Geopolitics

Iraq: Looking Ahead from the Past

2011-12-24T22:48:00.000+01:00

This Post below is a reprint from 2005 and although there are some points with regard to weighting I might change, the overall view is one I still hold, namely that Iraq is a failed state.

The events of the past week (2 April 2005) 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

Wikileaks, a Movement

2010-11-29T13:57:00.000+01:00

Rumoured attempts by Australia to withdraw Assange's passport will not deter Wikileaks. It is more than a website, and more than Julian Assange. It is now a Movement, one for transparence in foreign policy and for putting an end to hypocritical public utterances by governments. Crowley's statement that US diplomats are only diplomats is nonsense, a blatant lie. Every US embassy employs in its staff a "political officer" whose job is to gather intelligence. Yet the spineless US media never questions such assertions.

The Korean Option

2010-11-29T12:54:00.000+01:00

The present problems are, in part, the fault of both parties. The paranoid and unpredictable regime in the North is highly sensitive to any perceived threat, justified or not, and I believe the joint military exercises of the US/South Korea were unwise. They served no purpose except to provoke and give the North an excuse for hostile action. The North knows full well that the US will not attack them for two reasons: 1) the US cannot afford to engage in another ground war, particularly against this well armed million man army (and 7 million reservists) with nuclear capability; 2) the second reason is China, which would not tolerate the presence of foreign troops above the 38th parallel and on their border. The answer to this conundrum is to come to an agreement with China that would involve the overthrow of the Kim government and reunification of Korea, but guarantee China no foreign troops on the Korean peninsula, i.e. demilitarise the entire peninsula with Korean security being mutually guaranteed by the US and China. China is not interested in instability in North Korea and an influx of refugees that would bring into China but, they want assurance that the US would have no military presence near its border.

The US should accept that the Pacific Ocean is no longer an offshore lake of California and that it belongs as much to China as the US. China is just as sensitive to foreign powers being off its shoreline and on its borders in Korea and Japan as the US would be if there were Chinese troops in Mexico or Canada!

QE2, Bailout of an imperilled Boat

2010-11-05T10:43:00.001+01:00

With the announcement of QE2 this well balanced guide to QE is worthwhile reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/11/the_wall_of_money_a_guide_to_q.html

As good as the US election news was for many Americans, there remain serious fault lines in the US political landscape and difficult decisions to be taken on the economy. The latter will have to be addressed on an "as needed" basis, not for political gain and without regard to political party affiliation. In order to put matters right drastic sacrifices will have to be made both by the US public and government. Therein lies the rub....

In this regard attached is an excellent recent article from Foreign Affairs. This article, America Profligacy and American Power, deals with the impact of US indebtedness on both the domestic economy and America's foreign policy.

American Profligacy and American Power.pdf (application/pdf) 137K

The article is a long one of six pages, but I have copied and extracted below the opening paragraphs as a sampler and I hope you will read the entire piece.

"The U.S. government is incurring debt at a historically unprecedented and ultimately unsustainable rate. The Congressional Budget Office projects that within ten years, federal debt could reach 90 percent of GDP, and even this estimate is probably too optimistic given the low rates of economic growth that the United States is experiencing and likely to see for years to come. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff paper comes closer to the mark by projecting that federal debt could equal total GDP as soon as 2015. These levels approximate the relative indebtedness of Greece and Italy today. Leaving aside the period during and immediately after World War II, the United States has not been so indebted since recordkeeping began, in 1792.

Right now, with dollar interest rates low and the currency more or less steady, this fiscal slide is more a matter of conversation than concern. But this calm will not last. As the world's biggest borrower and the issuer of the world's reserve currency, the United States will not be allowed to spend ten years leveraging itself to these unprecedented levels. If U.S. leaders do not act to curb this debt addiction, then the global capital markets will do so for them, forcing a sharp and punitive adjustment in fiscal policy.

The result will be an age of American austerity. No category of federal spending will be spared, including entitlements and defense. Taxes on individuals and businesses will be raised. Economic growth, both in the United States and around the world, will suffer. There will be profound consequences, not just for Americans' standard of living but also for U.S. foreign policy and the coming era of international relations.

THE ROAD TO RUIN

It was only relatively recently that the United States became so indebted. Just 12 years ago, its national debt (defined as federal debt held by the public) was in line with the long-term historical average, around 35 percent of GDP. The U.S. government's budget was in surplus, meaning that the total amount of debt was shrinking. Federal Reserve officials even publicly discussed the possibility that all of the debt might be paid off.

