operation with China but in fact none of them accepted to sign the “Memorandum of Understanding” about the Silk Road project that was proposed by the Chinese side. An article published in the “South China Morning Post” (1 February 2018) says that May “did not wish to sign a MOU and that she hoped Britain and China could work together on the initiative to ensure it met international standards”. This requirement to meet “international standards of governance and transparency” had already been used as a reason for not participating in the AIIB by US State Secretary John Kerry on 5 November 2014 (Reuters 5 Nov 2014).

In its conclusion the “South China Morning Post” article says that PM May has neither the courage nor the resources to take this major step forward, like former prime minister David Cameron did with the AIIB.

In short, as of February 2018, several governments from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe have signed MOUs on the belt and road plan but none of the western countries have officially endorsed it so far. This shows fairly clearly that in the 3 years between November 2014 and February 2018 the resistance to Chinese plans of economic expansion, instead of abating has become stiffer.

If one wants to identify the country which plays the key-role in this crusade against China one can mention two decisions taken by the US administration in January 2018.

* The deal between Huawei and US carrier ATT which would have allowed Huawei smartphones to be sold in the US was opposed by US lawmakers on national security grounds. One should add that without an agreement with a US carrier Huawei can sell its phones to only 10% of the US customers (which is the percentage of customers not engaged with a carrier).

* “Ant Financial”, the electronics payment affiliate of China’s Alibaba Group, was forced to abort a deal with MoneyGram, a Texas-based money transfer company after failing to win approval from the “Committee on Foreign Investment”, a congressional panel that reviews foreign purchases of American companies.

# Creation of vassal states through military occupation

## Overview

Apart from the military occupations directed related to the war against Germany and Japan there have been many occupations by US armed forces. In the subsequent list the expression “UN mandate” refers to the fact that the occupation was approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. In international law military occupations without UN mandate are deemed to be illegal aggressions.

1. Iceland (1940–1945)
operation with China but in fact none of them accepted to sign the “Memorandum of Understanding” about the Silk Road project that was proposed by the Chinese side. An article published in the “South China Morning Post” (1 February 2018) says that May “did not wish to sign a MOU and that she hoped Britain and China could work together on the initiative to ensure it met international standards”. This requirement to meet “international standards of governance and transparency” had already been used as a reason for not participating in the AIIB by US State Secretary John Kerry on 5 November 2014 (Reuters 5 Nov 2014).

In its conclusion the “South China Morning Post” article says that PM May has neither the courage nor the resources to take this major step forward, like former prime minister David Cameron did with the AIIB.

In short, as of February 2018, several governments from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe have signed MOUs on the belt and road plan but none of the western countries have officially endorsed it so far. This shows fairly clearly that in the 3 years between November 2014 and February 2018 the resistance to Chinese plans of economic expansion, instead of abating has become stiffer.

If one wants to identify the country which plays the key-role in this crusade against China one can mention two decisions taken by the US administration in January 2018.

* The deal between Huawei and US carrier ATT which would have allowed Huawei smartphones to be sold in the US was opposed by US lawmakers on national security grounds. One should add that without an agreement with a US carrier Huawei can sell its phones to only 10% of the US customers (which is the percentage of customers not engaged with a carrier).

* “Ant Financial”, the electronics payment affiliate of China’s Alibaba Group, was forced to abort a deal with MoneyGram, a Texas-based money transfer company after failing to win approval from the “Committee on Foreign Investment”, a congressional panel that reviews foreign purchases of American companies.

# Creation of vassal states through military occupation

## Overview

Apart from the military occupations directed related to the war against Germany and Japan there have been many occupations by US armed forces. In the subsequent list the expression “UN mandate” refers to the fact that the occupation was approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. In international law military occupations without UN mandate are deemed to be illegal aggressions.

1. Iceland (1940–1945)
2 China (1945–1948),

3 The Philippines (US colony until 1948)

4 Vietnam (invited by South Vietnam government, 1955–1975),

5 Lebanon (UN mandate, Aug 1982–Mar 1984)

6 Grenada island in the Caribbean Sea (no UN mandate, Oct 1983–Oct 1985)

7 Panama in Central America (no UN mandate, Dec 1989–Sep 1994)

8 Saudi Arabia (Saudi permission, Aug 1990–Aug 2003)

9 Somalia (UN mandate, “Operation restore Hope” in 1993–1994)

10 Kosovo (UN mandate, June 1999 and ongoing)

11 Afghanistan (UN mandate, starting in 2001 and ongoing),

12 Iraq (no UN mandate, Mar 2003–Dec 2011, resumed in 2014)

In a general way these occupations were less successful than the postwar occupa-
tions. Some (e.g. Vietnam, Somalia or Afghanistan) had been military failures. In
others, e.g. Iceland, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the countries did not accept
to keep US bases on their soil indefinitely. The cases of Iceland, South Korea and
Grenada will be discussed in more detail below.

Example of base building

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.3 Camp Bondsteel, a US base in Kosovo.** The construction of this base was started in 1999 that is to say immediately after the occupation of Kosovo by NATO troops in June 1999. It is probable that this project had been planned some time earlier for otherwise the design phase may have taken one year or more. *Source: Wikipedia articles entitled “Camp Bondsteel”.*</figcaption></figure>

In the above list several of the occupations, e.g. Somalia. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq were led by the US but involved many countries. For instance, the so-called Kosovo force (KFOR) which occupied Kosovo for the count of NATO comprised initially 50,000 troops from 39 nations. However, the US was the only country which took advantage of this occupation to build a massive military base, namely Camp
2 China (1945–1948),

3 The Philippines (US colony until 1948)

4 Vietnam (invited by South Vietnam government, 1955–1975),

5 Lebanon (UN mandate, Aug 1982–Mar 1984)

6 Grenada island in the Caribbean Sea (no UN mandate, Oct 1983–Oct 1985)

7 Panama in Central America (no UN mandate, Dec 1989–Sep 1994)

8 Saudi Arabia (Saudi permission, Aug 1990–Aug 2003)

9 Somalia (UN mandate, “Operation restore Hope” in 1993–1994)

10 Kosovo (UN mandate, June 1999 and ongoing)

11 Afghanistan (UN mandate, starting in 2001 and ongoing),

12 Iraq (no UN mandate, Mar 2003–Dec 2011, resumed in 2014)

In a general way these occupations were less successful than the postwar occupa-
tions. Some (e.g. Vietnam, Somalia or Afghanistan) had been military failures. In
others, e.g. Iceland, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the countries did not accept
to keep US bases on their soil indefinitely. The cases of Iceland, South Korea and
Grenada will be discussed in more detail below.

Example of base building

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.3 Camp Bondsteel, a US base in Kosovo.** The construction of this base was started in 1999 that is to say immediately after the occupation of Kosovo by NATO troops in June 1999. It is probable that this project had been planned some time earlier for otherwise the design phase may have taken one year or more. *Source: Wikipedia articles entitled “Camp Bondsteel”.*</figcaption></figure>

In the above list several of the occupations, e.g. Somalia. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq were led by the US but involved many countries. For instance, the so-called Kosovo force (KFOR) which occupied Kosovo for the count of NATO comprised initially 50,000 troops from 39 nations. However, the US was the only country which took advantage of this occupation to build a massive military base, namely Camp
Bondsteel, which has an area of 4 square kilometers and a capacity of 7,000 troops. Although officially designated as the KFOR headquarters, Camp Bondsteel was built by the US and is 100% controlled by the US.

From the perspective of the host country, a US base (or more generally a foreign military base) has short term advantages but poses long-term problems. Among the short-term benefits is the fact that it employs a local workforce first for building the base and then as civilian employees. Among the long-term problems the most serious is the fact that the base becomes surrounded by a ring of bars and hotels which provide services in prostitution, gambling and possibly drugs. This is of course an unavoidable consequence of the fact that the bases have young and mostly male populations.

**Winning hearts and minds or establishing close links with the leaders?**

On 4 May 1965, US President Johnson declared “We must be ready to fight in Vietnam, but the ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there”.

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.4 The challenge of winning hearts and minds.** Together with the containment policy comes the challenge of winning the hearts and minds of the population. “Balikatan” is the name of the annual military exercises between the Philippines and the United States. It is a Tagalog (i.e. the language of the Philippines) word meaning “shoulder-to-shoulder”. In 2017 it was the 33rd iteration of Balikatan. Usually it takes place in April and lasts 10 days. It involves military as well as humanitarian exercises. The present picture was taken near the village of Tiptipon in the province of Jolo. For the purpose of a public relations operation US Marines pose with villagers and Philippine Marines during the exercise of 2006. The sign in the middle of the picture reads: “We are glad being with you for a short time. Everywhere you go, we are always with you.” Source: Wikipedia article entitled “Balikatan”</figcaption></figure>

Is this really the ultimate objective of military occupation? Examining the episodes of former American military occupations will help us to answer this question. It will be seen that the real target is not the good of common people but rather the hearts and minds of foreign political leaders.

It appears that the US post-war military occupations of Italy, Germany, Japan and South Korea were highly successful in the sense that all these countries have remained close US allies, even accepting permanent US bases on their soil up to the
Bondsteel, which has an area of 4 square kilometers and a capacity of 7,000 troops. Although officially designated as the KFOR headquarters, Camp Bondsteel was built by the US and is 100% controlled by the US.

From the perspective of the host country, a US base (or more generally a foreign military base) has short term advantages but poses long-term problems. Among the short-term benefits is the fact that it employs a local workforce first for building the base and then as civilian employees. Among the long-term problems the most serious is the fact that the base becomes surrounded by a ring of bars and hotels which provide services in prostitution, gambling and possibly drugs. This is of course an unavoidable consequence of the fact that the bases have young and mostly male populations.

**Winning hearts and minds or establishing close links with the leaders?**

On 4 May 1965, US President Johnson declared “We must be ready to fight in Vietnam, but the ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there”.

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.4 The challenge of winning hearts and minds.** Together with the containment policy comes the challenge of winning the hearts and minds of the population. “Balikatan” is the name of the annual military exercises between the Philippines and the United States. It is a Tagalog (i.e. the language of the Philippines) word meaning “shoulder-to-shoulder”. In 2017 it was the 33rd iteration of Balikatan. Usually it takes place in April and lasts 10 days. It involves military as well as humanitarian exercises. The present picture was taken near the village of Tiptipon in the province of Jolo. For the purpose of a public relations operation US Marines pose with villagers and Philippine Marines during the exercise of 2006. The sign in the middle of the picture reads: “We are glad being with you for a short time. Everywhere you go, we are always with you.” Source: Wikipedia article entitled “Balikatan”</figcaption></figure>

Is this really the ultimate objective of military occupation? Examining the episodes of former American military occupations will help us to answer this question. It will be seen that the real target is not the good of common people but rather the hearts and minds of foreign political leaders.

It appears that the US post-war military occupations of Italy, Germany, Japan and South Korea were highly successful in the sense that all these countries have remained close US allies, even accepting permanent US bases on their soil up to the
present time.

# Occupation success or failure? The cooperation conjecture

What makes a successful occupation? Tentatively, as a conjecture, one can suggest the following explanation based on the strength of interaction.

The occupations of Italy, Germany and Japan were not only military occupations. In fact, thousands of so-called *Civil Affairs Officers* came into the respective countries along with the troops. Who were they? They were military officers selected for their knowledge of the language and then trained in the US during several months to make them able to rule the occupied country. This concerned all facets of the activity and life of a country: police, agriculture, transportation, health care, education, culture, and so on.

The fact that in 1945 there were many Americans of German, Italian or Japanese origin made it fairly easy to solve the language problem. Once they were established in their respective functions in the occupied country the Civil Affairs Officers started to work with local people in order to carry out their duty. The cooperation with local people was not an option but rather a necessity because without aides they would not have been able to fulfill their mission. Naturally, when the occupation came to an end it was natural to choose among these aides the persons who would take over as heads of the ministries or departments. In short, this was a process of "nation-building" in the sense that the new leaders would be pro-American Italians, Germans or Japanese citizens.

In what follows this explanation will be called the cooperation conjecture. It rests on three requirements

* There must be competent Civil Affairs Officers able to speak the local language.

* The occupation must last long enough (say, a few years) for a cooperation to develop.

* If there is an ongoing civil war in the occupied country the US must be on the side of the winners. In cases where the main reason of US intervention was to advice and prop up one of the two sides (as for instance in China, or Vietnam) a defeat of their allies constitutes of course a serious setback.

Does the cooperation conjecture account for the observations reported above? Instead of examining all the cases we will rather focus on two cases, namely Iceland and South Korea.

## Case-study 1: Military occupation and base building in Iceland

The case of Iceland is fairly simple. The reason of its occupation was to prevent
present time.

# Occupation success or failure? The cooperation conjecture

What makes a successful occupation? Tentatively, as a conjecture, one can suggest the following explanation based on the strength of interaction.

The occupations of Italy, Germany and Japan were not only military occupations. In fact, thousands of so-called *Civil Affairs Officers* came into the respective countries along with the troops. Who were they? They were military officers selected for their knowledge of the language and then trained in the US during several months to make them able to rule the occupied country. This concerned all facets of the activity and life of a country: police, agriculture, transportation, health care, education, culture, and so on.

The fact that in 1945 there were many Americans of German, Italian or Japanese origin made it fairly easy to solve the language problem. Once they were established in their respective functions in the occupied country the Civil Affairs Officers started to work with local people in order to carry out their duty. The cooperation with local people was not an option but rather a necessity because without aides they would not have been able to fulfill their mission. Naturally, when the occupation came to an end it was natural to choose among these aides the persons who would take over as heads of the ministries or departments. In short, this was a process of "nation-building" in the sense that the new leaders would be pro-American Italians, Germans or Japanese citizens.

In what follows this explanation will be called the cooperation conjecture. It rests on three requirements

* There must be competent Civil Affairs Officers able to speak the local language.

* The occupation must last long enough (say, a few years) for a cooperation to develop.

* If there is an ongoing civil war in the occupied country the US must be on the side of the winners. In cases where the main reason of US intervention was to advice and prop up one of the two sides (as for instance in China, or Vietnam) a defeat of their allies constitutes of course a serious setback.

Does the cooperation conjecture account for the observations reported above? Instead of examining all the cases we will rather focus on two cases, namely Iceland and South Korea.

## Case-study 1: Military occupation and base building in Iceland

The case of Iceland is fairly simple. The reason of its occupation was to prevent
a possible occupation by Germany. In this case there were no civil affairs officers,
therefore little cooperation and then only with the Icelanders who could speak En-
glish. In addition, it must be observed that it was a massive occupation. The troops
numbered about one fourth of the Icelandic population. Not surprisingly, the out-
come was that the relations between the population and the US forces turned sour.
The occupation was seen as an invasion (which indeed it was); there were numerous
incidents between the population and the servicemen. When at the end of the war
the US asked permission to keep a permanent base in Iceland, the Icelandic assembly
voted against it. It was only by applying much political pressure and by playing with
the fear of an occupation by the Soviet Union (however unlikely it was) that the US
could reverse the first decision.

The “Keflavik Naval Air Station” was tolerated for 50 years because in addition to
US financial compensation it employed almost one thousand Icelanders. Moreover,
as it was far away from Reykjavik there was in fact little interaction between the
population and the military. However, in 2008 when the US tried to negotiate a
reduction of the lease and no agreement could be reached the base was closed. It has
remained closed ever since in spite of the fact that the US expressed some interest in
a new station aimed at monitoring Russian submarines<fnref n="31" />.

There is a similar story for the US bases in the Philippines. Despite the fact that,
until 2016, all Philippine governments were very friendly to the US the American
bases were closed in 1992. Two factors seem to have played a major role in this
decision (i) the numerous incidents between the troops and the population and (ii)
US reluctance to guarantee that no nuclear weapons would be stored on the bases. It
is true that in this case US military presence was resumed only 6 years later through
the “Visiting Forces Agreement” (VFA) signed in 1998, and was extended in 2014
through the “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement” (EDCA) which gave the
US the five bases cited in the figure. The fact that formally the bases are only leased
temporarily makes little difference.

Case-study 2: Occupation and nation building in South Korea

In this case the Civil Affairs Officers did not know the Korean language because
there was only a small community of Korean Americans. Therefore, their aides were
recruited among the South Koreans who knew English. They consisted mainly in
two groups: (i) Koreans who like, Syngman Rhee, had spent almost all their life
in exile (ii) Koreans who had been in contact with American missionaries. Neither
of these groups was really able to represent the interests and feelings of the Korean
population. Thus, although there was indeed a process of cooperation, the Koreans
who came to power in August 1948 when South Korea became again a sovereign

<footnote n="31">³¹More details can be found in Roehner (2016a).</footnote>
a possible occupation by Germany. In this case there were no civil affairs officers,
therefore little cooperation and then only with the Icelanders who could speak En-
glish. In addition, it must be observed that it was a massive occupation. The troops
numbered about one fourth of the Icelandic population. Not surprisingly, the out-
come was that the relations between the population and the US forces turned sour.
The occupation was seen as an invasion (which indeed it was); there were numerous
incidents between the population and the servicemen. When at the end of the war
the US asked permission to keep a permanent base in Iceland, the Icelandic assembly
voted against it. It was only by applying much political pressure and by playing with
the fear of an occupation by the Soviet Union (however unlikely it was) that the US
could reverse the first decision.

The “Keflavik Naval Air Station” was tolerated for 50 years because in addition to
US financial compensation it employed almost one thousand Icelanders. Moreover,
as it was far away from Reykjavik there was in fact little interaction between the
population and the military. However, in 2008 when the US tried to negotiate a
reduction of the lease and no agreement could be reached the base was closed. It has
remained closed ever since in spite of the fact that the US expressed some interest in
a new station aimed at monitoring Russian submarines<fnref n="31" />.

There is a similar story for the US bases in the Philippines. Despite the fact that,
until 2016, all Philippine governments were very friendly to the US the American
bases were closed in 1992. Two factors seem to have played a major role in this
decision (i) the numerous incidents between the troops and the population and (ii)
US reluctance to guarantee that no nuclear weapons would be stored on the bases. It
is true that in this case US military presence was resumed only 6 years later through
the “Visiting Forces Agreement” (VFA) signed in 1998, and was extended in 2014
through the “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement” (EDCA) which gave the
US the five bases cited in the figure. The fact that formally the bases are only leased
temporarily makes little difference.

Case-study 2: Occupation and nation building in South Korea

In this case the Civil Affairs Officers did not know the Korean language because
there was only a small community of Korean Americans. Therefore, their aides were
recruited among the South Koreans who knew English. They consisted mainly in
two groups: (i) Koreans who like, Syngman Rhee, had spent almost all their life
in exile (ii) Koreans who had been in contact with American missionaries. Neither
of these groups was really able to represent the interests and feelings of the Korean
population. Thus, although there was indeed a process of cooperation, the Koreans
who came to power in August 1948 when South Korea became again a sovereign

<footnote n="31">³¹More details can be found in Roehner (2016a).</footnote>
country were not trusted by the population. On the day of the general election of
30 May 1950, the South Korean police arrested 112 persons including 30 candidates
accused to be financed by the banned Communist Party. Nevertheless the population
expressed its defiance as revealed by the comment made in the New York Times on
1 June:

"Independents won the Korean elections. The vote is regarded as a defeat for the current administration and a rebuke to the regime's police methods".

