Home

Donald Trump’s anticipated choice of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State already has people riled up.  What could a dirty oil man–especially one who has “relations” with the Russians–do for this country’s foreign affairs?

The first thing Donald Trump has doubtless found out is something this blog has said for a long time: you can be a great American or you can be good at foreign affairs, but you can’t be both.  We are simply too self-contained and provincial.  That’s one reason our foreign policy veers from cave to conquer, with disastrous results following.

But the oil industry provides an interesting exception to this.  As I pointed out a long time ago, from the perspective of a participant:

Liberal pseudo-sophisticates may sneer at the idea of “dirty” oil men (those of us in the business, like Barack Obama, do take regular baths in places where the plumbing permits) doing anything but going to Mickey Gilley’s after a day in the oil patch, but the truth is that the oil industry has been one of the most internationalised businesses out there, forwarding globalisation long before upstarts like computer technology related businesses were even in the game. Although most people think of the major oil companies in this effort—and they certainly took an interest in China when opportunity became apparent—another vanguard is the oilfield supply and service business. This includes everything from drill bits to disaster response such as Red Adair to construction services for platforms and refineries.

(The business about Barack Obama and baths comes from Joe Biden’s inept comment about him being a “clean” black guy; I am amazed that he ever became Vice President after that.)

Oil is a very international business.  It was made up of people from Third World countries long before the left thought to import them to change the electorate.  But oil is also the American left’s chief bête noire because oil brought prosperity, fuelled cars and made suburbia possible, and they’ve hated it ever since for that.  (That’s another reason they don’t like Ben Carson as HUD Secretary, but that’s another post…)

That hatred antedates the climate change debate.  They have used every environmental misstep the industry has done to attempt to drive it from our shores, as if such problems are better if they’re somewhere else.  (The oil industry, to its credit, has made many advances in “cleaning up its act.”)

That puts oil people in a unique position.  On the one hand, they’ve been dealing with different nations, cultures and religions (not the least of which is Islam) for many years.  On the other hand, they’ve done it “beyond the pale,” i.e., beyond the usual diplomatic circles, and often with people not formally trained in such things.  Thus they also have the natural enmity of the diplomatic corps.

That puts those of us who have participated in the industry in a unique spot.  That has miffed frequent commenters such as David Lloyd Jones, aware of my international experience, who then don’t understand my conservative politics.

When I went to China in 1981, I was well aware that the élite leftists didn’t like what I did because of what it was, i.e., furnishing equipment to the oil field.  I was also aware that the “cold warriors” of the day didn’t like the idea of us doing business with the Communist Chinese.  But we went anyway and helped the balance of payments–which badly needed some help–in the bargain.

As for the Russians, it was either them or the neocons.

I hope the Senate sees as much wisdom in this choice as I do.  My wish for Tillerson is that he puts the country he’s representing first priority.  But first we have to keep the team together in the Senate, and that may not be easy.

The incoming administration is doing many things that put their opponents–and some of their supporters–in a lather.  That’s not hard to do these days in the US, it seems that everyone pretty much lives that way.  One of those is with the Chinese–taking a call from Taiwan’s president, his threats regarding trade, etc.

I have a little commercial experience with the Chinese, albeit a long time ago.  Here are my thoughts on the subject:

Much of the Advice People Give on China is Rubbish

At the end of my series on the subject, I state the following:

One of the lessons we at Vulcan took from China is that “experts” seem to gravitate towards the country. We found these experts in the U.S., too. They’d appear at international trade events, going on at length about how to deal with this exotic Chinese culture and how different it was from ours, and how with their advice we would do business.

The problem with many of these people is that they’ve never “done the deal.” Many of them have never sold or leased anything to the Chinese or anyone else for that matter. We found that such advice not to be as helpful as it looked. However, the one thing that those of us who have done the deal must avoid is to represent our specific experience as the only way to do business in China, then or now. But there are some useful lessons that can be learned.

Anyone who speaks of “doing the deal” must have Donald Trump in the back of their minds, and I must confess I did when writing that back in 2007.  But a lot of the whining about how he’s about to ruin our relationship is rubbish.  It’s on par with those who never thought China would get anywhere without “democratic” institutions.  Many of those people are crying about the result of our own democratic institution, so they shouldn’t complain.  (If you don’t like our result, you should first consider this before you tout another “band-aid” solution.)

The Chinese are Superb Negotiators

Lu Xun, the famous Chinese author, makes an illustration of people in a dark room.  He says that, if you propose to cut some windows, you’ll get opposition, but if you propose to take the roof off, you’ll get agreement on a more sensible solution.