At that time, the United States had no history of excessive federal debt. This was not surprising since, on fiscal matters, it has always been a conservative nation. The one exception was the special and sudden borrowing program to finance U.S. participation in World War II, which caused debt to briefly exceed 100 percent of GDP in the mid-1940s, before beginning a steady return to traditional levels.

But over the first ten years of this century, a fundamental shift in fiscal policy occurred. When the George W. Bush administration took office, it initiated, and Congress approved, three steps that turned those budget surpluses into large deficits. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which will reduce federal revenue by more than $2 trillion over ten years, had the biggest impact. But adding the prescription-drug benefit to Medicare also carried a huge cost, as did the war in Afghanistan and, even more so, the war in Iraq.

These steps were also accompanied by the outbreak of an especially partisan period in American politics. In Congress, the Democratic center of gravity moved left, and the Republican one moved right. This caused the historically bipartisan support for fiscal restraint to vanish. In particular, both the individuals and groups working to lower taxes and those working to expand entitlements were strengthened.

These anti-tax and pro-spending forces joined with President George W. Bush to terminate the strict budget rules of the 1990s. The result was a swelled deficit. Because there was no longer a requirement that any spending increase or tax cut be paid for by a corresponding and deficit-neutralizing budget action, the giant tax cuts were not offset. The "hard cap" on nondefense domestic discretionary spending (which limited increases in such spending to the rate of inflation) also disappeared.

The consequences were predictable. Federal spending grew at two and a half times the rate it did during the 1990s. Two large rounds of tax cuts substantially reduced the ratio of federal revenue to GDP. The overall budget shifted dramatically, from a surplus representing one percent of GDP in 1998 to a deficit equal to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2008. Public debt per capita rose by 50 percent, from $13,000 to more than $19,000 over this period. The eight years of the Bush administration saw the largest fiscal erosion in American history.

Then, on top of this, the financial and economic crisis struck in 2008, and the United States confronted the possibility of a 1930s-style depression. Washington correctly chose to enact a large stimulus program and rescue tottering financial institutions. So far, such efforts have worked, at least to the degree that a depression was averted. A recovery (albeit one that is halting and weak by historical standards) is under way. But the gap between spending and revenues has widened much further. Revenues, which had averaged 20 percent of GDP during the 1990s, fell to nearly 15 percent, while spending reached 25 percent in 2009. The deficit for fiscal year 2009 hit a staggering $1.6 trillion, or nearly 12 percent of a GDP of just over $14 trillion. In nominal terms, it was by far the largest in U.S. history. The deficit for 2010, at $1.3 trillion and nine percent, was nearly as huge.

Be careful what you wish for: Chinese reliance on Exports

2010-10-22T11:12:00.000+02:00

The US pressures China to be less reliant on Exports and to increase domestic consumption for its economic growth. When that happens, China will indeed be less reliant on the US market and moreover less inclined to buy treasuries and US debt. That could be the tipping point for the US economy. China could then not only cease buying treasuries, it could safely begin selling them. Where then would the US find another creditor so flush with cash and willing to finance its debt?

Reposting Link on Pakistan Foreign Policy Blunders

2010-10-16T13:47:00.002+02:00

Herewith the link requested by respondent Jules:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC24Df03.html

I hope this one opens...

The Pope, the Nazis and Atheism

2010-09-19T09:31:00.001+02:00

Following the Pope's tour of the UK I am somewhat mystified by his statements linking the Nazi movement and Atheism. He seems to impute to Atheists the responsibility for wars and atrocities and refers to "aggressive Atheism". Really? Who started WWI, but a gaggle of Christian nations? Then, there were the Civil War in the US, the Crusades, all the European conflicts of the past 1500 years. Of all those leading nations into war and committing atrocities the only miscreant I can think of as an out and out Atheist was Stalin, a former seminary student.

Regarding the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, the Nazi party, unlike the Soviets was not ideologically atheist, although there may well have been atheists in the party. Even Hitler was ambivalent about religion and certainly never persecuted the Church, as did Stalin.

As for Atheism being "aggressive", again I am unclear what he means by this. Atheism surely does not conduct missionary efforts around the world trying to convert people to Atheism as do Christians, Mormons, and Muslims for their faith. True, books are written arguing the cause of Atheism but nothing like the tonnes of print extolling the virtues of organised religions, so what are Atheists doing that is so aggressive?

