LONDON: The West is getting anxious about the possible impact of India and China's pledge to create an 'Asian century'.
13 April 2005
11 April 2005
The China-India Axis Revisited - Creation of an Asian Heartland
I refer to previous postings, namely "Wanted - a Political Oculist" and "US, NATO, Europe and the China-India Axis"
In both those posts, now republished I pointed out that the US has ignored events in Asia and elsewhere as a result of its disastrous and myopic focus on Iraq.
This week's news of the historic meetings and agreements between India and China support my long held view that the centre of global gravity is shifting inexorably away from both America and Europe to an Asian Heartland.
Once the long festering border dispute between the two countries is put to rest this week , close ties can be forged. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, made a proposition that the two giants collaborate not only in a regional free trade agreement, but build what could be a Hi-Tech colossus and economic powerhouse. See the following link:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67181,00.html
Just as important, if not more so, is the potential that the combined economies of India and China have to replace America as the engine that drives world commerce and/or add a new dimension to world trade. The two countries, representing 2.4 billion people or 40% of the world population could provide a consumer base far in excess of the 250 million Americans.
In addition, the creation of this commercial axis would liberate the world from being hostage to America’s mounting debt stemming from its financial profligacy. As matters now stand, countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, the UK and many others are forced to buy US Treasury bonds of increasingly doubtful value in order to prop up the US financial house of cards.. Should these creditors cease to buy the bonds or reduce the purchases, the dollar and with it the global economy, would go into free-fall. It would result in what one pundit describes as “mutual self-assured destruction” - if the US economy goes under, so do all the others. Without those purchases needed to finance America’s insatiable consumer appetite, US domestic consumption would decrease and the global economy would go into precipitous decline. The rest of the world is held hostage by one country’s economy, an economy that is being irresponsibly mismanaged by the Bush administration..
At present there is not alternative to the US economic engine, and that is precisely why India and China should be encouraged and supported to build a new global commercial and geopolitical heartland. The US is too short-sighted and self serving to recognise the advantage, and with the exception of France, Europe is simply too reliant on the United States politically, militarily and commercially.
Fortunately, unlike Europe, Asia, led by China and India, is not content to lean on America, and the sooner the Asian Heartland takes global leadership, the safer, saner and economically healthier the world will be.
A move away from a US dollar driven global economy and shift in commercial gravity will undoubtedly create turmoil in world markets and economies. A period of painful readjustment will take place, but readjust the world will.
In both those posts, now republished I pointed out that the US has ignored events in Asia and elsewhere as a result of its disastrous and myopic focus on Iraq.
This week's news of the historic meetings and agreements between India and China support my long held view that the centre of global gravity is shifting inexorably away from both America and Europe to an Asian Heartland.
Once the long festering border dispute between the two countries is put to rest this week , close ties can be forged. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, made a proposition that the two giants collaborate not only in a regional free trade agreement, but build what could be a Hi-Tech colossus and economic powerhouse. See the following link:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67181,00.html
Just as important, if not more so, is the potential that the combined economies of India and China have to replace America as the engine that drives world commerce and/or add a new dimension to world trade. The two countries, representing 2.4 billion people or 40% of the world population could provide a consumer base far in excess of the 250 million Americans.
In addition, the creation of this commercial axis would liberate the world from being hostage to America’s mounting debt stemming from its financial profligacy. As matters now stand, countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, the UK and many others are forced to buy US Treasury bonds of increasingly doubtful value in order to prop up the US financial house of cards.. Should these creditors cease to buy the bonds or reduce the purchases, the dollar and with it the global economy, would go into free-fall. It would result in what one pundit describes as “mutual self-assured destruction” - if the US economy goes under, so do all the others. Without those purchases needed to finance America’s insatiable consumer appetite, US domestic consumption would decrease and the global economy would go into precipitous decline. The rest of the world is held hostage by one country’s economy, an economy that is being irresponsibly mismanaged by the Bush administration..
At present there is not alternative to the US economic engine, and that is precisely why India and China should be encouraged and supported to build a new global commercial and geopolitical heartland. The US is too short-sighted and self serving to recognise the advantage, and with the exception of France, Europe is simply too reliant on the United States politically, militarily and commercially.
Fortunately, unlike Europe, Asia, led by China and India, is not content to lean on America, and the sooner the Asian Heartland takes global leadership, the safer, saner and economically healthier the world will be.
A move away from a US dollar driven global economy and shift in commercial gravity will undoubtedly create turmoil in world markets and economies. A period of painful readjustment will take place, but readjust the world will.
US, NATO, Europe and a China-India Axis
As Gerhard Schroeder posited last week, NATO is passé. It has served its purpose, one overtaken by world events and a “New Europe”, comprised of both old West and East Europe, should develop its own independent military capability.
"Old Europe", struggled to rebuild itself following WWII, while under threat from Soviet hegemony and was protected by the NATO shield under the leadership of the United States. NATO was the bulwark against communist expansion in West Europe and it did its job well. It protected both Western European and US economic interests. Under the circumstances of the war ravaged European economies, it fell to the US to finance and lead the alliance, a benefit to both parties.
Now that the Soviet threat to Old East and West Europe, no longer exists; there is no necessity for American leadership of what should be a European military alliance. Nevertheless, the United States balks at and opposes every attempt by the Europeans to cut the umbilical cord. As Mark Joyce, of the Royal United Services Institute, put it, "What the Americans fear is that the Europeans will develop a weapons capability that operates independently of NATO and could eventually emerge as a competitor to the United States."
That pretty well sums up the American global strategy – keep the world dependant, or at least thinking it is dependant on the United States. The United States wants to maintain its pre-eminent position in world affairs; that is precisely the reason the Europeans should develop into a full fledged economic and military competitor to the United States, and craft their own foreign policy independent from the US one.
This will be difficult, considering the lack of global political and economic clout it presently wields, but if Europe were to build a stronger alliance with an India-China axis, it could be done. Neither bloc presently is strong enough to stand up to the US, but together they could forge a significant power base. The biggest single obstacle is the lack of internal cohesion in the EU, particularly with a US sycophant, the UK, in its midst.