In a sense the Korean War which started 4 weeks later saved Syngman Rhee's regime, at least until 1960 when it was replaced by the dictatorship of President Park sanctioned by the US State Department.

In short, in South Korea, until 1990, despite bogus elections, the despotic puppet governments had in fact little popular legitimacy. However, as is characteristic of countries under military occupation, South Korean armed forces have very close links with the US military. In this respect one may recall that they were created, armed, trained and nurtured by the US<fnref n="32" />.

**Case-study 3: The (apparently) very successful invasion of Grenada**

As a third example we present a case that was described as a highly successful invasion by all US medias. It concerns a country which is even smaller than Iceland, namely the island of Grenada in the Caribbean Sea which has a population of 110,000 (2017). Its small size makes it simpler to analyze.

A former British colony, Grenada became independent in 1974. In 1979 a left wing government headed by Maurice Bishop came to power in the wake of a revolution supported by the population. Like Fidel Castro in Cuba, Bishop was a lawyer and a charismatic leader. Precisely for that reason he was not seen with favor by President Reagan.

Thus, a few days after 282 US Marines had died in an attack in Lebanon, Grenada was invaded by a force of 8,000 US Marines. Apparently this was a very successful invasion. On the Wikipedia article entitled "Grenada" one reads the following.

When US troops withdrew from Grenada in December 1983, Brathwaite of the National Democratic Congress was appointed prime minister. The first democratic elections since 1976 were held in December 1984 and were won by Herbert Blaize who served as prime minister until his death in December 1989.

Blaize was a friend of the United States as were also the prime ministers who came after him, particularly Keith Mitchell who held the position for some 16 years. According to the New York Times, the population was so happy with the US invasion

<footnote n="32">³²More details can be found in Roehner (2016b).</footnote>
country were not trusted by the population. On the day of the general election of
30 May 1950, the South Korean police arrested 112 persons including 30 candidates
accused to be financed by the banned Communist Party. Nevertheless the population
expressed its defiance as revealed by the comment made in the New York Times on
1 June:

"Independents won the Korean elections. The vote is regarded as a defeat for the current administration and a rebuke to the regime's police methods".

In a sense the Korean War which started 4 weeks later saved Syngman Rhee's regime, at least until 1960 when it was replaced by the dictatorship of President Park sanctioned by the US State Department.

In short, in South Korea, until 1990, despite bogus elections, the despotic puppet governments had in fact little popular legitimacy. However, as is characteristic of countries under military occupation, South Korean armed forces have very close links with the US military. In this respect one may recall that they were created, armed, trained and nurtured by the US<fnref n="32" />.

**Case-study 3: The (apparently) very successful invasion of Grenada**

As a third example we present a case that was described as a highly successful invasion by all US medias. It concerns a country which is even smaller than Iceland, namely the island of Grenada in the Caribbean Sea which has a population of 110,000 (2017). Its small size makes it simpler to analyze.

A former British colony, Grenada became independent in 1974. In 1979 a left wing government headed by Maurice Bishop came to power in the wake of a revolution supported by the population. Like Fidel Castro in Cuba, Bishop was a lawyer and a charismatic leader. Precisely for that reason he was not seen with favor by President Reagan.

Thus, a few days after 282 US Marines had died in an attack in Lebanon, Grenada was invaded by a force of 8,000 US Marines. Apparently this was a very successful invasion. On the Wikipedia article entitled "Grenada" one reads the following.

When US troops withdrew from Grenada in December 1983, Brathwaite of the National Democratic Congress was appointed prime minister. The first democratic elections since 1976 were held in December 1984 and were won by Herbert Blaize who served as prime minister until his death in December 1989.

Blaize was a friend of the United States as were also the prime ministers who came after him, particularly Keith Mitchell who held the position for some 16 years. According to the New York Times, the population was so happy with the US invasion

<footnote n="32">³²More details can be found in Roehner (2016b).</footnote>
that a “a bronze monument to the 19 American servicemen killed in the invasion of Grenada was unveiled at St. George’s [capital of Grenada] University on the first anniversary of the landing” (NYT 21 Sep 1984).

This account is not completely true, however. There are several important reservations.

* **Bombing incident.** Was the invasion just a police operation which removed bad leaders without hurting the population? Not really. A mental hospital was bombed by mistake making an undetermined number of victims (NYT 22 November 1984).

* **Elections under military occupation.** Most importantly, not all Marines left the country in December 1983. 250 US troops remained in Grenada. Their withdrawal started only in April 1985 and ended in October 1985 (NYT 22 November 1984 and 8 February 1985). Needless to say, after the invasion the head of the police was removed and replaced by someone friendly to the invaders. Under such conditions, a force of 250 was sufficient to keep control of the country. This means that during the election of December 1984 the country was still under US military occupation.

It must be put to the credit of the US State Department that it is very clever in organizing supposedly democratic elections in countries occupied by US troops. Japan in 1946 was an early example, South Korea in May 1948 was another, Grenada was a third, Afghanistan in 2004 was a fourth and Iraq in 2005 a fifth. It is well known that just by shrewdly enacting a number of technical rules an election can be manipulated. For instance in the election of December 1984, with 36% of the votes the Labour Party was second but got only 6.6% of the seats. This is a fairly unusual arrangement for in most electoral systems seats and votes are more or less in proportion at least for the two major parties.

* **Feelings of the population.** In contrast to what can be read in the NYT articles published in the 1980s, a later article (NYT 14 October 1996) raises some doubts about the real feelings of the population. It turns out that in 1996 the Pentagon wanted to build a small US base in Grenada. Openly it was to be a gift for the coast guards of Grenada. The real purpose was to establish a satellite station which would be part of a network of stations located on five other Caribbean islands. Although the Prime Minister Keith Mitchell had already given his approval without even informing the population, the residents were quite opposed to it. “It’s a Trojan horse, and we don’t want it here” said one of them and the same NYT article adds that:

> “Any mention of an American military presence in the nation of Grenada, involves sensibilities found nowhere else in the English-speaking Caribbean.”

* **Corruption of Prime Minister Mitchell.** The fact that the prime minister of
that a “a bronze monument to the 19 American servicemen killed in the invasion of Grenada was unveiled at St. George’s [capital of Grenada] University on the first anniversary of the landing” (NYT 21 Sep 1984).

This account is not completely true, however. There are several important reservations.

* **Bombing incident.** Was the invasion just a police operation which removed bad leaders without hurting the population? Not really. A mental hospital was bombed by mistake making an undetermined number of victims (NYT 22 November 1984).

* **Elections under military occupation.** Most importantly, not all Marines left the country in December 1983. 250 US troops remained in Grenada. Their withdrawal started only in April 1985 and ended in October 1985 (NYT 22 November 1984 and 8 February 1985). Needless to say, after the invasion the head of the police was removed and replaced by someone friendly to the invaders. Under such conditions, a force of 250 was sufficient to keep control of the country. This means that during the election of December 1984 the country was still under US military occupation.

It must be put to the credit of the US State Department that it is very clever in organizing supposedly democratic elections in countries occupied by US troops. Japan in 1946 was an early example, South Korea in May 1948 was another, Grenada was a third, Afghanistan in 2004 was a fourth and Iraq in 2005 a fifth. It is well known that just by shrewdly enacting a number of technical rules an election can be manipulated. For instance in the election of December 1984, with 36% of the votes the Labour Party was second but got only 6.6% of the seats. This is a fairly unusual arrangement for in most electoral systems seats and votes are more or less in proportion at least for the two major parties.

* **Feelings of the population.** In contrast to what can be read in the NYT articles published in the 1980s, a later article (NYT 14 October 1996) raises some doubts about the real feelings of the population. It turns out that in 1996 the Pentagon wanted to build a small US base in Grenada. Openly it was to be a gift for the coast guards of Grenada. The real purpose was to establish a satellite station which would be part of a network of stations located on five other Caribbean islands. Although the Prime Minister Keith Mitchell had already given his approval without even informing the population, the residents were quite opposed to it. “It’s a Trojan horse, and we don’t want it here” said one of them and the same NYT article adds that:

> “Any mention of an American military presence in the nation of Grenada, involves sensibilities found nowhere else in the English-speaking Caribbean.”

* **Corruption of Prime Minister Mitchell.** The fact that the prime minister of
Grenada is corrupt (see below) does not come as surprise for indeed it seems a fairly
general rule that governments of client states are corrupt. Why is this so? Two rea-
sons come to mind. (i) Being obedient is usually rewarded by financial aid. As this
aid is delivered to the client government (and not directly to development projects)
it is an obvious incitation to corrupt practices. (ii) Being subservient often means
favoring foreign interests over national interests. The civil servants who are told to
do that (may be despite their own feelings) may think that this deserves a reward.
The following statement from the US embassy in Bridgetown (Barbados) emphasizes
the corruption of Prime Minister Mitchell. However, this dispatch (made public by
Wikileaks<fnref n="33" />) is dated 8 March 2006 which means that the revelations did not prevent
Mitchell from being re-elected in 2013.

Keith Mitchell's ten-year tenure as Prime Minister of Grenada has been tarnished by numerous allegations of corruption. This situation was highlighted in February by the conviction in the US on fraud charges of a Grenadian German-born businessman Eric Resteiner who reportedly paid a US$50,000 bribe to the PM in exchange for being named a Grenadian Ambassador. Mitchell has also been linked to several offshore banks that defrauded investors of millions of dollars before collapsing.

In 2004 and 2005 after the island was hit by two hurricanes which destroyed many
homes and buildings, it got fairly little American aid. But, according to Wikipedia,
after the hurricane of 2004, the People's Republic of China paid for the new $40
million national stadium and provided the aid of over 300 workers to build it.

**Conclusion: How well does military occupation work for gaining influence in a country?**

What do the previous case studies tell us?

In line with the cooperation conjecture, they suggest that whether in Kosovo, Iceland, South Korea, Grenada, or also Afghanistan and Iraq, occupations by US troops did not bring about warm relations with the population. Leaders friendly to the US may remain in power, bases may continue to be accepted but in most cases one does not have the impression of a cheerful relationship.

The episodes of US military occupation which occurred during and shortly after World War II brought about a large set of close and faithful allies, namely the European NATO countries and also Australia, Japan and New Zealand. As seen in previous subsections, the bases in Iceland and South Korea led to results which were more mixed.

When military occupations did no longer involve able Civil Affairs Officers they

<footnote n="33">³³https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BRIDGETOWN429</footnote>
Grenada is corrupt (see below) does not come as surprise for indeed it seems a fairly
general rule that governments of client states are corrupt. Why is this so? Two rea-
sons come to mind. (i) Being obedient is usually rewarded by financial aid. As this
aid is delivered to the client government (and not directly to development projects)
it is an obvious incitation to corrupt practices. (ii) Being subservient often means
favoring foreign interests over national interests. The civil servants who are told to
do that (may be despite their own feelings) may think that this deserves a reward.
The following statement from the US embassy in Bridgetown (Barbados) emphasizes
the corruption of Prime Minister Mitchell. However, this dispatch (made public by
Wikileaks<fnref n="33" />) is dated 8 March 2006 which means that the revelations did not prevent
Mitchell from being re-elected in 2013.

Keith Mitchell's ten-year tenure as Prime Minister of Grenada has been tarnished by numerous allegations of corruption. This situation was highlighted in February by the conviction in the US on fraud charges of a Grenadian German-born businessman Eric Resteiner who reportedly paid a US$50,000 bribe to the PM in exchange for being named a Grenadian Ambassador. Mitchell has also been linked to several offshore banks that defrauded investors of millions of dollars before collapsing.

In 2004 and 2005 after the island was hit by two hurricanes which destroyed many
homes and buildings, it got fairly little American aid. But, according to Wikipedia,
after the hurricane of 2004, the People's Republic of China paid for the new $40
million national stadium and provided the aid of over 300 workers to build it.

**Conclusion: How well does military occupation work for gaining influence in a country?**

What do the previous case studies tell us?

In line with the cooperation conjecture, they suggest that whether in Kosovo, Iceland, South Korea, Grenada, or also Afghanistan and Iraq, occupations by US troops did not bring about warm relations with the population. Leaders friendly to the US may remain in power, bases may continue to be accepted but in most cases one does not have the impression of a cheerful relationship.

The episodes of US military occupation which occurred during and shortly after
World War II brought about a large set of close and faithful allies, namely the Eu-
ropean NATO countries and also Australia, Japan and New Zealand. As seen in
previous subsections, the bases in Iceland and South Korea led to results which were
more mixed.

When military occupations did no longer involve able Civil Affairs Officers they

<footnote n="33">³³https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BRIDGETOWN429</footnote>
were much less successful. They brought with them the usual pitfalls of military occupations, i.e. incidents with the population and prostitution. Most often the fidelity of the leaders of the occupied countries was bought by corruption.

In recent years the same model based on military cooperation was tried in several Asian countries. One can mention Outer Mongolia, Uzbekistan (in 2001 Karshi-Khanabad Air Base was leased and used by the US), Kyrgyzstan (Manas Air Base was also leased by the US in 2001). However, Karshi-Khanabad was vacated in November 2005 and Manas was vacated in June 2014.

## The role played by missile shields against alleged aggressors

In 2016 and 2017 there has been much talk about the American THAAD anti-missile system installed in South Korea. This was only one episode in a long series of similar cases. The scenario is always the same.

1. For good or not so good reasons a country is singled out as a potential aggressor. In the case of THAAD it was of course North Korea. Other countries are presented in the same way elsewhere. In the Middle East it is Iran, in Eastern Europe it is Russia. In western media China is already presented as an aggressor in the South China Sea. Tomorrow China will probably be described as a global threat just as was the Soviet Union in the 1980s. In this respect one can remember the deployment of the Pershing missiles in Europe which is summarized in the Box.

2. As a protection the United States proposes to sell missile shield systems to the countries under threat: In Asia, South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries; in Eastern Europe, Poland and other countries.

3. Needless to say, the personnel in charge of such systems must be trained by US advisers, the system itself must be maintained and revised periodically by US technicians. This gives the United States a permanent presence and a voice in the defense policy of the countries in question.

## Creation of containment networks

Once a number of vassal states have been created, the next step is to organize them into networks for a network will work more effectively than a set of isolated countries.

Containment networks have two fairly different aspects:

* i. Containment by a network of US military bases.

* ii. Containment by a network of vassal states.

(i) is easier than (ii). Why?

For (i) one only needs the permission of the country where the base is intended. In the case of a rather poor country (see the example of Kosovo described previously),
were much less successful. They brought with them the usual pitfalls of military occupations, i.e. incidents with the population and prostitution. Most often the fidelity of the leaders of the occupied countries was bought by corruption.

In recent years the same model based on military cooperation was tried in several Asian countries. One can mention Outer Mongolia, Uzbekistan (in 2001 Karshi-Khanabad Air Base was leased and used by the US), Kyrgyzstan (Manas Air Base was also leased by the US in 2001). However, Karshi-Khanabad was vacated in November 2005 and Manas was vacated in June 2014.

## The role played by missile shields against alleged aggressors

In 2016 and 2017 there has been much talk about the American THAAD anti-missile system installed in South Korea. This was only one episode in a long series of similar cases. The scenario is always the same.

1. For good or not so good reasons a country is singled out as a potential aggressor. In the case of THAAD it was of course North Korea. Other countries are presented in the same way elsewhere. In the Middle East it is Iran, in Eastern Europe it is Russia. In western media China is already presented as an aggressor in the South China Sea. Tomorrow China will probably be described as a global threat just as was the Soviet Union in the 1980s. In this respect one can remember the deployment of the Pershing missiles in Europe which is summarized in the Box.

2. As a protection the United States proposes to sell missile shield systems to the countries under threat: In Asia, South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries; in Eastern Europe, Poland and other countries.

3. Needless to say, the personnel in charge of such systems must be trained by US advisers, the system itself must be maintained and revised periodically by US technicians. This gives the United States a permanent presence and a voice in the defense policy of the countries in question.

## Creation of containment networks

Once a number of vassal states have been created, the next step is to organize them into networks for a network will work more effectively than a set of isolated countries.

Containment networks have two fairly different aspects:

* i. Containment by a network of US military bases.

* ii. Containment by a network of vassal states.

(i) is easier than (ii). Why?

For (i) one only needs the permission of the country where the base is intended. In the case of a rather poor country (see the example of Kosovo described previously),
## Anti-Pershing protests in Europe (1980-1986)

In 1979 the military commander of NATO (an American general) decided to deploy new nuclear missiles in Western Europe: 108 Pershing II missiles and 464 cruise missiles. All 108 Pershing II missiles were to be emplaced in West Germany replacing older Pershing Ia missiles. Of the cruise missiles, 160 were to be placed in England, 96 in West Germany, 112 in Italy, 48 in the Netherlands, and 48 in Belgium. This deployment was presented as a response to SS20 deployment by the Soviet Union. There was a big difference however. The Pershings could target the launching sites of Soviet intercontinental missiles whereas the SS20 were regional missiles which could not target US ICBMs. An equivalent to the Pershings would have been SS20s deployed in Canada and Mexico. Despite huge protest demonstrations in Germany between 1981 and 1984 the Pershings became operational in Germany in 1986. The protesters argued that the Pershings were in violation of the German constitution which prohibited West Germany from preparing for an offensive war but the argument was discarded by the German Constitutional Court.

it may be sufficient to promise financial compensation. On the contrary, for (ii) the countries composing the network must be willing to cooperate. When the network is created for the sole purpose of serving US strategic interests the level of cooperation may be low. This is what happened for the GUUAM network described below.

## Military containment by networks of US bases

Containment is a policy which was used during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. It consisted in surrounding the Soviet Union with US bases hosted by allies. That was the purpose of NATO in western Europe. In this respect, one can remember the so-called “missile crisis” of 1962 which occurred after the United States had deployed nuclear intermediate-range missiles on its bases in Italy and Turkey<fnref n="34" />.

The United States has hundreds of military bases and facilities overseas<fnref n="35" />, some are very large (like the Ramstein base in Germany which has about 10,000 personnel) while others are small outposts (e.g. radar stations). The figure below shows some of the bases around China.

As a revealing example one can observe that Taiwan does not only buy sophisticated weapons from the US but under current President Tsai (2016-) of the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party whose program welcomes independence) it takes also part in military exercises with US forces.

