08-02-2017, 10:10 PM
*** 3-Aug-17 World View -- Rex Tillerson warns China is risking 'open conflict' with the United States
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** Rex Tillerson promises a US 'response' to North Korea's 'unacceptable threat'
****
![[Image: g170802b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g170802b.jpg)
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
Speaking to the State Dept. press corps on Tuesday, Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson made it clear that the United States would not be
appeasing either North Korea or China. Tillerson began by explaining
the policy toward North Korea:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"We have reaffirmed our position towards North Korea,
> that what we are doing, we do not seek a regime change; we do not
> seek the collapse of the regime; we do not seek an accelerated
> reunification of the peninsula; we do not seek an excuse to send
> our military north of the 38th parallel. And we’re trying to
> convey to the North Koreans we are not your enemy, we are not your
> threat, but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and
> we have to respond."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Tillerson's statement was consistent with a remark made the
previous day by President Donald Trump:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to
> handle them. It will be handled."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said that the "time for talk is over,"
referring to the endless series of UN Security Council resolutions,
each one expressing outrage that North Korea has ignored previous
resolutions, and threatening North Korea with a new resolution in the
future if the current one is violated.
Some people in the mainstream media are having reading comprehension
difficulties with these statements, considering them contradictory to
one another. One journalist, for example, said that Trump and
Tillerson "offered distinctly mixed messages on North Korea," and that
Trump "preached a different message."
And yet, the messages are perfectly clear and consistent. We do not
seek regime change, but North Korea is presenting a major unacceptable
threat to the US, and we have to "respond" or to "handle it."
The reason that so many journalists, politicians, pundits and analysts
are having difficulty is because they don't have the vaguest clue
what's going on in the world, or how the world works, or they think
that the world works the same way it did when they were children
in the 1980s-90s. In those days, the world was still being run by
the Silent generation, survivors of World War II, who were well
aware of what can go wrong. But the world today is being run
by younger generations who have no clue what can go wrong.
The exception is Donald Trump's close adviser, Steve Bannon, who knows
very well what is going on in the world. As I've described in the past,
I've worked with Steve Bannon
off and on for several years in the past, both on his movie
"Generation Zero" and when I was cross-posting articles on the
Breitbart National Security site. So I know that Steve Bannon is an
expert on military history and world history, and he also has an
expert understanding of Generational Dynamics and generational theory.
So Bannon knows very well, and presumably has communicated to Trump,
that a nuclear military confrontation with North Korea is coming with
absolute certainty. Following the path of previous administrations
would have meant showing weakness and appeasing North Korea, and then
being overwhelmed by North Korea's unexpected surprise nuclear attack
on South Korea and American bases, just as the US was overwhelmed by
Imperial Japan's unexpected surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
Instead of appeasing North Korea, the Trump administration is
threatening to "respond." Presumably, there is hope that some
response could somehow cripple North Korea's nuclear missile
development program. To my knowledge, nobody believes that any such
response is possible, and most analysts believe that any such attempt
would trigger a North Korean attack on Seoul and South Korea.
US State Dept. and Washington Examiner and Global Times (Beijing)
Related Articles
****
**** Rex Tillerson warns China is risking 'open conflict' with the United States
****
In his speech to the State Dept. press corps, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said that the US has asked China to pressure North Korea to
end their nuclear missile program:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"The Chinese have been very clear with us that we
> share the same objective, a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. They
> do not see it in their interest for North Korea to have nuclear
> weapons, just as we do not see it in anyone’s interest. ...
>
> We’ve been very clear with the Chinese we certainly don’t blame
> the Chinese for the situation in North Korea. Only the North
> Koreans are to blame for this situation. But we do believe China
> has a special and unique relationship because of this significant
> economic activity to influence the North Korean regime in ways
> that no one else can.
>
> And that’s why we continue to call upon them to use that influence
> with North Korea to create the conditions where we can have a
> productive dialogue. We don’t think having a dialogue where the
> North Koreans come to the table assuming they’re going to maintain
> their nuclear weapons is productive. So that’s really what the
> objective that we are about is."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The logic of this statement is a little convoluted. He wants China to
influence North Korea so that they can all have a constructive dialog.
But a productive dialog is not possible if North Korea assumes that
they're going to maintain their nuclear weapons. Therefore, he's
implying that he wants China to influence North Korea to abandon its
nuclear weapons development.
