Blog Archives

U.S. Military Industrial Complex and Chinese Drone Ship

8/27/2022

Dr. Wordman

The U.S. has successfully evolved in a short history (250 years) to establish a Democratic governing system based on voting rights. The voting rights was framed in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 but left to the states to define by constitution (1788). The American voting rights were very restrictive and discriminative full of barriers such as property ownership, race, gender, sex, and rules such as poll taxes and literacy tests. These restrictions were gradually removed (U.S. Born and naturalization,1868; black men vote, 1870; women vote, 1920; native Indian vote, 1924; Chinese exclusion-1882 Act removed, 1943; removing poll tax and other voting restrictions, 1964 - 2002). It is important to point out that In 2013 Supreme Court ruled: “states do not have to clear with federal government to make election changes.” which led to some state laws of requiring voter ID, restrictions on mail-in voting, limited voting hours and polling stations, etc. This potentially may move voting rights backward.

However, what worries political scholars are not how and when to reach ‘one person one vote’ but how the entire voting process can be controlled by the military industrial complex. Take the obvious, gun control issue as an example, numerous gun violence including the most recent Uvalde Massacre happened at the elementary school killing 19 children and 2 teachers prompted a public outcry for gun control. But no serious gun control law had been passed due to the lobbying effort of the gun manufacturers. This lobbying power is equally effective in influencing the U.S. defense budget, military weapon development, U.S. military base expansion, foreign policy leading to wars and supply of weaponry to support wars such as the on-going Russian-Ukraine war costing the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars. The above huge and complex lobbying process is simply accomplished by influencing the U.S. voters through campaign contribution to candidates for government, Congress and courts to become their preferred public servants. The term for describing the above U.S. democracy was called military industrial complex - a network of wealthy owners/controllers of corporations of military and industrial product manufacturers. This term was first used by President Eisenhower to warn the danger of U.S. democracy.

The U.S. has become the superpower after WW II and maintained her supreme military power ever since. The U.S. not only has the most advanced military weapons in all forces (Airforce, Navy, Army and Marines) including the recently established space force but also has the most military bases in the world (hundreds to thousands) and the greatest numbers of military Allies.The U.S. is the number one military exporter (40% of world weapon trade (WWT) - $0.8Trillion) with a defense budget of $778.2B - 3.7% of GDP. The next four are Russia (19% WWT, $61.7B - 4.3% of GDP), France (11% WWT, $52.7B of 2.1% of GDP), China (4.6% WWT, $252.3B of 1.7% of GDP) and Germany (4.5% WWT, $52.8B of 1.4% of GDP). From the above numbers, one wonders why the U.S. is targeting China as the most critical competitor. China’s surplus trade with the U.S. dwarfs so much in US WWT. The U.S. has a defense budget three times more than China’s who has to maintain a lot more soldiers along her borders with 14 neighbors. There is no threat from China to the U.S., not militarily nor commercially since China depends on imports of agriculture and energy products and the U.S. happened to be abundant in both. The stress the U.S. is facing comes from her military spending (3.7% of her GDP) and national debt (129% of GDP, 2022/3, China 1.7% and 73% respectively).

China’s military development is defense driven since she does not maintain hundreds of military bases abroad, rather she will rent one or two for supply purposes. In addition, she does not seem to focus her industrial technology development for military purposes. The author draws two recent news to corroborate with the above statement. First, Dan Parsons published an article in the Warzone on May 27, 2022, entitled, Navy’s 85-foot Orca Unmanned Submarine Will Be A Minelayer First. Orca is an Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vessel (XLUUV) developed by the Navy with a primary role of carrying anti-ship mines in a 34-foot modular payload compartment. It’s first mission this summer will be laying sea mines in the ocean. At 80 tons, orca is too big for a submarine to carry and launch, so it must be put to sea from a pier or larger surface ship. It is basically an unmanned submarine with guidance and control, navigation, autonomy, situation awareness, core communications, power distribution, propulsion and maneuvering and mission sensors. It also has a raise-able mast for satellite connectivity when surfaced. It’s first front module is the 34-foot mine-carrying module. It is an impressive looking unmanned submarine, obviously designed for warfare.

