To engage or to confront, that is the question

 Two articles published on the same day: December 25, 2020, in the same publication: The National Interest, shed a great deal of light as to why America finds itself confused when it comes to pursuing a coherent and rational foreign policy.

 

One article was written by Kishore Mahbubani under the title: “Why Joe Biden Must Engage China,” the other article was written by Gideon Rachman under the title: “Why Biden should confront China”.

 

Here is the blurb that accompanies the Mahbubani article: “If the Biden administration were to attempt a complete reboot of American strategy toward China, it could chart a new path while picking up concrete benefits for the American economy and chipping away at Trump's political base”.

 

And here is the blurb that accompanies the Rachman article: “Washington's concern is about Beijing's efforts to expand its global influence through illegitimate means––in particular, by threatening to use military force or economic coercion to intimidate neighbors”.

 

The point that Kishore Mahbubani is making, is that Joe Biden needs to cultivate and maintain good relations with China because of several reasons, among them the reality that America has a surplus of farm products which China wants to buy and pay for with top dollars. But given the damage that Donald Trump has caused to that relationship during his short tenure, it will be difficult for Joe Biden to reverse course overnight, especially that Trump has rallied a good part of the American population to his point of view.

 

But there is a way to mitigate the difficulties, says Mahbubani, if not eliminate them. He explains how this can be done in the way that he ends his article. Here is a condensed version of that passage:

 

“If the Biden administration were to attempt a reboot of American strategy towards China, it could demonstrate public toughness and firmness where necessary, while picking up concrete benefits for the American economy and chipping away at Trump's political base. In the process, it will find a more intelligent strategy towards China that would bring back many of America's allies and friends. As the former Indonesian ambassador to the United States, said, 'Today, Southeast Asians want to get along with the US and China, but they also want the US and China to get along, at least in their region. We don't want to be duped into an anti-China campaign’”.

 

As to the point that Gideon Rachman is making, it is that China is a bad character, he says at the outset, because it is an illiberal power. Having instructed the Biden administration to wear glasses of prejudice and view China through them no matter what else is said, Rachman went on to spew the very thing that the Indonesian ambassador warned against. Here, in condensed form, is how Rachman put it:

 

“The challenge lies in the growing economic and military strength of an illiberal China, now clearly threatening American influence in the Asia-Pacific region. That darkens the horizons for liberal democracies in a region where China is the dominant power, and where the feel will be different from one in which America is the most influential country. And because the Asia-Pacific region is now the core of the global economy, what happens there affects the whole world”.

 

So, here you have it: On the one hand, there is the Asian Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore quoting the Indonesian ambassador (also Asian) as saying that all Asians want to get along with China, and do not want to be duped into an anti-China campaign. And here is, on the other hand, Gideon Rachman the British Jew who says no, no, no, the Asians feel differently from that. He goes on to spew the fantasy that Asians want America's influence in their region rather than China's, because they believe, like everyone else, that what happens in Asia has a bearing on what happens everywhere in the world.

 

And then, in the typical fashion that Jews deploy the two sides of their forked tongue, Gideon Rachman went on to advise the Biden administration how to carry on with two parallel and contradictory discourses at the same time. Here, in condensed form, is how he put it:

 

“This is not an effort to block the rise of China. The Chinese people have a right to development and a richer and more powerful China. A Biden speech on China could emphasize the positive contributions that China can make to the world in science, technology, and culture. Nor is this an effort to force regime change on China. The United States will always be sympathetic to those who push for democratic freedoms and will continue to speak out in support of the Uighurs, citizens of Hong Kong, and others. America can support Chinese liberals and minorities without directly threatening the Communist Party or its leadership”.

 

This is one example of what America faces every day when it comes to making decisions labeled, “liberal and democratic.” The argument in favor of maintaining such a regime, is that the more opinions are expressed, the greater the pool from which the President can choose to chart a course of action.

 

This is true, but it is not the whole truth. The fact is that thanks to the Jews, things have evolved in America whereby everyone expressing an opinion would have cultivated a constituency backing him or her. These constituents sit in high positions and wield a great deal of power. They often use that power to scrap what the President chooses to do.

 

The net result is that every opinion expressed in America is not a gift that the President can grab and deploy as he wishes. It is instead an authoritarian threat that he must take into consideration as he navigates a minefield of political perils.