Robert D. Kaplan

Asia's Cauldron · The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific

asias_cauldron.jpg

This book presents America's ruling-class's point of view on what kind of military presence the US should have in the South China Sea and what role America should play in that area of the world. It's the ruling-class's point of view, whether Democrat or Republican. It is, again, Imperialism disguised as humanitarianism; America playing cops on account of morality and democracy. It is, all in all, America minding other peoples' business but their own. If you want a different, non-progressive view on the role of the US military and foreign affairs, look for Angelo M. Codevilla's new book To Make and Keep Peace. Libertarians are the only voice in the political spectrum who stand for America's founding ideas: peace and minding their own business, and who listen to their people instead of to the interests of elite and the ruling-class.

The American military position in Asia can afford to weaken measurably (…) so long as the American military retains a clear-cut advantage in key areas over the Chinese military. It is that edge which will preserve the balance of power.

The balance of power? Anyone asked the American people how they feel about the balance of power? How about the balance of peace and freedom at home?

Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University [thinks] … if China keeps growing economically (…) it will overtake America as the world wealthiest country (though not on a per capita basis) and naturally will not be content with American military primacy.

But this Australian professor does not agree with the American author, Mr. Kaplan, about the unconvenience of Chinese dominance in this part of the world:

White suggests that in the face of rising Chinese power, American dominance might henceforth mean instability for Asia. American dominance is predicated on the notion that because China is authoritarian at home, it will act “unnacceptably abroad”. But that may not be so, White argues.

And White is darn right, despite being another member of the intelligentsia in his country and detached from the feeling and desires of the common people, Australian or American.

Who does Mr. Kaplan represent? The American people? No. Let’s see what he has to say:

We, especially our intellectual and journalist class, may care too much about the internal nature of the Chinese regime. But China’s regime could very easily act detestable at home and responsible abroad –another reason why the rise of Asia could alienate humanists of all stripes.

That is, Republicans or Democrats, all of them progressives who care no longer for the American people and what they stand for, but for world imperialism disguised as humanitarianism.

We but especially we, the ruling class -he means- are the ones that know better than the simple-minded Johnny back in Kansas, since we went to Yale and Harvard. But we are also the ones who care, who really care, for the oppressed of the world, not just like the Republicans who only care for their fellow Americans, no; we, the morally superior class of intellectuals are the truly humanitarians, the messiahs of the world! Yes, the same ones who send our blacks, hispanics and white trash to fight for "humanitarian" purposes in the Balkans; who would like to have sent them also to Chechnya or to the Caucasus to stop the ethnic cleansing… Oh, if we just had a military arm powerful enough, so it could balance the authoritarian powers of the world, and teach them a few democratic manners… we would have peace, pretty peace, cute honey world peace, and people would be practically forced to be happy and love each other. No excuses.

But how would you feel if the Chinese navy roamed free and tall around the Caribbean waters and the gulf of Mexico, watching how you Americans behaved?

The ruling class in America should stop using the military as a moral weapon around the world and should use it only to defend their freedom and rights; keeping peace and doing business with the world, not looking for a fight, or taking sides in foreign issues and rivalries.

American Republicans and Democrats have long stopped listening to their people or to their Founding Fathers. Getting in the face of the Chinese is not an American interest: it is a threat to China, to peace; the American people don’t care what the Chinese do in their own backyard as long as America and their interests are safe. What are those interests? Those that America [the people] would be willing to go to war for, and win, mind you. Ask the people. Getting in the face of the Chinese, when they are trying, peacefully, to build their own empire in their neck-of-the-woods, like the US did in the American hemisphere in the 19th century, would only bring war, eventually.

I’m so sick of this hypocritical speech: in the name of humanitarianim and democracy America has to police the world and balance the power of undemocratic and dangerous nations, wherever in the world. I didn’t read that from Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams or any of those fellows. Since when is America about policing the world? Since before the First World War. Since early 20th Century it is no more “We, the People” but:

We, especially our intellectual and journalist class .

