Science has given us a way to see our own genesis; events
that took place billions of years ago. We look into space and see how new stars
are formed. Also, with the detection of planets around some of those stars, we
are now beginning to understand how solar systems come to be. And as we study
the planets in our own solar system, we add to our knowledge as to how this
planet has evolved to become our home planet.
We can now apply this method to understand how fanaticism
begins in a culture, and how it evolves to reach the limits of madness. To this
end, we have a galaxy of philosophical concepts called National Review Online
(NRO) that we can look at. It has systems of stars called ideas that form
inside it on a regular basis. We may call one of these ideas “foreign relations,”
and look at it closely to see how ideas start to form. We can then study how
the idea evolves to reach the level of fanaticism. To do this, we can just sit
back and watch it reach the point of non-sustainability then go nova forced by
the pressure of madness that blows it back into irrelevance.
Right now, a new idea called “relation with China ” is
beginning to form inside a concept called “pivoting to the Orient.” We may
watch its genesis and study how this beginning will ultimately lead to the
fanatic madness that has characterized the National Review Online galaxy. The
idea in question comes under the title: “A Token Response to China .” It was
written by the editors themselves and published on November 29, 2013.
The editors start the presentation by telling of a conflict
that is brewing between America
and some of its allies in the Western Pacific on one side, against a China that
stands alone on the other side. At first, the editors don't tell what China did but
call it aggression, and they assert that it requires more action than what
their American administration (which they call Obama's) has done in response.
According to them, it restricted itself to flying two B-52s – what they call
ancient unarmed bombers – over the East China Sea ,
the area that is in dispute.
What tells you this is not going to be a scholarly
presentation involving such issues as international laws, rights, treaties and
conventions – subjects that are normally raised in cases such as this – is the
fact that the editors demonize China
right at the outset. They do this by impugning what sounds like illegitimate
motives to that nation; motives such as its “well-known ambitions” over a
region that is “endowed with huge mineral and oil-and-gas deposits,” they go on
to say.
The editors make the additional claim that America has a pact with Japan according to which the latter and not America has the
right to administer the region; more specifically the Senkaku chain of islands.
What the editors carefully avoid saying is that according to the pact, America pledges to involve its own military
should a confrontation take place between Japan
on one side, and China
or anyone else over those islands. No such pledge is made in that pact.
Also, they don't say that China
is laying claim to the resources under the seabed, but they try to strengthen
their argument by asserting that China 's
move “impinges on the right of Americans to travel unimpeded over the East China Sea .” However, knowing that this is an
international norm – something that China
only modified slightly – they admit that the US and Japan maintain similar zones off
their own coasts. But now that they made this admission, they find themselves
boxed in. They search for a way out to maintain the sense that China 's
modification is an affront that deserves going to war over it. To this end,
they describe the Chinese decision as “a hegemonic demand – constituting a zone
of control, not defense.”
This being the case the editors make to support their set of
contentions, let's look at the modification that China has asked for. It has asked
that all aircraft passing through the zone, wherever, they intend to go,
announce themselves. You see, up to now only the planes planning to cross the
Chinese landmass were required to do so. This is a norm that is respected and
adhered to everywhere in the world. But given that modern aircraft can fly
faster than ever before, and most likely carries spy equipment more powerful
than ever, the Chinese saw fit to modify – however slightly – what is
essentially an accepted norm.
In fact, what is puzzling in all of this is not what China has asked
for, it is that someone considers the request to be a hegemonic demand for
control of the natural resources beneath the sea. This is essentially how the
editors of National Review Online describe China 's move; a stance that is
beyond comprehension. But then again, comprehension has never been the strong
suit of fanatics on their journey to madness.
What is encouraging, however, is that the nations of the
region see things the way that the Chinese do, and this is why their airlines
“have already agreed to identify themselves when entering the new colonized air
zone.” But, having associated the provocative label “colonized air zone” to China 's move,
the editors can only display their fears: “American airlines are likely to
follow suit.” So the question that poses itself: what does it all mean to the
editors of NRO? It means that the flight of the B-52s is “all that separates
the reaction of the world's superpower from that of the Philippines .”
In other words, they are insulting the Obama administration, calling it as
fragile as that of the Philippines ;
unworthy of being that of a superpower.
These editors are approaching madness alright, and that
means they are closing in on the point when they will go nova. They do so by
suggesting the steps that America
must now take. They say: “There needs to be a more substantial immediate
response and a long-term correction.” And they tell what that should be. (1)
Have joint military sorties with Japan over the disputed airspace.
(2) Escort US Airlines flying through that space without identifying
themselves. (3) Reform and fully fund America 's military. (4) Supply Japan with
American made F-22 fighter jets. (5) Exude confidence that the US will back Japan
in a clash with China .
(6) Prevent China
from dominating the region.
And if you want to know what that means; it means prepare to
go to war with China .
Well, well, well, assuming that America
wins this war, will the editors of NRO then tell America
to start another war with Russia
and Canada
so as to take the North Pole? And what about Antarctica ,
the Moon and Mars? Who will take these?