Beware the Angry Dragon

2010-09-16T14:35:00.001+02:00

China is under fire once again from an American administration desperate to find a scapegoat for the economic malaise in the US. It is no coincidence that Timothy Geithner’s comments are being made now, a mere six weeks before mid-term congressional elections. Hoping to deflect criticism and dissatisfaction by the electorate, loss of seats in congress and mollify US labour unions, he is raising the spectre of the dreaded Yellow Peril.

Another example of clay-footed US foreign policy. Making public statements such as these does not help resolve differences; instead it serves only to exacerbate friction with China.

One can argue that China holds $843 billion of US debt (as of today), and that its economy depends on holding and continuing to purchase US debt to prop up its primary export market. To that equation should be added the $1.60 trillion in US dollar currency reserves China has on its books. That is a tidy sum to be held by a creditor and one would think the debtor would be grateful and be more interested in staying on good terms with said creditor. But no, the US seemingly wants to tempt fate by twisting the dragon’s tail.

As stated, China, at this point in economic development is still very much hostage to the US market but, as its domestic economy grows and, as other South East Asian and Latin American markets buy more from China, that dependence is due to change. And, threats related to revaluing the Yuan could prompt a potentially disastrous financial crisis for the US.

An article of 13 September on the Bloomberg site deals with precisely this issue: “Evidence of strengthening domestic spending in China undermined the case for Premier Wen Jiabao’s government to resist a faster pace of currency appreciation days before U.S. lawmakers meet to address the issue.:”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-12/strengthening-chinese-domestic-demand-undermines-case-to-limit-yuan-s-gain.html

It also underscores an argument I have often made, namely that contrary to the views of many pundits, if push came to shove, and US levied punishing tariffs on Chinese imports, the Chinese could retaliate by dumping US treasuries.

I quote again from the Bloomberg article:

“If signed by Obama, the legislation could spark retaliation including the sale of U.S. Treasuries by China, Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley Asia chairman, said last week. China is the biggest foreign holder of U.S. government debt, at $843.7 billion in June.”

As for US currency, China is cutting back on bond purchases after scrapping its currency peg in June, giving it less reason to buy dollars and invest them in Treasuries. China is also turning more to Europe and Japan, purchasing bonds of both nations. In the meanwhile Barack Obama increases U.S. debt to record levels, counting on overseas investors to buy, as he borrows to sustain the U.S. economic expansion. And if they, especially China, do not buy………?

We are already seeing moves by China to distance itself from US assets:

To quote Hu Xiaolian, a vice governor with the People's Bank of China:

"Once a reserve currency's value becomes unstable, there will be quite large depreciation risks for assets," she wrote in an article that appeared in the latest issue of China Finance, a central bank magazine.

"The outbreak and spread of the global financial crisis has highlighted the inherent deficiencies and systemic risks in the current international currency system," she said.

"A diversified international currency system will be more conducive to international economic and financial stability," she added, calling for greater cross-border use of the Yuan.

So, China would seen to be sending strong signals that it would not hesitate to withdraw support for the US economy, particularly if the US were unwise enough to challenge the dragon in its den.

Prescience in Hindsight

2010-09-11T10:12:00.002+02:00

One of the best, and most objective assessments of America's rush to war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a column in the Washington Post today. It is particularly interesting in that it is written by one of the early and staunchest supporters of the war, Ted Koppel, a journalist embedded with the US troops during their march to Baghdad in 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090904735.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

If I have a criticism, it is the same one I have mentioned before, namely the assumption that the local governments will permit the continued presence of US troops in their country. Koppel, like many others in the West, still speaks of the necessity for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come as if it is the decision of the US alone, not that of whatever government is in place. My question remains as always: what if the local government refuses? As Koppel points out the US does not have the resources to conduct a multi front war in what would be the hostile environments of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If India were to enter the fray to counter Pakistan, we would be faced with a regional nuclear conflict.

The solution, in my view, is simple - withdrawal and containment.

Mexico, a Failed State?

2010-09-11T10:06:00.000+02:00

In geopolitical terms, Mexico, in my opinion, now qualifies for the accolade, "A Failed State", the parameters for which are:

loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. (Still some semblance of this)

As a consequence of that and Obama's immigration policies the US are going to experience an upsurge in illegal immigration. The prospect of a failed state on the US border could be as dangerous as a Jihadist one. Mexico is inherently and historically an unstable country, and there is every indication the situation will only deteriorate. The US may well have to shift its priorities (and troops) from Afghanistan and place a heavy military presence on its southern borders.

