Since the Chinese Communist Party ignited the U.S.-China Cold War in the first half of last year, the U.S. military has seen the severity of the problem, is accelerating its armament, and has issued a series of public reports addressing the Chinese Communist Party’s military threat. However, the U.S. military’s efforts to mend the clock for U.S. national security have been met with dumbed-down domestic advocacy of appeasement against the CCP. Whether the United States can win the final victory in the Sino-American Cold War depends first and foremost on whether appeasement claims can be contained.
I. The Past Life and Present Life of Appeasement
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is famous for his appeasementist foreign policy toward Germany. Appeasement, which can also be translated as appeasement, is an attempt to make political and economic concessions to the expansionist strategies of totalitarian regimes in exchange for temporary peace. When Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany in 1938, ceding the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Germany, he returned to London from Munich on September 30 of that year and proudly announced to the public that he had brought back “Peace for our Time. However, his so-called “era of peace” lasted only six months before Nazi Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in March of the following year and invaded Poland in September, forcing Britain to declare war on Germany.
Some of the British media at the time served Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. For example, the editors of The Times of London suppressed reports on Nazi militarism by their correspondent in Germany, Norman Dawson, while the editors of The News Chronicle removed journalists’ reports that 86 percent of the British public believed Hitler was covering up his expansionist ambitions. Chamberlain himself justified his appeasementist policies by directly manipulating the BBC to keep it from criticizing Hitler and Mussolini. British historians later criticized Chamberlain for the utter failure of the Munich Agreement, which failed to adequately prepare Britain for war in the European theater of World War II.
Today, a totalitarian Communist regime that is pursuing “rise to power” and international power is on a path that threatens world peace, while a new version of appeasement of the Communist Party is emerging in the United States and around the world. Since the Communist Party ignited the U.S.-China Cold War late last year, many among the “politically correct” in the United States have deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that the Communist Party is a military threat to the United States, and Biden has downgraded the Communist Party’s international role from a strategic enemy of the United States to a “competitor” at this time. “. Many around the world have interpreted Trump‘s tough stance toward the CCP as the cause of the U.S.-China Cold War, while ignoring the fact that the CCP is the one actively creating the Cold War.
The Chinese Communist Party initiated three military actions against the United States in the first half of 2020. First, it sent its naval fleet to drill near the U.S. base at Midway Island in a military provocation posture; second, it announced its intention to control the entire international waters of the South China Sea and use it as a “deep sea fortress” for strategic nuclear submarines to launch nuclear missiles against the United States; and third, it announced that it had used the Beidou satellite navigation system to achieve its strategic goal of striking the United States with nuclear missiles with precision. U.S. nuclear deterrence strategic objectives. As a major power with a large number of nuclear weapons and means of delivery, these threatening actions by the CCP effectively ignited the Cold War between the United States and China. Last October, the Communist Party amended its National Defense Law to expand China’s conditions for foreign war to include a general mobilization for national war if “development interests” are affected, as I detailed in my March 11 article on this website, “The Two Faces of Biden’s China Policy. Recently, the Chinese Communist Party passed the Maritime Police Law, declaring that it will use large maritime police vessels to enforce the law in waters it considers to be under its control, which is a move to forcibly control international waters.
These dangerous moves show that the Chinese Communist Party is pursuing its foreign expansion strategy step by step, and neighboring countries and the United States, which protects the Indo-Pacific region, are facing increasing threats. And in the face of such an international situation, appeasementism is re-emerging.
II. Current Appeasement Propaganda
On March 17, the BBC published an analysis – “U.S.-China Relations: Top Diplomats Meet in Alaska, Whether to “Break the Ice” Becomes a Point”, the article said, “China and the U.S. have deep differences on a number of issues such as economic and trade, human rights and other issues. The bilateral relationship has fallen to its lowest point in more than four decades of diplomatic relations in the past year.” Is the relationship between China and the U.S. only a result of economic, trade and human rights issues? China is a totalitarian dictatorship and human rights issues have been a constant since the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party; and U.S.-China economic and trade issues have existed for more than a decade, as I analyzed in my March 11 article, so I won’t repeat them here. Successive U.S. presidents, with the exception of Trump, have been at peace with this historical reality, paying lip service to it while maintaining a de facto “honeymoon” between the U.S. and China. The real reason why U.S.-China relations are at their lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic relations is that the Chinese Communist Party has ignited the Cold War between China and the United States, and the national security of the United States is increasingly threatened by the Chinese Communist Party in a more and more blatant manner. This is the basic pattern of current U.S.-China relations.