## Containment by networks of vassal states: the case of GUUAM

<footnote n="34">³⁴The real (as opposed to the fabricated version propagated by US media) story of this Cold War episode which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war can be found in Schwarz (2013).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵A list can be found on Wikipedia at the following address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
It seems that this article has not been translated into Chinese yet.</footnote>
## Anti-Pershing protests in Europe (1980-1986)

In 1979 the military commander of NATO (an American general) decided to deploy new nuclear missiles in Western Europe: 108 Pershing II missiles and 464 cruise missiles. All 108 Pershing II missiles were to be emplaced in West Germany replacing older Pershing Ia missiles. Of the cruise missiles, 160 were to be placed in England, 96 in West Germany, 112 in Italy, 48 in the Netherlands, and 48 in Belgium. This deployment was presented as a response to SS20 deployment by the Soviet Union. There was a big difference however. The Pershings could target the launching sites of Soviet intercontinental missiles whereas the SS20 were regional missiles which could not target US ICBMs. An equivalent to the Pershings would have been SS20s deployed in Canada and Mexico. Despite huge protest demonstrations in Germany between 1981 and 1984 the Pershings became operational in Germany in 1986. The protesters argued that the Pershings were in violation of the German constitution which prohibited West Germany from preparing for an offensive war but the argument was discarded by the German Constitutional Court.

it may be sufficient to promise financial compensation. On the contrary, for (ii) the countries composing the network must be willing to cooperate. When the network is created for the sole purpose of serving US strategic interests the level of cooperation may be low. This is what happened for the GUUAM network described below.

## Military containment by networks of US bases

Containment is a policy which was used during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. It consisted in surrounding the Soviet Union with US bases hosted by allies. That was the purpose of NATO in western Europe. In this respect, one can remember the so-called “missile crisis” of 1962 which occurred after the United States had deployed nuclear intermediate-range missiles on its bases in Italy and Turkey<fnref n="34" />.

The United States has hundreds of military bases and facilities overseas<fnref n="35" />, some are very large (like the Ramstein base in Germany which has about 10,000 personnel) while others are small outposts (e.g. radar stations). The figure below shows some of the bases around China.

As a revealing example one can observe that Taiwan does not only buy sophisticated weapons from the US but under current President Tsai (2016-) of the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party whose program welcomes independence) it takes also part in military exercises with US forces.

## Containment by networks of vassal states: the case of GUUAM

<footnote n="34">³⁴The real (as opposed to the fabricated version propagated by US media) story of this Cold War episode which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war can be found in Schwarz (2013).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵A list can be found on Wikipedia at the following address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
It seems that this article has not been translated into Chinese yet.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.5 Networks of US bases surrounding China.** It can be observed that all eastern containment countries have been occupied by US forces during or after World War II. The list in the middle gives the bases in the Philippines. In contrast, most western containment bases are hosted by more recent US allies. All countries that are mentioned host US bases except Mongolia which was included because from 2002 on, it has hosted an annual US-Mongolian military exercise called “Khaan Quest”. There are many other US bases, particularly in Europe which are not shown here. It can be noted that from 2001 on there were also US bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan which were closed in 2005 and 2014 respectively. Sources: Wikipedia articles entitled “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement”, “Karshi-Khanabad Air Base”, “Manas Air Base”, Rozoff (2010). Incidentally, it can be observed that although this map contains Chinese characters, it was certainly not made in Beijing for Taiwan is not displayed with the same green color as the mainland; it was probably designed in Hong Kong.</figcaption></figure>

The acronym GUUAM stands for: Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldavia. In addition Latvia (one of the Baltic countries) and Turkey were “observers” that is to say associated states of this network.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the PRC were encircled by several alliances led by the United States. On the west there was NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). There were also counterparts of NATO in the south and east, namely CENTO (Central Treaty Organization, an outgrowth of the former Bagdad Pact) and SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization which included Australia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand). Incidentally, does the occurrence of the expression “Treaty Organization” in the names of the three bodies not suggest a common origin, probably to be found in an office of a division of the US State Department?

The creation of the GUUAM network was a repetition of the Cold War containment policy (Lafargue 2005). Founded in 1996 with the support of the “Council of Eu-
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.5 Networks of US bases surrounding China.** It can be observed that all eastern containment countries have been occupied by US forces during or after World War II. The list in the middle gives the bases in the Philippines. In contrast, most western containment bases are hosted by more recent US allies. All countries that are mentioned host US bases except Mongolia which was included because from 2002 on, it has hosted an annual US-Mongolian military exercise called “Khaan Quest”. There are many other US bases, particularly in Europe which are not shown here. It can be noted that from 2001 on there were also US bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan which were closed in 2005 and 2014 respectively. Sources: Wikipedia articles entitled “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement”, “Karshi-Khanabad Air Base”, “Manas Air Base”, Rozoff (2010). Incidentally, it can be observed that although this map contains Chinese characters, it was certainly not made in Beijing for Taiwan is not displayed with the same green color as the mainland; it was probably designed in Hong Kong.</figcaption></figure>

The acronym GUUAM stands for: Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldavia. In addition Latvia (one of the Baltic countries) and Turkey were “observers” that is to say associated states of this network.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the PRC were encircled by several alliances led by the United States. On the west there was NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). There were also counterparts of NATO in the south and east, namely CENTO (Central Treaty Organization, an outgrowth of the former Bagdad Pact) and SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization which included Australia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand). Incidentally, does the occurrence of the expression “Treaty Organization” in the names of the three bodies not suggest a common origin, probably to be found in an office of a division of the US State Department?

The creation of the GUUAM network was a repetition of the Cold War containment policy (Lafargue 2005). Founded in 1996 with the support of the “Council of Eu-
rope”, GUUAM was intended to advance military co-operation between its members in close collaboration with the United States. In short, it was the same objective as NATO. The five members shared a common platform in refusing the presence of Russian forces on their territory. One of the main aims of GUUAM was the building of an oil supply network that would be independent of Russia. Not surprisingly, Beijing viewed GUUAM as an encirclement mechanism aimed not only at Russia but also at China.

How successful was GUUAM so far?

The short answer is that it has almost disappeared. Here are a few steps.

* After Uzbekistan left the organization in May 2005, its acronym was changed into GUAM.

* After 2008 the organisation had been largely inactive with no other GUAM summit taking place.

* In 2013 the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, was reelected for a third term. Whether he was an ally of Russia or the USA can be seen very easily through the comments respective to the election. President Putin found it “fair”, whereas according to the US State Department it “fell short of international standards”. Even though Azerbaijan did not formally leave GUAM it became inactive.

* Ukraine and Georgia constituted the hard core of the organization. However, a deep rift appeared respective to former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili. After he lost the 2012 election, he immediately left Georgia and went to Ukraine. Shortly after he left, he was indicted on multiple criminal charges. In Ukraine Saakashvili energetically supported Ukraine's Maidan movement and the 2014 Ukrai-nian revolution. On 30 May 2015 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed Saakashvili Governor of the Odessa region. Ever since Saakashvili had been given refugee status in Ukraine there have not been any top-level meetings between the leaders of the two countries.

In summary, one can say that GUUAM was far less successful than NATO.

Military-economic competition in Africa

The word “containment” may have a spatial and geographical interpretation, namely that this policy tries to prevent the expansion of Chinese influence beyond its border. Although this view is indeed correct particularly from a military perspective, it is too limited. Actually, “containment” has a strategic and geopolitical meaning. Africa provides a good illustration.

Economic role of China in African countries

Although it is far away from China, both spatially and culturally, there has been a
rope”, GUUAM was intended to advance military co-operation between its members in close collaboration with the United States. In short, it was the same objective as NATO. The five members shared a common platform in refusing the presence of Russian forces on their territory. One of the main aims of GUUAM was the building of an oil supply network that would be independent of Russia. Not surprisingly, Beijing viewed GUUAM as an encirclement mechanism aimed not only at Russia but also at China.

How successful was GUUAM so far?

The short answer is that it has almost disappeared. Here are a few steps.

* After Uzbekistan left the organization in May 2005, its acronym was changed into GUAM.

* After 2008 the organisation had been largely inactive with no other GUAM summit taking place.

* In 2013 the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, was reelected for a third term. Whether he was an ally of Russia or the USA can be seen very easily through the comments respective to the election. President Putin found it “fair”, whereas according to the US State Department it “fell short of international standards”. Even though Azerbaijan did not formally leave GUAM it became inactive.

* Ukraine and Georgia constituted the hard core of the organization. However, a deep rift appeared respective to former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili. After he lost the 2012 election, he immediately left Georgia and went to Ukraine. Shortly after he left, he was indicted on multiple criminal charges. In Ukraine Saakashvili energetically supported Ukraine's Maidan movement and the 2014 Ukrai-nian revolution. On 30 May 2015 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed Saakashvili Governor of the Odessa region. Ever since Saakashvili had been given refugee status in Ukraine there have not been any top-level meetings between the leaders of the two countries.

In summary, one can say that GUUAM was far less successful than NATO.

## Military-economic competition in Africa

The word “containment” may have a spatial and geographical interpretation, namely that this policy tries to prevent the expansion of Chinese influence beyond its border. Although this view is indeed correct particularly from a military perspective, it is too limited. Actually, “containment” has a strategic and geopolitical meaning. Africa provides a good illustration.

### Economic role of China in African countries

Although it is far away from China, both spatially and culturally, there has been a
long-standing Chinese policy of infrastructure development in Africa which can even be seen as a forerunner of the Silk Road project (see Fig. and Box).

## Dam built by China in Ghana

Wharton panel on China-Africa, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 19 Jan. 2016 Aubrey Hruby, co-founder of the “Africa Expert Network” and co-author of the 2015 book “The Next Africa: An Emerging Continent Becomes a Global Powerhouse”, described a dam project that Ghana had with the World Bank that was stalled for about 7 years. There was a social audit, an environmental audit but nothing got built. “Eventually, writes Hruby, president of Ghana John Kufuor (2001-2009) went to China in 2006 and they started digging in about one month”. Somewhat more seriously the Bui Dam project was completed within 5 years; it delivers 400 megawatt.

What factors are fueling the continuing negative view of China in Africa? In Hruby's opinion, many in the US government have an “obsession” with the China-Africa relationship that blinds them to a more global [and realistic] view.

The 2007 “Pew Global Attitudes Survey” asked Africans in 10 countries to compare the influences of China and the US in their own countries. In 9 of the 10 countries, by margins of 60% to 90%, African respondents said Chinese influence was good. These percentages substantially exceeded those for the US.

## Increasing US military intervention in Africa: the case of Niger

Niger is a small and poor country in west Africa. Its main resource consists in exporting uranium. The US military have been in Niger intermittently for more than 20 years; as many as 800 troops are deployed in the country to advise and train local forces; the US also maintains drone bases in Niger (Time Magazine 6 November 2017, p. 6).

Usually Niger hardly ever appears in US news reports but on 4 October 2017 four US troops from Special Forces (so-called “Green Berets”) were killed in an ambush as they were on a training mission with Nigerien troops. This incident raises a question: how can there be a surprise ambush in broad daylight in a desertic country that is closely monitored by US drones?

In the articles about this event (“Stars and Stripes” and “New York Times” of 5 Oct 2017) one learns that the US has about 645 military personnel in Niger to support local troops in counterterrorism operations. In neighboring Cameroon, 300 US military personnel are also deployed. Moreover, since 2013, unmanned American aircraft have been operated from a clandestine airfield in Niamey, the capital of Niger. More recently, Americans are also helping construct a drone base for French and American aircraft in Agadez which will be completed in 2018.
long-standing Chinese policy of infrastructure development in Africa which can even be seen as a forerunner of the Silk Road project (see Fig. and Box).

## Dam built by China in Ghana

Wharton panel on China-Africa, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 19 Jan. 2016 Aubrey Hruby, co-founder of the “Africa Expert Network” and co-author of the 2015 book “The Next Africa: An Emerging Continent Becomes a Global Powerhouse”, described a dam project that Ghana had with the World Bank that was stalled for about 7 years. There was a social audit, an environmental audit but nothing got built. “Eventually, writes Hruby, president of Ghana John Kufuor (2001-2009) went to China in 2006 and they started digging in about one month”. Somewhat more seriously the Bui Dam project was completed within 5 years; it delivers 400 megawatt.

What factors are fueling the continuing negative view of China in Africa? In Hruby's opinion, many in the US government have an “obsession” with the China-Africa relationship that blinds them to a more global [and realistic] view.

The 2007 “Pew Global Attitudes Survey” asked Africans in 10 countries to compare the influences of China and the US in their own countries. In 9 of the 10 countries, by margins of 60% to 90%, African respondents said Chinese influence was good. These percentages substantially exceeded those for the US.

## Increasing US military intervention in Africa: the case of Niger

Niger is a small and poor country in west Africa. Its main resource consists in exporting uranium. The US military have been in Niger intermittently for more than 20 years; as many as 800 troops are deployed in the country to advise and train local forces; the US also maintains drone bases in Niger (Time Magazine 6 November 2017, p. 6).

Usually Niger hardly ever appears in US news reports but on 4 October 2017 four US troops from Special Forces (so-called “Green Berets”) were killed in an ambush as they were on a training mission with Nigerien troops. This incident raises a question: how can there be a surprise ambush in broad daylight in a desertic country that is closely monitored by US drones?

In the articles about this event (“Stars and Stripes” and “New York Times” of 5 Oct 2017) one learns that the US has about 645 military personnel in Niger to support local troops in counterterrorism operations. In neighboring Cameroon, 300 US military personnel are also deployed. Moreover, since 2013, unmanned American aircraft have been operated from a clandestine airfield in Niamey, the capital of Niger. More recently, Americans are also helping construct a drone base for French and American aircraft in Agadez which will be completed in 2018.
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.6a,b Chinese investment in African countries.** Left: Cumulative investment value 1979-2002; there is a mistake in the picture in the sense that “billion” should be replaced by “million”. Right: Investment in 2005. The new investments (Algeria, Sudan) are mostly related to oil. China surpassed the US as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009. The trade between Africa and China reached $210 billion in 2013. On the contrary, the trade between Africa and the US fell from $140 billion in 2008 to about $90 in 2013. Sources: UNCTAD 2003: China, an emerging FDI outward investor. UNCTAD is the acronym of “United Nations Conference on Trade and Development”. CNUCED is the acronym of the same organization in French (Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Commerce et le Développement).</figcaption></figure>

Without the deaths of the three Special forces there would have been no report about
US military presence in Niger.

Increasing US military intervention in the rest of Africa

How does the US try to check the spread of Chinese influence in Africa? Below
we list a few recent developments which all suggest that, under the cover of fighting
Islamism, the United States is steadily developing a military presence in Africa<fnref n="36" />.

1 Tanzania, on the island of Zanzibar (south east Africa), February 2013. US special operations troops co-organized a conference for special operation forces from east African countries.

2 Senegal (near Dakar), March 2013. The US, 5 European countries and 8 African nations participated in exercise “Saharan Express”.

3 Morrocco, April 2013. 1,200 US Marines and airmen participated in “African Lion 2013”, a military exercise held in Morrocco.

4 Chad (central Africa), March 2017. American Special Forces have been con-

<footnote n="36">³⁶The sources are: Google, “US military presence in Africa”, Spring 2013); Turse (2013); Okeowo (2017); Cooper (2017).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.6a,b Chinese investment in African countries.** Left: Cumulative investment value 1979-2002; there is a mistake in the picture in the sense that “billion” should be replaced by “million”. Right: Investment in 2005. The new investments (Algeria, Sudan) are mostly related to oil. China surpassed the US as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009. The trade between Africa and China reached $210 billion in 2013. On the contrary, the trade between Africa and the US fell from $140 billion in 2008 to about $90 in 2013. Sources: UNCTAD 2003: China, an emerging FDI outward investor. UNCTAD is the acronym of “United Nations Conference on Trade and Development”. CNUCED is the acronym of the same organization in French (Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Commerce et le Développement).</figcaption></figure>

Without the deaths of the three Special forces there would have been no report about
US military presence in Niger.

**Increasing US military intervention in the rest of Africa**

How does the US try to check the spread of Chinese influence in Africa? Below
we list a few recent developments which all suggest that, under the cover of fighting
Islamism, the United States is steadily developing a military presence in Africa<fnref n="36" />.

1 Tanzania, on the island of Zanzibar (south east Africa), February 2013. US special operations troops co-organized a conference for special operation forces from east African countries.

2 Senegal (near Dakar), March 2013. The US, 5 European countries and 8 African nations participated in exercise “Saharan Express”.

3 Morrocco, April 2013. 1,200 US Marines and airmen participated in “African Lion 2013”, a military exercise held in Morrocco.

4 Chad (central Africa), March 2017. American Special Forces have been con-

<footnote n="36">³⁶The sources are: Google, “US military presence in Africa”, Spring 2013); Turse (2013); Okeowo (2017); Cooper (2017).</footnote>
conducting training exercises with troops from 20 African countries.

5 Somalia (north-eastern Africa), 2017. Hundreds of US troops are training Somali soldiers, participating in ground raids, and providing aerial assistance. Brigadier General Donald C. Bolduc, the head of the "US Special Operations Command Africa" (AFRICOM) headquartered at Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart (Germany), told a journalist of the "New Yorker":

> "American soldiers are constantly on the radio with their Somali counterparts like 'teaching a five-year-old how to ride a bike' but they cannot make direct contact with the enemy."

The following episode shows that, as in Iraq, Syria and Libya, US support to local warlords may lead to the disagregation of Somalia.

6 Puntland, Somalia (east Africa), April 2017. Puntland, which declared itself autonomous during the Somali Civil War, has militias belonging to powerful warlords. With the help of units from Syria and Yemen, ISIS took the coastal port of Qandala in October 2016. When the US stepped in to support Puntland's effort to regain the territory, it made clear that the ground offensive would be led by the warlords. US military advisers helped them act properly and the US gave airborne reconnaissance and intelligence but did not carry out strikes. In roughly 10 days, the Puntland force pushed ISIS out from the port and left holding teams to prevent the militants from coming back. "They won't have any ownership of it if we just hand it to them on a silver platter" Bolduc said. "They're going to fight for it."

7 Malawi (southern Africa), May 2017. The US organized an "African Land Forces Summit" in Malawi. The American military spent $1.2 million flying in and housing African military leaders. National Guard and reserve officers from all over the United States were brought in to chat with their African counterparts.

The same kind of support (i.e. training, advising, providing airborne intelligence, but no fighting) was given by US forces to KMT troops in the civil war in China and also to French troops during the Indochina War (also called "First Vietnam War"). In both cases it did not prove very successful.

The cases of Algeria, Malawi, Morroco or Tanzania show that US interventions are not limited to countries where civil wars are under way.

## What about US humanitarian aid?

Perhaps some readers may find that we focused too much on the military aspect of US relations with foreign countries. For instance, the US State Department webpage about Uzbekistan says the following.

> "In Uzbekistan US assistance goals are to improve livelihoods of citizens through support for the agricultural sector, address the threats of infectious disease and
conducting training exercises with troops from 20 African countries.

5 **Somalia (north-eastern Africa), 2017.** Hundreds of US troops are training Somali soldiers, participating in ground raids, and providing aerial assistance. Brigadier General Donald C. Bolduc, the head of the "US Special Operations Command Africa" (AFRICOM) headquartered at Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart (Germany), told a journalist of the "New Yorker":

> "American soldiers are constantly on the radio with their Somali counterparts like 'teaching a five-year-old how to ride a bike' but they cannot make direct contact with the enemy."

The following episode shows that, as in Iraq, Syria and Libya, US support to local warlords may lead to the disagregation of Somalia.