Misconceptions, Bad Investments

2010-08-19T10:04:00.000+02:00

Mesopotamia

The US troops have begun departing Iraq shouting "we won, it's over"; Obama says he will withdraw the remaining 50,000 troops end 2011; and in Afghanistan he stands by the promise to "begin" withdrawal in 2011. Alas, as the pithy old southern American saying goes, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" (originally a southern church saying!).

The remaining 50,000 US troops in Iraq are allegedly there to "support" and train the Iraqi army and are to deploy their weapons only in self defence or at the request of the Iraqi government. They are there, according to the US government today, "to protect our investment of $1 trillion"! In other words they will still be a combat unit. There is no way the Iraqi army will be able to cope with the continuing and increasing insurgency without the involvement of US military.Even the Iraqi military commander stated that Iraq will not be able to fend for itself until 2020!!! In fact we could well see the return of additional troops in the not too distant future as the situation deteriorates. A government in Iraq does not even exist several months after the so-called elections and in my view there will never be a government which will satisfy the dissident elements in that region. I say region because it is not a nation in the strict definition of nation state. It is a collage of diverse cultures and if they are to survive they must form separate states.

Afghanistan/Pakistan

In Afghanistan there is similar spin amidst utter failure. As in Iraq there is no functioning government, there is not even a government that controls territory beyond Kabul. Karzai announced yesterday there would be no election polling in 900 districts because the safety of the people could not be guaranteed in those areas. The army, such as it is, is even less reliable than that in Iraq. The Taliban is gaining strength; the western provinces of Pakistan are a hidey hole for the Taliban and with the pathetic response to the floods by the Pakistani government the Taliban has thousands of new sympathisers and supporters. I would not be surprised to see a military coup in Pakistan and/or a government supported secession of the western provinces. If the latter were to occur, it would assure the Talibanisation of Afghanistan. Then, the US would be faced with either the prospect of an expanded land war of attrition with dwindling resources and increasing debt, or turn tail and leave. A radicalisation of Pakistan would be even scarier with the very real risk of a regional nuclear conflict involving India.

In summary

Since any US administration would be tarred with the charge of "losing" Iraq or Afghanistan (Vietnam redux) by the opposition the only way they could exit with any degree of grace would be at the request or demand of governments in those countries. In the case of a Talibanised government in Kabul that could be easily done, so they should work with Karzai to cobble together a coalition. Iraq should simply be partitioned and an agreement made amongst the three states to share oil revenues, the big bone of contention.

Democracy, an alien concept.

Democracy is contrary to the cultures of many countries and attempts to seed it there can only lead to instability and greater suffering by the population. If it is to develop at all, it should come from within as a natural progression not from external intervention by the messianic West. The West tries to portray democracy as an almost divine right and inherent part of human nature when in fact it is a concept that only came into vogue on our planet in the West during the last 500 years long after the rise of homo "sapiens" 500,000 years ago. Of the some 200 countries in the world some estimate the number of democratic government to be only 50-60 and some of those frequently suffer relapses from time to time.

Finis

Transatlantic Decline

2010-03-03T12:16:00.000+01:00

Daniel Korski in his ECFR article argues as Europe and the US are both in decline it behooves them to work more closely together.

http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_partners_in_decline_daniel_korski/

Although I agree that both the US and Europe are in decline, I do not see tying itself even more closely to the US as the solution for Europe. Why look to a sinking ship as a life preserver? On the contrary, Europe should work to decouple itself from the United States. The last two years have shown the high risk of following and supporting US policies, both political and economic. As Niall Ferguson pointed out in Foreign Affairs magazine, in his erudite article, “Complexity and Collapse”, to regard the US dollar (and for me the US economy) as a safe haven is akin to considering Pearl Harbour a safe haven in December 1941.

As for the Geopolitical divide mentioned by Korski, again, Europe, rather than accepting it, should seek to bridge that divide and ally itself with the emerging nation bloc. Therein lies the future and salvation for Europe. Europe, to survive, must move away from its past transatlantic reliance and become part of the global community.

