The Hudson Valley Chronic

There’s been speculation in the media that China will soon overtake the United States and have the largest economy in the world, thus becoming the world’s dominant superpower. Economists refer to a simplistic view of history, citing Britain’s former economic and world dominance and their subsequent loss of first the former and then the latter to the U.S. Younger economists warn that a pump and dump by the U.S., or an intentional inflation of our currency to the point that is nearly worthless before using it to pay off our previously massive debts would be catastrophic to our global credit rating. Older economists counter that this has been our modus operandi for at least the last 50 years, and that other countries are insane to lend us money. Others point out that China’s economy is growing largely due to the fact that they are a rapidly developing nation building modern new cities and infrastructure, while the U.S. and other more developed countries are dealing with the equally costly but less stimulating prospect of repairing infrastructure. Yet others speculate that China may be subject to the same reversals that the U.S. economy has recently experienced, but the two elephants in the room have largely been ignored.

China exported approximately 1.5 trillion (USD) of goods to the U.S. in 2010, responsible for approximately 14% of China’s GDP. The proposition has been put forth that 60% of China’s GDP is generated internally by industry such as mining, manufacturing and construction, and that China’s reliance on exports in general and exports to the U.S. in particular has been exaggerated. Still, one would have to be obtuse not to realize that these two sources of revenue are deeply reliant upon each other. If the U.S. goes broke and can no longer import 1.5 trillion in goods from China, the demand for mining, manufacturing, and construction in China would be severely reduced as well. In short, if the U.S. goes broke, China will go broke, too.

More importantly, while the U.S. military appears to be running haphazardly from one expensive and incompetently run war to the next, anyone who is familiar with the game of risk should see that despite all of our missteps and blunders, there is an ultimate objective in mind.

GDP is one of many ways of measuring a country’s economy, and as made clear earlier, there is still a lot of debate and confusion as to what all of this means and what the future holds. The problem with economists who look to history as a template is that their focus is removed from the economic and military realities of today. Their perspective is limited by their focus on the economy. Money is a social contract, and one that is easily manipulated and broken. It is a reality of the world only to the extent that it is stable and respected, neither of which appears to be the case. A gargantuan military force spanning the globe in order to dominate shipping lanes and the production and transportation of oil is a reality no one can escape.

U.S. control of Kuwait and Iraq secures U.S. access to the Persian Gulf, which leads to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. The U.S. also currently has troops in Yemen, a seemingly minor oil-producing country in the Middle East, but by securing Yemen, the U.S. would secure entrance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. This would give the U.S. Navy dominion over the only two shipping lanes between the Middle East and China and the rest of Asia. The U.S. would effectively have the power to regulate the amount of oil China is able to import to run its industries, as well China’s ability to freely export goods through the Indian Ocean. This serves as a strong reminder to China that regardless of what the bank ledger reads, the economic success of China is reliant upon both the economic success and goodwill of the U.S.

The U.S. is a hegemonic oligarchy, but it meets its basic obligations to the majority of its populace. As long as most American citizens have food, electricity, cars, and the internet, they will be placated. Like well suckled children, they won’t question the actions of their parents too vigorously. The U.S. also relies on a largely unspoken belief that is held by even the most adamant left wingers. The U.S.’s question to us is whether we as Americans would feel safer with China or the Middle East dominating the world. How do we think they would behave if they had the power the U.S. has? Would they be fairer and more just, or more ruthless and brutal? Which world do you think would be better, one that was more like the U.S., or one that was more like China? The third option of attempting to deal with these countries fairly and diplomatically is rarely mentioned.

To the vast majority of Americans and human beings in general, the prospect of any major change is always frightening. To Americans, whether they are ready to admit it or not, the idea of living in a world run by China is terrifying and humiliating. This is when we begin to become grateful for all of those aircraft carriers and nuclear warheads. The world might not be more brutal and ruthless if China was in charge, but it would be more ruthless and brutal toward us. These options leave Americans in an ethical quandary. Would we rather be fairer and better or more comfortable? Our ideals speak to the former, but the way we actually live our lives speaks to the latter. And in our comfort and empty complaints we are complicit in all that we secretly accept as repressive but necessary. Most of us are willfully and happily ignorant.

An ancient Chinese philosopher once said that he did not think it was possible to change the world. The world is perfect. It is and always will be exactly the way it is meant to be. But that doesn’t mean we have to close our eyes to it or be complacent. If we want the world to be a better, more rational place, we are going to have to take personal responsibility for own appetites and lifestyles and stop living lives full of empty idealisms and hypocrisies. After all, you are a part of the world, too. It is difficult but possible to at least change yourself. Will that change U.S. policy? Probably not. But in order for us to have any hope of positive change, we have to acknowledge the fear and paranoia within ourselves that is helping to drive U.S. policy. We also have to acknowledge this fear in others across the world, and the need to counter it not with our own suspicions and recriminations, but with openness and at least a willingness to really listen, and we better do it fast, while we are still in a position that affords us the opportunity to take such a stance.

Harry Seitz knows of which he speaks. As an American graduate student of Chinese/Jewish extraction, he has since birth been waging geopolitical power struggles for control of his soul, some of which have resulted in jail time.

U.S.-China