Another news article published by Joseph Trevithick and Oliver Parken also in the Warzone, May 27, 2022, entitled, China Launches Drone Ship that Acts as A Mothership for More Drones, is equally impressive. Although Trevithick and Parken viewed it from military perspective (a hub for various unmanned weapons and surveillance), the development work first reported in the South China Morning Post on May 18 has a different emphasis. This difference (from Orca) is my main point of discussion. China’s huge drone ship is called Zhu Hai Yun, it is extensively (Trevithick and Parken used ostensibly) designed for marine research purpose. The vessel features an advanced artificial intelligence operating system allowing semi-autonomous operations and serving as a mother drone for various other drones or unmanned vessels to do ocean research. (The Warzone article implies possible aerial drones and submersible drones for military operations). The director of the Southern Marine Science and Engineering Lab of Sun Yat-Sen University, responsible for the development the ship’s AI system, called it the Intelligent Mobile Ocean Stereo Observing System (IMOSOS). The ship can undertake “3-D dynamic observations”. Its semi-autonomously operation means that a crew can take control of its navigation remotely or physically when it is in a busy port. That is, its control can be split between human operation and the AI autonomous system.

Based on past observations, we might venture to predict that the development of Orca would be very expensive with its function primarily for military use. (complying to Military Specs) On the other hand, the Zhu Hai Yun was designed with commercial application in mind, planned to be sell-able at affordable price and being able to be produced by rapid mass production at much lower cost. (using commercial specs) This difference in philosophy tells a lot about US-China competition. It is time for the U.S. to abandon the ‘target the enemy’ national security strategy and 'only win by military might' which benefits mainly the military industrial complex not the nation as a whole. In all honesty, at a memorial weekend we must reflect and accept the fact that national competitions, jusdt like Olympic competitions, must be fair. Win or lose, the end result is creating a record for the benefit of the entire human race, not 'just for me not for you' scenario.

Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.

0 Comments

Challenging De Facto Accord or Status Quo - Driving Force behind U.S. China Policy

8/20/2022

0 Comments

Dr. David Wordman

The greatest international accord since WW II was the establishment of the United Nations (U.N.). A post-war new world order was quickly built according to the UN Charters. The U.N. consists of the General Assembly (GA) formed by all nation members and the security council of five major countries with veto power, the U.S., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union), U.K., France and Republic of China, as the security anchor of the U.N. The U.N. system would have worked better if the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Russian Federation after 1991) were not locking heads against each other rigidly adhering to an ideological battle, capitalistic ‘democracy’ against communist ‘authoritarian socialism’. The stability and efficacy of the U.N. would be better if the representation of China in the U.N. and its security council was a smooth one. Initially China was represented by Republic of China (KMT Government, ROC), but ROC in a Chinese internal war lost the entire Mainland China to PRC (People’s Republic of China established in 1949 by Chinese Communist Party (CCP)), resulting in ROC retreated to the island province, Taiwan. The China seat in the U.N. was eventually corrected in 1971 by UN Resolution 2758 accepting PRC as the rightful representative replacing ROC. As a big war-torn nation, China struggled to develop her economy. She did succeed amazingly by lifting her one billion population above poverty (~2014) and making herself the key manufacturer for the world, setting an inspiring example for the UN members in the developing world. Today, China has become the number two economy in the world (approaching 80% of U.S. GDP) and a major if not number one trading partner with 130 nations. China has contributed her significant share of support to the U.N. in security, healthcare, trade as well as preservation of world cultural heritage. Naturally, China has earned her leadership position in the U.N. enjoying a substantial support from the U.N. members from Africa, South East Asia and South America, lately even from the small island countries in the Pacific.