Iran, India Israel, Pakistan and The Bomb

2010-02-27T09:16:00.002+01:00

I do not support proliferation of nuclear weapons, for Iran or other countries. However, in the case of Iran, I believe the threat of Iran ever employing nuclear weapons is overblown. One should look beyond the Iranian government’s intemperate rhetoric. The government knows full well that a nuclear attack on any country would bring swift and catastrophic retaliation that would result in destruction of the Iranian government and much of the country’s infrastructure. Blustering rhetoric the Iranians are guilty of, but they are not fools

The hyperbole, threats and scare mongering by the US and Israel are surely more about protecting Israel’s nuclear exclusivity in the Middle East. However there is a far more serious issue about nuclear weaponry at stake.

Instead of worrying about Iran, one should be debating what to do should Pakistan go critical and fall into the hands of radical fundamentalists. Such a regime would be far more likely to launch a nuclear attack on either India or Israel than Iran would on Israel or the US. Should such a regime change take place in Pakistan, what would the response be? Bomb the nuclear facilities in Pakistan, initiate yet another war? Encourage India to invade Pakistan and trigger a wider regional conflict of frightening proportions?

This same question about nuclear proliferation could put be put with regard to any other country not considered an ally of the US. North Korea is far more unstable and less predictable than Iran, yet one hears little in the way of threats by the US or Europe to bomb or invade North Korea.

US Foreign Policy, an Antonym for Realpolitik

2010-02-21T17:42:00.001+01:00

Realpolitik, a definition: Realpolitik (German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and Politik “politics”) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic premises;

There is no listed Antonym for Realpolitik, but one can be found in the practice of Foreign Policy of the United States. The US has practiced an unrealistic, impractical policy since the end of World War II and it is a policy that unusually attracts bi-partisan support. Both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of pursuing a policy clearly inimical to the US national interest.

The US foreign policy is the antithesis of practical no-nonsense national interest, diplomacy. All one needs to do to understand this is the recent row with China, the world’s second largest economy, the world’s number one exporter and most importantly, the US’s major creditor holding over $700 billion in US treasury notes. Without China’s purchase of US debt, the US would be on the brink of financial collapse. In addition, China’s economy is driving the global economic recovery. Yet, rather than applauding China, the US has done all possible to provoke and alienate China by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports at the behest of US labour unions; catering to a the Tibetan Dali Lama as a head of state when he is only a religious leader; supplying arms to Taiwan, regarded by China as a breakaway province. In addition to China’s importance as an economic power it also wields a Security Council veto. It can put a stop to any coordinated attempt to impose sanctions on Iran and could withdraw from the six party talks aimed at containing North Korea signalling the death knell of those negotiations. For the US in particular there is a huge risk in antagonising China. Presently, China buys US debt in order to prop up the US financial structure and thereby its major export market. However, should China’s domestic economy and those of its Asian neighbours mature, China would no longer be dependent on exports to the US market and no longer find it necessary to purchase US debt. At that point the danger to the US economy becomes acute.

Then, there is Georgia that foolishly began a war with Russia and invaded an inconsequential breakaway province, South Ossetia, which had opted to join Russia. The US inserted itself into the conflict supporting Georgia, which was clearly at fault, thereby angering Russia and went so far as to express support for Georgia’s application to join NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Georgia, situated in the Caucasus region on the Black Sea, far removed from the North Atlantic. Little wonder Russia looked upon this bit of foolery as an attempt to gain a military foothold into the Russian sphere. Somehow the US, which regarded the Soviet presence in Cuba as a threat to its national security in 1962 and invasion of its sphere could not understand why Russia should object to the US having a military presence in the Caucasus. Russia, no longer the formidable foe that was its predecessor state, the USSR, is still an important nuclear armed global power, and a member of the five nation UN Security council, like China, with veto power. Without Russia’s support in the six power talks on North Korea negotiations would grind to a halt. Again, without the support of Russia, there can be no effective UN Security resolution regarding Iran.

Without a doubt the most grievous and damaging mistakes made in the name of US non-Realpolitik has been the unstinting support of Israel. That support has led to the alienation of the entire Muslim world and has been at the crux of the rise of radical fundamentalism and attendant terrorism. The US, to mollify and gain the support of the US based pro Israeli lobby, has sacrificed relations with the entire Middle East, and large parts of South East Asia all in order to accommodate a nation state of no strategic value. The only value Israel now has is as an ally is to counteract terrorism, the cause of which was the creation of the state of Israel, and the US support of subsequent Israeli policies. One cannot turn back the clock and remove the state of Israel, but if the US were to be a truly honest and impartial broker in its dealings with the Palestinian problem, perhaps something could be salvaged from what is a geopolitical disaster. I fear, however, matters have now deteriorated to the point that not even a two state solution is possible, or even desirable. The bloodshed, acrimony and deep-seated hatred is so imbued in the Palestinians that the people will never fully accept such a compromise. In the long term, as one Israeli friend said, demographics will prevail, a separate Jewish state will not survive but will revert to a pre-war single state embracing both the Muslin and Jewish peoples. In the meanwhile, both the Israelis and the Palestinians will continue to suffer.

