WTF Journalism

Maybe this is unjust, but I'm sick and tired of hearing people trying to figure out other people's intentions. Instead, look at incentives, and look at capabilities. That's what matters. Sinica suggests the Diaoyu island policy is a legacy policy, and we don't know Xi's position.

Look how coordinated Chinese ministries have been in the approach. What about history? Chinese policy towards escalating tensions with India was methodical. Same thing with Chinese planning during the Korean war.

The thing that keeps China well behaved is a trade dependency. Once oil shale in China comes on line, that dependency changes, but it will still exist; China is dependent on food imports. What are the implications of that change? Is food easier to stockpile? Can China more easily afford a flareup? In other words, does this change China's risk appetite? These are the sorts of questions that interest me.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that journalism obsesses over minutia and epiphenomena. I suppose I've spent enough time around realists to believe intentions don't mean shit. China gives me little cause to rethink this belief.

Chinese foreign policy is becoming more aggressive, and the Chinese leadership seems oblivious to the fact that this is alienating others, or they just don't give a damn. Why don't they give a damn? Are they stupid? What do they know that we don't?

I think they're being stupid. Maybe they'll wise up. But maybe we're the idiots.