The above historical account of China’s rise basically took place under the UN world order - post WW II rules established by the Western powers counting the Soviet Union as a Western power, but this could only explain partially why the U.S. felt threatened in her world leadership. The evolution of the U.S. China policy in the past seven decades could not be explained just by the rise of China in the last four decades. In a deeper analysis, one could find that the U.S. foreign policies in general were driven by U.S. interest first (every nation would do the same) but the strategies and methods used were quite uniquely American – driven by selfish, unilateral and superpower mentality. In this essay, we shall try to explain the root cause of the U.S. foreign policies as they have taken place, with focus on her China policy. The U.S. had acquired her superpower status at the end of WW II. She began to assume the world leader role despite of the challenge from the Soviet Union. The U.S. were instrumental in settling many world territorial issues (e.g. unilaterally on Okinawa) and establishing world trade and currency exchange rules (to her advantages). The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (due to its economical failure) made the U.S. the only super-power in the world. The U.S. had gotten more used to getting her ways in foreign affairs. The U.S. would often challenge status quo or de facto international accord even initiate war if she deemed it benefitting the U.S. She would even challenge or disregard an UN agreement unilaterally. This behavior (formed habitually) is the principal cause of today’s U.S. irrational anti-China policy. It is true, China’s rise may be a threat to the interests of the U.S. from the competition standpoint, but her challenge to de facto international agreement (one China principle) and status quo (on Taiwan Strait) is the culprit for the deteriorating US-China relations heading to a disaster. In the following, we will provide evidences supporting the above claim and suggesting a change of behavior for avoiding a disastrous consequence.

China was a victim in WW II. After Japan surrendered, China became a victor having two allies, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, each had a “closer” relation with the KMT and CCP respectively. The civil war between KMT and CCP armies ended up giving PRC the control of Mainland and ROC retreat to Taiwan; each faction was somewhat influenced by the U.S. and the Soviet Union respectively. The leaders of the two sides, Mao Tze Dong and Chiang Kei Shek, wisely refused the Soviet Union and the U.S. to station their army in each’s territory. Both factions regarded their dispute a domestic matter. However, the U.S. China policy was driven by her national security strategy: maintaining the Taiwan Strait conflict in the name of peacekeeping but in reality sustaining the warring two parts of China. Post WW II, the U.S. occupied Japan and created a U.S. version government in Japan and signed a U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty binding Japan in line with the U.S. interest. ROC’s refusal of accepting U.S. aid of paying for her army and refusing US troops stationing in Taiwan essentially established a status quo with Mainland, that is, the unification issue would be subject to bilateral negotiation or peaceful settlement with no foreign interference. When Mainland China broke off with the Soviet Union, the unification issue should have been an internal matter, but the U.S. was never backed away from the Taiwan Strait matter, even today. When the U.N. passed the resolution 2758 in 1971 (ROC replaced by PRC) and in 1979 the U.S. recognized PRC and broke off diplomatic relation with ROC, the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relation Act basically encouraging Taiwan to remain independent allowing U.S. to sell weapons to her. It was a plot of using Taiwan as a tool for challenging the One China principle and rattling the status quo of Taiwan Strait.

The U.S. defined the first island chain (South Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Taiwan) for containing the spread of communism (against North Korea, Russia and China), hence making Taiwan a strategic interest in the U.S. strategy. (Near the end of twentieth century, Taiwan’s KMT was splitting and several parties including the DPP emerged with encouragement by then KMT leader Lee Deng Hui (a pro-Japan KMT traitor who stirred up the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-96). The U.S. sent two carriers to show support for Lee, another evidence of challenging the status quo of Taiwan Strait. At that time, the PRC navy and military power were nowhere near the level of the U.S. hence the crisis ended with Mainland shooting a few missiles as protest. Fast forward two decades to 2016, Trump won the Presidency using a ‘blame China’ campaign. After taking the White House, he not only launched a trade war and a technology sanction against China but also challenged the status quo of Taiwan Strait by having contact with Taiwan leader. When Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 election, he continued Trump’s anti-China policy by doubling down on technology sanction, forming more military alliances in Indo-Pacific (AUKUS, QUAD, NATO-Asia) targeting China. Now the two parties in the U.S. compete in showing who is tougher on China without any rational reason. Once again, the U.S. played the Taiwan card to push the One China redline and to challenge the status quo of Taiwan Strait by insinuating a parallel between the Russia-Ukraine war and Taiwan Strait conflict and suggesting arming Taiwan for defending a potential invasion. The recent visit to Taiwan by House Speaker Pelosi, ignoring China's protest and warning, is another planned challenge to status quo and one China principle. But this time, China has responded with her real strength. China not only sanctioned Pelosi and her immediate family's access to China and doing business with China, she has conducted a well-executed air-sea real-fire 7-day military exercise surrounding the entire Taiwan island. No one including the U.S. dared to contest that. The U.S. carriers stayed away during the exercise to avoid any accidental skirmish.