One way to circumvent this problem is for countries more apt to oppose US policies, such as France, to build stronger bilateral ties to the China-India axis. France is already working in this direction with commercial agreements and joint military exercises with both India and China. Russia, becoming increasingly fed up with America’s meddling and moralizing, is also making overtures to both India and China with a view to forming an alliance of contiguous nations to thwart United States global designs. If the EU as an entity continues to bend to the will of the US, there needs to be more such activity on the part of individual nations. EU countries can help fill the technological gaps in China’s military and industry; they will in turn benefit from trade with what is becoming the world’s biggest market and ally themselves with a bloc that wields global political, commercial and military power. Russia with its huge oil reserves, can supply badly needed petroleum to both China and India and benefit economically from those sales and sales of military equipment. By binding itself politically with China and India, Russia also stands to regain some of its lost leverage and national pride.
Europe (456 million), Russia (144 billion), China (1.3 billion) India (1.1 billion) – a population of 3 billion, just under 50% of the world total, ten times that of the United States. With the exception of Russia, each constituent part larger than the United States. Truly a powerhouse in the offing.
"Old Europe", struggled to rebuild itself following WWII, while under threat from Soviet hegemony and was protected by the NATO shield under the leadership of the United States. NATO was the bulwark against communist expansion in West Europe and it did its job well. It protected both Western European and US economic interests. Under the circumstances of the war ravaged European economies, it fell to the US to finance and lead the alliance, a benefit to both parties.
Now that the Soviet threat to Old East and West Europe, no longer exists; there is no necessity for American leadership of what should be a European military alliance. Nevertheless, the United States balks at and opposes every attempt by the Europeans to cut the umbilical cord. As Mark Joyce, of the Royal United Services Institute, put it, "What the Americans fear is that the Europeans will develop a weapons capability that operates independently of NATO and could eventually emerge as a competitor to the United States."
That pretty well sums up the American global strategy – keep the world dependant, or at least thinking it is dependant on the United States. The United States wants to maintain its pre-eminent position in world affairs; that is precisely the reason the Europeans should develop into a full fledged economic and military competitor to the United States, and craft their own foreign policy independent from the US one.
This will be difficult, considering the lack of global political and economic clout it presently wields, but if Europe were to build a stronger alliance with an India-China axis, it could be done. Neither bloc presently is strong enough to stand up to the US, but together they could forge a significant power base. The biggest single obstacle is the lack of internal cohesion in the EU, particularly with a US sycophant, the UK, in its midst.
One way to circumvent this problem is for countries more apt to oppose US policies, such as France, to build stronger bilateral ties to the China-India axis. France is already working in this direction with commercial agreements and joint military exercises with both India and China. Russia, becoming increasingly fed up with America’s meddling and moralizing, is also making overtures to both India and China with a view to forming an alliance of contiguous nations to thwart United States global designs. If the EU as an entity continues to bend to the will of the US, there needs to be more such activity on the part of individual nations. EU countries can help fill the technological gaps in China’s military and industry; they will in turn benefit from trade with what is becoming the world’s biggest market and ally themselves with a bloc that wields global political, commercial and military power. Russia with its huge oil reserves, can supply badly needed petroleum to both China and India and benefit economically from those sales and sales of military equipment. By binding itself politically with China and India, Russia also stands to regain some of its lost leverage and national pride.
Europe (456 million), Russia (144 billion), China (1.3 billion) India (1.1 billion) – a population of 3 billion, just under 50% of the world total, ten times that of the United States. With the exception of Russia, each constituent part larger than the United States. Truly a powerhouse in the offing.
2 April 2005
Iraq, a Failed State
With elections in Iraq due on 7 March I reprint below a paper I wrote in April 2005, now right on five years ago. I believe what I wrote was, and still is relevant
The events of the past week in Iraq, the abortive attempts to form a government amongst the fractious parties have brought into sharp relief the deep and inherent differences separating them. The situation has more than ever underscored the importance of applied Geopolitics in nation building.
This post is a lengthy one, but if the subject is to be studied seriously, there are many considerations to be taken on board and analysed. Bear with me.
In order to consider as objectively as possible the viability of an “Iraqi” state or nation I believe it behooves one to look both into history and political philosophy for reference points.
Since August 2002 I have written often of my belief that an invasion of Iraq with the objective of promoting democracy and transforming that country into a stable nation state would prove well nigh impossible and counterproductive. My reasoning was based on a study of Geopolitics and how it relates to foreign policy, and not prompted by US domestic politics preferences. In that regard, there is not, nor has there been in recent history, any substantial difference between the two major political parties.
Now, almost three years later, just over two years after the invasion and two months following the elections in Iraq it would appear my fears are being realised.
In August 2002 I warned that the US was once again ignoring history in favour of wishful thinking. I pointed to the British experience in Mesopotamia in 1920; the ill-fated attempt to bring together the disparate parts of that benighted territory – the Sunni and the Shia, who were at each other’s throats in a bloody war. The British did indeed bring them together, redrew the map and created a new country which they duly anointed “Iraq”. The irony and tragedy of that success was that the warring parties bonded to fight and eventually drive out the infidel British. Finally, after constant strife and loss of 2000-3000 troops, the British turned over “Iraq” to an off the shelf monarch, Faisal, in 1921. Since then, that arbitrary geopolitical creation, Iraq, has been ruled by a succession of despots, the only way it could survive given the incompatibility of the constituent cultures.
For those wishing to read more on the subject of the British experience in Iraq I refer you to the following two brief articles:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr20/firaq1920.htm
http://hnn.us/comments/8770.html
The United States, having ignored or having been ignorant of that historical episode, decided to proceed on the same well trodden and failed path in 2003.
What the US has been trying to do not only ignores history, it flies in the face of what my professor of Geopolitics at SFS Georgetown University described as one the basic principles of Geopolitics, raison d’etre; it goes against the basis of what constitutes a nation or nation-state, a reason for being.
In writing this post I thought it a good idea to re-examine the nature of a nation or nation-state under the lens of contemporary thought; then, see if present day Iraq, or rather its fissiparous parts, qualify for that appellation.