The author of this book is so detached from the grassroots of his country, so brainwashed by elite class preaching and indoctrination that he is really worried that the U.S. Navy can be cut back just at the point in history when the world needs it the most to maintain the balance of power, and thus keep countries like Taiwan and Vietnam free.

Do you, paying-tax and humble reader, buy that? That’s the most self-evident BS I’ve heard since Cain talked with Abel his brother about going out in the field.

But don’t think that it’s me who mentions ‘policing. It’s the author:

by 2050 [China] would have nine carriers concentrated in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans, by which time the United States would have about the same number for policing the entire globe.

And if the policing is done like -I heard recently- some cops are doing with blacks in American streets, then that is going to bring a lot of peace and goodwill to the world, for sure. Policing, friends. Policing at home and abroad. Welfare and policing! What a picture for 21st century America! It’s Plato’s republic come true.

But I must be exaggerating, for Mr. Kaplan indeed is a peace-loving and honorable man, and he only wants to send young American soldiers to the South China Sea for show, to deter, never to fight or to look for trouble, no. Just like a good and civic police force should be: not to look for trouble but to prevent it. Right. And not that the Chinese are bad people who want to do harm to Americans, or eat them… no, it’s just that they are too ambitious. So we will have to say of Kaplan and the rest of his ruling-class kin when the spark of war with China ignites:

But Kaplan says they were ambitious;
And Kaplan is an honourable man.

Indeed, Mr. Kaplan did attend a town hall-style meeting with folks; they in fact were

critical at times of the United States [because] they were upset that America had not intervened against China in the 1990s when Beijing challenged the Philippines’ ownership of Mischief Reef, part of the Spratley Islands group.

Oh, I forgot to mention: those people who were upset were students and young officials at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam [not a crowd of American rednecks, no].

I like the way Kaplan writes, though. But his previous books were more of a travelogue, feet on the ground, and less politically minded.

"Es cierto que el Romano es libre de hacer todo lo que quiera. Pero también lo es que tiene que soportar las consecuencias de sus actos. No importa que se haya equivocado, que le hayan engañado o incluso forzado: un hombre no se deja forzar: etiamsi coactus, attamen voluit. Es libre; pero si distraído, imprudente o atontado, prometió pagar una determinada cantidad y no puede pagarla, se convierte en esclavo de su acreedor."

Rudolph von Ihering

“Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them.”

Frédéric Bastiat

On the true nature of the Castro Revolution in Cuba: "The revolution was a cover for committing atrocities without the slightest vestige of guilt ... we were young and irresponsible. We were pirates. We formed our own caste ... we belonged to and believed in nothing -no religion, no flag, no morality or principle. It's fortunate we didn't win, because if we had, we would have drowned the continent in barbarism."

Jorge Masetti -In the Pirate's Den

La anarquía, es decir, la ausencia de fuerza estatal, no es una forma de Estado, y cualquiera que acabe con ella por el medio que sea, el usurpador nacional o el conquistador extranjero, rinde un servicio a la sociedad. Es un salvador, un bienhechor, porque la forma más insoportable de Estado es la ausencia de Estado.


Rudolph von Ihering

"El envidioso está afligido no solo por sus males propios, sino por los bienes de los demás."  -Hipias

[la norma de conducta de los progres] "No hacer nada que alguien pueda envidiarme." -Hipasos

NINOTCHKA,

O EL DISCRETO DESENCANTO CON EL SOCIALISMO 

ninotchka.jpg

Seguimos a la espera de la reedición de este importante libro del gran escritor español José Pla

Historia de la Segunda República.

jose_pla.jpg   

También a la espera de este importante libro del genial Rafael Abella.

Finales de enero, 1939, Barcelona cambia de piel

rafael_abella.jpg

2012 © CREOWEBS. Diseñamos y creamos. !!!