6 **Puntland, Somalia (east Africa), April 2017.** Puntland, which declared itself autonomous during the Somali Civil War, has militias belonging to powerful warlords. With the help of units from Syria and Yemen, ISIS took the coastal port of Qandala in October 2016. When the US stepped in to support Puntland's effort to regain the territory, it made clear that the ground offensive would be led by the warlords. US military advisers helped them act properly and the US gave airborne reconnaissance and intelligence but did not carry out strikes. In roughly 10 days, the Puntland force pushed ISIS out from the port and left holding teams to prevent the militants from coming back. "They won't have any ownership of it if we just hand it to them on a silver platter" Bolduc said. "They're going to fight for it."

7 **Malawi (southern Africa), May 2017.** The US organized an "African Land Forces Summit" in Malawi. The American military spent $1.2 million flying in and housing African military leaders. National Guard and reserve officers from all over the United States were brought in to chat with their African counterparts.

The same kind of support (i.e. training, advising, providing airborne intelligence, but no fighting) was given by US forces to KMT troops in the civil war in China and also to French troops during the Indochina War (also called "First Vietnam War"). In both cases it did not prove very successful.

The cases of Algeria, Malawi, Morroco or Tanzania show that US interventions are not limited to countries where civil wars are under way.

## What about US humanitarian aid?

Perhaps some readers may find that we focused too much on the military aspect of US relations with foreign countries. For instance, the US State Department webpage about Uzbekistan says the following.

> "In Uzbekistan US assistance goals are to improve livelihoods of citizens through support for the agricultural sector, address the threats of infectious disease and
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>US military
operations
in Africa
(2012)</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 4.7 US military operations in Africa.** Colonel Tom Davis, AFRICOM's Director of Public Affairs tells the media: "Other than our base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, we do not have military bases in Africa, nor do we have plans to establish any." Strictly speaking, it may be true. But the Pentagon has several sorts of provisional bases, as for instance the "Special Operations Command Africa" (SOCAFRICA), the "Forward Operations Sites (FOS) or the "Cooperative Security Locations (CSL). The "Kenyan Ranger School" is one example of the military instruction facilities established in Africa. Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/us-military-bases-africa.

transnational crime, increase citizen input into government decision-making, and aid the government's efforts to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

What should one think of these good intentions? We will make three observations.

**About fundamental freedoms**

Is it not a paradox for a country which has been operating the CIA Rendition program for torturing people abroad to lecture other countries about “human rights and fundamental freedoms”<fnref n="37" />?

There is at least one fundamental human right which is not enforced in the US, namely the right to form unions. The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of the United Nations says:

> Article 23-4: Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

In the US this right is denied by many corporations (e.g. Walmart) with the tacit approval of the Federal Government. For the welfare of working people such a right is certainly more crucial than the right to put a ballot into a box every 4 years, a right seen by the State Department as the embodiment of democracy. Should this not make other countries suspicious about the aid they can expect to receive?

<footnote n="37">³⁷Not to mention waging illegal bombing campaigns without mandate from the UN Security Council.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>US military
operations
in Africa
(2012)</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 4.7 US military operations in Africa.** Colonel Tom Davis, AFRICOM's Director of Public Affairs tells the media: "Other than our base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, we do not have military bases in Africa, nor do we have plans to establish any." Strictly speaking, it may be true. But the Pentagon has several sorts of provisional bases, as for instance the "Special Operations Command Africa" (SOCAFRICA), the "Forward Operations Sites (FOS) or the "Cooperative Security Locations (CSL). The "Kenyan Ranger School" is one example of the military instruction facilities established in Africa. Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/us-military-bases-africa.

transnational crime, increase citizen input into government decision-making, and aid the government's efforts to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

What should one think of these good intentions? We will make three observations.

**About fundamental freedoms**

Is it not a paradox for a country which has been operating the CIA Rendition program for torturing people abroad to lecture other countries about “human rights and fundamental freedoms”<fnref n="37" />?

There is at least one fundamental human right which is not enforced in the US, namely the right to form unions. The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of the United Nations says:

> Article 23-4: Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

In the US this right is denied by many corporations (e.g. Walmart) with the tacit approval of the Federal Government. For the welfare of working people such a right is certainly more crucial than the right to put a ballot into a box every 4 years, a right seen by the State Department as the embodiment of democracy. Should this not make other countries suspicious about the aid they can expect to receive?

<footnote n="37">³⁷Not to mention waging illegal bombing campaigns without mandate from the UN Security Council.</footnote>
The United States and Haiti

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.8 The Republic of Haiti in the Caribbean Sea.** Until it became independent in 1804 the name of Haiti was Saint-Domingue, that is to say the same name as the eastern part of the Hispaniola island. The name “Hispaniola” originates from the fact that it was the first island discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492. Contrary to the eastern part which is Spanish-speaking, Haiti is French-speaking. *Source: Internet (country reports).*</figcaption></figure>

A good “laboratory” for observing the humanitarian action of the US government is the **Republic of Haiti**. It is located in the Caribbean Sea on the doorstep of the United States, some 1,000 km south-east off the coast of Florida and only 500 km west of the US Territory of Puerto Rico. With a population of 10 millions it is the second most populated country in the Caribbean and the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Although Haiti became a sovereign nation in 1804, the first independent country in South America, for years western powers did not give it diplomatic recognition. The US recognized Haitian independence only in 1862. Moreover, western powers bankrolled and armed opposing groups and interfered in many other ways in internal Haitian affairs. For instance, there are currently (2017) international election commissions which approve or do not approve the results of the elections. Some other cases of interference are indicated below. The “American Colonization Society” (ACS) encouraged US free blacks to emigrate to Haiti and in 1824 and 1825 more than 6,000 African Americans migrated to Haiti, with transportation paid by the ACS<fnref n="38" />. Moreover, in May 1861, a group of African Americans led by a colored evangelical bishop, James Theodore Holly, settled in a place 10 km north east of the capital of Port-of-Prince.

Haiti was occupied by US troops from 27 January 1914 to 15 August 1934 and again from 19 September 1994 through 2000³⁹.

<footnote n="38">³⁸Simultaneously, the ACS organized the migration of 13,000 free African Americans to Liberia.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹Started as “Operation Uphold Democracy” the occupation continued as “Operation New Horizons”. In this respect</footnote>
The United States and Haiti

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.8 The Republic of Haiti in the Caribbean Sea.** Until it became independent in 1804 the name of Haiti was Saint-Domingue, that is to say the same name as the eastern part of the Hispaniola island. The name “Hispaniola” originates from the fact that it was the first island discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492. Contrary to the eastern part which is Spanish-speaking, Haiti is French-speaking. *Source: Internet (country reports).*</figcaption></figure>

A good “laboratory” for observing the humanitarian action of the US government is the **Republic of Haiti**. It is located in the Caribbean Sea on the doorstep of the United States, some 1,000 km south-east off the coast of Florida and only 500 km west of the US Territory of Puerto Rico. With a population of 10 millions it is the second most populated country in the Caribbean and the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Although Haiti became a sovereign nation in 1804, the first independent country in South America, for years western powers did not give it diplomatic recognition. The US recognized Haitian independence only in 1862. Moreover, western powers bankrolled and armed opposing groups and interfered in many other ways in internal Haitian affairs. For instance, there are currently (2017) international election commissions which approve or do not approve the results of the elections. Some other cases of interference are indicated below. The “American Colonization Society” (ACS) encouraged US free blacks to emigrate to Haiti and in 1824 and 1825 more than 6,000 African Americans migrated to Haiti, with transportation paid by the ACS<fnref n="38" />. Moreover, in May 1861, a group of African Americans led by a colored evangelical bishop, James Theodore Holly, settled in a place 10 km north east of the capital of Port-of-Prince.

Haiti was occupied by US troops from 27 January 1914 to 15 August 1934 and again from 19 September 1994 through 2000³⁹.

<footnote n="38">³⁸Simultaneously, the ACS organized the migration of 13,000 free African Americans to Liberia.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹Started as “Operation Uphold Democracy” the occupation continued as “Operation New Horizons”. In this respect</footnote>
The 20-year long US occupation gave rise to an exercise in nation-building in the sense that it reshaped the Haitian government and formed its police and army<fnref n="40" />. In 1917, the US State Department submitted a proposal to amend Haiti's Constitution to allow foreigners to own land. When Haiti's National Assembly refused to approve it, the occupying force disbanded the legislature and would not allow it to reconvene for the next 12 years.

In 2009 when the Haitian government passed a measure to raise the country's meager minimum wage from 24 cents an hour to 61 cents an hour, several US-based garment manufacturers that have factories in Haiti, including Levi's, Hanes and “Fruit of the Loom”, protested to the US embassy in Port-au-Prince. The US Ambassador then told President René Préval to moderate the increase. As a result, the Haitian government agreed to limit the minimum wage to 31 cents per hour.

Just as a matter of comparison, the website of the US State Department describes its action in Haiti in the following terms.

> “Assistance for long-term development and institution building is another pillar of US-Haiti bilateral cooperation. Priority areas include support for economic growth and poverty reduction, improved healthcare and food security, promoting respect for human rights, building stronger democratic institutions, and strengthening the Haitian National Police.”

These are all laudable goals. Will they materialize in coming decades better than in past ones?

## The crippling long-term effect of foreign interference

Haiti has the highest per capita number of foreign non-government organizations (NGO) in the world. Many are not even registered with the Haitian government. As their funding does not go through the Haitian government they can circumvent it. The same can probably be said of the humanitarian aid of the State Department. After Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected with 92% of the votes in 2000, he was removed in 2004 and flown to South Africa. In short, the strong and continued influence of the United States prevented the establishment of a stable, domestic, self-confident ruling class. The same observation applies to some extent to other close US neighbors such as Mexico or the republics of Central America.

For those of our readers who are physicists an analogy comes to mind. When the

<footnote>Haiti was no exception. During the 20th century in the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Grenada, Panama were also invaded by US troops.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰A characteristic of armed forces trained by the US is that they are prone to stage coups. As examples one can mention Haiti, South Vietnam, South Korea, Turkey, Thailand. As counter-examples one can cite the three successful occupations already mentioned, namely Germany, Italy, Japan; however the armies of these countries had long and solid traditions that the occupation did not change.</footnote>
The 20-year long US occupation gave rise to an exercise in nation-building in the sense that it reshaped the Haitian government and formed its police and army<fnref n="40" />. In 1917, the US State Department submitted a proposal to amend Haiti's Constitution to allow foreigners to own land. When Haiti's National Assembly refused to approve it, the occupying force disbanded the legislature and would not allow it to reconvene for the next 12 years.

In 2009 when the Haitian government passed a measure to raise the country's meager minimum wage from 24 cents an hour to 61 cents an hour, several US-based garment manufacturers that have factories in Haiti, including Levi's, Hanes and “Fruit of the Loom”, protested to the US embassy in Port-au-Prince. The US Ambassador then told President René Préval to moderate the increase. As a result, the Haitian government agreed to limit the minimum wage to 31 cents per hour.

Just as a matter of comparison, the website of the US State Department describes its action in Haiti in the following terms.

> “Assistance for long-term development and institution building is another pillar of US-Haiti bilateral cooperation. Priority areas include support for economic growth and poverty reduction, improved healthcare and food security, promoting respect for human rights, building stronger democratic institutions, and strengthening the Haitian National Police.”

These are all laudable goals. Will they materialize in coming decades better than in past ones?

## The crippling long-term effect of foreign interference

Haiti has the highest per capita number of foreign non-government organizations (NGO) in the world. Many are not even registered with the Haitian government. As their funding does not go through the Haitian government they can circumvent it. The same can probably be said of the humanitarian aid of the State Department. After Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected with 92% of the votes in 2000, he was removed in 2004 and flown to South Africa. In short, the strong and continued influence of the United States prevented the establishment of a stable, domestic, self-confident ruling class. The same observation applies to some extent to other close US neighbors such as Mexico or the republics of Central America.

For those of our readers who are physicists an analogy comes to mind. When the

<footnote>Haiti was no exception. During the 20th century in the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Grenada, Panama were also invaded by US troops.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰A characteristic of armed forces trained by the US is that they are prone to stage coups. As examples one can mention Haiti, South Vietnam, South Korea, Turkey, Thailand. As counter-examples one can cite the three successful occupations already mentioned, namely Germany, Italy, Japan; however the armies of these countries had long and solid traditions that the occupation did not change.</footnote>
orbit of a natural satellite is too close to a big planet the satellite is progressively ruptured and eventually disintegrated by the strong gravitational tidal forces. The critical distance is called the Roche limit after Edouard Roche who studied it in 1848. For instance, if the Moon's orbit would be within 10,000 km of the Earth it would disintegrate. That is why Jupiter and Saturn have rings made of small blocks.

In the 18th century a spectacular illustration was provided by the fragmentation of Poland under the influence of its three powerful neighbors: Prussia, Austria and Russia. In this respect, just as for satellites, a small size seems to be a protection as shown by the stable micro-states of Andorra (85,000 residents) and Monaco (38,000 residents) on the border of France or Luxembourg (570,000 residents) on the border of Germany.

## How will the two agendas come to interact?

There is a confrontation between two political agendas that we may denote by *E* for “economic” and *M* for “military”.

* *E* refers to a plan for economic development, e.g. the Marshall Plan or the Silk Road project.

* *M* refers to cooperation plans based on military cooperation.
* *E* and *M* seem to operate in two different spheres. How then will they come to interact?

## “Win-win” or “loss-loss”?

The containment policy relies on the political influence that the US has in the respective countries. Obviously, all East and Central Asian countries would benefit from close political and economic relations with China. On the contrary, as increased tension hinders economic growth it is not in their best interest. However, recent events have shown that political and military considerations take precedence over economic goals. Thus, the US–South Korea agreement about the installation of a THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-ballistic system resulted in China in a retaliation boycott of Korean products (video games, Lotte supermarkets, Korean cars). Needless to say, the aggressive language used by North Korea plays into the hands of the US State and Defense Departments which use this threat to bolster their influence.

The Silk Road project holds great promises in terms of economic development. However the examples of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam show that foreign political influence and security concerns can take precedence over the objective of economic development. The same process can be seen in Europe where economic sanctions against Russia certainly harm economic development on both sides. These
orbit of a natural satellite is too close to a big planet the satellite is progressively ruptured and eventually disintegrated by the strong gravitational tidal forces. The critical distance is called the Roche limit after Edouard Roche who studied it in 1848. For instance, if the Moon's orbit would be within 10,000 km of the Earth it would disintegrate. That is why Jupiter and Saturn have rings made of small blocks.

In the 18th century a spectacular illustration was provided by the fragmentation of Poland under the influence of its three powerful neighbors: Prussia, Austria and Russia. In this respect, just as for satellites, a small size seems to be a protection as shown by the stable micro-states of Andorra (85,000 residents) and Monaco (38,000 residents) on the border of France or Luxembourg (570,000 residents) on the border of Germany.

## How will the two agendas come to interact?

There is a confrontation between two political agendas that we may denote by *E* for “economic” and *M* for “military”.

* *E* refers to a plan for economic development, e.g. the Marshall Plan or the Silk Road project.

* *M* refers to cooperation plans based on military cooperation.
* *E* and *M* seem to operate in two different spheres. How then will they come to interact?

## “Win-win” or “loss-loss”?

The containment policy relies on the political influence that the US has in the respective countries. Obviously, all East and Central Asian countries would benefit from close political and economic relations with China. On the contrary, as increased tension hinders economic growth it is not in their best interest. However, recent events have shown that political and military considerations take precedence over economic goals. Thus, the US–South Korea agreement about the installation of a THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-ballistic system resulted in China in a retaliation boycott of Korean products (video games, Lotte supermarkets, Korean cars). Needless to say, the aggressive language used by North Korea plays into the hands of the US State and Defense Departments which use this threat to bolster their influence.

The Silk Road project holds great promises in terms of economic development. However the examples of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam show that foreign political influence and security concerns can take precedence over the objective of economic development. The same process can be seen in Europe where economic sanctions against Russia certainly harm economic development on both sides. These
examples give a kind of blue-print for the future. By presenting Chinese economic influence as a threat, the US State Department may try to prejudice Silk Road countries against China and turn them away from taking part even if this attitude hurts their real interests.

As a more recent example, one can mention the case of Ukraine. Its elected president, namely Viktor Yanukovych, may have been corrupt but he was guaranteeing good relations not only with Russia but also with the Russian-speaking eastern part of the country. Yet, in February 2014, under US influence<fnref n="41" />, Yanukovych was removed in a coup and from then on, the economy of Ukraine started to crumble. Expressed in US dollars, the GDP fell by 27% between 2013 and 2014 and by 32% between 2014 and 2015 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com).

In short, it is not always the best and most reasonable solutions which prevail. That is why in the following sections we develop a comparative analysis of political and security factors.

## Countries which dread Chinese hegemony

We mentioned earlier that India is one of the few countries which does not harbor any US base. However, on 30 August 2016 India and the United States signed a military logistics agreement which will allow US ships and aircraft to use Indian bases. As one does not really see why Indian aircraft would need to use US bases in the continental part of the US, this appears as a fairly asymmetrical agreement. India will be permitted to use overseas US bases (probably Diego Garcia, bases in Afghanistan, may be some others) whereas the United States will be allowed to use bases located in India itself.

So far we were interested in how the Silk Road project and the containment policy can win support from other countries. We emphasized that US allies may align themselves on the policy of the US State Department even though this is not in the best interest of their own development.

There is however also a class of nations which, without being direct US allies, may nevertheless be fearful of Chinese hegemony. India, Iran, Vietnam or even Russia may fall in this class. If one excepts Iran the other countries have had small scale military conflicts with China in the past 50 years. It may be of interest to recall them.

* Between China and India there have been two small-scale conflicts in 1962 and 1967 which caused less than 1,000 fatalities altogether. Then in 1987 discussions were started which led to a bilateral agreement in 1993.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visited the Ukrainian opposition several times before the coup. A recorded phone discussion between her and the US Ambassador to Ukraine revealed her post coup plans: “I think Yats is the guy with the governing experience”.</footnote>
examples give a kind of blue-print for the future. By presenting Chinese economic influence as a threat, the US State Department may try to prejudice Silk Road countries against China and turn them away from taking part even if this attitude hurts their real interests.

As a more recent example, one can mention the case of Ukraine. Its elected president, namely Viktor Yanukovych, may have been corrupt but he was guaranteeing good relations not only with Russia but also with the Russian-speaking eastern part of the country. Yet, in February 2014, under US influence<fnref n="41" />, Yanukovych was removed in a coup and from then on, the economy of Ukraine started to crumble. Expressed in US dollars, the GDP fell by 27% between 2013 and 2014 and by 32% between 2014 and 2015 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com).

In short, it is not always the best and most reasonable solutions which prevail. That is why in the following sections we develop a comparative analysis of political and security factors.

## Countries which dread Chinese hegemony

We mentioned earlier that India is one of the few countries which does not harbor any US base. However, on 30 August 2016 India and the United States signed a military logistics agreement which will allow US ships and aircraft to use Indian bases. As one does not really see why Indian aircraft would need to use US bases in the continental part of the US, this appears as a fairly asymmetrical agreement. India will be permitted to use overseas US bases (probably Diego Garcia, bases in Afghanistan, may be some others) whereas the United States will be allowed to use bases located in India itself.