If one consults dictionaries or an encyclopaedia, one is more likely than not to come up with some fairly simplistic definitions, to wit:
Merriam Webster: nation-state, a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities
Brittanica: People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community. Their political identity usually comprises such characteristics as a common language, culture, ethnicity, and history. More than one nation may comprise a state, but the terms nation, state, and country are often used interchangeably. A nation-state is a state populated primarily by the people of one nationality.
Then there are the following:
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.web-savvy.com/river/schuylkill/glossary.html
Once a synonym for "ethnic group," designating a single culture sharing a language, religion, history, territory, ancestry, and kinship; now usually a synonym for state or nation-state.highered.mcgraw-ill.com/sites/0072426527/student_view0/chapter12/key_terms.html
In researching this topic one of the most reasoned but lengthy discourses I came across was produced by Dr. John G. Boswell, Professor of Education, George Washington University. The link to his full tract is below:
http://www.gwu.edu/~edpol/manuscript/Chap1-2.htm
For purposes of this post I shall merely extract some of the relevant arguments in which he takes care to differentiate amongst State, Nation and Nation-State. I quote:
“Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was "nasty, brutish, and short," individuals must necessarily surrender many of their rights -- including that of attacking each other -- to the "Leviathan", a unified and centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the "government": the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state.”
“For Weber, this was an "ideal type" or model or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (in June-July 2004) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and various militias and terrorist groups, while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. (This situation has been called that of a "failed state.") The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the important role of U.S. domination.”
“A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is important to the establishment of its sovereignty. The "state" can also be defined in terms of domestic conditions, specifically the role of the monopolization of the legitimate use of force within a country.”
“nation— or an ethnos ("ethnic group")— is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.”
He goes on to point out “Nations are often thought of as having a common language. However, language fits Japan and Britain, but not India and Canada, and certainly not Nigeria. Ethnicity is another attribute often used in thinking about nation. While the Japanese see themselves as ethnically homogeneous, the Swiss are multi-ethnic. Religion is another often used characteristic of nation, but, the rise of secularism in the modern world that has made religion less of a force in some societies. Further, for every Poland and Saudi Arabia with their single, dominant religion, there are an India and a United States with varieties of religious belief.”
So where does all this leave us in characterizing the status of Iraq Version 2005?
Going beyond Boswell’s statement above that Iraq is a “failed state”; that it lacked sovereignty because it shared the necessary tools of violence and because of US influence, I believe there are other more salient arguments. Let us take the various common points raised in the several definitions of nation or nation-state and see how they apply to a unified Iraq.
Religion: As Boswell posits, there are indeed nations which have diverse religions such as India and the United States, but the former has been wracked by internecine religious warfare for centuries. As for the United States, secularism was dominant but it would seem to be losing out to increasing influence of religious fundamentalism and is in danger of acting as a divisive not a unifying force. North Ireland can hardly be regarded as a example of people living together in religious harmony, nor can Nigeria with its periodic civil strife between Muslims and Christians. Then, and more to the point, where do the Sunni and Shia live in complete peace – that is, unless they are united in fighting a common enemy? Weighted value: Considering the almost fanatical loyalty and belief extant in Islam I would have to award Religion a value of 85.
Common ancestry: Despite the assertion by the Kurds that they are distinctive, in the mists of history they do share a common heritage of sorts bound together by living in the same general neighbourhood as the Sunni and Shia. Weighted value: Almost insignificant – at most a 5
Language: There is a common language, Arabic, shared by the Sunni and Shia, but the Kurds take great pride in promoting the use of their own Kurdish tongue. I have often contended that language is the glue that holds a culture together, but I believe it is not the only factor necessary for cultural cohesion. Without a common language it is difficult, even in well developed countries such as Belgium and Switzerland to carry on daily civic affairs. At the very least a fully multi-linguistic society creates an enormous bureaucracy and paperwork to satisfy the sensibilities of the various language groups. The old USSR laboured for seven decades to impose the Russian language on all its Republics without total success. However, against the backdrop of religious differences in the context of Iraq it is not as significant. Weighted Value: 10
Common Interest: Here is the rub and the nub of the problem. For people of diverse beliefs and culture to live in harmony, there must be an overriding common interest, a benefit in the case of the Sunni and Shia that will override the trenchant differences that have divided them for centuries.
One must ask what the relative advantages are of a unified Iraq that could overcome the seemingly rigid ideology that stirs such passion?
For the Kurds, I see no advantage. They have within the territory considered theirs, The Asset, oil. From that they can build a prosperous society, and have their long cherished dream of being independent, of having a Kurdish State. I am not arguing the external considerations here, namely the objections by Turkey, the fear of a Greater Kurdistan. I am merely putting forward what is of interest to the Kurds.
The Shiites also have nothing in particular to gain from melding their culture with the Sunni or with the Kurds in the north. Under Shia soil lie some of the biggest oil reserves in the Middle east. All that is lacking is development and there will be no wanting for countries happy to finance and carry forward that work, something that was already in process before the war. Furthermore, their Iranian Shia brethren to the East will be on standby to provide political and military support to them should it be needed.
Ironically, the Sunni are the ones that would profit the most from a unified Iraq, yet they are the least disposed to collaborate. Why? Two reasons: 1) because of the profound religious differences separating them and 2) as a distinct minority, they are loathe to subjugate themselves to people they formerly ruled and repressed. The Sunni, electing to be marginalised will, I fear, become a refuge and platform for continuing instability in the region. They have no industrial or natural resource base but they will be sustained by negative forces, internal and external, whose interests are to create turmoil.
The latter point takes us back to my question as to whether there are common interests and practical considerations which can overcome ages old prejudices and cultural divides. I conclude that in the case of Iraq the answer is a resounding NO. Self interest, even if destructive, plays a more decisive role.
Weighted Value: Theoretically common interest should be a major factor in encouraging cooperation and the formation of a Nation-State, but in Iraq, ideology and self interest trump – Value 0.
All considered, it is possible that Iraq could be held together into something vaguely resembling a Nation-State, but only in the short term, and only in an atmosphere of continuing strife and civil war. In the medium to long term, the internal, centrifugal forces would tear it apart.
