Stratfor: Japan's GEographics Challenge

Stratfor: The End of The Economic Miracle In The East

There have been some posts that I have had sitting in the docket either unfinished or are simply nothing more than a tag line with a few links, this has been due to my work and personal schedule being completely overloading these last few weeks.  Fortunately, will I wouldn't say normalcy has returned, the load has returned to manageable levels.

Now, I have a link to an article from Stratfor that doesn't require a subscription to review title 'Recognizing the End of The Chinese Economic Miracle.' The article goes at length about the growing realization by many academic and business elites realizing the problems that China now faces.  Statements about an impending economic crisis have been going on for quiet some time, I believe Gordon Chang has been predicting an economic crisis in China for over a decade, but those arguments have always been postulations or possibilities rather than something that is happening.  For the first time we are seeing acknowledgement that China is having trouble. A quote from Paul Krugman below:
 

Stratfor: Canada's Geographic Challenge

Here is another Geographic Challenge video from Stratfor. This one featuring our cousins in the wintry north.  Canada is in a unique position due to its relation to the United States. On the one hand close proximity means that Canada has the added protection of naturally being in the US defense umbrella; and access to the largest economy in the world.  Canada is America's largest supplier of oil and natural gas.  At the same time Canada's proximity means a loss of some of its sovereignty -can anyone imagine Canada significantly going against America geo-politically? - and it is very much intertwined into American markets, 49% of its imports are from America, to the point that you could almost consider Canada and America as one economy. Anyways, enjoy the video

Stratfor: Entering a New Geopolitical Age

Here is a free article from the head of Stratfor concerning the globe entering a new era beyond the post-cold war era. It's pretty good, and covers the EU, US and China. He lists out the real problems and issues facing each of the powers, though you will notice he does omit some items concerning the United States.  The two major ones I suspect individuals in this corner of the net will notice is the absence of acknowledging the absolute danger our unsustainable debt, the threat posed by a potential monetary collapse, our declining civil liberties and the issue with immigration. 

The first two are items Stratfor has always been rather weak on. Their analysis of global events is excellent in my opinion but they have a blind spot when it comes to the United States and its economic and fiscal matters. However, Stratfor has, correctly in my opinion, outline some key fundamental reasons why the US wields so much geopolitical power. The issue now is will our very real problems overwhelm our natural advantages. Obviously Mr. Friedman, due to the omission in his analysis, would say yes while others on the manosphere would so the exact opposite. I am somewhere in the middle. My concern with our economic situation is less about our geopolitical power as much as it is our personal well being. I do not, for a second, think that the US would elect what Britain or the USSR chose to do when faced between maintaining their empires or sacrificing more of their peoples well beings.

As for the the declining civil liberties, Mr. Friedman has addressed the issue in the past and stated that one of his fears was that no power can remain a true republic and an imperial power, though two are mutually exclusive. I believe civil liberties are very important in the ability for a nation to project power as John Adams once said, and I am paraphrasing: "A nation's power is dependent on it's liberties of it's people. And the nation with the largest population with the most free people will be the most powerful." But at the same time even on the long term time frame of real politics the effects of declining civil liberties can take some time to be realized.

Lastly, as for immigration, while Mr. Friedman did not address the issue in this article, he has in the past. In fact, in his book, the Next 100 Years, he maintains that in the later half of this century that the issue of immigration will be the most important issue concerning the United States and it's ability to project power.  The American Southwest has always been a borderland between Mexico and America. America currently occupies it now because it is far more powerful, both in wealth, military and population than it's southern neighbor and because of that we control the south west.  This was not always the case in the past and it may not always be the case in the future. Mr. Friedman thinks that there is a real possibility of a secessionist movement or even a war between Mexico, which he thinks will become a potential rival, and the US if the issue of immigration and assimilation is not adequately addressed. 

Either way, you may agree or disagree with some or all of his assessments but it is worth a quick read.

