the USSR. The first, most significant conflict of interests between the US and China will, I believe, be over Pakistan. Pakistan’s instability is a huge threat to our strategic ally India. Its nuclear weapons are very poorly secured and the CIA has no access to knowledge of the location of the weapons, making it very easy for a terror group to capture a weapon without anyone noticing. The stability of Pakistan is also crucial to the stability of Afghanistan. In terms of fighting the Taliban, it’s useful to almost think of them as the same country. China, too, has interests in Pakistan as they are enemies of China’s regional enemy India.

There are key differences between China and the USSR which will make this struggle between the US and China nowhere near as hostile as the Cold War.

First is the extraordinary degree of economic interdependence. We need China for cheap goods, they need us for our corporations and money.
Second is the lack of major ideological differences. Sure, China still pretends to be communist, but the fact is they’ve given up trying to spread international socialism. They do, however, like the USS, sponsor the economic growth of developing nations through money, equipment, and manpower. Many African countries are now more friendly to China than the US because of China’s dealings. The goals, however, were different from the USSR’s. China is not intent on building an empire of friendly developing nations. They are intent on making money, and the emerging markets in Africa are a great way to make a good amount of money.

There will be conflict, however, make no mistake about that. A land invasion of China is not likely (they still have nukes) and a land invasion of the United States is not likely (so do we). The major conflicts will be fought with a new kind of weapon, first tested in Iran. Cyber warfare has already been, essentially, declared between us and China and we will be on the defensive.