My final words are that I recommend the US foreign policy establishment review the basic principles of Geopolitics before embarking on similar misadventures or before staying with the present policy that can lead only to an Iraq that is a Failed State.
2 April 2005
Baoluo
The events of the past week in Iraq, the abortive attempts to form a government amongst the fractious parties have brought into sharp relief the deep and inherent differences separating them. The situation has more than ever underscored the importance of applied Geopolitics in nation building.
This post is a lengthy one, but if the subject is to be studied seriously, there are many considerations to be taken on board and analysed. Bear with me.
In order to consider as objectively as possible the viability of an “Iraqi” state or nation I believe it behooves one to look both into history and political philosophy for reference points.
Since August 2002 I have written often of my belief that an invasion of Iraq with the objective of promoting democracy and transforming that country into a stable nation state would prove well nigh impossible and counterproductive. My reasoning was based on a study of Geopolitics and how it relates to foreign policy, and not prompted by US domestic politics preferences. In that regard, there is not, nor has there been in recent history, any substantial difference between the two major political parties.
Now, almost three years later, just over two years after the invasion and two months following the elections in Iraq it would appear my fears are being realised.
In August 2002 I warned that the US was once again ignoring history in favour of wishful thinking. I pointed to the British experience in Mesopotamia in 1920; the ill-fated attempt to bring together the disparate parts of that benighted territory – the Sunni and the Shia, who were at each other’s throats in a bloody war. The British did indeed bring them together, redrew the map and created a new country which they duly anointed “Iraq”. The irony and tragedy of that success was that the warring parties bonded to fight and eventually drive out the infidel British. Finally, after constant strife and loss of 2000-3000 troops, the British turned over “Iraq” to an off the shelf monarch, Faisal, in 1921. Since then, that arbitrary geopolitical creation, Iraq, has been ruled by a succession of despots, the only way it could survive given the incompatibility of the constituent cultures.
For those wishing to read more on the subject of the British experience in Iraq I refer you to the following two brief articles:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr20/firaq1920.htm
http://hnn.us/comments/8770.html
The United States, having ignored or having been ignorant of that historical episode, decided to proceed on the same well trodden and failed path in 2003.
What the US has been trying to do not only ignores history, it flies in the face of what my professor of Geopolitics at SFS Georgetown University described as one the basic principles of Geopolitics, raison d’etre; it goes against the basis of what constitutes a nation or nation-state, a reason for being.
In writing this post I thought it a good idea to re-examine the nature of a nation or nation-state under the lens of contemporary thought; then, see if present day Iraq, or rather its fissiparous parts, qualify for that appellation.
If one consults dictionaries or an encyclopaedia, one is more likely than not to come up with some fairly simplistic definitions, to wit:
Merriam Webster: nation-state, a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities
Brittanica: People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community. Their political identity usually comprises such characteristics as a common language, culture, ethnicity, and history. More than one nation may comprise a state, but the terms nation, state, and country are often used interchangeably. A nation-state is a state populated primarily by the people of one nationality.
Then there are the following:
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.web-savvy.com/river/schuylkill/glossary.html
Once a synonym for "ethnic group," designating a single culture sharing a language, religion, history, territory, ancestry, and kinship; now usually a synonym for state or nation-state.highered.mcgraw-ill.com/sites/0072426527/student_view0/chapter12/key_terms.html
In researching this topic one of the most reasoned but lengthy discourses I came across was produced by Dr. John G. Boswell, Professor of Education, George Washington University. The link to his full tract is below:
http://www.gwu.edu/~edpol/manuscript/Chap1-2.htm
For purposes of this post I shall merely extract some of the relevant arguments in which he takes care to differentiate amongst State, Nation and Nation-State. I quote:
“Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was "nasty, brutish, and short," individuals must necessarily surrender many of their rights -- including that of attacking each other -- to the "Leviathan", a unified and centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the "government": the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state.”
“For Weber, this was an "ideal type" or model or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (in June-July 2004) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and various militias and terrorist groups, while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. (This situation has been called that of a "failed state.") The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the important role of U.S. domination.”
“A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is important to the establishment of its sovereignty. The "state" can also be defined in terms of domestic conditions, specifically the role of the monopolization of the legitimate use of force within a country.”
“nation— or an ethnos ("ethnic group")— is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.”
He goes on to point out “Nations are often thought of as having a common language. However, language fits Japan and Britain, but not India and Canada, and certainly not Nigeria. Ethnicity is another attribute often used in thinking about nation. While the Japanese see themselves as ethnically homogeneous, the Swiss are multi-ethnic. Religion is another often used characteristic of nation, but, the rise of secularism in the modern world that has made religion less of a force in some societies. Further, for every Poland and Saudi Arabia with their single, dominant religion, there are an India and a United States with varieties of religious belief.”
So where does all this leave us in characterizing the status of Iraq Version 2005?
Going beyond Boswell’s statement above that Iraq is a “failed state”; that it lacked sovereignty because it shared the necessary tools of violence and because of US influence, I believe there are other more salient arguments. Let us take the various common points raised in the several definitions of nation or nation-state and see how they apply to a unified Iraq.
Religion: As Boswell posits, there are indeed nations which have diverse religions such as India and the United States, but the former has been wracked by internecine religious warfare for centuries. As for the United States, secularism was dominant but it would seem to be losing out to increasing influence of religious fundamentalism and is in danger of acting as a divisive not a unifying force. North Ireland can hardly be regarded as a example of people living together in religious harmony, nor can Nigeria with its periodic civil strife between Muslims and Christians. Then, and more to the point, where do the Sunni and Shia live in complete peace – that is, unless they are united in fighting a common enemy? Weighted value: Considering the almost fanatical loyalty and belief extant in Islam I would have to award Religion a value of 85.