So far we were interested in how the Silk Road project and the containment policy can win support from other countries. We emphasized that US allies may align themselves on the policy of the US State Department even though this is not in the best interest of their own development.

There is however also a class of nations which, without being direct US allies, may nevertheless be fearful of Chinese hegemony. India, Iran, Vietnam or even Russia may fall in this class. If one excepts Iran the other countries have had small scale military conflicts with China in the past 50 years. It may be of interest to recall them.

* Between China and India there have been two small-scale conflicts in 1962 and 1967 which caused less than 1,000 fatalities altogether. Then in 1987 discussions were started which led to a bilateral agreement in 1993.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visited the Ukrainian opposition several times before the coup. A recorded phone discussion between her and the US Ambassador to Ukraine revealed her post coup plans: “I think Yats is the guy with the governing experience”.</footnote>
* In January 1974 a short clash between Chinese and South Vietnamese maritime forces resulted in China taking complete control of the Paracels islands in the South China sea. Five years later there was the short but fairly serious conflict of February-March 1979 which cost about 10,000 fatalities on each side.

* The long rift between China and Russia is well known. In the 1980s China was a strategic ally of the United States as shown by the fact that fairly sophisticated US weapons were sold to China. This suggests that, not surprisingly, the US State Department did its best to keep the split alive.

Ideally one could imagine that, despite being the leader of the “Silk Road” initiative, China will be able to keep a low profile so as to avoid antagonizing other Silk Road participants. The United States has developed a skillful sense in this respect. For instance, even though the US is its unquestioned leader, in western media NATO is usually presented as a multilateral organization.

## Crucial importance of smart public relations campaigns

In the present confrontation it is hardly possible to predict the future for there are no close parallels. However, many former cases of confrontation strongly suggest that for each side it will be essential to wage clever public relations campaigns to win over the public opinion of the countries participating in the Silk Road project.

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.9** Third party endorsement technique; this is a key-rule in all public relations campaigns. The rationale for this rule is quite obvious: if the speaker is also the beneficiary it amounts to self-advertisement and will not be trusted. There is a parallel rule for criticism. Thus, in a US public relations campaign, when a person critizes China he or she must be Chinese for criticisms by foreigners will not be well accepted. *Source: Internet*.</figcaption></figure>

For some of our readers, what is meant by “public relations campaigns” is perhaps not completely clear. The public relations industry was invented and developed in
* In January 1974 a short clash between Chinese and South Vietnamese maritime forces resulted in China taking complete control of the Paracels islands in the South China sea. Five years later there was the short but fairly serious conflict of February-March 1979 which cost about 10,000 fatalities on each side.

* The long rift between China and Russia is well known. In the 1980s China was a strategic ally of the United States as shown by the fact that fairly sophisticated US weapons were sold to China. This suggests that, not surprisingly, the US State Department did its best to keep the split alive.

Ideally one could imagine that, despite being the leader of the “Silk Road” initiative, China will be able to keep a low profile so as to avoid antagonizing other Silk Road participants. The United States has developed a skillful sense in this respect. For instance, even though the US is its unquestioned leader, in western media NATO is usually presented as a multilateral organization.

## Crucial importance of smart public relations campaigns

In the present confrontation it is hardly possible to predict the future for there are no close parallels. However, many former cases of confrontation strongly suggest that for each side it will be essential to wage clever public relations campaigns to win over the public opinion of the countries participating in the Silk Road project.

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.9** Third party endorsement technique; this is a key-rule in all public relations campaigns. The rationale for this rule is quite obvious: if the speaker is also the beneficiary it amounts to self-advertisement and will not be trusted. There is a parallel rule for criticism. Thus, in a US public relations campaign, when a person critizes China he or she must be Chinese for criticisms by foreigners will not be well accepted. *Source: Internet*.</figcaption></figure>

For some of our readers, what is meant by “public relations campaigns” is perhaps not completely clear. The public relations industry was invented and developed in
the US; even today it is not well known in many other countries. For instance, in France the expression “spin doctor” (or its French equivalent) may not be known by many. Spin is achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event. It differs from marketing or advertising in an important way. In marketing the “targets” know that they are reading (or listening to) an advertisement. On the contrary spin implies that the target does not know being manipulated. In other words spin uses disingenuous and deceptive tactics.

### The “third party endorsement” rule

Another difference is the fact that public relations always use “third party endorsement” which means that the person who delivers the message is different from the person to whom it will benefit, as illustrated in Fig. 4.9.

To explain more clearly what is the public relations industry it is perhaps best to recall how it started.

In 1914 very few Americans wanted to get involved in the First World War. When it became clear for the administration of President Wilson that participation would give the United States a greater role in world affairs, it faced the challenge of convincing the Americans that it was indeed in their best interest to enter the war. For that purpose, a group of clever people designed smart messages and “bribed” journalists and newspaper owners to include them into their articles. The fact that it worked well was a clear proof that such techniques can be highly effective<fnref n="42" />.

### The “self-criticism rule”

The “third party endorsement rule” applies to appreciative judgements (as in Fig. 4.9). On the contrary, critical judgements must come from the side which is critizised, in other words it must take the form of self-criticism. This principle has been widely used by the State Department inits smear campaigns. Thus, for disparaging Chairman Mao one will use the testimony of his private physician. Similarly, for giving an unflattering image of Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, one will use the service of a former CPC researcher. In both cases these persons were authorized to emigrate to the US which played into the hands of the US State Department.

In the following lines we give some illustrations which show how this technique works practically.

to be effective, criticism of President Donald Trump for his alleged links with Russia must come, not from the Democratic Party, but from the Republican Party to which he belongs. As an alternative one can also use statements made by organizations that are supposed to be neutral.

<footnote n="42">⁴²The Wikipedia article entitled “Spin” gives a fairly sanitized presentation without any striking example. It has a Chinese translation but which is very short.</footnote>
the US; even today it is not well known in many other countries. For instance, in France the expression “spin doctor” (or its French equivalent) may not be known by many. Spin is achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event. It differs from marketing or advertising in an important way. In marketing the “targets” know that they are reading (or listening to) an advertisement. On the contrary spin implies that the target does not know being manipulated. In other words spin uses disingenuous and deceptive tactics.

### The “third party endorsement” rule

Another difference is the fact that public relations always use “third party endorsement” which means that the person who delivers the message is different from the person to whom it will benefit, as illustrated in Fig. 4.9.

To explain more clearly what is the public relations industry it is perhaps best to recall how it started.

In 1914 very few Americans wanted to get involved in the First World War. When it became clear for the administration of President Wilson that participation would give the United States a greater role in world affairs, it faced the challenge of convincing the Americans that it was indeed in their best interest to enter the war. For that purpose, a group of clever people designed smart messages and “bribed” journalists and newspaper owners to include them into their articles. The fact that it worked well was a clear proof that such techniques can be highly effective<fnref n="42" />.

### The “self-criticism rule”

The “third party endorsement rule” applies to appreciative judgements (as in Fig. 4.9). On the contrary, critical judgements must come from the side which is critizised, in other words it must take the form of self-criticism. This principle has been widely used by the State Department inits smear campaigns. Thus, for disparaging Chairman Mao one will use the testimony of his private physician. Similarly, for giving an unflattering image of Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, one will use the service of a former CPC researcher. In both cases these persons were authorized to emigrate to the US which played into the hands of the US State Department.

In the following lines we give some illustrations which show how this technique works practically.

to be effective, criticism of President Donald Trump for his alleged links with Russia must come, not from the Democratic Party, but from the Republican Party to which he belongs. As an alternative one can also use statements made by organizations that are supposed to be neutral.

<footnote n="42">⁴²The Wikipedia article entitled “Spin” gives a fairly sanitized presentation without any striking example. It has a Chinese translation but which is very short.</footnote>
The following excerpt from an article (7 October 2017) published in the “Guardian”, a British newspaper, shows how this technique is used.

First, there is a statement made by a prominent Republican. “The question of collusion is at the heart of the various investigations into links between Trump and Moscow. Even a senior Republican, Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, admitted it was an open question”.

As an illustration of how one can use a supposedly neutral source, there is in the same article a statement made by a retired CIA officer. “Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the Steele reports [which describe the collusion yet without giving any sources] seriously.” wrote John Sipher, a former senior officer in the CIAs National Clandestine Service.

When the target is a country, in order to be credible criticisms must come from citizens of this very country or of a supposedly neutral organization. The “Guardian” article gives the following illustration. “Evidence has emerged that Russians, posing as Americans, targeted Sanders supporters [Sanders is a Democrat who was in competition with Hillary Clinton in the primary election] with anti-Clinton messages”. It is clear that messages coming from Russians would have been rejected immediately. If a US newspaper wishes to criticize China, it may (for instance) cite statements made by Chinese citizens belonging to the “Falun Gong”, a semi-religious sect which, according to the Wikipedia article about it, has been supported since 1999 by several resolutions of the US Congress. It could also use a supposedly neutral source such as the French organization “Reporters without Borders”, thus overlooking the fact that (according to statements made by its leadership) this organization was funded by the “US State Department”.

**Other public relations techniques**

Apart from the “third party endorsement rule” and the “self-criticism rule” there are also other public relations techniques, for instance amalgamation or trolling (“bai mu” in Chinese). Our readers will be able to find more detailed explanations on Internet.

Ever since, and particularly with the development of TV and Internet, these techniques have been used on a daily basis by US public relations companies for their clients. They played a great role in the Cold War. Therefore it is likely that they will also play an essential role in the success or failure of the Silk Road project.
The following excerpt from an article (7 October 2017) published in the “Guardian”, a British newspaper, shows how this technique is used.

First, there is a statement made by a prominent Republican. “The question of collusion is at the heart of the various investigations into links between Trump and Moscow. Even a senior Republican, Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, admitted it was an open question”.

As an illustration of how one can use a supposedly neutral source, there is in the same article a statement made by a retired CIA officer. “Many of my former CIA colleagues have taken the Steele reports [which describe the collusion yet without giving any sources] seriously.” wrote John Sipher, a former senior officer in the CIAs National Clandestine Service.

When the target is a country, in order to be credible criticisms must come from citizens of this very country or of a supposedly neutral organization. The “Guardian” article gives the following illustration. “Evidence has emerged that Russians, posing as Americans, targeted Sanders supporters [Sanders is a Democrat who was in competition with Hillary Clinton in the primary election] with anti-Clinton messages”. It is clear that messages coming from Russians would have been rejected immediately. If a US newspaper wishes to criticize China, it may (for instance) cite statements made by Chinese citizens belonging to the “Falun Gong”, a semi-religious sect which, according to the Wikipedia article about it, has been supported since 1999 by several resolutions of the US Congress. It could also use a supposedly neutral source such as the French organization “Reporters without Borders”, thus overlooking the fact that (according to statements made by its leadership) this organization was funded by the “US State Department”.

**Other public relations techniques**

Apart from the “third party endorsement rule” and the “self-criticism rule” there are also other public relations techniques, for instance amalgamation or trolling (“bai mu” in Chinese). Our readers will be able to find more detailed explanations on Internet.

Ever since, and particularly with the development of TV and Internet, these techniques have been used on a daily basis by US public relations companies for their clients. They played a great role in the Cold War. Therefore it is likely that they will also play an essential role in the success or failure of the Silk Road project.
## Chapter 5
### “The Pacific as an American lake”

The title of this chapter is taken from a statement made by President Eisenhower at a Security Conference on 2 June 1954 as reported in the “Foreign Relations of the United States” (FRUS):

“We have got to keep the Pacific as an American lake.”

We will soon show that this statement describes pretty well US policy in the 20th and 21st centuries.

President Eisenhower's declaration was reproduced in a volume of the 'Foreign Relations of the United States' (FRUS) which is an official US publication. However, the State Department will never issue an official statement saying the same thing.

What is on this question the position of China? On 18 May 2015, during a meeting in Beijing, President Xi Jin Ping told US Secretary of State John Kerry that:

“The Pacific Ocean is big enough for both his country and the United States”.

Such a statement is certainly consistent with standard diplomatic rhetoric. For any side to say the opposite would mean taking a very aggressive position. Thus, instead of relying on declarations it is safer to rely on bare facts. These show that:

* The US bases in South Korea are less than 400 km away from Qingdao.

* The extensive US bases in Okinawa are less than 600 km from Shanghai.

Needless to say, China has nothing similar on the eastern side of the Pacific. Even when it establishes minute military installations in islands of the South China Sea there are uproars in Washington which then reverberate in other western countries.

The history of the 20th century shows that every time another power tried to challenge American domination over the Pacific rim it led to war. These recurrent episodes will be recalled briefly in the first part of this chapter. Then, because the cases of the Pacific War, Korean War and Vietnam War are fairly well known, we focus on the episode of the war of 1904-1905 which is less known although quite as revealing.

Then we describe the so-called Taft diplomatic mission in the Pacific because it smartly set the tone of what would be the US attitude in the following decades. Led by Secretary of War William Taft (who would become president four years later), this 3-month journey was one of the largest American mission to Asia. Starting in
## Chapter 5
### “The Pacific as an American lake”

The title of this chapter is taken from a statement made by President Eisenhower at a Security Conference on 2 June 1954 as reported in the “Foreign Relations of the United States” (FRUS):

“We have got to keep the Pacific as an American lake.”

We will soon show that this statement describes pretty well US policy in the 20th and 21st centuries.

President Eisenhower's declaration was reproduced in a volume of the 'Foreign Relations of the United States' (FRUS) which is an official US publication. However, the State Department will never issue an official statement saying the same thing.

What is on this question the position of China? On 18 May 2015, during a meeting in Beijing, President Xi Jin Ping told US Secretary of State John Kerry that:

“The Pacific Ocean is big enough for both his country and the United States”.

Such a statement is certainly consistent with standard diplomatic rhetoric. For any side to say the opposite would mean taking a very aggressive position. Thus, instead of relying on declarations it is safer to rely on bare facts. These show that:

* The US bases in South Korea are less than 400 km away from Qingdao.

* The extensive US bases in Okinawa are less than 600 km from Shanghai.

Needless to say, China has nothing similar on the eastern side of the Pacific. Even when it establishes minute military installations in islands of the South China Sea there are uproars in Washington which then reverberate in other western countries.

The history of the 20th century shows that every time another power tried to challenge American domination over the Pacific rim it led to war. These recurrent episodes will be recalled briefly in the first part of this chapter. Then, because the cases of the Pacific War, Korean War and Vietnam War are fairly well known, we focus on the episode of the war of 1904-1905 which is less known although quite as revealing.

Then we describe the so-called Taft diplomatic mission in the Pacific because it smartly set the tone of what would be the US attitude in the following decades. Led by Secretary of War William Taft (who would become president four years later), this 3-month journey was one of the largest American mission to Asia. Starting in
July 1905 it took place after a period of rapid US expansion with the annexation of the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. Moreover, in the person of Alice Roosevelt, the young and pretty daughter of the president, it had an alluring flagship. The way US newspapers compare her to the aging empress Dowager is meant to reflect the contrast between the two countries: the young and bold United States versus the archaic and declining China.

Finally, we explain shortly how the United States is able to keep within its zone of influence the countries that it occupied in the wake of the Pacific War.

## Origin of US supremacy in the Pacific

The key-point is that since about 1850 and without any major interruption the United States has been the dominant power on the Pacific rim. One may remember that in that time China was a weak and declining power. In the Pacific, the only competitors were the British and the Germans. In the second half of the 19th century, for a few decades, Russian expansion has cast a threat on the north-western rim of the Pacific. The United States purchased Alaska from Russia for 7.2 million dollars in 1867. Then, in 1905 the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war stopped Russian expansion. Japan has been a long-term American ally even after starting its conquest first of Manchuria and after 1933 of the rest of China. As a matter of fact, when the Nationalist government of China asked for US help, it got no positive reply from president Roosevelt. That is why, in a parallel with how Czechoslovakia was abandoned by its European allies in 1938, this episode was called a "Munich in the East",

The steps through which the Pacific became an American lake are summarized in the following subsections.

### Colonization of Hawaii

The archipelago of Hawaii was officially annexed by the United States only in 1898 but the colonization started much earlier. After 1820 American Protestant missionaries converted many Hawaiians to Christianity. Kamehameha III who reigned from 1825 to 1854 was the first Christian king. In 1836 the chiefs applied to the United States for a legal adviser and instructor in the science of government. William Richards was selected from among the American missionaries. Mr. Richards had a key role in the preparation of the constitution of 1840 under which Hawaii became a Christian constitutional monarchy<fnref n="43" />.

From 1848 on, foreigners were allowed to own land in Hawaii. This had the same

<footnote n="43">⁴³This was probably the first instance of American people “advising” foreign leaders in the writing of their constitution. Many other cases would follow.</footnote>
July 1905 it took place after a period of rapid US expansion with the annexation of the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. Moreover, in the person of Alice Roosevelt, the young and pretty daughter of the president, it had an alluring flagship. The way US newspapers compare her to the aging empress Dowager is meant to reflect the contrast between the two countries: the young and bold United States versus the archaic and declining China.

Finally, we explain shortly how the United States is able to keep within its zone of influence the countries that it occupied in the wake of the Pacific War.

## Origin of US supremacy in the Pacific

The key-point is that since about 1850 and without any major interruption the United States has been the dominant power on the Pacific rim. One may remember that in that time China was a weak and declining power. In the Pacific, the only competitors were the British and the Germans. In the second half of the 19th century, for a few decades, Russian expansion has cast a threat on the north-western rim of the Pacific. The United States purchased Alaska from Russia for 7.2 million dollars in 1867. Then, in 1905 the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war stopped Russian expansion. Japan has been a long-term American ally even after starting its conquest first of Manchuria and after 1933 of the rest of China. As a matter of fact, when the Nationalist government of China asked for US help, it got no positive reply from president Roosevelt. That is why, in a parallel with how Czechoslovakia was abandoned by its European allies in 1938, this episode was called a "Munich in the East",

The steps through which the Pacific became an American lake are summarized in the following subsections.

### Colonization of Hawaii

The archipelago of Hawaii was officially annexed by the United States only in 1898 but the colonization started much earlier. After 1820 American Protestant missionaries converted many Hawaiians to Christianity. Kamehameha III who reigned from 1825 to 1854 was the first Christian king. In 1836 the chiefs applied to the United States for a legal adviser and instructor in the science of government. William Richards was selected from among the American missionaries. Mr. Richards had a key role in the preparation of the constitution of 1840 under which Hawaii became a Christian constitutional monarchy<fnref n="43" />.

From 1848 on, foreigners were allowed to own land in Hawaii. This had the same

<footnote n="43">⁴³This was probably the first instance of American people "advising" foreign leaders in the writing of their constitution. Many other cases would follow.</footnote>
effect as elsewhere, namely that the land became concentrated into the hands of a
small number of wealthy persons. The fact that the constitution of 1840 had guaran-
teed protection “to all the people together with their lands” did not change the final
outcome.

