Archive

Who fed the tiger? | TribLIVE.com
News

Who fed the tiger?

WASHINGTON

Missiles fired from the Chinese mainland could destroy five of the six major U.S. air bases in the Far East. So states a new report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, adding:

“Saturation missile strikes could destroy U.S. air defenses, runways, parked aircraft, and fuel and maintenance facilities. Complicating this scenario is the future deployment of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile, which could hold U.S. aircraft carriers at bay outside their normal operating range.”

China lays claim to all the Paracel and Spratly islands of the South China Sea, all the Senkakus in the East China Sea, and all the oil and gas beneath and around those islets and reefs.

America’s offer to mediate these claims, which involve half a dozen other anxious Asian nations, has been rudely rebuffed by Beijing. At the G-20 gathering in Seoul, Barack Obama got an earful from China about the Fed sinking the dollar and learned that Beijing would not be revaluing its currency to help with our chronic trade deficits.

As China holds a huge share of U.S. debt, Obama is not about to get sassy with our banker, who might just cut off the credit that America, running a budget deficit of 10 percent of gross domestic product, desperately needs.

So the question arises: Who put us in this predicament• Who awakened, fed and nurtured this tiger to where she is growling at all Asia and baring her teeth at the United States• Answer: the free-trade Republicans.

Richard Nixon opened China. His 1972 Shanghai communique pointed inexorably to what Jimmy Carter did in 1979: break relations and abrogate our security pact with Taiwan and recognize the People’s Republic as the sole legitimate government of China.

Repeatedly, Republicans voted to extend most-favored-nation status to China. Dissenters were castigated as “isolationists and protectionists.”

Under Bush II, the GOP made MFN permanent and sponsored Beijing’s entry into the World Trade Organization.

For decades, corporate America championed investing in China and trade with China, though the massive transfer of U.S. factories, technologies and jobs was clearly empowering China and weakening America.

Now, with U.S. political, military, industrial and strategic decline vis-a-vis China manifest to the world, we hear the wails of American businessmen that they are not being treated fairly by the Chinese. And the politicians responsible for building up China are now talking tough about confronting and containing China.

Sorry, but that cat cannot be walked back.

U.S.-China review commission chair Dan Slane says his members have concluded that “China is adopting a highly discriminatory policy of favoring domestic producers over foreign manufacturers.”

As for a U.S. policy of containment, we have no vital interest in China’s border dispute with India or Beijing’s claims to islands in the South and East China seas.

Time for our Asian friends to take responsibility for defending their own claims. As LBJ said in 1964, “We are not about to send Americans boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” This time, let’s mean it.

The day of the globalist has come and gone.

Pat Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.'”


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.