In the first contact with our Chinese representative, he advised the following:

The Chinese are not frivolous. They will not invite you unless they plan to buy…The Chinese are good bargainers. It is wise to add 5% to gracefully give away in contract discussions as a discount.

Many things Donald Trump says are characterised as “promises,” especially on immigration.  They are in fact first negotiating positions, and the Chinese will see them as such.  The fact that Americans don’t only shows what poor negotiators we are.  I wouldn’t panic about his initial statements about anything, and those about the Chinese are no exception.

He Needs to be Careful on Taiwan

I noted the following about Taiwan:

The Americans were in a more difficult situation, mostly because of the Cold War. In addition to the export restrictions and complete lack of government support, there was always the matter of Taiwan, which sticks in the Chinese government’s craw just about worse than anything else (although the commercial activities of “Overseas Chinese” such as those from Taiwan and elsewhere also helped to re-open China for business.)

It’s still true that Taiwan is a sore subject for those on the Mainland, because it goes to national identity.  Which China is the real one?  The Communist one on the Mainland or the Guomindang one on Taiwan?  Both our relationship and theirs with Taiwan is complex, because they are an important trading partner with the US, and in fact one for the Mainland as well.

It wasn’t a mistake for him to speak with Taiwan’s President.  For him, it’s part of the negotiating process.  But he needs to be careful on this issue.

The Chinese Can’t Afford to See Us Fold

One thing that people say is that the Chinese can punish us severely through cyber assault, calling debt, etc.  But as I pointed out here:

Let’s consider our situation with the Chinese.  Back in the last decade, when we were borrowing so much and importing the stuff they made, people would say that they’re going to “call the note” and take us over.  That idea was ridiculous because a) their trading partner would hit the wall, crashing their exports and b) it would take the main reserve currency with it.  Both of these would make repayment of the debt impossible.  Currently the Chinese are using their new-found financial power to expand themselves throughout the world.

But there’s another thing to consider, one that is more important now than before: if they do crash the place,  who’ll pick up the pieces?  The world has become a more prosperous place overall; our shrinking part of the world pie is not only because we are less prosperous, but because others are more.

China will take a greater place in world affairs as time progresses.  But in the meanwhile they cannot afford to see us fold.  Both sides have been dealt a hand; it is important that neither tries to overplay it.

Chinese Expansionism is Their Response to American Weakness

Many wonder “what will Trump do with the Chinese islands in the South China Sea.”  The answer is probably “not much.”  They have done this because they rightfully perceived American weakness, done by a President who basically felt that American power was injurious to the state of the world.  The first thing that Trump will find out, to expand the card analogy, is that the hand he’s been dealt is not as strong as his predecessors. Much of his task to “make America great again” is to first make America itself great and then let the rest of the world size itself up.  This is as opposed to the neocon approach of beating down any challenges that come along through military action.  If he sticks with this he will play to the traditional strengths of the country.

It’s All Risky

Donald Trump has frightened many.  But, like Barack Obama, electing him was a risk.  That reminds me of a rather humorous incident earlier this year:

One of the more amusing moments I’ve had here at UTC has been the visit of the new Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science, Dr. Daniel Pack, to the SimCentre, where I just finished my PhD.  He wanted to meet with the students; it’s been a rough road for the program, and he wanted to “cast a vision” for the future.  Towards the end of his talk, he threw out the old B-school meme that, in Chinese, the character for “opportunity” is contained in the character for “crisis.”

However, as is the case with most gatherings of engineering students (and faculty) these days, the Chinese are well represented.  Once he said that he paused in puzzlement for a second, looked at the Chinese and asked, “Is that really true?”  The Chinese, after looking at each other, confirmed that it was true.  Needless to say, the Dean sighed with relief.

Liberals want a world which is free of uncertainty.  So does everyone else, but that isn’t what we have.  Letting things slide down has its own risks.

Recently I visited an art gallery where Jean-Paul Laurens’ portrait of the Roman Emperor Honorius was on display.

He became Emperor at the age of ten.  The portrait conveys the message that the job was too big for him.  The sword and orb certainly are, and his feet don’t reach the floor.  His growing up didn’t help; Honorius’ reign was a disaster.  He had his most capable general Stilicho executed, and it was downhill from there, starting with the first sack of Rome in 410.  With that Britain separated itself from Roman rule and the Western Empire began its march to the end.

The United States of American isn’t a perpetual motion machine.  The arc of history may be continuous but it is not everywhere smooth or differentiable.  To keep things up we need to take chances now and then.  When we sat down with the Chinese we didn’t know what the outcome would be, just as Richard Nixon didn’t know when he started his initiative.  But the results were and are beneficial.