Extraction of guano (1840-)

Under the “Guano Islands Act” of 1856 the United States occupied many uninhabited islands for the purpose of extracting guano, a source of saltpeter (i.e. sodium nitrate) useful in agriculture and for the production of gunpowder. In fact, the extraction of guano had started in the 1840s and according to the Wikipedia article entitled “Guano Islands Act”, more than 100 islands have been claimed for the US under this Act.

Annexation of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico (1898)

In 1898 through the 3-month long Spanish American War, the United States came
into possession of Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

The Pacific War (1941-1945)

In the wake of the Pacific War, the Pacific Ocean truly became an American lake.

Yet, in the course of history American ascendancy in the Pacific has been challenged
on several occasions. Each time, the dispute was settled through a war. This is the
topic of the next section.

Challenges to US hegemony in the Pacific

If, as stated by President Eisenhower in the citation at the beginning of this study,
the Pacific Ocean is to remain an American lake, it means that eastern Asia should
belong to the US zone of influence. In the past one and a half century, American
ascendancy in north-east and south-east Asia was challenged four times.

1900s: Russia.

Around 1900 Russian expansion into Manchuria and Korea threatened British and American hegemony. As will be shown below, the US government responded by pushing Japan to confront Russia. This led to the Russian-Japanese War of 1905.

1940s: Japan

The colonization by Japan of Korea and Manchuria was well accepted by the United
States especially in so far as it provided a check to Soviet expansion. Japanese lead-
ers had a clear understanding of this point which is why they presented their ini-
tial penetration into North China as a way to support Chiang Kai-shek's war against
Communism. As the Kuomintang (KMT) was unable to extend its control over North
effect as elsewhere, namely that the land became concentrated into the hands of a
small number of wealthy persons. The fact that the constitution of 1840 had guaran-
teed protection “to all the people together with their lands” did not change the final
outcome.

Extraction of guano (1840-)

Under the “Guano Islands Act” of 1856 the United States occupied many uninhabited islands for the purpose of extracting guano, a source of saltpeter (i.e. sodium nitrate) useful in agriculture and for the production of gunpowder. In fact, the extraction of guano had started in the 1840s and according to the Wikipedia article entitled “Guano Islands Act”, more than 100 islands have been claimed for the US under this Act.

Annexation of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico (1898)

In 1898 through the 3-month long Spanish American War, the United States came
into possession of Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

The Pacific War (1941-1945)

In the wake of the Pacific War, the Pacific Ocean truly became an American lake.

Yet, in the course of history American ascendancy in the Pacific has been challenged
on several occasions. Each time, the dispute was settled through a war. This is the
topic of the next section.

Challenges to US hegemony in the Pacific

If, as stated by President Eisenhower in the citation at the beginning of this study,
the Pacific Ocean is to remain an American lake, it means that eastern Asia should
belong to the US zone of influence. In the past one and a half century, American
ascendancy in north-east and south-east Asia was challenged four times.

1900s: Russia.

Around 1900 Russian expansion into Manchuria and Korea threatened British and American hegemony. As will be shown below, the US government responded by pushing Japan to confront Russia. This led to the Russian-Japanese War of 1905.

1940s: Japan

The colonization by Japan of Korea and Manchuria was well accepted by the United
States especially in so far as it provided a check to Soviet expansion. Japanese lead-
ers had a clear understanding of this point which is why they presented their ini-
tial penetration into North China as a way to support Chiang Kai-shek's war against
Communism. As the Kuomintang (KMT) was unable to extend its control over North
<table><caption>Table 5.1 Challenges to US hegemony in the Pacific</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Country which threw down the gauntlet</th><th>Time interval of the challenge</th><th>Buffer country</th><th>War</th><th>Duration of the war</th><th>Direct US action</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Russia</td><td>1890 – 1905</td><td>Japan</td><td>Russo-Japanese War</td><td>1904 – 1905</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Japan</td><td>1937 – 1941</td><td></td><td>Pacific War</td><td>1941 – 1945</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>NV+China</td><td>1945 – 1950</td><td>France</td><td>Indochina War</td><td>1950 – 1954</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>NV+China+USSR</td><td>1950 – 1976</td><td>South Vietnam</td><td>Vietnam War</td><td>1962 – 1975</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>China</td><td>2010 – 20??</td><td>Japan, Vietnam</td><td>?? – ?? – ??</td><td>???? – ???? –</td><td>?</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: NV means North Vietnam. The term “buffer country” designates US allies who waged wars against their common opponent on behalf of the United States. Thus, France acted as a buffer country in the Indochina War (also called First Vietnam War) which was funded by the US, and South Vietnam played the role of a buffer puppet country in the Second Vietnam War.

Needless to say, every time the US took directly part in the war it had several allies: Australia, Britain, China, New Zealand, the Netherlands in the war against Japan; Australia, South Korea, Thailand in the Vietnam War. The Indochina and Vietnam wars were a challenge to US hegemony not by themselves but because of the “domino theory” which speculated that if one state in a region came under the influence of Communism, then the surrounding countries would follow through a domino effect. This theory was used as a justification for US intervention. The theory proved to be false in the sense that the US defeat in Vietnam was *not* followed by the fall of any other domino. Yet, successive US administrations must have found this argument convincing enough to get deeply involved in this conflict.

We left an interrogation mark in the last column of the last line, but there can be little doubt that if there is indeed a war, there will be a direct US intervention for there is no buffer country that can “do the job” alone.

China, this made indeed sense. That arrangement was accepted by Chiang Kai-shek through the He-Umezu Agreement of 10 June 1935 (more details can be found in Roehner (2016c). The fact that this policy was not opposed by the United States is shown by the continuation of US exports, notably oil and weapons, to Japan. At the same time, in what was called a “Munich in the Orient”, Chinese requests for help were ignored. In any case it was better to keep North China under Japanese influence than to leave it open to Communist and Soviet penetration.

The Japanese attack on Shanghai in mid-1937 was a watershed for this was a part of China which was well under the control of the KMT and where there was no Communist or Soviet threat. Through this action and the subsequent occupation of most of eastern China, Japan threatened US hegemony. Four years later this led to the Pacific War.

## 1950–1972: China

Needless to say, the Communist victory in China was a set-back for the United States. As had been done earlier for the Soviet Union, a containment policy was put in place.

On the economic side on 16 December 1950 the US government froze Chinese assets in America. Moreover a trade embargo was put in place by the United States and
<table><caption>Table 5.1 Challenges to US hegemony in the Pacific</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Country which threw down the gauntlet</th><th>Time interval of the challenge</th><th>Buffer country</th><th>War</th><th>Duration of the war</th><th>Direct US action</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Russia</td><td>1890 – 1905</td><td>Japan</td><td>Russo-Japanese War</td><td>1904 – 1905</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Japan</td><td>1937 – 1941</td><td></td><td>Pacific War</td><td>1941 – 1945</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>NV+China</td><td>1945 – 1950</td><td>France</td><td>Indochina War</td><td>1950 – 1954</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>NV+China+USSR</td><td>1950 – 1976</td><td>South Vietnam</td><td>Vietnam War</td><td>1962 – 1975</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>China</td><td>2010 – 20??</td><td>Japan, Vietnam</td><td>?? – ?? – ??</td><td>???? – ???? –</td><td>?</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: NV means North Vietnam. The term “buffer country” designates US allies who waged wars against their common opponent on behalf of the United States. Thus, France acted as a buffer country in the Indochina War (also called First Vietnam War) which was funded by the US, and South Vietnam played the role of a buffer puppet country in the Second Vietnam War.

Needless to say, every time the US took directly part in the war it had several allies: Australia, Britain, China, New Zealand, the Netherlands in the war against Japan; Australia, South Korea, Thailand in the Vietnam War. The Indochina and Vietnam wars were a challenge to US hegemony not by themselves but because of the “domino theory” which speculated that if one state in a region came under the influence of Communism, then the surrounding countries would follow through a domino effect. This theory was used as a justification for US intervention. The theory proved to be false in the sense that the US defeat in Vietnam was *not* followed by the fall of any other domino. Yet, successive US administrations must have found this argument convincing enough to get deeply involved in this conflict.

We left an interrogation mark in the last column of the last line, but there can be little doubt that if there is indeed a war, there will be a direct US intervention for there is no buffer country that can “do the job” alone.

China, this made indeed sense. That arrangement was accepted by Chiang Kai-shek through the He-Umezu Agreement of 10 June 1935 (more details can be found in Roehner (2016c). The fact that this policy was not opposed by the United States is shown by the continuation of US exports, notably oil and weapons, to Japan. At the same time, in what was called a “Munich in the Orient”, Chinese requests for help were ignored. In any case it was better to keep North China under Japanese influence than to leave it open to Communist and Soviet penetration.

The Japanese attack on Shanghai in mid-1937 was a watershed for this was a part of China which was well under the control of the KMT and where there was no Communist or Soviet threat. Through this action and the subsequent occupation of most of eastern China, Japan threatened US hegemony. Four years later this led to the Pacific War.

## 1950–1972: China

Needless to say, the Communist victory in China was a set-back for the United States. As had been done earlier for the Soviet Union, a containment policy was put in place.

On the economic side on 16 December 1950 the US government froze Chinese assets in America. Moreover a trade embargo was put in place by the United States and
its allies. Probably few of our readers would know the meaning of “COCOM” and “CHINCOM”. This is indeed not surprising because, quite astonishingly, these important committees are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the foreign trade of China. The article suggests that the low trade level was a consequence of the self-reliance policy of the Chinese government. It was not and this misrepresentation can be corrected very easily by mentioning excerpts of an article published on 11 June 1971 in the American newspaper “The Washington Post”.

Its title is: “US ends ban on China Trade” and it says:

> The President’s action lifts a 21-year-old embargo against trade with China permitting selected exports to China and the import of goods from China on the same basis goods from other Communist countries are admitted. The President’s order does not remove the prohibition against the shipment of locomotives to China (one of the key items the Peking government is said to want) and of aircraft.

This action did not free trade with China but it put it under the same rules as for other Communist countries. Before that, the embargo on trade with China was much stricter than the one for the other Communist countries. The later was managed by COCOM, an acronym for “International Coordinating Committee on Strategic Trade with Communist Countries”, an organization which had 17 member states (mostly NATO countries but also Japan) and was created and headed by the US (it was headquartered in Paris in an annex of the US embassy). Trade with China was managed by CHINCOM; it enforced a more restrictive embargo which was called the “China Differential”. Although the embargo started with the Korean War it was not lightened at the end of the war. On the contrary, following the wishes of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, it was made even stricter. The openly stated objective was to bring down the Communist regime by raising popular discontent. Around 1960 when the support of the Soviet Union started to crumble, the situation of China became really very difficult and it remained so until 1971<sup>44</sup>.

Incidentally, regarding the embargo issue, one can draw the following comparison.

* It is reported that Chairman Mao was not pleased when Premier Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States in September 1959. His displeasure is quite understandable because at that time China was still under the very harsh embargo that we have just described.

* However, 13 years later, the North Vietnamese government was not pleased when in 1972 the Chinese government invited President Nixon while the Vietnam

<footnote n="44"><sup>44</sup>According to the data published in the “Historical Statistics of the United States”, US exports to mainland China totalled 359 million dollars in 1947, 3 in 1959 and 0 in 1960 and 7 in 1961. According to the data published in Mitchell (1982) Japanese imports from China (including Hong Kong) represented 124 billion yen in 1970 (five times less than the imports from Australia) and then climbed to 528 in 1975.</footnote>
its allies. Probably few of our readers would know the meaning of “COCOM” and “CHINCOM”. This is indeed not surprising because, quite astonishingly, these important committees are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the foreign trade of China. The article suggests that the low trade level was a consequence of the self-reliance policy of the Chinese government. It was not and this misrepresentation can be corrected very easily by mentioning excerpts of an article published on 11 June 1971 in the American newspaper “The Washington Post”.

Its title is: “US ends ban on China Trade” and it says:

> The President’s action lifts a 21-year-old embargo against trade with China permitting selected exports to China and the import of goods from China on the same basis goods from other Communist countries are admitted. The President’s order does not remove the prohibition against the shipment of locomotives to China (one of the key items the Peking government is said to want) and of aircraft.

This action did not free trade with China but it put it under the same rules as for other Communist countries. Before that, the embargo on trade with China was much stricter than the one for the other Communist countries. The later was managed by COCOM, an acronym for “International Coordinating Committee on Strategic Trade with Communist Countries”, an organization which had 17 member states (mostly NATO countries but also Japan) and was created and headed by the US (it was headquartered in Paris in an annex of the US embassy). Trade with China was managed by CHINCOM; it enforced a more restrictive embargo which was called the “China Differential”. Although the embargo started with the Korean War it was not lightened at the end of the war. On the contrary, following the wishes of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, it was made even stricter. The openly stated objective was to bring down the Communist regime by raising popular discontent. Around 1960 when the support of the Soviet Union started to crumble, the situation of China became really very difficult and it remained so until 1971<sup>44</sup>.

Incidentally, regarding the embargo issue, one can draw the following comparison.

* It is reported that Chairman Mao was not pleased when Premier Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States in September 1959. His displeasure is quite understandable because at that time China was still under the very harsh embargo that we have just described.

* However, 13 years later, the North Vietnamese government was not pleased when in 1972 the Chinese government invited President Nixon while the Vietnam

<footnote n="44"><sup>44</sup>According to the data published in the “Historical Statistics of the United States”, US exports to mainland China totalled 359 million dollars in 1947, 3 in 1959 and 0 in 1960 and 7 in 1961. According to the data published in Mitchell (1982) Japanese imports from China (including Hong Kong) represented 124 billion yen in 1970 (five times less than the imports from Australia) and then climbed to 528 in 1975.</footnote>
War was still under way. It would end only in 1976, the year also marked by the death of Chairman Mao.

Regarding the Nixon visit it should be remembered that the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the PRC only on 1 January 1979, that is to say seven years after the landmark visit. This suggests that in the United States the policy of President Nixon was not well accepted by everybody. Actually the first major power which exchanged ambassadors with China was France; this occurred on 27 January 1964, eight years before the visit of President Nixon, and in a time when France had an independent foreign policy.

**1973–2009: interlude**

The two following decades from 1973 to 1991 were marked by a strategic cooperation between China and the US which was mainly directed against the Soviet Union. This was a time (especially after the end of the Vietnam war) during which the US was even willing to sell state of the art weapons to China. Then, in the 1980s, US companies started to establish joint ventures in China. After 1990, with the Soviet Union out of the game, there was no longer any need for a strategic cooperation with China. After all, the Communist party was still in power in China.

These decades were marked by US direct investment in China. However, such investments remained limited compared with investments in countries like Canada or Europe. According to the “Statistical Abstract of the United States” (2011), in 2009 the US direct investment position in China was $50 billion which represented 1.4% of the total US investment abroad. It would make sense to add to this number the $50 billion invested in Hong Kong. The total of $100 billion should be compared with the investment in Singapore ($77 b), Mexico ($98 b), Australia ($106 b), Canada ($260 b), the UK ($471 b), the Netherlands ($472 b), or Europe as a whole ($1,976 b).

**2010-20??: China and Russia.**

In 2010, the Obama administration initiated a shift in strategy aimed at bolstering the United States’ defense ties with countries in north-east and south-east Asia and expanding the US naval presence there<fnref n="45" />.

This policy is often described as a containment strategy, but what does containment really mean? It is not only a static containment but in fact a more hostile attitude. As will be shown below it consists in encouraging close allies, namely Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia to stand up against China.
Between 2009 and 2012 the United States has carried out its largest joint military exercises with South Korea since the Korean War and increased the US troop pres-

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵It was called a “pivot” to Asia, that is to say a rotation move toward Asia.</footnote>
War was still under way. It would end only in 1976, the year also marked by the death of Chairman Mao.

Regarding the Nixon visit it should be remembered that the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the PRC only on 1 January 1979, that is to say seven years after the landmark visit. This suggests that in the United States the policy of President Nixon was not well accepted by everybody. Actually the first major power which exchanged ambassadors with China was France; this occurred on 27 January 1964, eight years before the visit of President Nixon, and in a time when France had an independent foreign policy.

**1973–2009: interlude**

The two following decades from 1973 to 1991 were marked by a strategic cooperation between China and the US which was mainly directed against the Soviet Union. This was a time (especially after the end of the Vietnam war) during which the US was even willing to sell state of the art weapons to China. Then, in the 1980s, US companies started to establish joint ventures in China. After 1990, with the Soviet Union out of the game, there was no longer any need for a strategic cooperation with China. After all, the Communist party was still in power in China.

These decades were marked by US direct investment in China. However, such investments remained limited compared with investments in countries like Canada or Europe. According to the “Statistical Abstract of the United States” (2011), in 2009 the US direct investment position in China was $50 billion which represented 1.4% of the total US investment abroad. It would make sense to add to this number the $50 billion invested in Hong Kong. The total of $100 billion should be compared with the investment in Singapore ($77 b), Mexico ($98 b), Australia ($106 b), Canada ($260 b), the UK ($471 b), the Netherlands ($472 b), or Europe as a whole ($1,976 b).

**2010-20??: China and Russia.**

In 2010, the Obama administration initiated a shift in strategy aimed at bolstering the United States’ defense ties with countries in north-east and south-east Asia and expanding the US naval presence there<fnref n="45" />.

This policy is often described as a containment strategy, but what does containment really mean? It is not only a static containment but in fact a more hostile attitude. As will be shown below it consists in encouraging close allies, namely Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia to stand up against China.
Between 2009 and 2012 the United States has carried out its largest joint military exercises with South Korea since the Korean War and increased the US troop pres-

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵It was called a “pivot” to Asia, that is to say a rotation move toward Asia.</footnote>
ence in South Korea (Ross 2012). In July 2010 in Hanoi, after extensive discussions with all the claimants to the islands except China, Secretary of State Clinton declared US support for the negotiating positions of the Philippines and Vietnam. In 2011, the United States and Vietnam signed a memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation. Moreover, Japan has signed strategic partnerships with the Philippines and Vietnam which complement their US ties (Ross 2012).

Taking advantage of the close ties with its allies, the United States is also developing new naval bases. In addition to the bases in Okinawa, the US Navy has now access to the new Changi Naval Base in Singapore and will soon have access to the Gangjeong naval base that is under construction in the south of Jeju Island off the south-west coast of South Korea and only 400 km away from the Chinese coast. The “temporary” bases in the Philippines have become permanent except in name. US Marines are stationed “temporarily” in Australia.

In short, we are back to a containment situation similar to the one directed against Russia in the 1900s. That is why it is important to give a closer look to this episode. This is the purpose of the next section.

The competition for predominant influence over Korea brought about three major conflicts.

1. The Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) which opposed China to Japan.

2. The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) between Russia and Japan.

3. The Korean War (1950-1953) which opposed (mainly) the United States and the newly founded “People’s Republic of China”.

The United States took part directly only in the last of these wars. However, as will appear in the following sections, it already played an active diplomatic role in the wars of 1894 and 1904. This shows that even in a time when the British Empire was the dominant power and despite the fact that Britain was heavily involved in East Asia through its colonies of Hong Kong, India and Burma, the Pacific rim was already considered by the US State Department as belonging to the US zone of influence.