Stratfor: The Mississippi of China

Stratfor is kicking off a geopolitical analysis of the Yangtze river, which they dumb the Mississippi of China. Like the Mississippi, the Yangtze river is of prime economic importance to the Chinese economically and politically. In periods when the Han people were not unified the dividing line was often the Yangtze river, separating the northern kingdoms from the southern kingdoms.  Here is a video below.

 

 

Here is an image showing both the Yangtze and the Yellow rivers, and as you can see, some of the most important economic city centers in China, Shanghai on the cost and Chongqing in the interior, lie on the Yangtze river. 

 

Unlike the Mississippi however, where there are no man made damns obstructing sail able traffic, you can sale from Minneapolis all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, the Yangtze has the three Gorges Dam, currently the largest in the world.  The Chinese have built ship lifts and a series of locks to ensure that river traffic can continue, but it does pose an exploitable weakness. This is tempered by the fact that the three gorges damn is over a thousand kilometers away from the coasts.

Individuals, who have read my post on the economic and geopolitical importance of the Mississippi, will instantly know that keeping this river way open to the world is of paramount importance. This also illustrates why the Chinese are acting the way they are in the South China sea.  While the islands possess some importance due to international treaties concerning exclusive economic zones, the real importance.

Looking at a map of East Asia you will see that China only has one coast, whereas the US has three, and that their access to open water is extremely hampered.  The US faced the same situation concerning their gulf coast and the Mississippi river and the access way of its good to the world, which explains the Monroe Doctrine, and the risk that the fledgling US faced is even greater for the Chinese. In the event of a potential blockade there are only four openings outside of the East China and South China Sea; I do not inlcude the Sea of Japan and the access way to the North Pacific for obvious reasons.

From Japan, a US ally, to Taiwan, another US ally, there are the Ryuku islands that would strongly favor the US in the event of hostilities as they add additional land based systems that could take part of a naval blockade in that region.  There is a relatively large opening between Taiwan and the Philippines, but the Philippines has been moving ever closer to the US, and there is a second string of islands, the Bonjin and a series of islands to the south of the tropic of cancer, that the US could potentially utilize.

The openings to the South China sea are even more problematic as the Sulu Sea, the Java Sea, and the the Andoman Sea are very small and present great opportunities for a major naval power to enforce a blockade without exerting tremendous amounts of resources. Another item of note is that the Straits of Malaca, where 90% of all China's oil and a large portion of their exports to Europe sail. Cutting off the straights of Malaca would be disastrous for the Chinese. The ultimate problem being, that given various islands could serve as useful points from which the US could fight a naval war, the Chinese are at an extreme disadvantage.

True, many naval stations, such as in Singapore and the Philippines are no longer in use by the United States, the fact is that this could change and the US is already making overtures for greater military cooperation between itself and the south east island nations. The greatest fear China has would be to send out their fledgling navy against, not only the US navy or allied navies, but also the available anti-ship land defenses that could be used so effectively in the region. This is also why China is developing their own robust anti-ship defense systems since a bottleneck for them is also a bottleneck for their enemy.

Ultimately this about the potential threat the US posses to China, any large naval power could use these features against China, but only the US right now possess a such a naval power that makes them a legitimate threat in this way if hostility ever broke out. China is all too aware of this uncomfortable reality, and this explains their actions in concerning the disputed islands and their efforts to modernize their navy and develop a robust land based naval defense system.

Stratfor: Explaining Realism And Geopolitics

A good video explaining the methodology of geopolitical realism. I ascribe to the realism theory of geopolitics. 

Stratfor: Japan's Geographic Challenge

Another video from Stratfor. This one on Japan.

Stratfor: Columbia's Geographic Challenge and Pacific Neighbors Reacting to China's Pacific Moves

It's been a busy weekend so blogging took a back seat.  Here are two good videos from Stratfor. One on the geographic challenge posed for Columbia. The other talks about various Pacific countries reacting to the growing strength of China.

