Mainland China, Taiwan and the US Military Complex Theory | By Dr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan Khan

Mainland China-Taiwan-US Military Complex Theory

DESPITE strong Chinese messages and integrated diplomatic efforts to convince the United States to stay out of its internal affairs, US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi did not change her plans and traveled to Taiwan and therefore infuriated China and its leaders.

China’s leaders, legislature, foreign and military ministry and policy makers viewed it as a grave violation and attack on its sovereignty, national pride and territorial integrity.

In this regard, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has blasted that Pelosi’s visit to the Taiwan Strait is not a defense of democracy and freedom, but a provocation and violation of China’s sovereignty.

Moreover, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has strongly condemned this outrageous visit which has created great tension in the Indo-Pacific region.

The PLA has already taken all possible measures for live firing, missile testing and joint military exercises of all armed forces within the 12-mile radius of the Taiwan Strait.

According to the latest reports, even a Chinese nuclear submarine has joined the joint exercise, which is a clear signal to Taipei to stay away from such notorious acts of defiance.

The government has now suspended all agricultural and food imports from Taiwan. Economic activities in the South China Sea have been halted. Uncertainty has now increased regional instability, insecurity and disharmony.

However, Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries in the region still support the “one China policy”, which bodes well for regional socio-economic integration and greater connectivity.

Even UN Secretary General Guterres has supported the “one China policy”. Ironically, the US government and its elite still believe in the “one China policy” and have honored three communiqués signed between the two sides in the past.

But now the question arises as to why Pelosi was launched for the so-called “Taiwan Independence Project”.

The answer is not simple, but apparently it was a planned decision to maintain the strategic status quo in Taiwan and tactically delayed its reunification with China for about 5-8 years, allowing Taipei to become more strong to defend themselves.

But by all accounts, it was a diplomatic stunt that created unbearable heat and unease between the two sides.

China rightly regards Taiwan as its integral part and will surely be reunited as soon as possible.

On many occasions, Chinese President Xi Jinping has defended the “one China” doctrine, which is indeed the very essence of his foreign policy and his relations with other countries.

Nancy Pelosi returned from Taipei but left behind a great crisis, born of the distrust, hypocrisy and conspiratorial attitude of the hawks in Joe Bidden’s cabinet who were persuaded to reactivate the “military complex theory”. American (UMCT)” to earn more and more money from military misadventures and deadly conflicts in the Indo-Pacific region.

But thanks to the Chinese leadership who did not follow any military action or indulge in any misadventure and acted wisely and showed great restraint despite US provocations, which is commendable.

Moreover, it is a bitter reality that at the moment the US macro-economy is at an all-time low and therefore has entered recession, so the UMCT has great validity and relevance in the case of Taiwan.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Foundation (SIPRI), the American government spends annually on its army, not only in its “Defence” department, but in all its departments combined, approximately 1,500 billion dollars.

On April 25, 2022, the Stockholm International Peace Research Foundation (SIPRI) titled the news “Global military spending tops $2 trillion for the first time,” and reported that “U.S. military spending totaled $801 billion. dollars in 2021, which is the highest in the world.

Unfortunately, the UMCT ruined the true spirit of its constitution and the owners of the military industries promoted a dictatorship to serve the owners of the military corporations and their extractive dependencies such as Chevron.

Since 1945, from Truman to the outgoing warrior euphoria Joe Bidden, military misadventures and deadly conflicts have remained a profitable doctrine of successive governments to sustain its military establishment, its defense departments and ultimately its military industries.

So, marriage of convenience, one way or another, has surpassed other industries in the United States. Frankly, the US government was forced to stay on a virtually permanent war footing, even though World War II against imperialist fascisms was over.

The United States had to go through neoliberal global militarism (GEM) which emerged as the defining institutional and ideological configuration of American militarism, with the rise to power of a neoconservative coalition centered on the privatization of all possible military functions while by expressing inordinate affection and affliction for military intervention embodying the worst delusions of the pre-World War I Prussian militarist.

The next crucial step was the birth of the Corporate Militarism Regime (CMR) which was intended for the acquisition of windfall and structural profits, technological spin-offs, transfers of patent rights and factories and equipment. subsidized that can now be replicated on the so-called Taiwan Independence Project by the United States and its strategic allies in the region.

Unfortunately, since World War II, corporate militarism has been active and worked in conjunction with military Keynesianism and was closely associated with global neoliberal militarism (GNM).

In this regard, between 2017 and 2021, the main focus was to bolster military contractors as US leaders sought legitimacy by increasing the salaries of military personnel.

This process was engineered by a coterie of industrial titans controlling the commanding heights of the Pentagon.

Public acquiescence in American militarism was consistently promoted through various integrated means from 2001 to 2016.

These years saw the rise of the neoconservative war cabinet of George W. Bush whose doctrine persuaded the maintenance of global hegemony through military domination and intervention in the world.

Thus, the genie of terrorism was sponsored, engineered and released to come out of the bottle which eventually spawned global franchise sanctuaries around the world.

Ultimately, 9/11 had happened, and as a result, defense spending had increased dramatically as the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began and lasted.

In this regard, the active US Army grew from 470,000 to 548,000 and the Marine Corps grew from 158,000 to 202,000, while the final Air Force and Navy strengths remained static or increased. slightly decreased.

Subsequently, U.S. transformation initiatives were further bolstered by investments in command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and precision munitions, as well as in force protection enhancements such as armored wheeled vehicles.

To conclude, the US State Department announced its policy of containment of China in 2011 and thus launched a new endless and indirect war against China by forming strategic military alliances in the form of QUAD, AUKUS, agreements militaries with Australia, Korea, Japan, the Philippines and many others. others in the Indo-Pacific region.

Thus, Pelosi’s visit is an extension of America’s warmongering attitude to create military conflict and start selling arms.

Taiwan is the legitimate part of mainland China which will be re-annexed in the near future. American provocations have mad methods that are looking for new hotspots to start reaping unlimited profits for its defense industries from the region.

Thus, Chinese policymakers should pay close attention to the plans of the US military complex in the case of Taiwan.

Even in his farewell address, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower clearly warned his audience of the increasingly powerful military-industrial complex and the threat it posed to American democracy, which still holds true in the case of Taiwan.

—The author is director of the Center for South Asia and International Studies in Islamabad and regional expert, China, CPEC and BIS.

Sharon D. Cole