His latest on China is more of the same:
America's interest is in managing China's inevitable rise to great power status without needlessly embroiling Americans in a war. Doing so requires a dispassionate assessment of China's views on Taiwan. The DOD report is a good step in that direction. The report acknowledges that controlling Taiwan is a "core interest" for China, and for good reason: aside from the motive of national pride regarding reunification, roughly 80 percent of China's energy imports pass through the waters adjacent to Taiwan.
Securing those sea lanes by way of naval access to Taiwan is a high priority for Beijing. (For a look at how seriously great powers take the issue of securing access to energy supplies, one could examine U.S. policy in the Middle East since the 1940s.) China's economic growth is precariously perched on its ability to meet its growing energy needs, and the PRC leadership feels its energy lifeline is in jeopardy if it does not control vital sea lanes.
I have some questions:
Why is China's rise inevitable?
And even if it is, why should we simply accept it?
Isn't China needlessly risking a war with us over Taiwan? I mean, given that we are defending the status quo, why is the burden on us to get out of China's way when they try to grab Taiwan?
Why is the fact that getting Taiwan is a "core interest" of China make the interest legitimate? I mean, God forbid that Carpenter should find out that humbling Japan is a core interest of China. Or letting North Korea have nukes to threaten us and Japan. Or whatever nutty thing the Chinese think is a core interest. Peking may define something as a core interest. That is their right, I suppose. But we are under no obligation to accept their core interests if they conflict with ours.
And pride as a reason to accept aggression is an odd thing to accept, I say. Let China be proud of something besides snuffing out a tiny democracy that dares to live free of Peking's tender grasp.
As for securing oil rights, I eagerly await Carpenter's statement that we need to control both sides of the Strait of Hormuz to secure our oil access. Or perhaps Carpenter should just advise the Chinese to accept their limitations and move on as he does so often with America.
Let me add to the oil routes question. Carpenter thinks that China should own Taiwan to secure oil imports. Hmm. Fascinating really, since the oil does not originate in Taiwan or its vicinity. The oil travels from Venezuela to China; or the Middle East to China; or Sudan to China. Does Carpenter think that securing Taiwan will secure the oil routes all the way to the sources? I guess it is only a matter of time, if we follow Carpenter's "management" strategy, that he is arguing that it is natural that China would station troops on Sirri Island in the Gulf, or on Socotra Island near the mouth of the Red Sea. Or perhaps he will say that of course China must own Singapore. Or Cuba. All are critical spots on the oil routes if you want to secure them right into China's ports.
Securing China's vital oil routes pretty much requires China to be a global naval power. Accepting this is not my idea of "managing" China. Carpenter is dispassionately arguing that we should simply surrender to the new guy on the block--a communist tyranny that naturally wants to snuff out freedom in its neighborhood lest the virus of liberty bring down the party.
There is nothing dispassionate about just giving up.