Common ancestry: Despite the assertion by the Kurds that they are distinctive, in the mists of history they do share a common heritage of sorts bound together by living in the same general neighbourhood as the Sunni and Shia. Weighted value: Almost insignificant – at most a 5
Language: There is a common language, Arabic, shared by the Sunni and Shia, but the Kurds take great pride in promoting the use of their own Kurdish tongue. I have often contended that language is the glue that holds a culture together, but I believe it is not the only factor necessary for cultural cohesion. Without a common language it is difficult, even in well developed countries such as Belgium and Switzerland to carry on daily civic affairs. At the very least a fully multi-linguistic society creates an enormous bureaucracy and paperwork to satisfy the sensibilities of the various language groups. The old USSR laboured for seven decades to impose the Russian language on all its Republics without total success. However, against the backdrop of religious differences in the context of Iraq it is not as significant. Weighted Value: 10
Common Interest: Here is the rub and the nub of the problem. For people of diverse beliefs and culture to live in harmony, there must be an overriding common interest, a benefit in the case of the Sunni and Shia that will override the trenchant differences that have divided them for centuries.
One must ask what the relative advantages are of a unified Iraq that could overcome the seemingly rigid ideology that stirs such passion?
For the Kurds, I see no advantage. They have within the territory considered theirs, The Asset, oil. From that they can build a prosperous society, and have their long cherished dream of being independent, of having a Kurdish State. I am not arguing the external considerations here, namely the objections by Turkey, the fear of a Greater Kurdistan. I am merely putting forward what is of interest to the Kurds.
The Shiites also have nothing in particular to gain from melding their culture with the Sunni or with the Kurds in the north. Under Shia soil lie some of the biggest oil reserves in the Middle east. All that is lacking is development and there will be no wanting for countries happy to finance and carry forward that work, something that was already in process before the war. Furthermore, their Iranian Shia brethren to the East will be on standby to provide political and military support to them should it be needed.
Ironically, the Sunni are the ones that would profit the most from a unified Iraq, yet they are the least disposed to collaborate. Why? Two reasons: 1) because of the profound religious differences separating them and 2) as a distinct minority, they are loathe to subjugate themselves to people they formerly ruled and repressed. The Sunni, electing to be marginalised will, I fear, become a refuge and platform for continuing instability in the region. They have no industrial or natural resource base but they will be sustained by negative forces, internal and external, whose interests are to create turmoil.
The latter point takes us back to my question as to whether there are common interests and practical considerations which can overcome ages old prejudices and cultural divides. I conclude that in the case of Iraq the answer is a resounding NO. Self interest, even if destructive, plays a more decisive role.
Weighted Value: Theoretically common interest should be a major factor in encouraging cooperation and the formation of a Nation-State, but in Iraq, ideology and self interest trump – Value 0.
All considered, it is possible that Iraq could be held together into something vaguely resembling a Nation-State, but only in the short term, and only in an atmosphere of continuing strife and civil war. In the medium to long term, the internal, centrifugal forces would tear it apart.
My final words are that I recommend the US foreign policy establishment review the basic principles of Geopolitics before embarking on similar misadventures or before staying with the present policy that can lead only to an Iraq that is a Failed State.
2 April 2005
Baoluo
More on Latin America
Reference my previous post on Latin America, 23 March - see the following article from the Washington Post
Chavez Uses Presidential Summit to Chide U.S.
Chavez Uses Presidential Summit to Chide U.S.
By Silene Ramirez
CIUDAD GUAYANA, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan PresidentHugo Chavez on Tuesday dismissed U.S. criticism of his leftistrule at a summit with the leaders of Brazil, Colombia and Spainand said new geopolitical alliances were emerging in the world.
More on Pakistan
Reference my previous post of 22 March - Pakistan a Powder Keg. See the following article from The Asia Times.
Pakistan approaches boiling point
Pakistan approaches boiling point
Revitalized religious-political opposition parties in Pakistan are stepping up the pressure on President General Pervez Musharraf, after the success of their recent "Million March" in Karachi. Sidelined jihadis are ready to enter the fray, while the economy is a time bomb waiting to go off. Political and economic realities are pushing Musharraf further and further into a corner. - Syed Saleem Shahzad and Masood Anwar
[via Asia Times Online]
Foreign Policy Blunders Update 3 - The Pakistani Powder Keg
Since the invasion of Iraq, I have been warning that Pakistan is potentially a far more important geopolitical linchpin than Iraq, Iran, or North Korea.
Now,following Rice’s pronouncements lauding Musharraf and his alleged efforts to lead Pakistan down the path of democracy, it was interesting to note the massive demonstration against his regime and against his unstinting support for the United States two days ago. Musharraf, now praised by Rice, was reviled by the United States in 1999 when he executed a military coup d’etat and appointed himself President and Chief of the Armed Forces. That tag stayed on Musharraf until the US woke up to the need for an alliance with Pakistan after 9/11. From that point until now, he has been slowly rehabilitated and repackaged as a regional beacon of democracy.
This political sleight of hand has not been easy what with the news that the Pakistani Father of The Bomb had been sharing and selling his expertise to all and sundry, from North Korea to Libya. Our erstwhile ally and great democratic hope, General President Musharraf, very likely was aware of his good friend Khan's extracurricular activities.
For more on the subject of Pakistan, its nukes and Khan click on the following link:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC24Df03.html
Lying as it does between Afghanistan and India, with a population of 159 million, 97% of whom are Muslim, 80% of which are Sunni Muslims, makes Pakistan a geopolitical pivot point. With its large Muslim population, it is second only to Indonesia in that regard. The Western provinces, bordering on Afghanistan, in last year’s elections voted overwhelmingly for radical Islamic parties, and many areas have become no-go zones for Pakistan’s armed forces and a safe haven for Taliban and perhaps, Osama bin Laden. The Pakistan army and its intelligence services, have been thoroughly infiltrated by Islamic sympathisers and are considered to be of very doubtful reliability by the US. They would be the key to the overthrow of Musharraf.
Pakistan also possesses The Bomb and the wherewithal to deliver it to nearby targets, such as India, its longstanding regional foe which also possesses The Bomb and delivery systems. Pakistan is now working to develop a long range nuclear missile delivery capability that would extend that radius to the Mediterranean.