The New York Times published a similarly toned article on March 22: “That Was Fast: Blowups with China and Russia in Biden’s First 60 Days,” by David Sanger. Sanger has written about international relations for the newspaper for 38 years.
David Sanger is not an uneducated scribe; he has spent years covering White House and national security news, and naturally knows how to find the latest information on the U.S.-China confrontation on the U.S. Department of Defense website and military websites. But he completely ignores the U.S. military’s repeated warnings about the Chinese Communist military threat, insisting that “the Cold War has not resumed – it’s not basically the nuclear threat that it was, and the current (U.S.-China) rivalry revolves around technology, cyber conflict and actions to expand influence. ” If the Chinese Communist Party was really acting on technology, cyber conflict and expanding international influence, as he says, why did it send its fleet to the U.S. base at Midway last January for a demonstration exercise and explicitly announce that it was “pointing the finger at Pearl Harbor”? Why did the Chinese Communist Party announce in June last year that it had used the Beidou satellite system to complete a precision nuclear missile strike on any U.S. location? Isn’t the nuclear missile threat a nuclear threat? The Soviet Union’s nuclear missile threat was not accurately navigated, and its nuclear threat to the United States was in fact far less than the Chinese nuclear threat today.
This veteran journalist has an ulterior motive to mislead American readers because he is acting as a mouthpiece for the “politically correct” wing of the Democratic Party, trying to get the administration to abandon its preparations for war against the Chinese Communist Party. This is one of the reasons why the Chinese Communist Party is now emboldened by the fact that there is a large group of “fifth columnists” in the Democratic Party’s circle of influence who are trying to manipulate U.S. policy toward China, to downplay the threat of the Chinese Communist Party to U.S. national security, and to make U.S. policy toward the Chinese Communist Party favorable to the Chinese Communist Party. The “politically correct” faction is ideologically inclined toward Marxism and has a favorable view of the Communist Party and Mao Zedong, and naturally resents moves to crack down on and suppress the CCP. Although the motives for these actions were different from those of the British Chamberlain-era media for appeasement purposes, the effects were very similar.
III. The U.S. Military Commits to Total War Preparedness
In the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s global expansionism and military threat to the U.S., U.S. military generals have been testifying before Congress and issuing a series of reports on the Chinese Communist Party’s military threat to the U.S. and U.S. readiness for war over the past several months in the interest of preparedness and national security.
The U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, and Congress have all released a series of reports for decision making. In addition to the Trump Administration‘s release of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategic Framework developed in 2018 last winter, the U.S. Navy has released several reports not normally available to the public or foreign countries, one of which was rescheduled on Jan. 27 of this year, China Naval Modernization: Considerations for U.S. Navy Defense Capabilities, Background and Issues for Congress (China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities-Background and Issues for Congress)”; and another, a 10-year plan released Jan. 11 by the U.S. Department of Naval Operations, “The The Secretary of Naval Operations’ Maritime Operations Plan, 2021 (CNO NAVPLAN 2021), which names China as the greatest threat to the United States and discusses how the U.S. Navy will maintain maritime military superiority over China in the future; and a naval study for the U.S. public, Advantage at Sea: Prevailing with Integrated All-at-Sea Forces to Win (CNO NAVPLAN 2021). (Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power), completed last December, which discusses the need to integrate the forces of the three services – Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – to maintain U.S. maritime dominance over China.
The Congressional Research Service also released a report to members of Congress and members of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees on January 28 of this year, “U.S.-China Strategic Competition in the South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress (U.S.-China Strategic Competition in the South and East China Seas. Background and Issues for Congress”. This study is a public echo of the Navy’s aforementioned report, not only for congressional discussion of defense policy and budget, but also to inform the American public about the reality of the current U.S.-China maritime confrontation.
