I will say that we don't so much need to not "need oil" but to reduce consumption requirements to the point that the suppliers in Canada, Mexico, and South America will be sufficent for the USA's needs. To a certain degree, we're guarding Europe and China's oil supply, moreso than our own, by keeping the MEast from exploding.

A friend of mine said upon getting back from Germany that he was shocked how enthusiastic most of the people he talked to there were about the prospect of having China being the major world power rather than the USA. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I agree with Feste: if they think the United States is bad, just wait until they get a taste of how China deals with things: a mix of Russian-style ruthlessness combined with unbrindled Western ambition.

Speaking as a Canadian who has watched the United States all my life, I must respectfully disagree with several points.
1. The claim that the US population will reach some consensus on US foreign policy is unconvincing. As long as the US has existed, it has had to deal with the rest of the world, and there has been debate about how and in what way the US will be involved in the world affairs. How and why should this debate (held among 300+ million people) end now?
2. The further claim that the US could abdicate international political influence while maintaining financial influence is difficult to imagine. Maintaining stable money flows both for American capital abroad and for foreign capital entering the United States requires stable political as well as stable economic structures. And none of this stability can be maintained militarily: no matter what the nature of American military might, it could not be used to settle trade disputes. The US is pretty much required to participate in international institutions like the WTO or the UN that are, for the most part, co-operative.
3. Apart from economic imperatives that will keep the US international rather than isolationist, there will be security issues as well. We might argue about how the US will fight security threats, but we can agree that it must and will. I believe that this fight must be multi-lateral. Despite it's wealth and resources, the US does not have enough power to "police the globe". That is a job that it will have to share with others. And when I say share, I mean share. We are all in this together. So we have to listen to each other.
4. We must agree to disagree on Europe. From here it seems no less dynamic than the US, with the same kinds of immigration inflow. And if we were to speculate on its future, we might see it as the place where the Russian nation, given half a chance of stability, could develop a middle class and middle class institutions. Or the place where a moderate Islamic middle class arises, free of kleptocrats.
4. I would say the place where we disagree the most is the result of the end of mid-east oil. That would be the best thing to happen in that area. The presence of a huge and valuable resource has done nothing but encourage greed and poor government. Mid-east countries without oil are poorer, but often more stable and politically promising. I'll add, by the way, that the statement that the US will soon find a way out of fossil fuel dependency is not reflected in current or immediate projected petroleum use in the US. I think that the recognition that the US should consume less foreign oil is like the statment we should be nicer to one another: it is true, but not likely to happen. The US will use less oil for the same reason the rest of us will use less oil: because there will actually be less oil.
5. China is indeed a puzzle for the future. I personally think that however stable Chinese culture has been, it is under a great deal of strain now. And even if the strain wasn't there, the country is just too large to govern. Any political system would begin to strain at that size, and China's is not a robust political system. Add to that that what I said above about the US's need to interact with the world economically and politically applies a hundred-fold for a country like China, which has few natural resources and a great need for foreign capital. All that to say that maintaining a stable Chinese government will be difficult. However, the energy of the Chinese population is undeniable.

Of course, who knows what the future holds. What to make God laugh? Tell him your plans. However, the American character is optimistic and curious, and thus ultimately incapable of isolationism for any length of time. For both practical reasons and reasons of disposition Americans will be trotting all over this globe until there is no globe, or at least no people.

Sorry for the he said/he said nature of this reply, but that's the internet, eh?

As a great American once said "Optimism has me by the throat."

I agree with everything in your analysis except for the root assumption that we will somehow get off of our "oil addiction". All feasible alternatives are either more diffuse, more expensive, harder to transport, or otherwise problematic. All of them also require significant R&D to make real. Private companies, with their focus on short-term profitability won't be able to muster the will to do so. As the mid-eighties vividly demonstrated, neither will the national or state governments. As soon as oil becomes cheap again, all efforts come to a screeching halt.

Ian: I think you misunderstood my use of "dynamic", sorry, poor writing on my part. The European/Russian depopulation issue has been in the news for several years. The Beeb has done many reports and the UN has several current white papers/studies as well.

Here's the URL to a International Herald Tribune piece that provides a little background, based on a French study.

http://www.iht.com/articles/96216.html

Here's a EU source with UN links:

http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/4157646-654?204&OIDN=1504851&-tt=

Ian: I think you misunderstood my use of "dynamic", sorry, poor writing on my part. The European/Russian depopulation issue has been in the news for several years. The Beeb has done many reports and the UN has several current white papers/studies as well.

Here's the URL to a International Herald Tribune piece that provides a little background, based on a French study.

http://www.iht.com/articles/96216.html

Here's a EU source with UN links:

http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/4157646-654?204&OIDN=1504851&-tt=

Ian, Where did you get the idea that China is a large country? It only has one time zone!

I also agree that our dependance on cheap oil will not go away soon. Oil has been, in real terms, relatively inexpensive. We may see real changes in consumption at @2.50/gallon in 2004 $USs, but not likely at $1.80. Since OPEC is the low cost producer, they want to keep it cheap enough to discourage the alternatives. At $2.50/gallon, there will be more alternatives.

Feste:

Thanks for the links; looked at them and they do raise serious issues for Europe, and especially Western Europe. I remain somewhat optimistic since while demographics are hard to beat, the EU and its constituient states can see the future, and I'm sure that eventually they will adopt a more North American immigration policy (in fact, the EU/UN study listed Germany along with Canada & the US as leaders in immigration in-flow). As well, the technical and educational levels in Europe lead one to hope that productivity gains can be a factor as well.

Here in Canada, we have had similar debates, since our population will only rise with immigration in-flows. There are all kinds of concerns with assimilation and stability. I know the same debates occur in the US. Europe is just starting this debate, and many commentators there raise fears of the Islamicization of Europe. Even if it were true that necessary levels of immigration would raise the number of Moslems in Europe, would that be a bad thing? I think that Europe's experience would be like North America's. People come from all over the world to live in Canada and the US, and after they arrive, they fit into what I call the international middle-class: people who want security, stability, and are happiest talking about mortgage rates, house prices and schools for their kids. An immigrant wants a better life for his family: give them a chance, and they will be happy. Europe will learn that.

But I do take your point.

V:

Forget the time zone, China doesn't even have a minor-league baseball team...

China doesn’t even have a minor-league baseball team.

Wow. Maybe they're not entirely evil after all.

/me ducks and runs for cover

Actually they are very small. They just create the appearance of size. They only have one little manufacturing plant. They manufacture labels that say, 'MADE IN CHINA'.

They have flooded the market with their labels.

They claim that the astronomical gas and steel prices are due to China buying it all up. Didn't Japan buy up all the steel and oil before attacking us in WW II ? Orrrrrrrrrrrrr, maybe everyones just doing their part to destroy the US. The muslims attack us, the Germans and the French badmouth us, the Chinese run up the price of our steel and feul to cripple our economy, the UN works against us, the democrat politicians embarrass us, the liberals undermine us, N Korea tries to intimidate us, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran try to kill us. It goes on and on. We probably send all of them large amounts of money. Maybe we ought to look at how well it's worked to buy friendship and stop trying.

Sad thing is, it's not the people on their own that do this, it's the people in charge. They use their propaganda to make the people dislike us. My brain is sore from all this. Think I'll go to bed.

I believe we have nothing to fear from the Chinese. Historically they are not expansionist. Globalisation also means that they will depend on us buying their exports as much as we rely on using their manufatured goods. A struggle between us and them will have no benefits whatsoever with only very much to lose. They never moved against Taiwan and never will. How many people know that several islands in the strait belong to Taiwan? I believe one of these islands is visible from mainland China. How easy would it be to retake that?
The Chinese are only interested in one thing and that is becoming a really, really big Singapore.

Economically, yes!

However, a story on a different blog talks about China's continued attempts to suppress Internet news and political discussion. They are NOT being successful. They will eventually have some major political problems, unless they rapidly change.

I DO NOT believe the Communist bureaucracy can adapt. That means big trouble in our lifetimes.

You are incorrect Anglo. China is very expansionist. Witness Tibet and the tacit support of the Cambodian, Vietnamise and Korean Communists. Every election in Taiwan is accompanied by military demonstrations and hostile rhetoric from China. Hong Kong is still struggling with Bejing's imperial control.
The only reason China has never openly moved to Taiwan is that the US has stated that we would attack them in response. India developed nuclear missiles in order to defend against the overwhelming military might of China.

China's rulling communists are very eager to be wealthy, and mantain control. When I used to talk politics with the Chinese students in the US every one excused Chinese abuses of power and stated that the land was theirs to begin with. One even went so far as to compare Taiwan with Texas during that states brief bout of independance. The Chinese do not have freedom of the press and the people are subject to rigorous poltical and historical propaganda.
Furthermore, the Chinese have repeatedly tried to undermine the US space superiority through bills in the UN to "Demilitarize" space by removing spy satilites and prohibit GPS based bombs, two major new weapons only in the US arsenal. Since those efforts have failed China has begun its own space program with materials obtained under Clinton.

Bottom line, China is a hidden dragon. They have no problem ruling the world, nor are they deluded enough to try to do it now.

>We may see real changes in consumption at
>@2.50/gallon in 2004 $USs, but not likely
>at $1.80.

How do you come to this conclusion? Despite the news media reports, we are not at a record high price for oil. Adjusting for inflation things we worse in the late 70s and early 80s. So if what you said is true, then why didn't we see rea premanentl changes in consumption 20 years ago?

A wise man once told me "IF - big If_-You honestly believe that a war with China is inevitalbly in our future, It is to our benefit to get it on sooner rather than later." Think on this, he is right. Only question, is war inevitable?

Only question, is war inevitable?

Gerry, please define "war". IMO, economic - absolutely, conventional as in with bayonettes - never. And we are already very much in the middle of the economic fracas...

Ian, Robert,

I think the claim that the US may become less dependent on imported oil may turn out to be feasible, but probably not for the reason you think. Have a look at the following link: http://www.kantor.com/useful/thermo.shtml

This has been tried before, but the above process is the first to be both efficient and economically profitable.

We may see real changes in consumption at
>@2.50/gallon in 2004 $USs, but not likely
>at $1.80

The SF Bay Area has had gas prices in the $2.50 range for most of the last ten years and we drive more SUV's, luxury Euro-sedans and pickups than ever. Californians also have additional state & local gas taxes...for a total of $0.36 a gal., and my county an 8.25% sales tax. We also mandate cleaner burning fuel mixtures which drive up the wholesale price per gal...for example PNG has a $0.70 per gal tax rate in CA. So there’s a lot more to the equation than import oil prices.

The personal vehicle consumption rate is a false number anyway; our gasoline use number includes industrial. The majority of our consumer goods and food are delivered by trucks and to a lesser amount by rail. Utility use for producing electricity and heating oil, especially in the eastern US is also a factor in consumption rates and price fluctuation. During the energy crisis in CA diesel fueled turbine generator farms picked up the shortfall and are now part of the grid.

The national summer price spike is a result of refineries changing production from heating oil to auto fuel.

Perhaps if the rest of the country mandated catalytic converters/engine smog control and cleaner fuel mixtures which also produce better engine efficiency and cleaner air, and DOT raised the efficency ratings for new vehicles and the auto industry offered hybrid light trucks(SUV/Pickups/Vans), as well as building more refinery capacity, we wouldn't be subject to seasonal price changes and the efficiency/use ratio would improve...but all these measures are only re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

but all these measures are only re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Very good analogy.

Maybe when EPA regulations are brought into line (repeal BS regs mandating unrealistic % sulfur) and mandated use of oxygenates which varies state by state and is the primary cause of having a multitude of different grades of gasoline is eliminated, then we could start using more diesel fuels - be it dino, NG or bio-based. That's when it will make a difference. However, the chances of Greenies looking past the obvious and towards strategic are zero and none I'm afraid...

