observing academia from within would know that most of the research coming out
of a majority of social science departments is meaningless and irrelevant. It’s
a self-referential racket that squanders money on bureaucratic nonsense and on
research subjects completely dissociated with normal life and policy.
Had it not
been so, right now there would be scores of scholarships and funding to find
out the causality behind a single puzzling phenomenon: What explains otherwise
virulent, hyper-activist, and volatile Islamic countries and jihadist groups
being completely subservient to China?
It is, of course,
unthinkable that India, the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, Russia,
or any European Union country would get away with what China is doing without a
response from Islamic countries. After all, China is routinely, systematically,
and violently attacking the Islamic countries’ fellow religious practitioners.
states and civil society are not otherwise shy about showing their displeasure
and have resorted on other policy priorities to collective action via proxy
forces, demonstrations, and active funding of jihadist groups. China has trade
and military ties with all the major Islamic states, with major investments in
Pakistan, Central Asia, Iran, and the Middle East.
So how did
China manage to earn the subservience, when more than 1 million Muslims are
interned in Chinese concentration camps? And what does that mean for Western
policy that we couldn’t manage that feat through continuous appeasement?
Is in Too Deep with China
compromised and infiltrated Western big corporates and universities. For
decades since the end of the Second World War, in the West among both
libertarians and conservatives, the market has been worshiped as something
larger than the nation-state, and now that the market has decided China’s money
is more important than Western social cohesion, the fault lines are
increasingly becoming prominent.
Antle recently wrote in The American Conservative, this is the modern
metaphorical version of the proverbial corporatists selling the rope to Lenin
by which he plans to hang them. But China should ideally shock both liberals
and leftists as well and align them with conservatives. As Matthew Walther
wrote, the barbarism in China is incomparable and unprecedented but should
ideally bring the left and right together. The fact that it doesn’t shows how
compromised the situation is.
believe I am typing this about a man who eight years ago said he would be
walking on Mars by now, but Newt Gingrich is absolutely right. Our leaders are
not prepared to deal with China. Not only do they lack the cunning and the
willpower — they lack the requisite bargaining tools. We are in too deep, and
China knows it. Any concession we could possibly demand of them will require a
corresponding one that we are unable to grant.
is not clear to me that a substantial number of Americans particularly wants to
see our relations with China change. We are happy to buy cheap water bottles
and Halloween decorations and licensed cartoon merchandise and mobile phones.
We want our movies shown in Chinese theaters and our sports leagues to have
large Chinese fan bases. From our home in this consumer paradise hell looks
That’s on us to fix. But what explains the muted reaction from the Islamic
world? This is an important question. While for liberals and neoconservatives
every two-penny authoritarian looks like the next Adolf Hitler, only one great
power that we know of is actively running concentration camps, where reportedly
more than 1 million people are enslaved with no rights or freedom, women are
being raped, and Mengeleian experiments are being conducted on live human
with any news this gruesome, there is always a need for caution on how much to
believe and what to ignore. But no smoke can exist without some fire, and if
even a quarter of the news coming out of dissidents is true, the reality is
Islamic Leaders Silent?
strangest part is the deadly silence from Islamic leaders. Naturally, this
leads to a few questions. Are the Islamic countries afraid of China more than
they are of the West? Is that because they worry about losing Chinese
investment, or is that because they know that if they provoke China to the
point of a war, Chinese military will not follow human rights rules during
unlikely that Chinese military in a war situation would follow the careful
“minimal-civilian-casualty” mode of warfare or counterinsurgency the West
currently practices. Is that a deterrent?
Pakistan, to Iran, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, all the leading Islamic powers
are silent about literally millions of their fellow religious practitioners
being brutalized, as are the countless jihadist groups from Indonesia to Iraq.
This could mean only one thing: that the Islamic states and jihadist groups are
more afraid of China than they are of anyone else.
any other power — the EU, the U.S., the U.K., Russia, India, or Israel — acting
like China, and imagine what the reaction would be. Where are the mass
protests? Where are the flag burnings? Where are the embassy attacks? Where are
the jihadist bombings of Chinese economic interests in Africa and elsewhere?
That question as to why there aren’t any needs to be probed for strictly
strategic reasons. What did the Chinese manage to do that we couldn’t, after
billions in aid, hundreds of thousands of refugees resettled, and humanitarian
liberals, neoconservatives, or Trotskyists, and anyone else who prefers values
more than interests, the answer is always more universalism and
internationalism. Tyranny and despotism need to be confronted forcefully at
every juncture, even to the point of overstretching militarily and financially.
National conservatives and realists, for example, believe in narrow
realpolitik. To them, interests matter more, and only when interests are
Rise Should Trouble Liberals and Conservatives
current case, however, everyone should agree that the rise of China should
concern both conservative-realists and liberals. Liberals should be worried
about human rights in Hong Kong, which Ben Domenech chronicled here, as well as
the influence of Chinese authoritarianism within Western institutions.
Conservative realists should be worried that China is a growing peer rival
great power with hegemonic aspirations in Asia, a growing navy, and powerful
research in AI and genetics unhindered by gender-diversity nonsense.
China is a
power determined to hollow out the West from within. This is something the
Soviets couldn’t do due to their economic model. One shudders to think,
however, how much manufacturing the Western corporate sector then would have
funnelled to cheap Russian labour to hollow out heartland England and America,
had the autarkic Soviets been more like globally integrated state-capitalist
the sake of academic and strategic inquiry, both liberals and conservatives
should focus on trying to find the answer to the question: What is the Chinese
secret strategy through which they conquered the entire Islamic world and
managed to earn its submissive obedience without firing a single shot or losing
a single life in futile humanitarian wars, such as the ones fought with blood
and treasure, since Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s?
Sumantra Maitra is a doctoral researcher at the
University of Nottingham, UK, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. His
research is in great power-politics and neorealism.
Headline: Why Haven’t We Heard A Peep From Islamic Powers About China
Brutalizing 1 Million Muslims?
Source: The Federalist