US Foreign Policy Shifting to The Pacific

The two decades has seen the US focusing on the middle east, though even as early as 2000, the US has been shifting military forces and diplomatic muscle to the pacific in a way it hasn't since the Vietnam war. The video from Stratfor should help articulate why:

China's growing belligerency is a near given in the short term. If it is indeed the next economic super power then being left at the mercy of the US navy and it's ability to enforce crippling embargoes is intolerable. If economic collapse, and social strife, are in the cards, then an aggressive military posture will be used as a vent t direct dissatisfaction with the PRC to a foreign adversary.

For the US the move to the Pacific is a continuation of US policy since the end of World War II. That policy is to ensure that only one nation enjoys unfettered access to the worlds oceans. Expect to see  lot more confrontation with China, more assertive Japanese military, and perhaps even a reopening of a US military installation in the Philippines.

STRATFOR: Australia Geographic Challenge

A video from Stratfor detailing Australia's geographic challenges and how it shapes foreign policy.

Stratfor: Decline of the Middle Class

Here is a good article from George Friedman and the crisis of the middle class and how it is a threat to long term American global power.  It is good in the sense that does identify that danger that the declining middle class, or rather the shifting of what it means to be middle class, posses to America's ability to project power abroad.  It is also good as it does a great job illustrating how many of the highly intelligent, and even not so highly intelligent, in positions of real power, the American bureaucracy, view what is happening in America. I respect George Friedman immensely, he is very insightful in world affairs and his prognostications are based on good sound fundamentals, that being said, he is a person who advises the elites, and has a somewhat similar outlook in regards to governments ability to deal with problems.

The Great Depression was a shock to the system, and it wasn't solved by the New Deal, nor even by World War II alone. The next drive for upward mobility came from post-war programs for veterans, of whom there were more than 10 million. These programs were instrumental in creating post-industrial America, by creating a class of suburban professionals. There were three programs that were critical:

1. The GI Bill, which allowed veterans to go to college after the war, becoming professionals frequently several notches above their parents.
2. The part of the GI Bill that provided federally guaranteed mortgages to veterans, allowing low and no down payment mortgages and low interest rates to graduates of publicly funded universities.
3. The federally funded Interstate Highway System, which made access to land close to but outside of cities easier, enabling both the dispersal of populations on inexpensive land (which made single-family houses possible) and, later, the dispersal of business to the suburbs.

There were undoubtedly many other things that contributed to this, but these three not only reshaped America but also created a new dimension to the upward mobility that was built into American life from the beginning. Moreover, these programs were all directed toward veterans, to whom it was acknowledged a debt was due, or were created for military reasons (the Interstate Highway System was funded to enable the rapid movement of troops from coast to coast, which during World War II was found to be impossible). As a result, there was consensus around the moral propriety of the programs.

George Friedman has always stated that politics is less about great men leading nations to desired ends and more about great men realizing the constraints they are put under by geopolitics and acting as best they can within those constraints.  He does acknowledge that there are other events that contributed to America prosperity after WWII, but he is off the opinion that it was three government programs enabled American growth.

I differ with Friedman and would say that the GI Bill probably didn't do a whole lot. It wasn't a bad program, and you could certainly make an argument, which I agree with, that individuals sacrificing years of their life to defend their nation are owed some compensation of some sort. What really mattered is that millions of GIs received far better managerial, organizational and logistical experience from their time in the service.  The military, while like any organization is full of inanities, is a results oriented organization, at least on the squad, platoon and company levels, were decisions have real consequences.  The GI might have helped facilitate growth to some degree, but I think the desire to build beyond the travesties of war and build a better future for their children had more to do with it.  Simply change Hanlons razor 'never attribute to malice which is adequately explained by stupidity' to 'never attribute to insight which can adequately be explained by human nature.

Moreover, I would consider his second point as  short sighted by our government. Yes it made college more affordable for returning GI's, however, this could be ground zero for the beginnings of both the college and housing bubbles. Just because it took about a half centuries for the negative externalities of the college and housing bubbles to appear doesn't mean this wasn't the gestation point.