PS. Don't you just love run-on sentences? I do...

Ian: Unfortunately Europe's idea of immigration isn't assimilation, but more of an indentured servitude.

The French for example built massive, grim, Soviet-style high-rise housing blocks around their cities to house (contain) immigrant workers. These tower cities are completely isolated from French daily life and now seethe with drugs, crime, anger and resentment. Have a look at this article and a quick Googling will bring up dozens of links.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

Germany will most likely reject their "guest worker” program in the next general election and will eject or repatriate their foreign workers. The Germans have gone off the deep end, again. Very few countries offer citizenship as a birth right.

As you well know, pregnant Hong Kong residents came to the US and Canada on 6-month tourist visas by the hundreds of thousands in the 80's & 90's to have their children, so that they would have a legal immigration route when the Chinese assumed control over HK and the Territories. The upscale French Hospital in SF was nicknamed Club Preg. Vancouver and Seattle were also major destinations for this purpose.

I've lived in the UK, France, Germany and Italy, they do not accept immigrants as we in the US and Canada do, they are always outsiders, and a group that is racially or ethnically different or have another culture/religion are always seen as foreign.

Italians for example, don’t approve of adoption because familial blood lines and property rights are the basis of their society. Do you realize that if an Italian immigrates and becomes an American and later returns to claim family land any blood relative's rights supercede and the courts very rarely find in favor of the American-Italian. You can imagine injecting a foreign culture into such an archaic, paternal system.

The UK has done better by the progeny of their empire, but their rigid class structure works against meaningful assimilation and they have a serious on-going racial issue and repatriation laws are still very much in effect. Hell, they can't even resolve differences with the Irish and Scots.

No, I do not think Europe will assimilate its way out of the depopulation problem. It will become a completely different population landscape than it has been since the retreat of the Ottoman Empire.

The next twenty years will determine if that is a good or bad thing. Mono-ethnic societies that are on an economic decline usually do not assimilate outsiders easily and add centuries of bias, colonial slavery, the history of Crusades and religious persecution to the mix and they have a dilemma much more difficult to resolve than the US faced in the 50-60's with the end of legal segregation. We are still trying to figure it out forty years later with mixed results.

“China is very expansionist. Witness Tibet and the tacit support of the Cambodian, Vietnamese and Korean Communists.”
The conquest of Tibet took place rather a long time ago and the Chinese saw it as an operation to maintain order. During the long march some Tibetans ate some of their comrades and I think they took it personally. The Tibetans did have some quaint customs that the Chinese communists felt needed to be modernized. The support of Pol Pot is now regarded as a terrible mistake and it should be remembered that that occurred during very strange times in China – cultural revolution etc. The Vietnamese relationship soon turned sour and they fought a rather silly and unsuccessful border war with them after the US pulled out. I think they wont try that again. As for North Korea the common border is highly militarised and they look upon the Norks as lunatics. In the west of the country Islamic insurgency is pretty much under control although it will always be a bit of a problem. Together we could conquer the entire middle east – they attack from the east and we attack from the west. Also North Korea from the north and south. I fantasize of course.

That wont happen though because China has enough of a problem just dealing with the middle kingdom. Historically all that lies beyond the world of the middle kingdom is chaos. China is not a maritime nation – not even one carrier. 70 to 80% of the population is rural poor. There is still a long way to go before they are a significant threat and by then they will be a democracy.

> then they will be a democracy.

Hmmm...cold comfort there. We're a democracy and are considered the most dangerous country on the planet.

There is always the chance that China will take the path of least resistance, they are pragamists, and become an economic partner with the US. Imagine the power of China's population, and our marketing and intellectual property.

Plus, a Sino-American partnership would really piss off the EU-Muslim Alliance. ;-)

So, they invaded a country to "Modernize" it? That's why hindu monks burned themselves, they feared telephones? Communist China has responded to every threat with overwhelming and brutal force. They drive tanks over protesting students, kill Catholic priests, imprison the Falun Gong, and generaly rely on opression and military control right now. This, and the bloobaths done by Pol Pot, Kim Jong, and all the other regimes they supported are their history. It is only recently, with the perception of flagging US polticial will, that they have embarked on a campaign to improve their systems through their space program.

