Gordon Chang Misleads the World in Shaking China

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 19 June 2014
by Yafei Di (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Anthony Chantavy. Edited by Brent Landon.
Chinese-American author Gordon Chang, one of the concocters of the "China collapse” theory, recently wrote an article titled, “If Anyone Bombs Iraq, Shouldn't It Be China?” The article claims that China receives more benefits in Iraq than the United States because China is the biggest patron of Iraq’s oil. He stresses that the United States should let China send its navy into Iraqi territory. When Western academic and public discussion circles recently asked China to talk about bearing responsibility in Iraq, Gordon Chang was regarded as a distinguished figure.

Chang likes to speak nonsense about his own wishes. All the Chinese writings he referred to were basically taken away by his personal paranoia. He has repeatedly predicted the “coming collapse of China,” giving a specific time it would collapse, postponing it every time he was wrong, and all the while remaining thick-skinned.

As long as Chang takes the lead in proclaiming that China has more benefits in Iraq than the U.S., academia is doomed to mistakes. China now imports about 150 million barrels of oil from Iraq every day and is ranked No. 1 in the world, but using this to compare the benefits of China and the U.S. in Iraq is absolutely superficial.

U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil in recent years has somewhat declined and China’s is on the rise, but the pattern of Chinese and U.S. interests in the Middle East is still quite different. Half of China’s oil is Middle Eastern oil, but most of that is Saudi Arabian oil. China has a strong adaptability to the variables in the Iraqi oil market. Moreover, China’s benefits from Iraq’s oil are not at all measured by oil, and China’s methods of safeguarding these benefits and principles are different from those of the United States.

The United States in the Middle East can now take a breath, but there is actually no escape. It needs to maintain Israel’s security, and its political structure will not let it abandon this responsibility. Besides this, controlling the Middle East is a strategic fulcrum of maintaining U.S. global hegemony. East Asia and Western Europe, in terms of oil and national security, are inextricably linked with the situation in the Middle East. Only America's ability to maintain its leadership of the Middle East can ensure effective deterrence of the dumbbell strategy in Europe and Asia.

The U.S. also needs to ensure that the world's oil trade uses American dollars; otherwise, its financial hegemony will shake. If the U.S. fails in its business with Iraq after 10 years, its global reputation will suffer another heavy blow.

U.S. presence in the Middle East was never for the public good, and invading Iraq was never to secure the Persian Gulf. The U.S. cannot escape its primary responsibility in Iraq’s current chaos. China does not seek world hegemony; even though it has many interests in the Middle East, it has more room to maneuver than the United States.

In any case, even though China's interests in the Middle East require us to strengthen our intervention there, the American method of sending troops cannot become an option for China. China will respect the choices of the local people and accept their political and social ecology, including historical heritage and the real situation. We will not attack with planes, warships and tanks. We will provide assistance, but will not force our will.

U.S. strength has indeed declined. It can no longer effectively organize strategies and tactics to deal with some nonsymmetrical challenges. The U.S. Army, winning all its battles in Iraq, lost the war. This is very strange; it clearly shows that it confronts little Iraq, but America’s power has some deep flaws that it does not know itself.

China cannot be shaken by people like Gordon Chang, or move toward the opposite extreme to avoid their misguidance. First, the situation in Iraq cannot be completely overturned. The current order will prolong in a definite range and degree, and China's policy focus should be to protect the people in Iraq and their assets. Second, China’s gradual involvement in the Middle East situation is a big trend, so we now need careful planning of how to meet this inescapable test.

We must not look for trouble and must not be afraid. Whatever happens, China is able to withstand much more than we previously believed. Our understanding and expectations of ourselves will be useful for facing the thorny issue of the Middle East.


“中国崩溃论”的最早炮制者之一、美籍华裔作者章家敦近日撰文,标题就是《如果要轰炸伊拉克,难道不应是中国》。文章宣称中国在伊拉克的利益“比美国多”,因为中国已是伊拉克石油的最大主顾。他鼓吹美国应该让中国派出自己的海军进入伊拉克险境。在最近西方学术和舆论圈要求中国对伊拉克局势“承担责任”的谈论中,章家敦算得上是代表性人物。

  章家敦喜欢从主观愿望出发信口开河,他涉及中国的所有著述基本被个人偏执的价值观绑架。他曾经多次预言“中国即将崩溃”,而且多次给出中国崩溃的具体时间,兑现不了就往后推,脸皮相当厚。

  由他来带头宣扬中国在伊的利益比美国多,学术上注定漏洞百出。中国现在每天从伊拉克进口约150万桶石油、排世界第一不假,但以此来排中美在伊利益的“座次”,十分肤浅。

  美国近年对中东石油的依赖有所下降,中国在上升,但中美在中东的利益格局仍不可同日而语。中国主要是需要那里的石油,中东石油占了中国进口石油的半壁江山,但沙特石油又占了中国进口中东石油的最大头。对伊拉克石油市场存在的变数,中国有很强承受力。且中国在伊拉克的利益并非用石油衡量,中国维护利益的手段和原则也与美国不同。

  美国如今可以在中东喘口气,但它实际上“无处可逃”。它需要在中东维护以色列的安全,美国的国内政治机构不允许它放弃这一“责任”。此外,控制中东是保持美国全球霸权的一个战略支点。东亚和西欧在用油和实现国家安全方面都与中东局势有着千丝万缕联系,美国保持主导中东的能力,才能确保威慑欧亚的“哑铃战略”有效。

  美国还需要确保世界石油贸易以美元计价,否则它的金融霸权将被根本动摇。还有一个原因,美国在伊拉克“搞了”十多年,如果它公开承认“失败”,它的全球信誉将再遭沉重一击。

  美国在中东的存在从来不是出于公心,侵略伊拉克也不是为了海湾安全。伊拉克今天的乱局,美国负不容回避的主要责任。中国不追求全球霸权,在中东的利益虽多,但有比美国更大的回旋空间。

  退一万步,即使中国在中东的利益要求我们必须加强对那里的干预,美国式的出兵也不可能成为中国的选项。中国将尊重当地人民的选择,接受那里的政治生态和社会生态,包括历史传承和现实情况。我们不会开着飞机、军舰和坦克“打过去”,我们会提供帮助,但不会强行灌输我们的意志。

  美国的实力的确下降了,这包括它已经不能有效组织战略战术对付一些非对称挑战。美国军队超级强大,赢得在伊拉克的全部战役,却同时“输了战争”。这很莫名其妙,它表明面对小小伊拉克,美国的力量有着一些它自己尚不清楚的深层缺陷。

  中国不可被章家敦之流忽悠,也不能为了防止被他们忽悠而走向相反极端。第一,伊拉克局势不会彻底翻盘,现有秩序会在一定范围和程度上得以延续,中国的政策重点应是保护在伊人员和资产的安全。第二,中国逐渐更深介入中东问题将是大趋势,我们现在就需认真筹划,应如何迎接这个躲不开的考验。

  不惹事,也不怕事,出了什么事,中国的承受能力要比我们之前以为的大得多,我们对自己形成这样的认识和要求,对我们面对中东棘手问题时将是有益的。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Hong Kong: From Harvard to West Point — The Underlying Logic of Trump’s Regulation of University Education

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Poland: Donald Trump’s Delusions about South Africa

Topics

Germany: Horror Show in Oval Office at Meeting of Merz and Trump

Hong Kong: From Harvard to West Point — The Underlying Logic of Trump’s Regulation of University Education

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Germany: US Sanctions against the EU

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary