Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, has reported that a war between the United States and China in the South China Sea is inevitable within 5 to 10 years. I want to ask the Republican Party who the commander-in-chief is. Is it Steve Bannon? Or Trump?
China’s Central Command now feels that Donald Trump has established a mechanism for weakness in the international order of the world. If China can not determine who the commander-in-chief is then Steve Bannon’s words take on a different meaning in terms of legitimizing a war with China.
It seems like democracy does wage war with communist countries and seems to threaten their economic dominance. Xi Jinping is not the type of man to threaten. The Chinese President uses his actions to display dominance; words to him mean very little in the world of geopolitics. He establishes power by forging economic ties with Europe, Latin America, Africa, Russia, and other emerging nations as a soft rise with respect to economic clout.
China does have a sphere of influence no different than America’s manifest destiny. If apparent commander-in-chief Steve Bannon decides to limit their influence with their own strategic ambition in gaining land mass then war is indeed inevitable. Russia’s economic clout is also based on China propelling themselves as an equal dominant partner relying on Russian resources to funnel money into Russian infrastructure.
China will not dispense its multitude of European partners that rely heavily on their investments aiming to provide economic benefits to the middle class. If Chinese military officials believe that their backs are up against the wall with US slogans of waging war against China then it’s only a matter of time before they start accepting the slogans as a practical reality.
Steve Bannon believes in his own conventional wisdom that American corporations like GM, Apple, Microsoft, Ford, and hundreds of other American multinational businesses have the ability to pull out of China. Economically this is simply not possible without destroying the American and European economy itself.
Companies like Apple and Ford derive over 30% of their revenue from China alone. Are these companies willing to forfeit this large sum of market share in order to determine Bannon’s idea of dominance?
Military scientists and directors have drawn up the plans that suggest a war with China would definitely cause casualties of American soldiers, but along the road China would be utterly defeated. Have US citizens determined the occupation of China? Whatever military victory the United States achieves will never blossom the economic wealth that America has hopes for today.
Bannon’s actions have shifted the sentiment of the Philippines and Australia in a direction closer to China’s economic rise rather than the US. Even former secretary of state Henry Kissinger is annoyed with Bannon. He was alarmed at how rapidly the sentiment has shifted and how Bannon’s actions have damaged America’s longstanding policy towards Asia. Even the threat of supporting Taiwan and allowing nuclear arms to be stationed in Taiwan would immediately cause an uproar and immediate implication of war.
It seems like Steve Bannon wants to bypass Congress and directly wage war with China. International law only offers cohesion to the global economic order. However, it can not unite nations’ willingness to grow and expand within a region that emphasizes their own way of life.
Gu Xiaosang, an expert on Southeast Asian studies at the Guangxi Academy of Social Science mentioned, “The US is taking the opportunity to encourage its allies to stand against China on the South China Sea.” If China achieved no legitimate influence in the economic world, then the prevailing thought is to raise the issue that China should not influence or provide a competing influence towards the US.
American capitalism can not deal with its own structural reforms to infuse China’s philosophical virtues of win-win and facilitating a cooperative economic element that all nations will benefit from. It is a question of not achieving the subjugation of economic dominance. China would not have achieved economic influence if it adopted economic subjugation and interest solely on its own merits of capitalism. Xi had to boost the openness of economic prosperity and raise nations’ expectations that they will contribute as a united system of supply.
If democracy continues to wage all of these wars then a more sinister effect will emerge. Terrorism will not back down, nor will it end its terror for the sake of ending it. If terrorism strikes the population of democracy, eventually it will have the fortitude to attack the corporate world in its own territory. This in itself will create more terror, more fear, and may destroy the fabric of capitalism. If you hold confidence as the core tenant of what capitalism is, an attack towards it will diminish its effectiveness in growth and prosperity.
It looks like Steve Bannon wants to wage war on two fronts: one with the extreme terrorist that are gaining land mass in the Middle East and the other with China’s subtle rise that believes in mutual benefits in developing win-win solutions for all parties involved.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ran ExxonMobil, a billion-dollar company conducting business internationally. He’s a reasonable and capable man that understands that multinational companies take the form of citizens of our world. He mentioned, “There’s some interesting people that have been picked and will be picked – there are also some real wackjobs.”
I want Tillerson to take the lead and tell these “wackjobs” that if they choose to threaten China then the US better not back down. In the international order of the world, if you bluff, you better make damn sure you carry out your intentions like a soldier or else you’ll face the consequences of a demised reckless diplomacy that American prestige can never recover from. Tillerson has to ask Steve Bannon if he’s the commander-in-chief here or simply another wackjob.