Whether this chance will work with China or anywhere else remains to be seen, but it must be tried.

Four facts to consider:

1. President-elect Trump wants to revoke citizenship for those who burn the flag.
2. Many have promised to leave the U.S. if he becomes President (which he will, Deo volente.)
3. Renunciation of U.S. citizenship is at a high level.
4. Paperwork for same renunciation is slow.  Our State Department can work out a nuclear arms deal with Iran, but I know of one Iranian (with an American child) who took over a year to get her visa to come back to the U.S..  As my brother would say, like watching the grass grow…

So this is my idea for those who want to skip the country and speed things up:

1. Make sure you have dual citizenship (maybe more) somewhere you like, and make sure your affairs are in good shape.
2. Burn flag in public place.
3. Get arrested.
4. Do not waive your right to a speedy trial.
5. Get convicted, ask for revocation of citizenship in sentencing.
6. Get citizenship revoked.
7. Go to the place where you like.

In bureaucratic America, every cloud has a silver lining.  But my guess is that the State Department and the IRS would oppose such a thing, because it would risk their collection of all of those “exit fees” they have waiting those who leave.

It’s all the rage these days, in the wake of Trump’s victory, to attack (generally conservative) “faux news” sites, even to the point of getting them blocked or banned altogether.

This rage (like every other rage) isn’t a new as people think: I was accused of this back in 2008, when I posted this piece on Barack Obama and pledging the flag.  A civics teacher from Southern California took me to task about this and rounded off his primal scream with this:

I found your site thanks to some of my students looking for credible information opposing Obama for a debate that they were preparing for class. I was able to show them the difference between an opinion site and a scholarly site due to this fact. Thanks for being out there. Have a nice day.

In my reposte to his comment I noted that I never claimed this site to be anything other than an opinion site.  (I would commend you to look at that reposte, and see how everything has turned out.)   Turning to David “Spengler” Goldman’s piece that launched mine, Asia Times Online is certainly a news site (especially when the late Allen Quicke was editor) but Spengler’s long-running “column” (to use an old print term) was an opinion column, albeit one of the best in the business, IMHO.

Both the civics teacher and the current “faux news” hounds are working from the same playbook: there are sites where “truth” is always found and those which are simply putting out opinion masquerading as news.  (The civics teacher adds the “scholarly” to that, but my PhD studies have taught me to look at the literature with a critical eye.)  It’s convenient that the former agree with their idea, and that’s where the problem is.  It’s Pilate’s question redux: what is truth?

To start with, it’s the American ideal that there is an “objective” press.  But it’s just that: an ideal.  Journalism’s drive to get at the facts has certainly gone down in recent years (Sharyl Attkisson is a notable exception) but across the pond people are more realistic.  The French, for example, have always known that different newspapers and magazines have different points of view and the audiences to go with them; in the UK, it’s not as fragmented but it’s there all the same.  What’s broken in this country is the basic consensus about what we’re all about, and a press that “everybody” can agree is fair has gone out the window with that.  (The Wikileaks revelations about the collusion between the press and Hillary Clinton’s campaign is another nail in the coffin to the concept of an objective press.)

Beyond that, I think it strange that a post-modern culture–and its acolytes–that proclaims there is no objective truth suddenly gets worked up about “faux news.”  You can’t have it both ways: if there is no objective truth, you can’t really say some news is true and some is false.  But that’s never been the object of the left; their idea has been to masquerade a new absolutism as relativism, and that stinks.

The civic teacher also thought me unAmerican and anti-American.  It used to be that, when a leftist told you that, you could take it as a compliment.  But that’s another one of those things that has changed.  Or has it? Today liberals love patriotism as long as they are running the show and hate the country when they don’t, but that’s another example of playing both sides of the street in American politics.

And we mean everybody:

Norbert Hofer, the candidate of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) in next month’s re-run presidential elections, wants Hungary to join a new alliance consisting of former members of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The far-right politician believes Central European countries with similar cultures, including Austria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic, should form a new bloc within the European Union.

Erdoğan and the Turks have been making noises about their own ambitions for some time now.  We noted that long before it became fashionable in the West to discuss such things.  Now the Austrians, with possible help from the Hungarians, are getting into the act.  The Russians probably would like to do the same.

The end of World War I saw the emergence of many ethnic states and some whose logic is hard to figure out (Yugoslavia and Iraq top that list.)  People thought that empires like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were a thing of the past.  European nationalism, however, has been poison in the Balkans and the Middle East ever since.  Maybe everywhere else, too: the EU is, in a sense, trying to go back to a super-national state.

Self determination is a great idea until you find out that “self” hasn’t quite figured out how to do it.