Washington, Are You Doing Ok?

Published in El Nuevo Diario
(Nicaragua) on 2 November 2015
by Orlando López-Selva (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Michaela Clements. Edited by Danielle Tezcan.
A U.S. destroyer – the USS Lassen – recently navigated into the waters near the Chinese Spratly Islands.

The move was considered a provocation by the Chinese government, who even expressed that “they are not intimidated and are ready to confront the situation militarily.”

The Chinese reaction has surprised many. It was thought that the matter would be only a small diplomatic incident. However, Beijing took the matter seriously and reacted with anger upon finding out that an American war ship was navigating freely in “the South China Sea.” There are sovereignty claims over much of the South China Sea, and the region is disputed by Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan. This creates a tense and critical situation.

What was Washington hoping to achieve by sending a destroyer into this zone? The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, was in Washington not long ago. Was this act not an imprudent measure, after the presidents of the two greatest superpowers had shaken hands?

Military Error or State Error?

In recent years, has the leadership of the United States been indicating that its influence on the Asian continent has been unfruitful or declining? Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Israel-Palestine [and] the Korean peninsula can attest to America’s diplomatic abilities. Will the Western agreement with Iran allow Washington to save face? Things have not gone well in Ukraine either.

One should note that China’s reaction surprised many because of its firmness and force. And surely it has made Washington’s allies think. These [allies] must be questioning the strength and respect that Washington’s leadership will command in the future, in a new multi-polar context. Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and Filipinos must be worried by whether or not the U.S would be determined to act if these states, allies of Washington, were assaulted or attacked by mainland China.

The United States has military bases all over the world. And this is a double-edged sword: to some countries, they are a threat to their sovereignty; but to Washington, they serve as global police stations.

The Americans, very proud of their leadership, already feel that they are losing influence, land and power.

The Chinese adversary, who Washington courted discreetly at the beginning of the ‘70s, to make the then Soviet Union jealous, cannot currently be contained. They have become insolent and spoiled, and they threaten to unseat them [the United States]!

Is this disrespect or is this just the natural friction that occurs among superpowers?

The United States has been leading the world since 1945. Since that time, there have been no additional world conflicts. And now, within a new multipolar world, the new superpowers are competing more vigorously to gain territory, allies and leadership.

Will it be difficult for Washington to adapt to the possibility of, within a few years, having a status similar to that of Great Britain or France, superpowers who could no longer expand?

No one wants to be seen as inferior. However, how long can an empire last if, under democracy and capitalism, opportunities for development are more abundant and more quickly obtained than a century ago?

The catechism the United States spread around the world in the past is costing them today.

Perhaps the new superpowers will not require large territorial expansions; however, they will need advanced technology. Or perhaps they will simply focus on conquering other planets, or controlling humanity through implanted chips.

China cannot militarily defeat the United States, for now. However, its economy is growing faster than that of the American superpower.

One should also not forget that India, at any moment, could unexpectedly burst in and intimidate [Washington]. How can we know that India will not also challenge Washington?

The recent events in the South China Sea show us that the world order can change dramatically, even if we do not like the changes. Power increases in a thousand ways. China does not have to become a complete democracy to catch up with the United States. Their exceptional trade figures, entrepreneurial impetus and millennial [ancient] culture are enough.

If there are fields in which Washington will maintain its supremacy for some time, it is in commercial marketing, technology and inventions. [Washington] is the greatest creator of progress and scientific development. However, they have fallen behind when it comes to space travel.

How will they feel in Washington knowing that others disrespect them and that others can go further in the short-term?

From now on, how will Americans focus their policies in the face of very large and strong adversaries who can intimidate them?


Un destructor norteamericano --el USS Lassen-- navegó recién en las aguas cercanas al archipiélago chino de Spratly.

La movida fue tomada como una provocación por el régimen chino que incluso expresó “no estar intimidado y estar dispuesto a enfrentar la situación militarmente”.

Esa reacción tiene sorprendido a muchos. Se pensaba que el asunto solo sería un pequeño incidente diplomático. Pero Beijing está muy serio y enojado al ver que en “el mar del Sur de China” un barco de guerra norteamericano navegaba libremente. Hay reclamos de soberanía sobre gran parte del mar del Sur de la China, disputada por Vietnam, Brunei, Malasia, Filipinas y Taiwán. Ello crea una situación tensa y álgida.

