Home > Uncategorized > Neo-Imperialistic “Partnership” US World Order, Undefined, Outdated.

Neo-Imperialistic “Partnership” US World Order, Undefined, Outdated.

Nothing spurs me to rethink about the Orwellian Newspeak of today’s US World Order than a news filled with Newspeak.  Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis, 2 former US diplomats, both with close ties to pro-India lobby groups, authored a paper for Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) arguing for US to take a tougher stand against China.  http://www.cfr.org/china/revising-us-grand-strategy-toward-china/p36371

Among the usual 1 sided arguments of “China is doing this, but don’t look at what we are doing,” 1 Newspeak term keep creeping up as the hypothetical difference between US and China, why China is bad, and US is good in Asia.

And that term is “Partnership”.

The argument goes (as before), China doesn’t understand “partnership”.  China traditionally viewed itself as the “center”, and others as “supplicants”.  So, China doesn’t have “equal partnership” with other nations.  US, on the other hand, has had a stable “partnership” in Asia.

But the paper, and most other US defense papers, doesn’t even bother to define what “partnership” means in this context.  That’s because in a Neo-Imperialistic Unipolar US world order, “partnership” is whatever US says it is.

Case in point:  Even as Blackwill and Tellis argued in their paper that China uses “economic coercions” against its neighbors, they urge US to push through the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement], which incidentally has been heavily criticized by many in Asia as economically coercive, for example, demanding Japan to remove its traditional agricultural subsidies.  (You might say, removing government subsidy is good for trade.  Well, yes, except US still has its own agricultural subsidies!  So, how non-coercive is a 1 sided “open trade” agreement?)

To give some numbers in perspective, Japan’s agriculture subsidy per year is about 2.2 Trillion Yen (US$ 18 Billion) total in “budget programs”, US’s is about US$ 256 Billion (total in budget programs).

The numbers don’t lie.  US is pushing TPP like pushing drugs onto its junior partners in Asia.  And we obviously can see who are the junior partners.

One thing I do agree with Blackwill and Tellis on, is that China and US are not “partners”, at least not in the sense that US defines “partnership”.  Not now, not ever, not going to be.

“Partnership” is never that “equal”, no matter what people say.  There is only degrees of accepted “inequality”, and mutually accepted boundaries and limits of “partnership”.

What I mean is, if I have a business /trade “partner”, no matter how much I respect my “partner”, I wouldn’t allow my “partner” in my own private life.  There are things that are my personal affairs, and my “partner” should stay out of them.  If my “partner” tells me not to dispute with my neighbors about my property rights of my house, my “partner” is stepping over the limits of the “partnership” and behaving more like a Medieval Lord over me.  In which case, I would be happy to remind my “partner” to butt out and mind his own business.

That is precisely the case in Asia, where China has maintained its territorial disputes with its neighbors.  That is China’s own business with its neighbors, and US doesn’t have any claims in question.  And for the record, US’s claim of “alliance interests” in Asia is pretty much the definition of Imperial overreach.  Not only has US injected itself into Asia, US has pretty much claimed all of Asia as its own territory, with US’s claim of indisputable right to “protect” and assert its military “security” to arbitrate disputes.  US has not claimed ownership outright, but it has made itself into Judge, Jury, Executioner in Asia, selling its favors for money in 1 sided trade deals.

This is how US defines its “partnership”.  And as such, China would not accede to this arrangement.  No sane nation would.  Even Japan is reluctant, but Japan has been overlorded by US for so long, it hardly has a choice (or knows any alternatives).

On the flip side, would US accede to China’s demand that US renounce its “sovereignty” over the Native American tribal lands?  If not, why would US expect China to allow US into Asian territorial disputes?

Despite the Newspeak, this is not a new design of Imperial system for US.  It’s a very old one.  Only now, China is catching up fast and pushing back against the Imperial system of US.  And it makes the Emperor nervous.

So, the Emperor redresses himself in a business suit, and shakes the hands of his minions, and starts to call them “partners”, and nervously says, “you are on my side, right? Partner?”  And points to China, and says, “he’s the real Emperor.  We need to overthrow him.”

But then he turns around, and says, “your rent is overdue, pay up.”  (Now that’s a clue, in case you missed it).

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. ersim
    May 21st, 2015 at 18:28 | #1

    For the U.S. and the West, in general their definition of “partnership” throughout their history has been very consistent. “Partnership” is ether bribery or putting a military boot on their “partners” neck if they do not “cooperate”. Their motto is “what is yours is mine, what is mine, is mine”.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.