After North Korea's ballistic missile statement last weekend,
President Trump lashed out at China on Twitter:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past
> leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars
> a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just
> talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could
> easily solve this problem!"<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Trump's tweet contained an implicit threat towards China. Tillerson
went farther in his speech to the press corps and warned China that
China is risking open conflict with the United States, because of
disagreements over trade and over China's actions in the South China
Sea:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"The question now is that we – we believe we’re at a
> bit of a pivot point in that relationship because of how China has
> progressed now to become the second largest economy in the world,
> and they will continue to grow in their importance to the global
> economy. What should define this relationship for the next 50
> years? And those are the discussions that we have with the Chinese
> in the broadest contours: How should we define this relationship
> and how do we ensure that economic prosperity to the benefit of
> both countries and the world can continue, and that where we have
> differences – because we will have differences, we do have
> differences – that we will deal with those differences in a way
> that does not lead to open conflict. And that has been the
> success of the past policy. It’s one that we must continue, but we
> recognize conditions have changed and to simply rely upon the past
> may not serve either one of us well.
>
> So these are very in-depth conversations and discussions we have
> with the Chinese, and we test this relationship through things
> like the situation in North Korea. Can we work together to address
> this global threat where we have a common objective? And where we
> have differences – in the South China Sea, and we have some
> trading differences that need to be addressed – can we work
> through those differences in a way without it leading to open
> conflict and find the solutions that are necessary to serve us
> both?"<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Tillerson's statement contains a direct warning to China by twice
using the phrase "lead[ing] to open conflict."
Previous administrations have avoided any sorts of direct threats to
China, for fear of angering them. But avoiding threats has the effect
of showing weakness and appeasing China, and then later being
overwhelmed by an unexpected surprise attack.
But, once again, this administration is different because Trump
advisor Steve Bannon is an expert on Generational Dynamics, and is
well aware of the Generational Dynamics prediction that the US and
China are headed for all-out war with 100% certainty.
Instead of appeasing North Korea and China, the Trump administration
is making unspecified threats, in the hope of finding either
a way to stop the war or a way to make sure that the United
States survives a war.
The Trump statement quoted above suggests that Trump plans trade
sanctions against China, and the statements by Tillerson suggest that
the administration plans some sort of action to neutralize North
Korea's nuclear missile threat.
I wish I could say that there's hope that these measures will have the
desired effect of stopping North Korea and China, but as I've been
saying for years, major decisions and trends like those developing now
do not come from the countries' leaders. They come from the
countries' populations, entire generations of people, and attempting
to halt these trends is like trying to stop a tsunami with a teacup.
On Tuesday morning, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who has
a close relationship with Trump, made a statement about the
inevitability of war in Korea that is believed to have come from Trump
himself. Graham said that unless North Korea's president Kim Jong-un
changes, war is coming:
> [indent]<QUOTE>I’m saying it’s inevitable unless North Korea changes
> because you’re making our president pick between regional
> stability and homeland security.
>
> If there’s going to be a war to stop him [Kim], it will be over
> there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there.
> They’re not going to die here. And he [Trump] has told me that to
> my face."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
These statements by Tillerson, Trump and Graham, taken together,
define a policy that is completely consistent with the Generational
Dynamics analysis of the situation in China and North Korea.
Mainstream journalists and analysts are completely baffled by it,
because they have no idea what's going on in the world, and they know
nothing about Generational Dynamics or generational theory. That's
why mainstream journalists talk about chaos, or a White House with no
foreign policy or an incoherent foreign policy. They simply have no
clue.