Thus, when one does a simple equation involving Pakistan and the following factors:
A= large Sunni population
B= a substantial opposition to the United States
C= growing opposition to Musharraf’s support of the United States
D= Neighbor and enemy of India
E= Already possesses The Bomb
X= The Apocalypse in various manifestations
any variation of the four constituent parts of the equation could add up to a very dangerous solution:
A+B+C = X these are theconstants. The large and increasingly hostile anti-American, Sunni population replacing the pro-US Musharraf regime with an Islamic Republic. From that volatile set of factors flow the following possibilities:
A+C+D+E = X1 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could precipitate a regional nuclear war with India. This variation would have a United States, without the necessary military resources to take on The Islamic Republic of Pakistan call upon India to act as the US surrogate and attack Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. India could well take such a decision fearing a preemptive nuclear strike by an Islamic Pakistan.
A+B+C+D+E = X2 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could lead to revived support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and a head on clash with the United States. Any attempt by the US to perform a surgical and preemptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities would trigger an all-out ground war and force the United States into another conflict when it does not have the resources to fight the one in Iraq; India would unquestionably be dragged into the war and quite possibly Indonesia.
The US would be well advised to “war game” this scenario, one that has developed as a direct consequence of the Iraqi war, and one potentially far more threatening than either Iran or North Korea. However, considering the US's inability to look ahead farther than what captures its immediate attention, it is not wise to expect much in the way of forward planning from Washington.
baoluo
Now,following Rice’s pronouncements lauding Musharraf and his alleged efforts to lead Pakistan down the path of democracy, it was interesting to note the massive demonstration against his regime and against his unstinting support for the United States two days ago. Musharraf, now praised by Rice, was reviled by the United States in 1999 when he executed a military coup d’etat and appointed himself President and Chief of the Armed Forces. That tag stayed on Musharraf until the US woke up to the need for an alliance with Pakistan after 9/11. From that point until now, he has been slowly rehabilitated and repackaged as a regional beacon of democracy.
This political sleight of hand has not been easy what with the news that the Pakistani Father of The Bomb had been sharing and selling his expertise to all and sundry, from North Korea to Libya. Our erstwhile ally and great democratic hope, General President Musharraf, very likely was aware of his good friend Khan's extracurricular activities.
For more on the subject of Pakistan, its nukes and Khan click on the following link:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC24Df03.html
Lying as it does between Afghanistan and India, with a population of 159 million, 97% of whom are Muslim, 80% of which are Sunni Muslims, makes Pakistan a geopolitical pivot point. With its large Muslim population, it is second only to Indonesia in that regard. The Western provinces, bordering on Afghanistan, in last year’s elections voted overwhelmingly for radical Islamic parties, and many areas have become no-go zones for Pakistan’s armed forces and a safe haven for Taliban and perhaps, Osama bin Laden. The Pakistan army and its intelligence services, have been thoroughly infiltrated by Islamic sympathisers and are considered to be of very doubtful reliability by the US. They would be the key to the overthrow of Musharraf.
Pakistan also possesses The Bomb and the wherewithal to deliver it to nearby targets, such as India, its longstanding regional foe which also possesses The Bomb and delivery systems. Pakistan is now working to develop a long range nuclear missile delivery capability that would extend that radius to the Mediterranean.
Thus, when one does a simple equation involving Pakistan and the following factors:
A= large Sunni population
B= a substantial opposition to the United States
C= growing opposition to Musharraf’s support of the United States
D= Neighbor and enemy of India
E= Already possesses The Bomb
X= The Apocalypse in various manifestations
any variation of the four constituent parts of the equation could add up to a very dangerous solution:
A+B+C = X these are theconstants. The large and increasingly hostile anti-American, Sunni population replacing the pro-US Musharraf regime with an Islamic Republic. From that volatile set of factors flow the following possibilities:
A+C+D+E = X1 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could precipitate a regional nuclear war with India. This variation would have a United States, without the necessary military resources to take on The Islamic Republic of Pakistan call upon India to act as the US surrogate and attack Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. India could well take such a decision fearing a preemptive nuclear strike by an Islamic Pakistan.
A+B+C+D+E = X2 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could lead to revived support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and a head on clash with the United States. Any attempt by the US to perform a surgical and preemptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities would trigger an all-out ground war and force the United States into another conflict when it does not have the resources to fight the one in Iraq; India would unquestionably be dragged into the war and quite possibly Indonesia.
The US would be well advised to “war game” this scenario, one that has developed as a direct consequence of the Iraqi war, and one potentially far more threatening than either Iran or North Korea. However, considering the US's inability to look ahead farther than what captures its immediate attention, it is not wise to expect much in the way of forward planning from Washington.
baoluo
Latin America - a changing political environment, and statesmanship
In an earlier post I wrote of America’s alliances burning while it fiddles in Iraq. In yet another, I observed that China is busy building alliances around the globe, including in the US’s own backyard as it were, Latin America.
Latin America, alas, has always been fertile ground for ferment, and not always in its best interests. No less than Simon Bolivar, the vaunted and still revered liberator of several South American countries wrote the following words as he neared his end:
"I was in command for twenty years, and during that time came to only a few definite conclusions: (1) I consider that, for us, [Latin] America is ungovernable; (2) whoever works for a revolution is plowing the sea; (3) the most sensible action to take in [Latin] America is to emigrate;(4) this country [Great Columbia, later to be divided into Columbia, Venezuela, and Equador] will ineluctably fall into the hands of a mob gone wild, later again to fall under the domination of obscure small tyrants of every color and race; (5) though decimated by every kind of crime and exhausted by our cruel excesses, we shall still not be tempting to Europeans for a reconquest;(6) if any part of the world were to return to a primeval chaos, such would be the last avatar of [Latin] America." (Quoted in Carlos Rangel's “The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship With the United States”
Since then, Latin America has indeed had a stormy history, trading domination by Spain for the corruption and repression of its own homegrown tyrants.
In recent times, post WWII, it became a battleground for political conquest between the USSR and the USA. Aside from the strategic threat to America, the USA, under the Monroe Doctrine, has always asserted its right to thwart an attempt by a non-Western hemisphere power to intrude on what it considers its patch.