While they do not have the logistical support to invade over water, they have the industrial base to build it, the population to man it, and plenty of american educated engineers to design it.

Should China choose too, they could build a force to rival the US in chosen theaters, such as Russia and Asia. Given the amount of control Bejing has, as evidenced by Hong Kong constantly getting new ministers rather then the hands off treatment promised under "One China", I doubt democracy is as inevitable as you make it sound.

Let me jump in this debate with my two cents.

Feste: I think that much of the Remake ME project is driven by a mixture of idealism, and realism. The realism is fear for the future. What happens when Pakistan designs a simple, reliable nuclear device any competent tech can build, adn then sells the design on the underground arms market?

Various American cities start going ka-boom. The US replies by turning the ME into a plate of glass.

Part of the idealism is that we really don't want to be considering nuclear genocide as a solution, but the logic of the situation drives us there if Bush's plan fails.

Canada Guy: We listened to Europe and others. Really. They just didn't make a lot of sense. That is unless you assume hidden goals which are usually not to America's betterment, or you assume payoffs by Hussein. Or you assume a Transnational Project which regards the existence of nation-states as the worse sin (worse than mass murder). Then it starts to make more sense.

But without hidden goals usually the others arguements were nonsense once you dipped deepr in to them.

Anglo-American: You make some good points, and I have a fantasy of giving North Korea to the Chinese as a way to solve the nuclear problem, and the humanitarian crisis that is the Norks.

But China has way more young males than females. This is due to abortion, and the one-child policy (and everyone wants his one child to be a male).

And you have a Communist and athiestic state. From what I've heard some people say, the young Chinese are very amoral. Take what you can get attitude.

Soa lot of amoral guys in search of women...I'd say it sounds like a massive driving force for the crudest possible methods of getting a date. Drive a tank up to her bedroom door, and tell her to come on out.

But that is not a direct threat to America. I'd be nervous if I was a Vietnamese however.

Tadeusz

>Part of the idealism is that we really don't want to be considering nuclear genocide as a solution, but the logic of the situation drives us there if
Bush's plan fails.

To me the the most disturbing part of the Left's position on the war on terror is their refusal to admit that losing is not an option. We finish this now with what are historically light causalities in the field, or we do it later after a nightmare has unfolded in the US and a genocidal scenario will be our only option.

It's a pity our Pols are either too timid or too power hungry to speak the obvious outcome of failure now.

Please find a different term to use besides "genocide". Yes, if we turn the ME into a sheet of glass, many Arabs would die, but so also would many Jews and Iranians (who are Indo-European, not Arabic). We need to defeat them because of whom they support. Their ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

“From what I’ve heard some people say, the young Chinese are very amoral.”

Between marriages I had the opportunity to ‘research’ the attitudes of different Asian nationalities and my experience was that the Chinese have very many similarities to the English speaking cultures. Generally they have no strong religious or superstitious beliefs, are hard working, honourable, honest, studious, frugal and family orientated. They are proud of China yet are quite realistic about the mistakes they have made in the recent past. Most of them are furiously learning English and adopting Western ways.
They appear to be the complete opposite of our Islamic cousins and most noticeably in one very important way. They are quite ready to inter-mingle and inter-marry. Chinese men are quite eager to introduce you to their sisters or cousins. Now, this you will not experience within Islam.
So IMHO Chinese amorality is infinitely preferable to Islamic ‘morality’.

Generally the Chinese are very proud of Chinese achievements. They believe that their method of transition from communism will be much more successful and less painful than the Soviet experience. There is some anti-American sentiment but you will find that in every country in the world including the USA. They were upset about the bombing of the embassy in the Kosovo war and quite emotional about the spy plane incident but I am sure we would be too if the roles were reversed.

I think of all the peoples on the planet that the English-speaking peoples can get along with it is the Chinese who are the best bet.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: