Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil is nutritious food for your brain. In our "This Day in History" segment, we cover the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, which split the communist world (and not for the first or last time) and humiliated the People's Liberation Army of China. I argue that China's crash program of modernization and Westernization since the late 70s can be seen, in part, as a response to its derisory performance versus the Vietnamese. Thanks, Vietnam! You woke the sleeping dragon. Also in our "This Day in History" segment, Brian and I examine the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and the bitter conflicts between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans in Jefferson's day. Trust me, "fake news" and threats of "insurrection" aren't a recent invention!
When we cover current events, Brian and I talk about the fallout from the latest sham impeachment of (ex-)President Donald Trump. I suggest that Mitch McConnell crossed a line in castigating Trump, who will be, for the foreseeable future, the dominant figure in the GOP. We also ponder U.S.-Russian relations and the successes (and disappointments) of Trump's America First foreign policy.
Check it out! Your life will never be the same if you do...
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-february-17-2021-dr-nick-waddy/
In other news, read President Trump's statement on Mitch McConnell and why he's a dodo-head. It's a very interesting essay -- much more comprehensive than we'd get in a mere tweet! -- but leaves out some important considerations, like McConnell's herculean work confirming conservative judges and Justices, and the all-important Capitol riot! Trump may prefer to forget that ever happened. I suspect that will be tough sledding. Nevertheless, Trump makes a number of excellent points, but his main one is this: McConnell, and those like him, were happy to work with Trump and accept his support when it was convenient for them, and now they're stabbing him in the back, and spreading lies about him in the bargain. That's not very admirable behavior, and it's not going to bring the party together either. Sorry, Mitch, but you've officially bitten off more than you can chew!
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-ad2a-d713-a777-edee3b100000
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The comparison of Pelosi to Cap't Ahab you referred to tickled me but then Melville's creation was yet far wiser and articulate than Madame Shoot From the Hip. Accomplished politicians like Schumer may or may not have loathed Trump but they promoted personal excoriation for partisan advantage. For many, some of them shallow, despising Trump became a reflex. Yeah I know they resented his insolent marginalization of their darling and her dreams of imperious, vindictive sway. Too, his "don't take no guff" style did incense those who opposed him.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack : I agree, many have very unwisely used Russia (and I would say China too) as a foil for domestic political gain. Putin loves his country, unlike the sociopathic Stalin. What is he to think when his country becomes America's bugbear, at least as it may appear to him. Russia's defensiveness against the West is historically plausible and the U. S. is the heart of Western strength. To toy with Russia as do so many in the U.S., is presumptuous, ignorant and very ill advised!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Your opinion that Vietnam's besting of China in 1979 bade China to better its economic and military strength is plausible and intriguing. I would suggest in addition though, that China was then and is, ever devoted to preventing the exploitation and humiliation it suffered at the hands of the predatory West in the 19th century. They may well have seen the Vietnam military set back as proof that they had much more to do.And the ever pragmatic (except for a brief mid 20th century spasm of insane Maoist idealism)Chinese did it, didn't they. Nobody ain't gonna mess with them now! Pragmatic Donald Trump, as you observed, believed that all countries seek national advantage in international relations and they expect it of us. Again, those in the U.S. who would casually ,for domestic political gain, toy with China ,do so presumptuously, ignorantly and dangerously. We must not NEEDLESSLY provoke this venerable, proud civilization with ignorance on our part! There are readily available those who know and understand China and we ignorethem at great hazard.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddyfrom Jack: In saying this I do not advocate shrinking from addressing Han (majority)Chinese oppression of the Uighuers of Sinkiang. We must seek to know exactly what is transpiring and then, if we think it best, addressing in a pragnmatic manner, means of persuading China to consider changing its behavior in this. China will NEVER submit to what it sees as Western command, unless it is backed with the promise of consummate power.Can we project that to Sinkiang Province?
ReplyDeleteJack, I liked the Captain Ahab analogy too. It's an open question how much damage the Dems are willing to do to America, and to themselves, to destroy Trump...
ReplyDeleteI suspect Putin takes all the Russia-bashing in the U.S. with good humor. I suspect he was disappointed that the Trump years didn't yield any improvement in U.S.-Russian relations. Quite the opposite, in fact. I suspect he knows that Biden is a paper tiger when it comes to confronting Russia AND China. It remains possible, though, that Biden could blunder his way into a conflict with Russia, and that would be a tragedy of vast proportions.
Jack, we can certainly agree that the Chinese are a force to be reckoned with, and a war between our two countries would be an abomination. Even 10 years ago, we might have viewed such a prospect with self-assurance. No more. You know, in a funny way Mao did us (and even more so the Russians) a big favor by prostrating his country and his civilization for decades. I suppose it was inevitable that they would come to their senses eventually...
Jack, I'll be honest: I wouldn't know a Uighur from a Ouija board. All I want from our relationship with China is trade reciprocity and mutual respect. Frankly, we're a long way from either...but that's down to our own idiocy.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Understood! But I would suggest that an informed knowledge of the very old interplay between Han China and outlying ethnic groups is essential. Han means the very dominant Chinese population. The great China scholar Owen Lattimore wrote perceptively of the influence the Northern "barbarians" had on Han China. The successful resistance of the Han Dynasty (approx 200 BC to 200AD) drove many of the nomads West (with a profound effect on Europe) but a later group, the Mongols, conquered China , as did the Manchus later. Has this an influence on Han Chinese perceptions of the Uighurs? We must consider this in the light of the knowledge of China scholars. No, the Sinkiang (China's Wyoming) Uighurs probably never theatened essential China but we must not dismiss the possibility that all Chinese wariness of outying groups has its origin in this history. Chinese memories are long! Believe me, I heard that from an expert.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Other important factors are Sinkiang's abundant natural resources and the Islamic faith of the Uighurs. Since we have chosen to task China over its treatment of the Uighurs, we had better do so only with a well informed picture of the Chinese viewpoint,whether we like it or not.
ReplyDeleteJack, I agree 100%. The Chinese are entitled to their "long memories", surely. Perhaps the Uighurs also did something to provoke the central government? The bottom line for me is that China's internal affairs are China's business. We should observe that non-interference principle devoutly, in fact, because soon it will be the Chinese who may feel entitled to boss US around!
ReplyDelete