During the Cold War America fought tenaciously and employed any method and anyone to that end, and with the exception of a close brush with Cuba, pretty well succeeded. There were a few temporary glitches, as in the case of Chile and Allende but that was put to bed fairly quickly by Pinochet and, of course, Nicaragua, once again on the boil.
Now, however, Latin America seems to have drifted off the US geopolitical radar, which does not seem to be picking up some alarming signals emanating from that region. Argentina with Kirchner has moved to the left, and thumbed his nose at Argentina’s international creditors by restructuring their huge debt and agreeing to repay only $0.35 on the dollar. Moving a tad north, sleepy Uruguay, in the doldrums for many a year, has made headlines by electing a leftist government and inviting the heretofore pariah Castro to the presidential inauguration; Bolivia, with a leftist populist administration in the making has begun a controversial land reform and is saying nasty things about the United States and making very complimentary remarks about Cuba and Venezuela.
Then, a really big blip missing on the US screen – Brasil. For the first time I can recall, since the short lived government of Jango Goulart in the 1960s, Brasilian voters brought to power a leftist administration under the guiding hand of the charismatic, life-long labour agitator, “Lula”, now President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Passing over the ever chaotic countries of Peru, and Ecuador and drug and terrorist nest Colombia, we arrive in Venezuela, home to Hugo Chavez the president, and the fifth largest producer of oil in the world which accounts for 13% of the US oil supply. Chavez, self appointed Bolivarian liberator of Latin America, has made a point of cultivating ties with Iran, Libya, China, India and France none of which are exactly on the warmest of terms with the US. In addition to his anti-American tirades, he is busy forging a decidedly left wing socialist alliance amongst the aforementioned Latin American nations, preferably under his tutelage and leadership. Not only could Chavez create serious problems for the US economy by reducing oil supplies, he could reignite a war over long simmering differences with Colombia, a key US ally in the war on drugs.
Suddenly, Cuba, lonely and pining for a sugar daddy since the USSR went broke now finds itself welcome in some significant neighboring company.
What is the US doing amidst this sea change? Well, just recently, this week, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, toured Latin America while his fellow apostle, Rice, did Asia. Presumably Rumsfeld was tipped for the task of mending fences with the Latinos because of his proved tact and diplomacy in dealing with US European allies.
In his recent peregrinations, he has concentrated on the following issues:
While in Argentina, he chastised Venezuela for wanting to buy 100,000 AK-47s from Russia. He said, “I cannot understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s” I guess US Intelligence, an oxymoron if ever there were one, has not been able to figure that out any better than Iraq. It would not be too far fetched to surmise Chavez would like to arm a loyal militia considering the attempts that have been made to do away with him both from within and without. He has the great mass of the poor and downtrodden in his country behind him, and with guns in their hands they could wield quite a bit influence and support for him. In addition to internal opposition, he has expressed fears of a US move to overthrow him. I think that must be in the cards considering the US dependence on Venezuela’s oil, but I would rule out an outright invasion. Where would the US come up with the troops? They need all the boots they can muster in Iraq.
Continuing Rumsfeld’s contribution to making the Latins love America, he also visited Brasil where he raised the same issue of Venezuela with Brazil's vice president and defence minister, Jose Alencar, who declined to offer similar criticism of Chavez. Alencar would only say that Brasil respects the right of self-determination of other countries, an alien concept to Rumsfeld, Rice and the Bush regime.
When one contrasts the headlines generated by Rumsfeld in his visits to Brasil and Argentina with those publicised during the visit by the Chinese President to the same countries, the difference is striking. Following are the lead stories on President Hu Jintao’s visits to Argentina and Brasil
“Hu said in a written speech upon arrival at the airport that he will discuss major international and regional issues with them and "learn from the experiences of Chile's development and success."
“China will invest nearly $20bn (£11bn) in Argentina over the next 10 years. The announcement of the trade and investment deals came on the first day of a state visit to Argentina by China's President Hu Jintao.”
“During the visit, Brazil met Chinese wishes to recognise it as a market economy. In return, Brazil was granted greater access to China's market for chicken and beef products. The beef deal alone is expected to be worth $600m (£324m) a year for Brazil, ministers said. It also gained a commitment from China to order at least 10 aeroplanes from Brazilian maker Embraer, reported the AFP news agency. To facilitate trade, the Chinese are offering between $5bn (£3bn) and $7bn (£4bn) worth of investment to improve Brazil's roads, railways and ports.“
No threats, no warnings, no hectoring and lecturing about democracy; no fear mongering about “terism”; no attempts to enlist them in a war against Iraq, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea. Instead, China pursues a low key policy built on enterprise and investment in other countries. China, unlike the US, is not attempting to involve itself in the quagmire of Latin American politics; China has heeded Bolivar’s admonitions and learned from America’s failures in that regard.
Harking back to my post on Weiqi and strategic thinking, and looking at the global geopolitical game being played out, the US is losing territory, influence and respect apace. Even to keep its traditional European allies in line, the US has to rely on threats of economic and technological sanctions (reference the recent clash over the arms embargo on China). Regions once considered to be solid allies of the United States are now being courted successfully by the Chinese. Southeast Asia, and Latin America are the most obvious examples of this policy; it is worth noting that with the exception of the United States, and its satrapies of Taiwan and Japan, China has no significant enemies. The same cannot be said for the United States.
However, the US seems impervious to changes taking place in the world, following instead a policy based on a rigid and doctrinaire ideology, one that can only lead to its undoing.
Latin America, alas, has always been fertile ground for ferment, and not always in its best interests. No less than Simon Bolivar, the vaunted and still revered liberator of several South American countries wrote the following words as he neared his end:
"I was in command for twenty years, and during that time came to only a few definite conclusions: (1) I consider that, for us, [Latin] America is ungovernable; (2) whoever works for a revolution is plowing the sea; (3) the most sensible action to take in [Latin] America is to emigrate;(4) this country [Great Columbia, later to be divided into Columbia, Venezuela, and Equador] will ineluctably fall into the hands of a mob gone wild, later again to fall under the domination of obscure small tyrants of every color and race; (5) though decimated by every kind of crime and exhausted by our cruel excesses, we shall still not be tempting to Europeans for a reconquest;(6) if any part of the world were to return to a primeval chaos, such would be the last avatar of [Latin] America." (Quoted in Carlos Rangel's “The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship With the United States”
Since then, Latin America has indeed had a stormy history, trading domination by Spain for the corruption and repression of its own homegrown tyrants.