As so often much of the US foreign policy has been formulated to accommodate US domestic ethnic and religious pressure and lobby groups rather than for the national interest. And when one looks at the current conflicts and potential ones on the boil, most of them can be laid at the doorstep of a deeply flawed US foreign policy.

The EU, a failed State?

2010-02-21T13:39:00.003+01:00

The latest economic crisis to arise is that of Greece, a profligate country that has squandered its resources and is now reduced to holding a begging bowl for a financial bail out. Were it just Greece that suffers, one could shrug it off and leave it to the Greeks to sort out. The problem is that Greece is a member state of the EU, and of the EMU, the European Monetary Union, comprised of 16 countries that employ the Euro currency. Thus, the economy of each member state redounds not only upon the other states, but globally. The supposed deficit maximum for all member states is 3% but Greece's deficit has ballooned to 13%! “Greece’s budget gap, which its previous government originally forecast would be 3.7 percent in 2009, was largely the result of “an insufficient response” by Greek authorities as well as expenditure overruns, the commission said. Economic statistics provided by Greece “were completely wrong,”

That, alas, is not the only delinquent country. Greece is only one of the infamous PIIGS countries - Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain - all of which have exceeded the theoretical 3% deficit limit. Other countries, even major economies as France and the UK are on the cusp of surpassing the same limit. The UK, once a leading economy in Europe and the world, although not a member of the EMU Eurozone, now has a Debt to GDP ratio of 456%! Worse, there is now talk of the imminent collapse of Sterling. The 3% deficit limit has become a joke. There is no fiscal discipline, just empty threats to punish the delinquent nations, and because of the fear of a domino effect, no punishment, instead, bail outs.

What happened to the dream of creating a major economic union to rival the world's leading economy, the United States?

The answer is 'o'er leaping ambitions'.

The EU began with a core of six countries in 1957, comprised at that time of the major powers in Europe: Belgium, France, Italy Luxembourg, the Netherlands, West Germany - and expanded shortly thereafter to include the UK, Denmark and Ireland. All well and good, but then the rot set in. The EU, in an unseemly rush to incorporate other countries and expand its influence and economic clout, began willy nilly to admit country markets with economies and political cultures incompatible with the core structure. In the 1980s came Greece, Spain and Portugal, and, after the fall of the wall, a veritable flood of new admissions from underdeveloped nations from East Europe. The current membership now numbers 27 countries with another eight awaiting admission: Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Iceland. Iceland? Yes, Iceland, which has just suffered the collapse of three banks and a financial meltdown.

As more countries with even more disparate cultures and economies are added, the greater the risk of collapse of the EU and the Euro.

Post Script

As much as China is pilloried for currency manipulation, and authoritarianism by the vaunted free market countries of Europe and the United States it has the healthiest economy in the world. In terms of both Public and External Debt China ranks well below the US and major European economies

Public Debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

External Debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Debt to GDP Ratio

Even more impressive is China's Debt to GDP Ratio, 5% against USA 84%, Germany 155%, France 210%.

China at the 2010 Davos WEF

2010-01-31T12:33:00.002+01:00

Today’s (31 January 2010) NZZ am Sonntag (Neue Züricher Zeitung), my favourite Sunday newspaper, in the Background Section carried a full page feature article on the Chinese presence at the WEF in Davos titled “ China demonstriert am WEF seine neue Machtposition” (At the WEF China showcases its new power). Alas, the article is ,of course, in German and I am too lazy to translate it in its entirety, so I shall treat you only to some excerpts:

“In the past at WEF it has always been the United States on centre stage with the CNN interviewing and dancing in attendance on a hefty high level US delegation. This week the staging changed dramatically.

This past week the highest profile American was Barney Franks, a Democratic congressman holding forth on discussion panels. The low profile of the US at the WEFF was signalled by the change in administration and the tone of Obama’s State of the Union Address. In contradistinction to the US presence one saw a high calibre Chinese contingent headed by the Vice Presidential Minister, Li Keqiang, tipped to be the successor to Hu Jintao. Also, interestingly, more Chinese was heard spoken in Davos than any time in the past.