In the early 1890s although there was a muted US-GB rivalvry in Hawaii, it seems that the British Foreign Office was ready to accept US predominance in the Pacific.

# US role in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)

## Pre-Cold War containment policies against Russia

The expression “containment policy” was introduced around 1947 to describe President Truman’s policy with respect to the USSR. In that time the awoved objective
ence in South Korea (Ross 2012). In July 2010 in Hanoi, after extensive discussions with all the claimants to the islands except China, Secretary of State Clinton declared US support for the negotiating positions of the Philippines and Vietnam. In 2011, the United States and Vietnam signed a memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation. Moreover, Japan has signed strategic partnerships with the Philippines and Vietnam which complement their US ties (Ross 2012).

Taking advantage of the close ties with its allies, the United States is also developing new naval bases. In addition to the bases in Okinawa, the US Navy has now access to the new Changi Naval Base in Singapore and will soon have access to the Gangjeong naval base that is under construction in the south of Jeju Island off the south-west coast of South Korea and only 400 km away from the Chinese coast. The “temporary” bases in the Philippines have become permanent except in name. US Marines are stationed “temporarily” in Australia.

In short, we are back to a containment situation similar to the one directed against Russia in the 1900s. That is why it is important to give a closer look to this episode. This is the purpose of the next section.

The competition for predominant influence over Korea brought about three major conflicts.

1. The Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) which opposed China to Japan.

2. The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) between Russia and Japan.

3. The Korean War (1950-1953) which opposed (mainly) the United States and the newly founded “People’s Republic of China”.

The United States took part directly only in the last of these wars. However, as will appear in the following sections, it already played an active diplomatic role in the wars of 1894 and 1904. This shows that even in a time when the British Empire was the dominant power and despite the fact that Britain was heavily involved in East Asia through its colonies of Hong Kong, India and Burma, the Pacific rim was already considered by the US State Department as belonging to the US zone of influence.

In the early 1890s although there was a muted US-GB rivalvry in Hawaii, it seems that the British Foreign Office was ready to accept US predominance in the Pacific.

# US role in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)

## Pre-Cold War containment policies against Russia

The expression “containment policy” was introduced around 1947 to describe President Truman’s policy with respect to the USSR. In that time the awoved objective
was to prevent the spread of Communism.

However, containment policies had already been used by western powers before 1945 and even well before the Revolution of 1917. Between 1850 and 1910 the purpose was to prevent the territorial expansion of Russia either southward towards the Black Sea or eastward towards Korea.

The first case occurred during the so-called Crimean War. In fact, this expression gives a wrong perception of this war for it was not at all confined to Crimea. It involved also campaigns by British and French forces directed against Russia in the areas of Saint Petersburg and in the island of Sakhaline in the Pacific. In other words, it was not a regional conflict but a large scale conflict.

Initially, Russia wanted to take advantage of the decay of the Ottoman Empire to expand its influence in the Balkans. This lead to a war which was first limited to Russia and the Ottoman Empire. However, when the latter was quickly defeated, Britain and France entered the war to prevent a Russian victory which would have resulted in a territorial expansion.

Replace the Ottoman Empire by the Chinese Empire and the Balkans by Korea and you get the situation in north-east Asia. The policy of the United States, which was already the main power in the western Pacific, was smarter than the policy of Britain and France in the Balkans. Instead of helping China to withstand Russian expansion, the US State Department devoted this role to Japan. This was done in two steps. First, Korea had to be moved from the Chinese zone of influence to the one of Japan. This was accomplished through the Sino-Japanese war of 1894–1895. The second step was to remove the Russian pressure in this area which was indeed obtained through the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.

After 1917 the role of Japan became even more important for it provided a bulwark against the spread of Communism in Manchuria (which had been part of the Russian zone of influence) and in the northern part of China. Had Japan restricted itself to its assigned role of containing Communism, there would have been no Pacific War. The attack against the United States in the Philippines, against Britain in Singapore and against the Netherlands in Indonesia was a strategic blunder of first magnitude.

In summary, as far as containment is concerned, we see that even prior to 1945, there were two cases: first the one directed against Tsarist Russia (1850–1910) and secondly the one directed against Soviet and Communist expansion in the north of China (1925–1939).

**The regional context in north-east Asia**

In 1890 Korea was a tributary country of China which means that there were Chinese troops in Korea and that the king was in a sense under Chinese protection. In other
was to prevent the spread of Communism.

However, containment policies had already been used by western powers before 1945 and even well before the Revolution of 1917. Between 1850 and 1910 the purpose was to prevent the territorial expansion of Russia either southward towards the Black Sea or eastward towards Korea.

The first case occurred during the so-called Crimean War. In fact, this expression gives a wrong perception of this war for it was not at all confined to Crimea. It involved also campaigns by British and French forces directed against Russia in the areas of Saint Petersburg and in the island of Sakhaline in the Pacific. In other words, it was not a regional conflict but a large scale conflict.

Initially, Russia wanted to take advantage of the decay of the Ottoman Empire to expand its influence in the Balkans. This lead to a war which was first limited to Russia and the Ottoman Empire. However, when the latter was quickly defeated, Britain and France entered the war to prevent a Russian victory which would have resulted in a territorial expansion.

Replace the Ottoman Empire by the Chinese Empire and the Balkans by Korea and you get the situation in north-east Asia. The policy of the United States, which was already the main power in the western Pacific, was smarter than the policy of Britain and France in the Balkans. Instead of helping China to withstand Russian expansion, the US State Department devoted this role to Japan. This was done in two steps. First, Korea had to be moved from the Chinese zone of influence to the one of Japan. This was accomplished through the Sino-Japanese war of 1894–1895. The second step was to remove the Russian pressure in this area which was indeed obtained through the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.

After 1917 the role of Japan became even more important for it provided a bulwark against the spread of Communism in Manchuria (which had been part of the Russian zone of influence) and in the northern part of China. Had Japan restricted itself to its assigned role of containing Communism, there would have been no Pacific War. The attack against the United States in the Philippines, against Britain in Singapore and against the Netherlands in Indonesia was a strategic blunder of first magnitude.

In summary, as far as containment is concerned, we see that even prior to 1945, there were two cases: first the one directed against Tsarist Russia (1850–1910) and secondly the one directed against Soviet and Communist expansion in the north of China (1925–1939).

## The regional context in north-east Asia

In 1890 Korea was a tributary country of China which means that there were Chinese troops in Korea and that the king was in a sense under Chinese protection. In other
words, by disrupting the rule of the king, Japan was at the same time weakening Chinese influence in the country. This was its main objective particularly for opening Korea to Japanese trade.

In the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 the United States had a clearly defined objective, namely to stop the Russian progression toward the Pacific rim. The US agenda with respect to the Sino-Japanese war was less clear. On the one hand, a Japanese victory will weaken China and boost Japan, thus enabling it to oppose the Russian expansion. On the other hand, the Japanese expansion may come in conflict with the US "open door" requirement in Korea. So, to get the best on the two sides the US and Britain will support Japan, but after its victory they will limit its expansion and rights in Korea.

The excerpts given below also show that in 1893 the US was already the dominant power in the Pacific. This can be seen through the important role it plays in the Sino-Japanese war but also in the precedence it is able to secure over British interests in Hawaii. Naturally, through the subsequent conquest of Guam and the Philippines the US position will even become much stronger.

**Chronology: 1890-1895**

In the following chronology the page numbers refer to articles published in the "Chicago Tribune" on the date given in the first line of the corresponding paragraphs.

**Feb 5, 1890** Impeding revolution in Corea [that was the spelling at that time]. There are indications that the reigning dynasty is about to be overthrown. (p. 5)

**Jun 16, 1890** Insults to foreigners in Japan. Rumors that Russia has taken Corea. (p.3)

[This news shows two things (i) That anti-foreigner demonstrations are not confined to China (ii) That there is a permanent fear about Russia taking a solid position on the Pacific coast.]

**Jul 5, 1891** China grows restless. Rumors of uprisings against foreigners, particularly missionaries. The news are alarming and the American fleet has been ordered to the open ports; the Admiral is doing what he can to protect our people. (p. 27)

[The occurrence of riots directed against foreigners and the ensuing military interventions of (mostly) British and US warships would be a permanent feature of the coming decades. The most spectacular case was of course the Boxer uprising of 1900 but there were many other cases of smaller proportion.]

**Sep 21, 1891** Russia's designs on China. It is ready to seize any opportunity to gain territory. Two months after their occurrence, the facts of Russia's design during the recent Chinese uprising along the valley of the Yangtze River have leaked out; it in-
words, by disrupting the rule of the king, Japan was at the same time weakening Chinese influence in the country. This was its main objective particularly for opening Korea to Japanese trade.

In the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 the United States had a clearly defined objective, namely to stop the Russian progression toward the Pacific rim. The US agenda with respect to the Sino-Japanese war was less clear. On the one hand, a Japanese victory will weaken China and boost Japan, thus enabling it to oppose the Russian expansion. On the other hand, the Japanese expansion may come in conflict with the US "open door" requirement in Korea. So, to get the best on the two sides the US and Britain will support Japan, but after its victory they will limit its expansion and rights in Korea.

The excerpts given below also show that in 1893 the US was already the dominant power in the Pacific. This can be seen through the important role it plays in the Sino-Japanese war but also in the precedence it is able to secure over British interests in Hawaii. Naturally, through the subsequent conquest of Guam and the Philippines the US position will even become much stronger.

**Chronology: 1890-1895**

In the following chronology the page numbers refer to articles published in the "Chicago Tribune" on the date given in the first line of the corresponding paragraphs.

**Feb 5, 1890** Impeding revolution in Corea [that was the spelling at that time]. There are indications that the reigning dynasty is about to be overthrown. (p. 5)

**Jun 16, 1890** Insults to foreigners in Japan. Rumors that Russia has taken Corea. (p.3)

[This news shows two things (i) That anti-foreigner demonstrations are not confined to China (ii) That there is a permanent fear about Russia taking a solid position on the Pacific coast.]

**Jul 5, 1891** China grows restless. Rumors of uprisings against foreigners, particularly missionaries. The news are alarming and the American fleet has been ordered to the open ports; the Admiral is doing what he can to protect our people. (p. 27)

[The occurrence of riots directed against foreigners and the ensuing military interventions of (mostly) British and US warships would be a permanent feature of the coming decades. The most spectacular case was of course the Boxer uprising of 1900 but there were many other cases of smaller proportion.]

**Sep 21, 1891** Russia's designs on China. It is ready to seize any opportunity to gain territory. Two months after their occurrence, the facts of Russia's design during the recent Chinese uprising along the valley of the Yangtze River have leaked out; it in-
volved the steamers of the "Russian Volunteer Fleet". (p.9)

[The "Russian Volunteer Fleet" was a state-controlled ship transport association established in the Russian Empire in 1878 funded from voluntary contributions collected by subscription. It was based in Nagasaki. The nature of this uprising remains unclear but the article shows America's great and permanent concern about Russian plans in the Far East.]

**Sep 27, 1891** The Kingdom of Corea with its 20 million people may soon be annexed by Russia. Recently, Corea abolished the Office of the Consul General in New York. (p. 7)

[Finding ways to oppose the Russian expansion toward the Pacific was the main goal of the US government in these years. In the present case what reactivated US fears was the closing of the New York Consulate, in fact in itself an event of rather small significance.]

In a more general way, there was an inherent contradiction in the policy of western powers in China. Their objective was to impose an open door policy in order to boost their exports. However by weakening its central government (especially through western control of Chinese taxes and unequal treaties) they made China an easy prey for its powerful neighbors, namely Japan and Russia. In other words, there was a contradiction between short and long term western interests. This contradiction led to the carving out of Outer Mongolia by Russia, then to the Japanese invasion and eventually to the success of the Communists.]

**Nov 15, 1891** The US has no designs on Hawaii. England was disturbed by an unwarranted report but in fact Uncle Sam's cruiser "Charleston" only visited Honolulu for the prosaic purpose of filling its coal bunkers. (p.4)

[In November 1891 such a statement already sounded fairly unrealistic. A little more than one year later the same newspaper would carry the strong title: "The US must have Hawaii" (see below at the date of 31 January 1893). Let us recall that Hawaii became a protectorate of the US in 1894 when the Queen of Hawaii was removed from power.]

**Jul 18, 1892** Return of Reverend H.G. Appenzeller from Corea where he had spent the past 8 years. (p.8)

[This article (as well as subsequent ones) shows that there was a US missionary presence in Korea.]

**Jan 31, 1893** The United States must have Hawaii. (p. 4)

[In sharp contrast with the article of 15 November 1891 (i.e. 14 months earlier) this article (as well as many subsequent articles) demands the annexation of Hawaii.]

**Mar 9, 1893** If the United States does not annex the Hawaiian Islands civil war may
volved the steamers of the “Russian Volunteer Fleet”. (p.9)

[The “Russian Volunteer Fleet” was a state-controlled ship transport association established in the Russian Empire in 1878 funded from voluntary contributions collected by subscription. It was based in Nagasaki. The nature of this uprising remains unclear but the article shows America’s great and permanent concern about Russian plans in the Far East.]

**Sep 27, 1891** The Kingdom of Corea with its 20 million people may soon be annexed by Russia. Recently, Corea abolished the Office of the Consul General in New York. (p. 7)

[Finding ways to oppose the Russian expansion toward the Pacific was the main goal of the US government in these years. In the present case what reactivated US fears was the closing of the New York Consulate, in fact in itself an event of rather small significance.]

In a more general way, there was an inherent contradiction in the policy of western powers in China. Their objective was to impose an open door policy in order to boost their exports. However by weakening its central government (especially through western control of Chinese taxes and unequal treaties) they made China an easy prey for its powerful neighbors, namely Japan and Russia. In other words, there was a contradiction between short and long term western interests. This contradiction led to the carving out of Outer Mongolia by Russia, then to the Japanese invasion and eventually to the success of the Communists.]

**Nov 15, 1891** The US has no designs on Hawaii. England was disturbed by an unwarranted report but in fact Uncle Sam’s cruiser “Charleston” only visited Honolulu for the prosaic purpose of filling its coal bunkers. (p.4)

[In November 1891 such a statement already sounded fairly unrealistic. A little more than one year later the same newspaper would carry the strong title: “The US must have Hawaii” (see below at the date of 31 January 1893). Let us recall that Hawaii became a protectorate of the US in 1894 when the Queen of Hawaii was removed from power.]

**Jul 18, 1892** Return of Reverend H.G. Appenzeller from Corea where he had spent the past 8 years. (p.8)

[This article (as well as subsequent ones) shows that there was a US missionary presence in Korea.]

**Jan 31, 1893** The United States must have Hawaii. (p. 4)

[In sharp contrast with the article of 15 November 1891 (i.e. 14 months earlier) this article (as well as many subsequent articles) demands the annexation of Hawaii.]

**Mar 9, 1893** If the United States does not annex the Hawaiian Islands civil war may
follow. In the past week there have been scenes of much enthusiasm in Hawaii as the
"Stars and Stripes" were being lifted. (p. 4)

[Maintaining peace and human rights is a standard argument for foreign interventions
by leading powers.]

**Mar 30, 1893** The public interest attaching to Hawaii grows out of its central position in the commerce of the Pacific Ocean. Honolulu is exactly in the track of all steamers sailing to Australasia from San Francisco and Puget Sound. (p. 10)

[There is of course no doubt about the strategic position of Hawaii.]

**Aug 12, 1893** What if China and Hindoustan [i.e. India] should arise in their might? Will China allow herself to be stifled in the folds of the European anaconda, or will this attempt to partition the largest nation of the world resurrect the ancient valor and endurance of the Mongol race? (p. 8)

[Today (i.e. in 2017) some 124 years after the question was raised, we are about to get an answer.]

**Nov 12, 1893** Public opinion is adverse to Queen Liliuokalani's restoration. Uncle's Sam bayonets should not be used to prop up a decayed throne. Conspiracy theory is exploded. (p. 2)

[Knowing what we now know is it not remarkable how cleverly Hawaii's annexation was acted and displayed.]

**Jul 2, 1894** Japan wants to control Corea. Japan summoned the king and asked him to relinquish Chinese suzerainty. Both China and Japan sent troops. (p.7)

**Jul 19, 1894** Japan is not seeking war and has no ulterior motives. Minister Dunn [Edwin Dunn, US envoy to Japan from 14 July 1893 to 2 July 1897] is instructed to seek peace. (p.5)

[In the present article as well as in the next, the "Chicago Tribune" wishes to hide the fact that Japan was seeking a pretext to start the war. In so doing, it probably adopts the position of the US State Department. For the US government the main priority was to keep Russia out of Korea. Replacing the weak Chinese suzerainty by a strong Japanese protectorate was a good way to reach this goal. As a result, during the whole war the US supported Japan.]

**Jul 21, 1894** Outlook is decidedly peaceful. (p. 5)

[This title misrepresented the real situation. In fact Japan had sent a kind of ultimatum to Korea which asked for a number of institutional changes. Although the demands were accepted by Korea, the war nevertheless started 4 days later without any formal declaration of war being made.]

**Jul 26, 1894** It is reported that the Japanese have attacked and sunk a Chinese troop
follow. In the past week there have been scenes of much enthusiasm in Hawaii as the
"Stars and Stripes" were being lifted. (p. 4)

[Maintaining peace and human rights is a standard argument for foreign interventions
by leading powers.]

**Mar 30, 1893** The public interest attaching to Hawaii grows out of its central position in the commerce of the Pacific Ocean. Honolulu is exactly in the track of all steamers sailing to Australasia from San Francisco and Puget Sound. (p. 10)

[There is of course no doubt about the strategic position of Hawaii.]

**Aug 12, 1893** What if China and Hindoustan [i.e. India] should arise in their might? Will China allow herself to be stifled in the folds of the European anaconda, or will this attempt to partition the largest nation of the world resurrect the ancient valor and endurance of the Mongol race? (p. 8)

[Today (i.e. in 2017) some 124 years after the question was raised, we are about to get an answer.]

**Nov 12, 1893** Public opinion is adverse to Queen Liliuokalani's restoration. Uncle's Sam bayonets should not be used to prop up a decayed throne. Conspiracy theory is exploded. (p. 2)

[Knowing what we now know is it not remarkable how cleverly Hawaii's annexation was acted and displayed.]

**Jul 2, 1894** Japan wants to control Corea. Japan summoned the king and asked him to relinquish Chinese suzerainty. Both China and Japan sent troops. (p.7)

**Jul 19, 1894** Japan is not seeking war and has no ulterior motives. Minister Dunn [Edwin Dunn, US envoy to Japan from 14 July 1893 to 2 July 1897] is instructed to seek peace. (p.5)

[In the present article as well as in the next, the "Chicago Tribune" wishes to hide the fact that Japan was seeking a pretext to start the war. In so doing, it probably adopts the position of the US State Department. For the US government the main priority was to keep Russia out of Korea. Replacing the weak Chinese suzerainty by a strong Japanese protectorate was a good way to reach this goal. As a result, during the whole war the US supported Japan.]

