Let China have it

In response to Pakistan’s recent announcement that it has asked China to take over the operation of its Gwadar port and turn it into a naval base, influential western commentators have warned Beijing against overly robust extension of power beyond China’s borders. For example, in a muddled editorial yesterday, the Financial Times called the Gwadar move "a dangerous ploy" and called for China’s rise to superpower status "to be managed with care." Indeed, a la World Bank President Robert Zoellick it urged that the world make China a "responsible stakeholder" in the global system.

Why? Why is it dangerous if China manages a Pakistani port or builds a naval base there? To whom is it dangerous? Is China going to close the Panama Canal from Gwadar? What is a "responsible stakeholder"? Who defines the meaning of "responsible"? Why should China become a stakeholder in the current western oriented system rather than constructing its own system?

I say, let China have Gwadar. Put ribbons on it and give it to the Chinese. That might send a frisson through India, but, hey, the Indians just outfitted their air force with new European rather than American fighters. Maybe the EU can comfort India in any time of need.

I’m serious. We Americans have for too long been thinking backwards or upside down. Our top priority has been to extend our geo-political influence in order to provide global public goods  in the form of relative freedom and safety of the seas along with the stability and relative calm of the international system of nation states. To this end, we have established  over 800 U.S. military bases and missions around the globe and have involved ourselves in endless disputes and armed actions in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. We provide this often unrequested and unwanted service to the rest of the world to the tune of over $1 trillion annually even as we struggle to raise debt limits and reduce federal deficits.

Meanwhile, our global partners like Germany, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and many others are focusing single mindedly on becoming or staying rich through economic development. These countries don’t have global security strategies with fleets, bases, and armies around the world. But they do have economic security and development strategies aimed at attracting maximum investment and technology transfer to their shores while maximizing their exports to America and elsewhere.

Their strategy seems to be better than ours. While we experience slow economic recovery, high unemployment, disintegrating infrastructure, and eroding health and pension benefits, they are all growing rapidly and dramatically improving their infrastructures and the standard of living of their citizens.

I say let’s be like them. Our great ally Great Britain is about to retire its last aircraft carrier. Do we really need 11? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been warning of the danger of making too deep cuts in defense expenditure. But maybe the real danger is the opposite – making shallow or no cuts. While our top officials spend all their time thinking about fleet deployment, drone strikes, SEAL attacks, North Korean missiles, and cyber warfare, the leaders of our global partners spend all their time thinking about how to persuade global companies to put production and R&D and advanced networks within their borders.

Maybe we should welcome a new system in which China guards the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to Asia, and in which the EU patrols the Mediterranean and handles security in Africa and the Middle East. And maybe Brazil becomes the hegemon of Latin America. Or take the North Korean situation. I sometimes wonder why this is an American problem. I mean, North Korea is bordered by China, South Korea, and Russia, and Japan is just over the horizon. These are some of the biggest, richest, most powerful countries in the world. Why can’t we let them handle North Korea.

Okay, it’s largely because we have 100,000 troops in South Korea and Japan and the Seventh fleet home ported in Japan. So let’s take them out. Let’s bring the troops home and homeport the fleet in Guam which is part of the United States.

In this new world order, the job of the leaders of the United States would be to imitate what German, Chinese, South Korean, and Brazilian leaders do today. It would be to invest in education and infrastructure at home, to retrain workers, to make Invest in America their constant theme song, to offer attractive financial incentives to Asian and European and Latin American companies to move their production and R&D and high value added product development to America.

In short, it would be to fulfill the American Promise.