George Friedman is spot on about this point however:

American society on the whole was never egalitarian. It always accepted that there would be substantial differences in wages and wealth. Indeed, progress was in some ways driven by a desire to emulate the wealthy. There was also the expectation that while others received far more, the entire wealth structure would rise in tandem. It was also understood that, because of skill or luck, others would lose.

What we are facing now is a structural shift, in which the middle class' center, not because of laziness or stupidity, is shifting downward in terms of standard of living. It is a structural shift that is rooted in social change (the breakdown of the conventional family) and economic change (the decline of traditional corporations and the creation of corporate agility that places individual workers at a massive disadvantage).

The inherent crisis rests in an increasingly efficient economy and a population that can't consume what is produced because it can't afford the products. This has happened numerous times in history, but the United States, excepting the Great Depression, was the counterexample.

There isn't really much more to add save other than that he doesn't even consider the negative effects of the Federal Reserve, rampant deficits and eroding constitutional liberties.  Now, it would be disingenuous not to say that George Friedman has openly said he fears for the republic, and that continued empire means the continued erosion of the American republic. Republics and Imperial ambitions cannot coexist for long, and he does mention that, moreover, George Friedman may not intentionally down playing those actions. He is a geopolitical analyst first and foremost, and a student of history, and America is undergoing many of the same maladies that brought down republican Rome and replaced it with imperial Rome. It may simply be a case that he is writing about America the nation versus America the state; America the republic.  The disconcerting truth is that the nation of America doesn't need the republic to still be a nation. Many of nations have seen numerous types of states in their time, monarchy, dictatorship, republic, so on and so forth. We may like to think that the republic form of statehood is part and parcel of our nation, but it isn't, and we are rapidly coming to this realization.

Lastly, there is this quote:

People who are smarter and luckier than I am will have to craft the solution. I am simply pointing out the potential consequences of the problem and the inadequacy of all the ideas I have seen so far. 

It has always bothered me that individuals who are intelligent, and George Friedman is undeniably very intelligent, buy into this technocratic notion of governance. This is one of the reasons why we are in the very situation we have today. Yes there are some fundamental changes, which he pointed out, that the nation faces, but almost every solution technocrats have come up with in the last 90 years has only served to magnify the current problems we face. Until technocrats realize that every cure they come up with is worse than the poison they are trying to treat, then we won't overcome the structure problems besetting our nation.

Stratfor: Geographic Challenge

Another video on from Stratfor on Cuba. Once you watch it you will realize why the US has always been as heavily involved in Cuba as it has been.

Stratfor: Evolving Relationship Between Communist Party And the Army

Too busy at work to do a post yesterday, or this morning, hoping to have some time tonight. Here is a short video on the evolving political enviroment of China and its military.  Unlike the US were our army is beholden, at least in idea, to the nation or the government.  The army in China is expressly the property and tool of the party.  However, this may be beginning to change.

Stratfor: Europe Hardens on Immigration

For decades Europe ignored the legitimate fears being raised about unfettered immigration.  Now they are seeing a rise in nationalistic governments.  Now I don't view nationalism as a positive or a negative, it simply is.  It is an extension of the tribal mentality that every human being has whether we want to admit it or not.  People identify with groups, be it a small tribe of hundred or a nation of a hundred million. But nationalism can get out of hand, we saw this at the beginning of the last century.

What we are seeing now is force that could spell the death of the European Union.  Governments are now starting to actively act within their own national best interest, despite the fact that it would violate, if not legally, then conceptually of the European Union. Yet there are lessons for the United States, which have always done a better job with assimilation, to take head.  If the US continues to not enforce the laws* that it has towards illegal immigration it will face the same sort of unrest.

*As I have said before I am all for a revision of the laws on our books. It is absurdly difficult for people, many of whom would be very productive, to come here legally.  People are human capital, and as I will state in a later post, there will be a battle for human capital in the future.