**Jul 21, 1894** Outlook is decidedly peaceful. (p. 5)

[This title misrepresented the real situation. In fact Japan had sent a kind of ultimatum to Korea which asked for a number of institutional changes. Although the demands were accepted by Korea, the war nevertheless started 4 days later without any formal declaration of war being made.]

**Jul 26, 1894** It is reported that the Japanese have attacked and sunk a Chinese troop
transport. On land, Chinese and Japanese troops are on the march toward each other. (p. 6)

[There were 1,000 troops aboard the troop transport which was sunk by the Japanese and this action took place prior to any declaration of war. As they were not rescued either by the Japanese nor by the Chinese escort ships, most of them drowned.]

**Jul 28, 1894** Japanese score the first victories. Attempts to patch up peace will fail. (p. 5)

**Jul 28, 1894** US Marines are dispatched to Seoul to protect the US legation. The King of Corea is a Japanese prisoner. (p.5)

**Jul 28, 1894** In considering the Corean imbroglio there are three cardinal facts which must be kept in mind. (i) The abject condition of the native Coreans. (ii) *The tyranny and impudence of China*. (iii) The inadequacy of its claim to suzerainty. (p.5)

[In case there were still some doubts about the US position, this article removes them.]

**Jul 28, 1894** The Japanese government wishes to engage Major Jeremiah R. Wasson of Iowa for leading one of the Japanese armies to victory over the Celestial Empire. (p.5)

[This wish has probably more to do with trying to win over the US than with a real Japanese intention. Indeed, nothing materialized.]

**Jul 29, 1894** The Japanese have very little in common with the Chinese. The Japanese are bright, progressive, and susceptible to the influences of Western civilization. The Chinese are sturdy in their opposition to Western ideas. (p. 24)

[This was not really true for the Beiyang Army and the Beiyang Fleet were also modeled on western standards. It became far less true in subsequent decades.]

**Jul 30, 1894** The Japanese Consul-General at New York explains that it is nonsense to say that the Japanese intend to take Corea. (p.5)

[Needless to say, nobody believed such a declaration but the very fact that it is nevertheless reported in the "Chicago Tribune" shows (once more) that the US is on the Japanese side.]

**Sep 30, 1894** America holds a prominent position in Corea. (p.1)

[Three reasons explain that. (i) The presence of US missionaries (ii) The US-Korea "Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation" of 1884 (iii) Moreover, the US had close relations with China and Japan, the two countries which had a prominent influence in Korea.]
transport. On land, Chinese and Japanese troops are on the march toward each other. (p. 6)

[There were 1,000 troops aboard the troop transport which was sunk by the Japanese and this action took place prior to any declaration of war. As they were not rescued either by the Japanese nor by the Chinese escort ships, most of them drowned.]

**Jul 28, 1894** Japanese score the first victories. Attempts to patch up peace will fail. (p. 5)

**Jul 28, 1894** US Marines are dispatched to Seoul to protect the US legation. The King of Corea is a Japanese prisoner. (p.5)

**Jul 28, 1894** In considering the Corean imbroglio there are three cardinal facts which must be kept in mind. (i) The abject condition of the native Coreans. (ii) *The tyranny and impudence of China*. (iii) The inadequacy of its claim to suzerainty. (p.5)

[In case there were still some doubts about the US position, this article removes them.]

**Jul 28, 1894** The Japanese government wishes to engage Major Jeremiah R. Wasson of Iowa for leading one of the Japanese armies to victory over the Celestial Empire. (p.5)

[This wish has probably more to do with trying to win over the US than with a real Japanese intention. Indeed, nothing materialized.]

**Jul 29, 1894** The Japanese have very little in common with the Chinese. The Japanese are bright, progressive, and susceptible to the influences of Western civilization. The Chinese are sturdy in their opposition to Western ideas. (p. 24)

[This was not really true for the Beiyang Army and the Beiyang Fleet were also modeled on western standards. It became far less true in subsequent decades.]

**Jul 30, 1894** The Japanese Consul-General at New York explains that it is nonsense to say that the Japanese intend to take Corea. (p.5)

[Needless to say, nobody believed such a declaration but the very fact that it is nevertheless reported in the "Chicago Tribune" shows (once more) that the US is on the Japanese side.]

**Sep 30, 1894** America holds a prominent position in Corea. (p.1)

[Three reasons explain that. (i) The presence of US missionaries (ii) The US-Korea "Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation" of 1884 (iii) Moreover, the US had close relations with China and Japan, the two countries which had a prominent influence in Korea.]
**Oct 25, 1894** Major Richter, a German adviser to the Chinese army, is disgusted with the Chinese and returned to Germany. (p. 7)

**Nov 17, 1894** A new Treaty between the United States and Japan is about to be signed. It will give Japanese the right to immigrate to the United States, and to enjoy the same rights in the country as US citizens. (p. 5)

[This confirms the close connection between the US and Japan. In 1906, however, the San Francisco Board of Education enacted a measure which sent Japanese and Chinese children to segregated schools. The Government of Japan was outraged by this policy, claiming that it violated the 1894 treaty.]

**Nov 23, 1894** Following up its respectful but peremptory declination of the offer of the United States to act as mediator between the contending parties, Japan has made a second proposition which shows its good will towards this country. [The US was a mediator in the Russo-Japanese war; this article shows that it was already trying to assume this role in 1894.]

**Dec 7, 1894** The Chinese Council (the so-called “Tsung Li Yamen”) has decided to send a special Ambassador to Tokio fully authorized to negotiate a Treaty of Peace. This is the result of an intimation from US Minister Charles H. Denby [ambassador to China]. (p.7)

**Dec 7, 1894** A constant passage of tens of thousands of levies from all parts of China to the north is going on. It would be a misnomer to describe these men as soldiers, because they are nearly all mere coolies, taken straight from their farms. (p.9)

[Some 50 years later, the same observation would apply to the soldiers of the Kuomintang armies.]

**Jan 5, 1895** John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State, has just arrived at Vancouver en route to Japan to act as counsel for the Chinese Commissioners. (p.5)

[It seems that US efforts to become a mediator take shape.]

**Mar 12, 1895** Since the war between China and Japan began, numerous dispatches relating to attacks on American missionaries have been received. (p. 7)

[It seems that the fact that the US supported Japan was seen clearly by the Chinese population.]

**May 7, 1895** Japan precipitately abandoned all Manchuria. Even the peninsula including Port Arthur is to be given up. (p.7)

[This was in result of pressure by Russia, Britain and France. This move was at first kept secret in Japan but on 13 June that is to say about one month later the “Chicago Tribune” had a headline saying that the submission to Russia, Germany and France irritates the Japanese people.]
**Oct 25, 1894** Major Richter, a German adviser to the Chinese army, is disgusted with the Chinese and returned to Germany. (p. 7)

**Nov 17, 1894** A new Treaty between the United States and Japan is about to be signed. It will give Japanese the right to immigrate to the United States, and to enjoy the same rights in the country as US citizens. (p. 5)

[This confirms the close connection between the US and Japan. In 1906, however, the San Francisco Board of Education enacted a measure which sent Japanese and Chinese children to segregated schools. The Government of Japan was outraged by this policy, claiming that it violated the 1894 treaty.]

**Nov 23, 1894** Following up its respectful but peremptory declination of the offer of the United States to act as mediator between the contending parties, Japan has made a second proposition which shows its good will towards this country. [The US was a mediator in the Russo-Japanese war; this article shows that it was already trying to assume this role in 1894.]

**Dec 7, 1894** The Chinese Council (the so-called “Tsung Li Yamen”) has decided to send a special Ambassador to Tokio fully authorized to negotiate a Treaty of Peace. This is the result of an intimation from US Minister Charles H. Denby [ambassador to China]. (p.7)

**Dec 7, 1894** A constant passage of tens of thousands of levies from all parts of China to the north is going on. It would be a misnomer to describe these men as soldiers, because they are nearly all mere coolies, taken straight from their farms. (p.9)

[Some 50 years later, the same observation would apply to the soldiers of the Kuomintang armies.]

**Jan 5, 1895** John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State, has just arrived at Vancouver en route to Japan to act as counsel for the Chinese Commissioners. (p.5)

[It seems that US efforts to become a mediator take shape.]

**Mar 12, 1895** Since the war between China and Japan began, numerous dispatches relating to attacks on American missionaries have been received. (p. 7)

[It seems that the fact that the US supported Japan was seen clearly by the Chinese population.]

**May 7, 1895** Japan precipitately abandoned all Manchuria. Even the peninsula including Port Arthur is to be given up. (p.7)

[This was in result of pressure by Russia, Britain and France. This move was at first kept secret in Japan but on 13 June that is to say about one month later the “Chicago Tribune” had a headline saying that the submission to Russia, Germany and France irritates the Japanese people.]
**Aug 21, 1895** The Chinese officials have refused to allow the American and British consuls to be present at the examination of the witnesses as to the recent massacre of missionaries at Ku Cheng (northern Fujian). (p.6) [11 British persons were killed by members of a semi-religious organization called the “fasting school” because its members adepts of vegeterianism. This action prefigured the Boxer rebellion.]

## Main features

The main features resulting from the previous chronology can be summarized as follows.

* In 1894 it was the United States (not Britain) which was already the main power in the northern part of the Pacific rim.

* The US government supported Japan and played a prominent role in the peace negotiations.

* The pressure of Britain, France and Russia prevented Japan to get the full benefit of its victories, particularly in Manchuria.

* By several of its aspects, the war foreshadowed future Sino-Japanese conflicts, e.g. the poor quality of Chinese troops, or the occurrence of massacres such as the Port Arthur massacre by the Japanese army on 21 November 1894.

## How the US persuaded Japan to go to war against Russia

The US attitude illustrated by the following articles can be summarized by saying that in the latent conflict between Russia and Japan in the Far East, the “New York Times” poured oil on the brewing fire.

A similar policy of fanning the flames, this time with respect to the discord between the USSR and China, was followed by this newspaper (as well as by the State Department) in the period 1976–1989 of strategic alliance between the US and China.

## Context

At the end of the 19th century the US administration was able to persuade Japan that only war could stop the Russian expansion in Manchuria and Korea. The operation was a remarkable success. Not only was Russian expansion stopped but in a second phase, the United States hosted the peace conference, a role which was recognized by the attribution of the Nobel Peace prize to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. This was a remarkable achievement for a man who, as a volunteer, had led his “Rough Riders” fight in Cuba during the war of 1898 against Spain. Even in Norway, the attribution was disputed by some persons.

In Japan the war of 1904-1905 was a watershed. It set in motion the colonization and war dynamic that led eventually to the invasion of the whole eastern part of China.
**Aug 21, 1895** The Chinese officials have refused to allow the American and British consuls to be present at the examination of the witnesses as to the recent massacre of missionaries at Ku Cheng (northern Fujian). (p.6) [11 British persons were killed by members of a semi-religious organization called the “fasting school” because its members adepts of vegeterianism. This action prefigured the Boxer rebellion.]

**Main features**

The main features resulting from the previous chronology can be summarized as follows.

* In 1894 it was the United States (not Britain) which was already the main power in the northern part of the Pacific rim.

* The US government supported Japan and played a prominent role in the peace negotiations.

* The pressure of Britain, France and Russia prevented Japan to get the full benefit of its victories, particularly in Manchuria.

* By several of its aspects, the war foreshadowed future Sino-Japanese conflicts, e.g. the poor quality of Chinese troops, or the occurrence of massacres such as the Port Arthur massacre by the Japanese army on 21 November 1894.

**How the US persuaded Japan to go to war against Russia**

The US attitude illustrated by the following articles can be summarized by saying that in the latent conflict between Russia and Japan in the Far East, the “New York Times” poured oil on the brewing fire.

A similar policy of fanning the flames, this time with respect to the discord between the USSR and China, was followed by this newspaper (as well as by the State Department) in the period 1976–1989 of strategic alliance between the US and China.

**Context**

At the end of the 19th century the US administration was able to persuade Japan that only war could stop the Russian expansion in Manchuria and Korea. The operation was a remarkable success. Not only was Russian expansion stopped but in a second phase, the United States hosted the peace conference, a role which was recognized by the attribution of the Nobel Peace prize to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. This was a remarkable achievement for a man who, as a volunteer, had led his “Rough Riders” fight in Cuba during the war of 1898 against Spain. Even in Norway, the attribution was disputed by some persons.

In Japan the war of 1904-1905 was a watershed. It set in motion the colonization and war dynamic that led eventually to the invasion of the whole eastern part of China.
Knowing what we now know, namely how the expansion of Japan eventually led to the Pacific War, it may seem very strange that the US encouraged Japan's ambitions in Korea in 1905 and even more strange that it did not try to stop it in the 1930s after Japan had attacked northern China. In order to make the story more plausible we need to explain briefly why Japanese expansion was in fact well accepted by the US, at least until 1939 and also why after this date cooperation suddenly changed into confrontation.

Until 1939 the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and China was more or less accepted by the United States as a bulkward against Soviet influence and Communist progress<fnref n="46" />. Since November 1936 Japan had been, not only a member, but together with Germany, the main initiator of the anti-Comintern Pact. Paradoxically, the Nationalist government of Chiang kai-shek was also an anti-Comintern Pact member<fnref n="47" />. After June 1941, in the eyes of western countries, being part of the anti-Comintern Pact was no longer an asset, it became a liability. Of course, this was temporary. After 1945, being anti-Communist was again seen with much favor by the State Department.

After the German invasion of June 1941, the Soviet Union was no longer seen as a threat but as a crucial asset in the war against Germany. It can also be recalled that after 1938 the Communist Red Army became, at least formally, a component of the Nationalist Army. For the US State Department these developments took away any remaining justifications of the Japanese occupation of China.

## Chronology

But for the moment let us come back to 1905. In the three decades after the Meiji Revolution (1868) the modernization of Japan progressed rapidly to the point of making it capable of confronting a major world power like Russia.

At the end of the 19th century it was still Britain which was the super-power. Although her wish was also to stop the Russian advance in north-east Asia, she was rather in favor of a negotiated settlement. It should be remembered that around 1900 a large part of Britain's military resources were engaged in the South-African war against the Boers. Japan and Britain signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance on 30 January 1902.

The following chronology describes how the US government had encouraged Japan

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶A sign of US acceptance can be found in the evolution of bilateral trade between the US and Japan. Between 1930 and 1939 Japanese imports from the US doubled whereas Japanese exports to the US increased some 20%.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷See the Wikipedia article entitled “Anti-Comintern Pact”. The Comintern was an international organization headed by the USSR whose objective was to spread Communism. In 1941, following its occupation by Germany, even Denmark became an anti-Comintern member; in June 1941 it arrested hundreds of Danish Communists many of whom were later deported. In France many Communists had already been arrested after the signature of the pact between Germany and the USSR.</footnote>
Knowing what we now know, namely how the expansion of Japan eventually led to the Pacific War, it may seem very strange that the US encouraged Japan's ambitions in Korea in 1905 and even more strange that it did not try to stop it in the 1930s after Japan had attacked northern China. In order to make the story more plausible we need to explain briefly why Japanese expansion was in fact well accepted by the US, at least until 1939 and also why after this date cooperation suddenly changed into confrontation.

Until 1939 the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and China was more or less accepted by the United States as a bulkward against Soviet influence and Communist progress<fnref n="46" />. Since November 1936 Japan had been, not only a member, but together with Germany, the main initiator of the anti-Comintern Pact. Paradoxically, the Nationalist government of Chiang kai-shek was also an anti-Comintern Pact member<fnref n="47" />. After June 1941, in the eyes of western countries, being part of the anti-Comintern Pact was no longer an asset, it became a liability. Of course, this was temporary. After 1945, being anti-Communist was again seen with much favor by the State Department.

After the German invasion of June 1941, the Soviet Union was no longer seen as a threat but as a crucial asset in the war against Germany. It can also be recalled that after 1938 the Communist Red Army became, at least formally, a component of the Nationalist Army. For the US State Department these developments took away any remaining justifications of the Japanese occupation of China.

## Chronology

But for the moment let us come back to 1905. In the three decades after the Meiji Revolution (1868) the modernization of Japan progressed rapidly to the point of making it capable of confronting a major world power like Russia.

At the end of the 19th century it was still Britain which was the super-power. Although her wish was also to stop the Russian advance in north-east Asia, she was rather in favor of a negotiated settlement. It should be remembered that around 1900 a large part of Britain's military resources were engaged in the South-African war against the Boers. Japan and Britain signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance on 30 January 1902.

The following chronology describes how the US government had encouraged Japan

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶A sign of US acceptance can be found in the evolution of bilateral trade between the US and Japan. Between 1930 and 1939 Japanese imports from the US doubled whereas Japanese exports to the US increased some 20%.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷See the Wikipedia article entitled “Anti-Comintern Pact”. The Comintern was an international organization headed by the USSR whose objective was to spread Communism. In 1941, following its occupation by Germany, even Denmark became an anti-Comintern member; in June 1941 it arrested hundreds of Danish Communists many of whom were later deported. In France many Communists had already been arrested after the signature of the pact between Germany and the USSR.</footnote>
to go to war against Russia (in this respect see the cartoons of Fig. 5.1a,b). It is based
on New York Times articles. A fairly safe assumption is that this newspaper reflects
the positions of the State Department.

Basically one can distinguish four themes in the news regarding this question.

1 Accounts of Russian advances in Korea.

2 The interests and objectives of Russia and Japan are incompatible.

3 Accounts of negotiations between Russia and Japan.

4 Japan is about to go to war against Russia.

Here, we will restrict ourselves to the news of the last kind. However, a more complete account involving all 4 themes can be found in Roehner (2016d).

**Dec 4, 1897** Indications of a [coming] conflict between Russia and Japan. Russia is buying supplies and travelers report that the garrison at Vladivostok has been reinforced by the arrival of troops from the Black Sea.

[With the arrival of new troops it is not surprising that more supplies are needed. To conclude that it announces a war is perhaps too hasty.]

**Dec 24, 1897** The Japanese Army is full of Russian spies disguised as Japanese.

[If that had really been true Japan would not have been victorious in the subsequent war.]

**Dec 24, 1897** Russia is absorbing Korea. Her agents control the country, and Japan is getting ready for impending hostilities.

[This was simply untrue.]

**Dec 27, 1897** Seventeen British warships back an ultimatum against Russian domination. Japan supports the British action. Her fleet of 30 vessels is awaiting the result of the protest against the dismissal of an English customs officer.

[To see three major countries go to war for the dismissal of a custom officer would be surprising. Indeed, nothing of that kind happened.]

**Jan 1, 1898** Japan feels warlike. Captain Sakuzzi, who is in San Francisco, says Russia is treating his country shamefully.

[Should one attribute such a great importance to the declaration of a captain?]

**Jan 22, 1898** Japan is prepared for war. St. James's Gazette says she could handle the Russian and German ships east of Suez alone.

[Barely two weeks after the agreement of 10 January 1898, the NYT speaks of war once again.]

**Apr 6, 1898** There is a war feeling in Japan.