China, Oil and Islamic Radicalism

Gordon Chang's piece in the Wall Street Journal on January 3rd is to be commended. Though its last sentence is perhaps its most important, "Now, the challenge for the U. S. is to recognize that Chinese attitudes have turned a corner, and to craft new policies in response." While this sentence is simple and true on the surface, it also may imply other things. And, if interpreted the wrong way, it may lead to a direct danger to the US.

The general theme that China is becoming more assertive globally is not controversial. According to Chang, China is certainly heading and will continue to trend in that direction.

Throughout history, many military confrontations stemmed from economic, diplomatic and or political issues. Why did Japan attack a number of targets in south east asia? because they needed access to oil and metal. Being economically dependent did not square with Japan's political sense of self, and explicit denial of economic resources led to their military confrontation. It was not the only reason, but the proximate one. The question one has to ask is, "Is a resurgent and more confrontational China merely the 'Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere' in a different guise?" If history does not repeat itself, it sure does rhyme - is this an echo of the 1930s Japan?

However, whether China's assertiveness ever translates into military aggression or continues to manifest itself through direct competition with the US in matters economic, diplomatic, and political is an entirely different matter, at least under current circumstances.

Peaceful economic/diplomatic/political competition is not something that we can stop. Nor is it something of which we should be fearful. We will need to respond to it in kind and raise the bar for them as well. To the extent that we can build bridges to China so that things evolve into "co-opetition" rather than zero-sum competition the better.

And, we should always hold our values sacrosanct and not compromise them. Advocating political, religious, economic freedoms, as well as individual civil liberties and freedom of the press should be a bedrock foundation of our policies.

All that said, China is a long-term threat. Despite their despicable lack of any of the values described above, it, in my opinion, is not a direct threat to us today. Nor, is it likely to be so in the next 20 years. The most direct threat from China over the next two decades is likely to be competition for increasingly scarce (and expensive) resources. At the top of that list is oil. I'll come back to this point later.

However, Islamic radicalism is a clear and present danger. The threat is unrelenting and genocidal. It threatens our very survival and our way of life. Therefore, the right question regarding China should be, "Can we 'craft new policies' without taking our eye off the ball of Islamic radicalism?"

The threat posed by Islamic radicalism is multi-dimensional. If we are talking about nation-states, then Iran and elements within Pakistan are at the top of the threat list followed closely by Syria and even "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Radical Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezballah, Hamas, and other similar organizations pose grave transnational threats. The situation in Iraq, while improving, is still tenuous and far from its desired end state. And these are just the most obvious dangers. The Islamic world is vast and spans dozens of countries globally and Islamic radicals populate virtually every country around the world. While some of these threats may be bogeymen acting on behalf of masters a world away, it clear that the threat is complex.

The present threat requires a multi-dimensional approach that includes political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and, of course where needed, military components. It requires us to recruit and lead other nations in a concerted and consistent decades-long effort. It will require the attention and resources of this great land supported by the attention and resources of our friends.

One other thing is clear; the approach we take will lead to difficult choices and discomforting partnerships. Where and how will we decide it is sufficiently valuable to apply the age old cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to exploit fissures and drive toward a greater goal. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, among others do not want a resurgent and nuclear armed Iran. Is their fear of Iran sufficient to force them to make compromises that they otherwise would not make? Can we in turn marshal their fear to help achieve the greater goal?

As we navigate these shifting sands, we need to make certain that we do not build a structure that will collapse when the wind changes direction and the sand shifts the other way. As with China above, in all our initiatives, we must not lose touch with our American values that are the bedrock foundation of our policies.

A winning strategy also demands that we quit using useless and misleading language like, "We are in a war on terror." We are at war with Islamic, expansionist, jihadist fundamentalism. If we cannot name our enemy we are not going to prevail.

Our unwavering focus must be on this current threat. Therefore, unless the threat environment changes, any "new policies" regarding China should be carefully crafted with two things in mind. First, take a long-term incremental view, as China poses a minimal present danger and we do not want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Second, it must not divert any resources or attention awayfrom the real present danger of radical Islam.

Ultimately, our greatest weapon against both radical Islam and the emerging threat from China is to end our dependency on oil. Oil dependency is our Achilles' heel. Ending it will, in a single shot, solve several of the gravest threats we face. And, it will make the global warming crowd happy. As we immerse ourselves in the 2008 campaign, look for new alliances to emerge.

(Thanks to Mary Ann Davidson for her help with this piece!)