There is a strong anti-China current being promoted in right-wing circles and some neo-liberal ones in light of the coronavirus epidemic.
These forces are seeking to redirect real criticisms of globalization – deindustrialization, stolen intellectual property, and trade deficits – and utilize them for support for regime change operations and possibly even war against China for the financial self-interest of a few American oligarchs. It’s similar to how anti-immigration sentiment was swerved into concerns about Islam’s illiberalism in hopes of advancing Israeli interests in Europe and promoting neo-conservative wars in America.
While the Trump government’s tariffs are a welcome policy in the national interest, it also refuses to fix any of the domestic problems that allow for China to always win due to the plutocratic stranglehold American capitalists have on the US government.
The US elite is divided on China. On the one hand, there is a steadily weakening wing that seeks to continue America’s relationship with the Asian superpower in hopes of keeping a foot in the door and gradually liberalizing it.
On the other side of the debate, there are figures like George Soros, Peter Thiel, and disgraced and exiled billionaire criminal Guo Wengui who see the Chinese pseudo-National Socialist system as antifragile in the face of the passive liberal subversion that helped take down the Soviet Union.
Neither Soros, Thiel, Trump or Wengui are interested in combating globalization, but only in destroying what they perceive to be a barrier to it. For Soros, he shrouds his personal financial interest thwarted by the Chinese state in the language of “human rights” familiar to the liberal-left. Thiel has tapped a number of “alt” right-wing personalities and phony populists to try and construct a civilizational and even implicitly racial clash narrative to support his business interests in India and America. Wengui’s weapon has been Steve Bannon, who has been making his appeal to whoever will have him as a neo-con jingo, reviving silly language about “liberating” the Chinese people even though we Americans have no freedom ourselves.
Anti-China? Yes. Pro-America? No.
It’s easy to mistake the discourse of China hawks for sincere patriotism. While Donald Trump ran on a platform of bringing American industry home, the Trump administration’s actual policies in recent years have not achieved this.
The Chinese government’s international message, that its nationalistic command economy provides for superior development in comparison to liberal-capitalism, appears self-evidently true. This is a problem for American plutocracy, which tells its own citizens and those of other nations that in fact free trade and liberalization are the path to prosperity.
Rather than copying what works for the Chinese economic model (nationalizing industry, strong regulations against foreign influence, etc), American capital and the Trump administration have worked to win over Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is an advocate for mass privatization, weakening the state, and deregulation, a strategy the phony nationalist refers to as “minimum government, maximum governance.”
In Asia, economic prosperity and stable growth is more compelling than military power, and America’s elites have begun making overtures towards India in hopes of creating a counter-weight to China.
Last year, the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum announced that 200 American manufacturers were interested in moving their supply chains from China to India, not America. The big barrier appears to be India’s low quality infrastructure and the lack of an existing free trade agreement with the US.
According to reports in Hindu press from two months ago, the Trump administration has gone into talks with the Modi government to develop a new free trade agreement that will produce $500 billion in trade between the US and India. When all these pieces are put together, the end-result will be that the US’ economically disastrous trade deficit with China will simply be shifted to benefit India.
India’s Modi is eager to turn India into a full-blown satellite of the United States. The mass privatization of the country after the fall of the Soviet Union has not significantly bettered the average Indians life and his nation is unstable and dysfunctional. The Belt and Road Initiative threatens to spread the Chinese Corporatist development model all around nations Indian oligarchs see as being rivals or subjects: Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.
The Belt and Road Initiative is also an existential threat to international Jewish finance. Nations across Asia, Africa, Russia and Europe have signed on or expressed interest in the BRI due to its exclusive focus on real assets and Keynesian infrastructuve-led growth, as opposed to neo-liberal models that impose the primacy of financial “assets” and selling off your country to international corporations.
India has refused to join the BRI, but the nations around it are all on board. If successful, the Belt and Road Initiative will create a counter-weight to Manhattan high-finance, and thus a potential economic partner for nations uncomfortable with the cosmopolitan, hedonistic Jewish values Washington demands its subjects take up in the name of “democracy.”
Donald Trump is trying to curtail the potential liberation of these nation’s from Wall Streets cultural and economic influence by creating the Blue Dot Network, or U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP), which so far only has Australia, Japan, India and America as signatories.
Safe to say, this pact will require more foreign aid and trade deficits, and nothing that will financially benefit the people of America. A national industrial policy that looks to overturn neo-liberal reforms that have turned our economy into an overfinancialized basket case is the medicine we need. Instead, we are being drafted to fight a war to save an increasingly dysfunctional and discredited economic model that benefits only a few.
George Soros: The Open Society Against China
The international Jew George Soros has made much of his fortune collapsing the Bank of England and causing the Asian financial crisis. Most Western countries fear him due to his economic power, which he uses passively through speculative attacks or directly when he finances private coups against governments that defy him, known as “color revolutions.”