The US is turning inward absorbed by its own difficulties, polarised by domestic politics and severely hit by the economic downturn. Into this gap enter China, and how! The Middle Kingdom has replaced Germany as the number one exporter in the world and supplanted Japan as the second largest economy.

China now produces more automobiles than the USA and is home to four of the five largest banks on the planet. China, not the moribund EU, has the resources to provide a Greece verging on bankruptcy with funds to prevent it going under.

Ironically, the global financial crisis was the springboard which launched China into prominence. In Copenhagen, China flexed its muscle confronting and denying the USA leadership on the issue of climate change. Negative as that might be seen, on the positive side of the ledger, a recovery from the global recession would be very difficult without the Chinese locomotive.

No one is more conscious of this than the Chinese themselves as evidenced at one of the discussion panels in Davos. Some Western participants called once again for the exchange rate of the Renminbi to be adjusted and declared that China must finally “play by the rules”. To that, responded the head of one the largest Chinese banks, “those are your rules, not our rules. Why should we play by these rules?” Lecturing by the West is no longer welcomed by the Chinese.

The time is long past that one must blindly follow the US capitalistic recipe said one Chinese economist. The central question for China is “what is best for China?”

With respect to relations with the USA, one representative of this new China said to a representative of the USA, “We are not friends, we are business partners”

This sea change and shift in global power couple with continuing economic problems in the USA could give rise to resentment amongst Americans and engender increasing protectionism leading to a trade war.”

Finis

My Italics and Comments

At end of the day, should it come to a trade war, both parties would be sorely wounded. But China holds more economic weaponry in the form of disposable capital, and has a more disciplined population behind it than the USA. The Chinese, having endured sorrow and misfortune over the last two hundred years have steeled and toughened themselves, and the domestic economy of China will soon decouple China from its present dependence on exports, and the USA. This, while the US has grown soft, spoiled, politically inept, debt ridden and intellectually dissolute.

For China, a double standard

2010-01-31T08:13:00.000+01:00

This morning’s Washington Post (31 January 2010) raised flags of concern over a change in China’s tone described as “triumphalist“ and “tough” in its response to US arms sales to Taiwan.

It would be almost amusing if not for the potentially serious nature of this conflict.

The US State Department justifies the sales saying "Such sales contribute to maintaining security and stability across the Taiwan Strait,".

Oh, come now let us be frank. The arms are to support continuing America influence in the Pacific theatre and ensure Taiwan could eventually used as a base of operations in event of open conflict with China.

The US cannot seem to accept that the Pacific Ocean is no longer an off-shore American lake over which it has dominion. With the rise of China to its former glory after two centuries of exploitation by the West, China is resuming its role as one of the great nations of the world and the dominant force in the region.

Taiwan will, in the not distant future, revert to its former status as a province of China, otherwise it will find itself isolated economically, militarily and politically. Economically, because China is its major trading partner, militarily because Taiwan cannot stand up to China’s might and with America’s financial woes and multiple wars cannot expect to be propped up by the US. Politically, Taiwan is also being marginalised by the change in political climate in Japan where the new government led by Hatoyama is moving Japan out from under the wing of the US and toward closer relations with China. Again, as with Taiwan, China has replaced the US as Japan’s biggest trading partner. In fact, China’s dramatic recovery from the recent global economic downturn has served to rescue Japan from recession.

From the assumption of power by the communists in China in 1949 until recently, Taiwan could rely for support on both Japan and the US, but no longer. As Japan logically moves out of the US orbit, so will Taiwan be forced back into China’s fold, whether the US likes it or not.

The reaction and hand wringing concern expressed by Europe, as well as the US, is symptomatic of their inability and unwillingness to relinquish the colonial hold they held over China for two hundred years. The centre of gravity of global power is moving inexorably to the East and the sooner the European/Transatlantic alliance accepts and accommodates themselves to this the better for them and the world.

For China the Economic Nuclear Option, option

2010-01-25T08:44:00.000+01:00

Much has been written about mutual self assured destruction should China use its ultimate economic weapon as reprisal for US potectionist legislation and interference in internal affairs.

Indeed, by cashing in T-Notes and/or diversifying its enormous US currency holdings away from the US dollar China risks killing the golden goose, its prime export market. Fortunately, however, China’s domestic economy is improving and growing fast and much of its current growth now stems from burgeoning domestic consumption. It is slowly reducing its depndence on exports in general and exports to the US in particular.