But the fact is that this is the most coherent and sophisticated White
House foreign policy that I've seen in the 15 years that I've been
writing about Generational Dynamics. Unfortunately, it won't prevent
the catastrophic Clash of Civilizations war that's approaching, any
more than a policy of appeasement would do, but we can hope that it
may help guarantee that the United States will survive. Guardian (London) and Daily Star (London) and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and Global Times (Beijing) and Daily Beast
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Rex Tillerson, North Korea, China,
Nikki Haley, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Rex Tillerson promises a US 'response' to North Korea's 'unacceptable threat'
- Rex Tillerson warns China is risking 'open conflict' with the United States
****
**** Rex Tillerson promises a US 'response' to North Korea's 'unacceptable threat'
****
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
Speaking to the State Dept. press corps on Tuesday, Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson made it clear that the United States would not be
appeasing either North Korea or China. Tillerson began by explaining
the policy toward North Korea:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"We have reaffirmed our position towards North Korea,
> that what we are doing, we do not seek a regime change; we do not
> seek the collapse of the regime; we do not seek an accelerated
> reunification of the peninsula; we do not seek an excuse to send
> our military north of the 38th parallel. And we’re trying to
> convey to the North Koreans we are not your enemy, we are not your
> threat, but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and
> we have to respond."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Tillerson's statement was consistent with a remark made the
previous day by President Donald Trump:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to
> handle them. It will be handled."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said that the "time for talk is over,"
referring to the endless series of UN Security Council resolutions,
each one expressing outrage that North Korea has ignored previous
resolutions, and threatening North Korea with a new resolution in the
future if the current one is violated.
Some people in the mainstream media are having reading comprehension
difficulties with these statements, considering them contradictory to
one another. One journalist, for example, said that Trump and
Tillerson "offered distinctly mixed messages on North Korea," and that
Trump "preached a different message."
And yet, the messages are perfectly clear and consistent. We do not
seek regime change, but North Korea is presenting a major unacceptable
threat to the US, and we have to "respond" or to "handle it."
The reason that so many journalists, politicians, pundits and analysts
are having difficulty is because they don't have the vaguest clue
what's going on in the world, or how the world works, or they think
that the world works the same way it did when they were children
in the 1980s-90s. In those days, the world was still being run by
the Silent generation, survivors of World War II, who were well
aware of what can go wrong. But the world today is being run
by younger generations who have no clue what can go wrong.
The exception is Donald Trump's close adviser, Steve Bannon, who knows
very well what is going on in the world. As I've described in the past,
I've worked with Steve Bannon
off and on for several years in the past, both on his movie
"Generation Zero" and when I was cross-posting articles on the
Breitbart National Security site. So I know that Steve Bannon is an
expert on military history and world history, and he also has an
expert understanding of Generational Dynamics and generational theory.
So Bannon knows very well, and presumably has communicated to Trump,
that a nuclear military confrontation with North Korea is coming with
absolute certainty. Following the path of previous administrations
would have meant showing weakness and appeasing North Korea, and then
being overwhelmed by North Korea's unexpected surprise nuclear attack
on South Korea and American bases, just as the US was overwhelmed by
Imperial Japan's unexpected surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
Instead of appeasing North Korea, the Trump administration is
threatening to "respond." Presumably, there is hope that some
response could somehow cripple North Korea's nuclear missile
development program. To my knowledge, nobody believes that any such
response is possible, and most analysts believe that any such attempt
would trigger a North Korean attack on Seoul and South Korea.
US State Dept. and Washington Examiner and Global Times (Beijing)
Related Articles
- What could trigger another world war? (30-Jul-2017)
- North Korea launches another ballistic missile test, as talk of war increases (29-May-2017)
- US aircraft carrier strike force heads for Korean peninsula (10-Apr-2017)
- Ancient tensions flare between China and North Korea (08-May-2017)
****
**** Rex Tillerson warns China is risking 'open conflict' with the United States
****
In his speech to the State Dept. press corps, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said that the US has asked China to pressure North Korea to
end their nuclear missile program:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"The Chinese have been very clear with us that we
> share the same objective, a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. They
> do not see it in their interest for North Korea to have nuclear
> weapons, just as we do not see it in anyone’s interest. ...
>
> We’ve been very clear with the Chinese we certainly don’t blame
> the Chinese for the situation in North Korea. Only the North
> Koreans are to blame for this situation. But we do believe China
> has a special and unique relationship because of this significant
> economic activity to influence the North Korean regime in ways
> that no one else can.
>
> And that’s why we continue to call upon them to use that influence
> with North Korea to create the conditions where we can have a
> productive dialogue. We don’t think having a dialogue where the
> North Koreans come to the table assuming they’re going to maintain
> their nuclear weapons is productive. So that’s really what the
> objective that we are about is."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The logic of this statement is a little convoluted. He wants China to
influence North Korea so that they can all have a constructive dialog.
But a productive dialog is not possible if North Korea assumes that
they're going to maintain their nuclear weapons. Therefore, he's
implying that he wants China to influence North Korea to abandon its
nuclear weapons development.