China has risen and China has both economic and military power now. The fact that the U.S. must build multiple alliances to counter China already has given us a hint. To war with China will be a world war with little chance of winning. Russia, Iran, North Korea, andmany others are already siding with China against any U.S. plot. ASEAN nations and many countries in Africa and South America have expressed no desire in taking sides in a U.S.-China confrontation. So why should the U.S. take the risk? Besides, the U.S. never had full justification in targeting China as an enemy as she did to the Soviet. The Chinese history provided ample evidence that the Chinese people were never the aggressor. Contrasting China's Belt and Road Initiative with the 800+ U.S. military bases all over the world showed a clear evidence that China is an inspiring competitor not a military threat to the world. The U.S. must stop her irrational anti-China policy and refrain from challenging the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Otherwise, the next response from China will not just be a military exercise, it will be a war that the U.S. can ill afford.

0 Comments

Can the U.S. Survive the Pelosi (Taiwan Strait) Crisis?Washington Must Show Real Unity towards a Sensible China Policy

8/13/2022

0 Comments

Dr. David Wordman

On July 29, 2022, House Speaker, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, was about to make a controversial Asia trip which might trigger a Taiwan Strait Crisis if she would include the island in her itinerary. I was annoyed by many politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) and mass media urging her to visit Taiwan knowing it might cause a crisis. I decided to write the subject article after I read David Sachs’ essay published on Foreign Affairs (July 29, 2022), entitled, How to Survive the Next Taiwan Strait Crisis - Washington Must Be Ready for a Showdown with or without a Pelosi Trip. David Sachs is a research fellow at the Council for Foreign Affairs; he has written many articles about Taiwan, some with other political analysts including the Council’s Director Ryan Haas. David’s present article appearing on Pelosi’s departure day signified an urgency for presenting his analyses and suggestions to Pelosi, the Biden Administration and the general public who would be concerned with her trip and the potential Taiwan Strait crisis the trip might stir up. I felt the same urgency to write my opinions because I disagreed with many of Mr. Sachs’ analyses and suggestions on Taiwan policy though he recognized that Pelosi’s trip was ill-advised, better not to make the trip if possible. Sachs failed to point out that the bipartisan Washington establishment had been dysfunctional. Both parties had made the wrong assumptions about China and Taiwan; their anti-China stand were more driven by the dogfight between parties for selfish political interest than for the interest of the U.S. Many politicians found that it was easy to blame everything on China than admitting our failures in policies and execution and fixing them. Americans need to recognize the real problems the U.S. is facing and deal with them. No one can make the U.S. strong again simply by blaming others or stopping others to compete with the U.S.

Mr. Sachs did not question whether or not the Mainland China under the CCP government had ever changed its approach or tactics on the Taiwan issue (In time, it actually evolved from forceful to peaceful unification) although its position on ultimate unification never wavered. History showed that the two parties CCP and KMT had a love-hate relation in cycles through their century long struggle in seeking governance power and fighting the foreign invaders or interferers. At the end of WW II, KMT although backed by the U.S. lost control of the Mainland and finally retreated to Taiwan resulting in the cross-straight division but a peaceful one. For the past 70 years, both political parties had transformed significantly, with CCP abandoning the Stalin style communism, gradually embracing capitalism and following U.N. based rules to develop the mainland and with KMT (the dominating party in Taiwan till year 2000) splitting to several parties eventually facing a strong rivalry DPP party. The DPP, which is more strongly linked with Japan than to the U.S., is pushing Taiwan for independence. When Chen Shui Bien won the Presidential election in 2000, his push for independence had earned him the “trouble maker” name from President Bush Jr. If governance rotation by two parties were considered as the only success evidence for democracy, then Taiwan had learned and earned its democracy in the past two decades. Taiwan citizens gained and got used to the voting experience but unfortunately were unhappy with their election outcomes as evidenced by a traitor (Lee), a corrupt (Chen), a weak (Ma) and a liar (Tsai) as presidents. This might be a common phenomenon among Democratic systems. A well-run democracy may be a good system for allowing the citizens to regularly vote out bad governments but it is also regularly voting in incompetent political leaders who were good at using speeches as their deliverables. In contrast, the CCP party system requires (or mandates) government servants to work hard and long and rise by merits to the top leadership. With ideology constantly being transformed to meet society needs (evolving socialism), the CCP system has shown its efficiency and efficacy in nation building. Hence, only in a few decades, China has risen on par with the mighty U.S. in economy, industry, military, and various technologies including space exploration.