In an article published Feb. 3 in the February issue of Proceedings, the U.S. Navy’s leading magazine, Adm. Charles Richard, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, called on U.S. military and federal leaders to find ways to deter aggressive Chinese actions, including confronting the real possibility of nuclear war. He said there is a real possibility of a nuclear war between the United States and China, which has begun to aggressively challenge international norms in ways not seen since the height of the Cold War. Richard argued that China’s recent actions would increase the risk of a great power crisis or conflict if U.S. officials were to let it go.
The United States must expand the pace and scale of military innovation to maintain deterrence against China, Deputy Secretary of Defense nominee Kathleen Hicks (D-N.Y.) said at her Senate confirmation hearing Feb. 2. The hearing addressed the significant issue of the Navy’s budget shortfall and the inadequacy of existing shipbuilding programs.
Since World War II, this is the first time in more than 70 years that the U.S. has issued such an intensive military intelligence report, something the military would not do unless the situation was serious. All of these reports point to a regime that is waging a military threat – the Chinese Communist Party.
The U.S. Military Spending Debate
The Wall Street Journal reported on Jan. 24 that the U.S. military began noticing the threat to the United States from the Chinese Communist Party’s military in 2018, and that the Pentagon recently decided to implement a strategic shift to focus on countering the military threat from China, a shift that current Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has followed in considering a major shift in military spending and various military programs to counter the Chinese Communist Party as the primary goal. For example, in addition to the Navy’s ongoing development of unmanned ships, the Air Force will add electronics to its B-52 bomber fleet, and the Marines are abandoning the tanks they used to rely on and instead training to fight on islands in the Western Pacific against the Chinese Communist Navy.
This U.S. readiness situation is much better than the one before Pearl Harbor, which sparked the Pacific War, but there are still some similarities in the form of inadequate intelligence, inadequate equipment, and, more problematically, inadequate military spending. Obama’s presidency has squeezed military spending drastically, resulting in a defense budget that is now inadequate for the military. While the U.S. military is loudly appealing to the White House, Congress, and the public that they must take the time to prepare for war against the Chinese Communist Party, which the U.S. has long been negligent in defending against, the U.S. administration and Congress should have actively cooperated and prepared for a rainy day to maintain U.S. national security. In fact, however, the “politically correct” faction in power has gone in the opposite direction, adopting an appeasementist approach to the military budget, although they cannot deny the hard facts of the military’s stated military threat from the CCP.
In recent months, senior generals and retired generals from the U.S. military, from the Navy and Air Force to Strategic Command, have testified before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, stressing that the U.S. military must do its utmost to address the CCP’s military threat, but also coincidentally pointing out that the U.S. military has not prepared for the CCP to the extent necessary under the Obama era, and that not only is the military’s equipment outdated, but it is also underfunded.
Biden and some Democratic lawmakers have reacted negatively to the strong calls from military generals, and the need for national defense does not seem to be within the Perception of the “politically correct” faction. Now, the Biden Administration is very generous in paying large sums of money to illegal immigrants, and resolute and generous in increasing diplomatic spending and allowing non-profit organizations to feed more Democratic supporters; but when it comes to the defense budget, the Biden administration and Democratic members of Congress are intent on cutting military spending. The Navy’s official website reported on March 10 and March 16 that the Biden administration’s first military budget is poised to cut the military budget set by Trump for the previous fiscal year by 2.5 percent. As a result of the military budget cuts, the Pentagon has had to consider reducing the size of the Navy fleet, which directly puts the U.S. in a difficult position to implement its security commitments in the Indo-Pacific region with insufficient military power.
On March 3, Politico reported that Phil Davidson, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, asked the defense secretary to pressure Congress to approve a $5 billion budget for 2022 to buy weapons and missiles to “deter” China. Davidson’s request was echoed in the top ranks of the U.S. military, but Rep. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Democrat from Seattle, Washington, said he opposes a massive increase in military spending and doesn’t think the U.S. military needs to do that. What exactly is his motivation is worth watching.
On the one hand, the United States’ enemy, the Communist Party of China, has increased its military spending by 6.8% this year; on the other hand, the United States, which is facing the military threat from the Communist Party of China, has to compress its military spending by 2.5% this year. Isn’t this a typical appeasement approach? The “politically correct” faction does not dare to criticize the military, but in fact is repeating the Chamberlain Doctrine. For the United States, this is one of the many dangers facing the country today.
Recent Comments