After North Korea's ballistic missile statement last weekend,
President Trump lashed out at China on Twitter:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past
> leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars
> a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just
> talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could
> easily solve this problem!"<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Trump's tweet contained an implicit threat towards China. Tillerson
went farther in his speech to the press corps and warned China that
China is risking open conflict with the United States, because of
disagreements over trade and over China's actions in the South China
Sea:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"The question now is that we – we believe we’re at a
> bit of a pivot point in that relationship because of how China has
> progressed now to become the second largest economy in the world,
> and they will continue to grow in their importance to the global
> economy. What should define this relationship for the next 50
> years? And those are the discussions that we have with the Chinese
> in the broadest contours: How should we define this relationship
> and how do we ensure that economic prosperity to the benefit of
> both countries and the world can continue, and that where we have
> differences – because we will have differences, we do have
> differences – that we will deal with those differences in a way
> that does not lead to open conflict. And that has been the
> success of the past policy. It’s one that we must continue, but we
> recognize conditions have changed and to simply rely upon the past
> may not serve either one of us well.
>
> So these are very in-depth conversations and discussions we have
> with the Chinese, and we test this relationship through things
> like the situation in North Korea. Can we work together to address
> this global threat where we have a common objective? And where we
> have differences – in the South China Sea, and we have some
> trading differences that need to be addressed – can we work
> through those differences in a way without it leading to open
> conflict and find the solutions that are necessary to serve us
> both?"<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Tillerson's statement contains a direct warning to China by twice
using the phrase "lead[ing] to open conflict."
Previous administrations have avoided any sorts of direct threats to
China, for fear of angering them. But avoiding threats has the effect
of showing weakness and appeasing China, and then later being
overwhelmed by an unexpected surprise attack.
But, once again, this administration is different because Trump
advisor Steve Bannon is an expert on Generational Dynamics, and is
well aware of the Generational Dynamics prediction that the US and
China are headed for all-out war with 100% certainty.
Instead of appeasing North Korea and China, the Trump administration
is making unspecified threats, in the hope of finding either
a way to stop the war or a way to make sure that the United
States survives a war.
The Trump statement quoted above suggests that Trump plans trade
sanctions against China, and the statements by Tillerson suggest that
the administration plans some sort of action to neutralize North
Korea's nuclear missile threat.
I wish I could say that there's hope that these measures will have the
desired effect of stopping North Korea and China, but as I've been
saying for years, major decisions and trends like those developing now
do not come from the countries' leaders. They come from the
countries' populations, entire generations of people, and attempting
to halt these trends is like trying to stop a tsunami with a teacup.
On Tuesday morning, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who has
a close relationship with Trump, made a statement about the
inevitability of war in Korea that is believed to have come from Trump
himself. Graham said that unless North Korea's president Kim Jong-un
changes, war is coming:
> [indent]<QUOTE>I’m saying it’s inevitable unless North Korea changes
> because you’re making our president pick between regional
> stability and homeland security.
>
> If there’s going to be a war to stop him [Kim], it will be over
> there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there.
> They’re not going to die here. And he [Trump] has told me that to
> my face."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
These statements by Tillerson, Trump and Graham, taken together,
define a policy that is completely consistent with the Generational
Dynamics analysis of the situation in China and North Korea.
Mainstream journalists and analysts are completely baffled by it,
because they have no idea what's going on in the world, and they know
nothing about Generational Dynamics or generational theory. That's
why mainstream journalists talk about chaos, or a White House with no
foreign policy or an incoherent foreign policy. They simply have no
clue.
But the fact is that this is the most coherent and sophisticated White
House foreign policy that I've seen in the 15 years that I've been
writing about Generational Dynamics. Unfortunately, it won't prevent
the catastrophic Clash of Civilizations war that's approaching, any
more than a policy of appeasement would do, but we can hope that it
may help guarantee that the United States will survive. Guardian (London) and Daily Star (London) and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and Global Times (Beijing) and Daily Beast
Related Articles
- China builds illegal surface-to-air missile sites in South China Sea (03-Jul-2017)
- China preparing to install long-range missiles in South China Sea (23-Feb-2017)
- US aircraft carrier renews challenge to China in the South China Sea (20-Feb-2017)
- China's military strength and poor civilian control alarm neighbors (24-Nov-2014)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Rex Tillerson, North Korea, China,
Nikki Haley, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