Sachs acknowledged that it was not a good idea for Pelosi to visit Taiwan at this time and served no useful purpose, but he still felt that the U.S. should interfere with Taiwan issue under the one China policy. (Basically a hypocrisy in U.S. one China policy) Sachs, like many hawkish Congressmen, think if Pelosi would cancel the Taiwan trip, it would embolden China to coerce Taiwan (The actual fact is that Taiwan has become economically more dependent on Mainland China than the other way around), China’s strategy had been kind to Taiwan people for the purpose of achieving a peaceful and long lasting unification. Sachs speculates that China is more willing to escalate than before when confronted and it is unwise to think Pelosi trip as a showdown. Sachs made a review of the previous Taiwan Strait crises and advised that the U.S. should only send officials to Taiwan for useful purposes not for antagonizing Mainland China. Sachs' suggestions were on the tactical level (no pondering on basic assumptions) trying to ‘interact with’ or ‘help’ Taiwan based on accepting the 'ambiguous' One China Policy. Sachs even suggested that the U.S. should continue to sell weapons to Taiwan as well as send military personnel to help train Taiwan soldiers but doing it not publicly. In this author's opinion, many of Sachs’ analyses and suggestions were illogical. His suggestion to Biden to reconsider diplomacy amounts to using more hypocritical and ambiguous interpretations of the one China policy and continuing to interfere with Taiwan’s defense affairs, to create adversary Mainland-Taiwan relations by selling arms to Taiwan, to push Taiwan to increase defense spending to improve combat capability, to help civilians to prepare for potential attack and to grow U.S. - Taiwan bilateral security cooperation.

The deterioration of U.S. - China relations of course is triggered by the rise of China. China is a strong competitor world-wide, but China is an inspiring competitor not a threatening one judging from her five thousand years of history. Whether Taiwan has become a 'perfect democracy' or not is Taiwan’s credit. Taiwan’s success will not make the U.S. great again. Whether China’s authoritarian one-party system will continue to transform to do better (perfecting one country two systems) or not is China’s own destiny. China’s success will not hinder the development of the U.S. or make her weak unless she can not face an honest challenge or fair competition. The U.S. should recognize that her past ambiguous and hypocritical Taiwan policy was only tolerated by Mainland China because she was too weak and too busy to develop herself. Now China has risen, understandably becoming more intolerant. Treating Taiwan like Ukraine and leading Taiwan to have a war with Mainland China is a cynical plot too obvious to be ignored by China. If Taiwan Strait would be engulfed in war, people killed and properties destroyed, would that make Americans live better and feel prouder? Luring Taiwan's crown jewel company, TSMC, to the U.S. would not necessarily make the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing great again but it sure would hurt Taiwan’s economy and employment. The recent semiconductor chip shortage and surplus cycle world-wide and the current hiccups in automobile production and sales have confirmed again some of the principles of world economy: The supply chain from raw materials to manufactured parts to finished final products have a natural dependency and correlation with different sectors of human resources, geographical markets, transportation systems and consumer populations. The world needs to learn how to collaborate and cooperate to gain efficiency instead of creating unhealthy competitions.

Sachs did make a correct suggestion to Biden, “to make a comprehensive review on the China and Taiwan Strait policy”, though did not comment on abandoning the hypocritical and ambiguous notion pointed out above. The U.S. must be honest in accepting competition and treating competition as inspiring energy. God had blessed America with far better resources than elsewhere, if Americans could not compete with others less privileged in this world, only themselves to blame. As the founding member of the United Nations, the U.S. has been largely the rule maker in banking, commerce, finance, trade, technologies, .... and many areas., she must accept the same rules that the rest of the world follows. The U.S. sure can survive the Pelosi (Taiwan Strait) crisis, but Washington must show real unity towards a sensible China Policy.

0 Comments

<<Previous