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: "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."
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:
"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!"
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:
"The question now is that 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. Guardian (London)
# 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 differencences, 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?"
Tillerson's statement contains a direct warning to China by twice using the phrase "leading to open conflict." Daily Star (London)
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. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
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:
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 Trump has told me that to my face."
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 over 15 years. 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.... Global Times (Beijing) and Daily Beast