In recent times, post WWII, it became a battleground for political conquest between the USSR and the USA. Aside from the strategic threat to America, the USA, under the Monroe Doctrine, has always asserted its right to thwart an attempt by a non-Western hemisphere power to intrude on what it considers its patch.
During the Cold War America fought tenaciously and employed any method and anyone to that end, and with the exception of a close brush with Cuba, pretty well succeeded. There were a few temporary glitches, as in the case of Chile and Allende but that was put to bed fairly quickly by Pinochet and, of course, Nicaragua, once again on the boil.
Now, however, Latin America seems to have drifted off the US geopolitical radar, which does not seem to be picking up some alarming signals emanating from that region. Argentina with Kirchner has moved to the left, and thumbed his nose at Argentina’s international creditors by restructuring their huge debt and agreeing to repay only $0.35 on the dollar. Moving a tad north, sleepy Uruguay, in the doldrums for many a year, has made headlines by electing a leftist government and inviting the heretofore pariah Castro to the presidential inauguration; Bolivia, with a leftist populist administration in the making has begun a controversial land reform and is saying nasty things about the United States and making very complimentary remarks about Cuba and Venezuela.
Then, a really big blip missing on the US screen – Brasil. For the first time I can recall, since the short lived government of Jango Goulart in the 1960s, Brasilian voters brought to power a leftist administration under the guiding hand of the charismatic, life-long labour agitator, “Lula”, now President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Passing over the ever chaotic countries of Peru, and Ecuador and drug and terrorist nest Colombia, we arrive in Venezuela, home to Hugo Chavez the president, and the fifth largest producer of oil in the world which accounts for 13% of the US oil supply. Chavez, self appointed Bolivarian liberator of Latin America, has made a point of cultivating ties with Iran, Libya, China, India and France none of which are exactly on the warmest of terms with the US. In addition to his anti-American tirades, he is busy forging a decidedly left wing socialist alliance amongst the aforementioned Latin American nations, preferably under his tutelage and leadership. Not only could Chavez create serious problems for the US economy by reducing oil supplies, he could reignite a war over long simmering differences with Colombia, a key US ally in the war on drugs.
Suddenly, Cuba, lonely and pining for a sugar daddy since the USSR went broke now finds itself welcome in some significant neighboring company.
What is the US doing amidst this sea change? Well, just recently, this week, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, toured Latin America while his fellow apostle, Rice, did Asia. Presumably Rumsfeld was tipped for the task of mending fences with the Latinos because of his proved tact and diplomacy in dealing with US European allies.
In his recent peregrinations, he has concentrated on the following issues:
While in Argentina, he chastised Venezuela for wanting to buy 100,000 AK-47s from Russia. He said, “I cannot understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s” I guess US Intelligence, an oxymoron if ever there were one, has not been able to figure that out any better than Iraq. It would not be too far fetched to surmise Chavez would like to arm a loyal militia considering the attempts that have been made to do away with him both from within and without. He has the great mass of the poor and downtrodden in his country behind him, and with guns in their hands they could wield quite a bit influence and support for him. In addition to internal opposition, he has expressed fears of a US move to overthrow him. I think that must be in the cards considering the US dependence on Venezuela’s oil, but I would rule out an outright invasion. Where would the US come up with the troops? They need all the boots they can muster in Iraq.
Continuing Rumsfeld’s contribution to making the Latins love America, he also visited Brasil where he raised the same issue of Venezuela with Brazil's vice president and defence minister, Jose Alencar, who declined to offer similar criticism of Chavez. Alencar would only say that Brasil respects the right of self-determination of other countries, an alien concept to Rumsfeld, Rice and the Bush regime.
When one contrasts the headlines generated by Rumsfeld in his visits to Brasil and Argentina with those publicised during the visit by the Chinese President to the same countries, the difference is striking. Following are the lead stories on President Hu Jintao’s visits to Argentina and Brasil
“Hu said in a written speech upon arrival at the airport that he will discuss major international and regional issues with them and "learn from the experiences of Chile's development and success."
“China will invest nearly $20bn (£11bn) in Argentina over the next 10 years. The announcement of the trade and investment deals came on the first day of a state visit to Argentina by China's President Hu Jintao.”
“During the visit, Brazil met Chinese wishes to recognise it as a market economy. In return, Brazil was granted greater access to China's market for chicken and beef products. The beef deal alone is expected to be worth $600m (£324m) a year for Brazil, ministers said. It also gained a commitment from China to order at least 10 aeroplanes from Brazilian maker Embraer, reported the AFP news agency. To facilitate trade, the Chinese are offering between $5bn (£3bn) and $7bn (£4bn) worth of investment to improve Brazil's roads, railways and ports.“
No threats, no warnings, no hectoring and lecturing about democracy; no fear mongering about “terism”; no attempts to enlist them in a war against Iraq, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea. Instead, China pursues a low key policy built on enterprise and investment in other countries. China, unlike the US, is not attempting to involve itself in the quagmire of Latin American politics; China has heeded Bolivar’s admonitions and learned from America’s failures in that regard.
Harking back to my post on Weiqi and strategic thinking, and looking at the global geopolitical game being played out, the US is losing territory, influence and respect apace. Even to keep its traditional European allies in line, the US has to rely on threats of economic and technological sanctions (reference the recent clash over the arms embargo on China). Regions once considered to be solid allies of the United States are now being courted successfully by the Chinese. Southeast Asia, and Latin America are the most obvious examples of this policy; it is worth noting that with the exception of the United States, and its satrapies of Taiwan and Japan, China has no significant enemies. The same cannot be said for the United States.
However, the US seems impervious to changes taking place in the world, following instead a policy based on a rigid and doctrinaire ideology, one that can only lead to its undoing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)