In
the same way that there exists among the extreme groups, an abundance of
leaders who fantasize being little Hitlers, there are plenty of those who
fantasize being little Churchills. Most of the latter are Jewish honchoes who
make it a career to incite mighty America to go––not after the Soviet Union
that no longer exists but––after the nations that Israel chooses to make its
enemies of the day.
Most
of these characters are tin-pots who relate to Winston Churchill or anything
British as closely as a squirrel relates to a gorilla. They incite America
because the practice has become a lucrative industry that pays handsome sums to
anyone that can put words together telling why a faraway tiny country poses a
mortal threat to America's national security. Each time, this kind of
suggestion proves to be a powerful inducement for America to work on
destabilizing such a country or bomb it into the Stone Age.
Thus,
you see a proliferation of organizations in the business of inciting America to
go after Cuba even after sixty years of failed Cuban policy. And you have
similar organizations inciting America to go after Iran and Syria the way that
it did after Iraq. More recently, new groups have popped up and made it their
business to incite America going after one Latin American country or another.
Whereas
the influence of these hopeful, daydreaming would-be tin-pot dictators on
America's decision makers, is waning –– a new group of instigators is gathering
sway on those Americans. This is happening because the focus of the new
Churchill impersonators, is the Asia Pacific region where military and economic
might is building up in the hands of potential challengers to America's supremacy.
There
is in that region, North Korea which has been an American preoccupation even
before Cuba ever was. But it would not be such a big deal, were North Korea not
China's protege, a power to reckon with when and where it decides to challenge
America's supremacy. However, aside from North Korea, which is after all, a
foreign issue to China, there are Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are internal
matters as far as China is concerned. And when America meddles in these issues,
China grumbles.
Things
are getting serious in the Asia-Pacific region, perturbed by several events
breaking out at the same time, one being the issue of China tightening its grip
on Hong Kong. Whereas the Churchillian tin-pots of the other regions are losing
influence among America's decision makers, the real McCoy has risen, and he is
making the case for Hong Kong.
His
name is Chris Patten. He is British and he was the last British governor of
Hong Kong before it ceased to be a British colony. He is currently the
Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and he took time to write an article in
which he incited the world; nudging it to constrain China, especially in
matters that relate to Hong Kong. His article came under the title: “The China
'Constrainment' Doctrine,” published on June 25, 2020 in the online magazine,
Project Syndicate.
Patten
begins the discussion by citing the events that led to World War One, to
suggest that the posture of the Communist Party of China (PPC) will lead to
war. For this reason, he says, the rest of the world, especially the liberal
democracies, should coordinate their response to China's doings in Hong Kong
and elsewhere. After citing the familiar litany of Chinese alleged misbehavior,
Patten asked the question: What should the rest of the world do?
And
that's where the Chris Patten answer surprises you. Primed to see a robust
response from the real McCoy, you are instead reminded of the saying that goes
like this: “All dressed up and nowhere to go.” It's because after all the talk
about World War One, Chris Patten takes you on the “Bridge to Nowhere” and
leaves you wondering what there is to see here that should be interesting. See
for yourself:
“We
should reject the idea that deterring this sort of behavior amounts to
Sinophobia. The desire to push back in a measured way against the aggression of
the CPC should motivate us. We should be clear-sighted about what needs to be
done. It is the CPC that is picking a fight with us. We should work with China
in tackling climate change and addressing the threat of antimicrobial
resistance”.
As
if to double down on sweet softness, Chris Patten then asked the question:
Beyond that, what should a country like the UK do? And he answered as follows:
“We need to commission research on who benefits from Chinese investment
in the UK and from trade. We should seek to be independent of China in new
technologies. We should identify which sectors depend on inputs from China, and
make more of these products ourselves. We should look at our higher education
funding model, and try to recruit more students from elsewhere in Asia and
Africa. We should coordinate with other liberal democracies. Forming a wide
compact will be easier when there is once again a US president who believes in
alliances. The US will hopefully return to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
pact and broaden it to include the UK”.