¿Qué perseguía Washington al enviar un destructor a zona? El presidente chino Xi Jin-ping había ido, no hace mucho, a Washington. ¿No era una medida imprudente, después que los presidentes de las dos más grandes potencias se habían dado la mano?

¿Error militar o de Estado?

¿En los últimos años, el liderazgo de los Estados Unidos en el continente asiático indica que su influencia ha sido poco fructífera o declinante? Siria, Irak, Yemen, Israel-Palestina, la península de Corea dan fe de las habilidades diplomáticas norteamericanas. ¿El acuerdo de Occidente con Irán le lavará la cara a Washington? Tampoco las cosas han punteado bien en Ucrania.

Hay que ver que esta reacción china sorprende a muchos por su firmeza e ímpetu. Y seguramente, ha puesto a pensar a los aliados de Washington. Estos estarán cuestionando ya la solidez y respeto que el liderazgo de Washington tendrá de cara al futuro, en un nuevo contexto multipolar. Europeos, japoneses, coreanos del Sur y filipinos deben estar preocupados por la determinación que realmente los Estados Unidos tendrían, si estos Estados aliados de Washington fueren agredidos o atacados por China Continental.

Estados Unidos tiene bases militares por todo el mundo. Y ello es una espada de doble filo: para unos es una amenaza a la soberanía de otros países; pero para Washington son las comisarias policiales alrededor del mundo.

Los norteamericanos, muy orgullosos de su liderazgo, ya sienten que están perdiendo influencia, terreno, poder.

El adversario chino al que Washington cortejó discretamente, a principios de los 70, para provocarle celos a la entonces Unión Soviética, hoy ya no lo puede contener. ¡Se ha vuelto insolente y malcriado y amenaza con desbancarlos!

¿Hay irrespeto o esto solo es el roce natural que se da entre potencias?

Estados Unidos ha estado liderando el mundo desde 1945. Desde esa época no ha habido otro conflicto mundial. Y ahora con la multipolaridad, las nuevas potencias están compitiendo, con mayor ahínco, para ganar espacios, aliados y liderazgo.

¿Le costará mucho a Washington adaptarse a la idea de que dentro de unos pocos años tendrán un estatus igual a Gran Bretaña o Francia, que fueron potencias, pero ya no pueden crecer más?

Nadie quiere ser visto de menos. Pero ¿cuánto puede durar un imperio si con la democracia y el capitalismo, las oportunidades de desarrollo son más amplias y más rápidas que hace un siglo?

El catecismo que los Estados Unidos pregonaron por el mundo ha sido el que hoy les está pagando mal.

Posiblemente, las nuevas potencias, no necesitarán grandes extensiones territoriales, pero sí alta tecnología. O tal vez solo se dediquen a conquistar otros planetas; o controlen a la humanidad por medio de chips implantados.

China no puede derrotar militarmente a Estados Unidos, por ahora. Pero su crecimiento económico porcentual es más rápido que el de la potencia norteamericana.

Tampoco hay que olvidar que India, en cualquier momento, podría irrumpir intempestivamente, intimidar. ¿Cómo sabremos que India no desafiará también a Washington?

El evento recién ocurrido en mar del Sur de China nos muestra que el orden mundial cambia vertiginosamente, aunque no nos guste. El poder crece de mil maneras. China no tiene que ser una democracia plena para alcanzar a Estados Unidos. Bastan solo sus superlativas cifras comerciales, su ímpetu emprendedor, y su cultura milenaria.

Si hay un campo en el cual Washington mantendrá la supremacía por algún tiempo es en el marketing comercial, la tecnología y las invenciones. Es el mayor generador de progreso y desarrollo científico. Pero se han rezagado en cuanto a viajes al espacio.

¿Cómo se sentirán en Washington sabiendo que otros le irrespetan y que pueden ir más lejos en el corto tiempo?

De acá en adelante, ¿cómo enfocarán los norteamericanos sus políticas frente a adversarios muy grandes y fuertes, que incluso, puedan intimidarlos?
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

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

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Topics

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

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

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

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Related Articles

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

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

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Cuba: Trump, Panama and the Canal

China: White House Peddling Snake Oil as Medicine