First, a tip of the hat to President Biden; his comments that the US will defend Taiwan from attack are an excellent first step towards preventing war in East Asia.

However, comments by members of his cabinet and other members of his staff attempting to explain “what the President meant to say,” are at best unhelpful and confusing, and at worst set the stage for Beijing to act precipitously.

Worst of all is Mr. Kerry’s statements which subordinate all other concerns vis-a-vis China, and for that matter the rest of the world, to combatting climate change.

In as much as 1) the climate does change and has continuously for at least the last billion years or so, and 2) the rate of change is nowhere near what has been repeatedly forecast (to review, the world was supposed to end several times over the last two decades, and we were also seeing “the last snowfall” multiple times in the same period), it may well be that there are certain things that are more pressing than climate change.

I would submit that preventing a war with China is one of them, as such a war would contain a very real possibility of a nuclear exchange. And an exchange of nuclear weapons is likely to be a good deal more troublesome than arguing over whether the polar bears are going to survive.

Note, polar bear populations are climbing, despite all the dire predictions.

In the wake of the conflicting and sometimes contradictory comments from President Biden and members of his staff, there has been some excellent commentary over the past several weeks as to whether the US should come to Taiwan’s aid, should the Republic of China be attacked the by Communist China.

Interestingly, invariably, the argument reduces to: if they won’t defend themselves, we should not risk US soldiers to defend Taiwan.

Which leads to the 1870s and the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck. As happened multiple times in the previous several centuries, Russia and the Ottomans were quarreling over the Balkans. When pressed on whether Germany should get involved, Bismarck answered with his now famous remark that: The whole of the Balkans are not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier.

The point Bismarck was making then, and one we need to address now, is that committing troops is a matter of “worth” to the nation, that is, the “national interest.”

In short, Bismarck was saying Germany had no national interest in the Balkans.

So, returning to the US and East Asia, What is the US national interest in East Asia? Should the US commit to containing China? Does containment of China – if that is in the US interest – also include preventing the seizure of Taiwan?

In asking these questions the US needs to recognize something that Bismarck was also clear on: if something is clearly in the national interest, the nation needs to act, whether anyone else is acting or not.

What that means to the US is that, if – IF – the US were to determine that preventing the seizure of Taiwan were in the US interest, then it matters not one iota whether the people on Taiwan were interested in their own defense or not. The US needs to look after US interests. If those interests coincide with those of others, all well and good. But the US still needs to look after US interests.

Which leads back to the questions asked earlier: what are US interests vis-a-vis East Asia, Communist China, and the Republic of China?

John Quincy Adams famously observed that the US goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Multiple times the US gone abroad to “destroy monsters;” some times those actions have been prudent, other times they have been less so. Surely, both World Wars represented necessary actions. Containing the USSR was also necessary. I would submit that the US now faces an equal or perhaps even greater relative threat from Communist China as it did from the USSR, a threat not only to our interest in the rule of law around the world, a threat to our interest in free, safe and secure trade, and a threat to nations that we call friends and allies, but also a threat to the US itself from an unchecked China, led by power-hungry, hubristic men who wish to recast the world in their image.

China needs to be contained. That means the US, and its allies, need to wean themselves of much trade with China; they need to push back on Chinese aggression in Africa, Central Asia and the Mid-East, they need to send clear and unambiguous signals about Beijing’s routine and frequent flouring of internationally accepted standards, they need to pressure China on their treatment of Tibetans, Uighurs, on their actions in Hong Kong, they need to force China to own up to its responsibility for the Wuhan virus and the deaths of millions around the planet. The list goes on.

Further, China must not be allowed to expand, to stake claims in the South China Sea, to seize Taiwan, to encroach on India.

These are pressing matters. They are both more grave and of more immediate consequence than the climate. Mr. Kerry’s suggesting that somehow getting China to agree to cutting carbon dioxide output beginning in 10 years somehow outweighs the ongoing crimes of the Beijing government would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling.

But I don’t get to decide the national interest. This is a discussion that the President and his senior staff need to have with the American people that they work for; the citizens need to be involved in defining our national interests.

But, it’s worth noting that a policy of containment, a strategy that would be, in many ways, analogous to the containment of the USSR, would also be one that would steer us away from a war with China, and that would be worth it.

Perhaps we should remember another piece of wisdom from Bismarck: You know where war begins but you never know where it ends.

Copyright 2021 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com