However, it will not be wholly independant in the short term and until it is, China will be hostage to a US Democratic congress which is, in turn, hostage to US labour unions. So, what to do?

Although a full scale counterattack at this stage would harm ist own interests, China could nevertheless fire a warning shot across the bow of the US. China could bring home to the US the eventual risk it faces in provoking the Dragon by simply suspending for one or two months purchase of Treasury notes and, at the same time, devote a large sum of its massive dollar holdings to increasing its Gold reserves, already the world’d largest holdings (1000 tonnes). The US needs a constant infusion, a fix, of several billion dollars from sale of T-notes each month to keep its financial head above water, and the withdrawal of Chinese support would serve as a loud wake-up call to the present myopic US administration.

Democracy as a global concept - an observation from the past, a warning for the future

2010-01-18T12:57:00.000+01:00

I first posted this blog on 26 March 2005, and because it remains a salient topic I am republishing it.

With reference to my previous posts expressing doubt about the validity and global application of democracy, a friend recently sent me the following:

“At about the time the original 13 United States adopted their new
constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history
professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The
Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves
generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which
is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

End of quote

In that sequence of events I would place the United States somewhere between dependence (depending on foreign financial institutions to buy over $2 billion a day in US T-Notes to finance America’s burgeoning debt and consumer appetite) and bondage (when countries decide not to buy the wonky T-Notes and US dollar, or decide to foreclose, leaving the US up for sale).

A Swiss View of the USA

2010-01-17T15:51:00.004+01:00

A Swiss View of Obama

This one centres on an article in today's Neue Züricher Zeitung, the premier Sunday German language newspaper in Switzerland to which I subscribe and read with my Sunday morning breakfast at a local Café. The article today deals with Obama's first year in office with an assessment of his performance in various sectors where he promised "Change". I should point out that the newspaper, the NZZ, like most European media was harshly critical of Bush and welcomed Obama with open arms. Now, a year later, the ardour has cooled considerably and criticism of Obama throughout Europe has mounted.

Herewith the NZZ analysis of Obama's polices and what he has achieved with respect to the following issues:

The Economy and Employment in the US: Obama claims two million jobs were saved with the stimulus package, a number widely disputed, while unemployment in the US continues to rise.

Financial System: Despite bailouts and multi billion dollar handouts, banks have not relaxed credit and despite threats of reprisal by the Obama administration, the banks continue to award huge bonuses to executives

Healthcare: A health care package has been agreed but the cost of the programme remains unclear, and could further exacerbate the indebtedness of the US.

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: Troops are being withdrawn from Iraq as promised but now, as many expected, unrest is once more on the increase. At the same time troop levels in Iraq are drawn down, the number of boots on the ground is being increased in Afghanistan, so there is no net gain and the war in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly unpopular in the US and seen by many as already lost.

The Middle East Peace Process: Failure. Obama has been unable to rein in the pro-Israeli Lobby in the US, and Netanyahu in Israel, nor stop construction of new settlements.

The Battle against Terrorism: The global terrorist networks continue to flourish and expand and the conundrum of closing Guantanamo is unresolved, the result of the latter being that initial goodwill toward Obama in the Arab world has all but evaporated.

Disarmament: Negotiations with Russia are dragging on with no resolution,

Climate: Obama's performance at Copenhagen was received with disappointment throughout Europe. They looked to him for leadership and got none.

As you see, the only issue on which the NZZ sees significant progress is Healthcare - everything else is is awarded a failing grade.

In addition, the front page headlines today on the NZZ read: "New Pressure on the Swiss Economy by the US". This stems from the threat of the US Treasury to impose a tax of $1 Billion per year on Swiss banks operating in the United States. The Swiss citizenry are justifiably angry.

This, mind you, is coming from a country and newspaper that has been traditionally very pro-American, but which now perceives the US as more of threat to the country than an ally. Whatever goodwill Obama brought with his election has now been dissipated by his policies.

Finis

Reprint China/Democracy Blog

2010-01-17T14:11:00.005+01:00

Today's blog, a reprint of one from March 2006, is a long one and, although dated, it still reflects my controversial views about Democracy and in particular how it applies to China.

Harking back to previous observations on Asia, and China in particular, I should preface my remarks with two of my favourite homemade adages:

1. Democracy is not a panacea for all of a society’s ills

2. American Democracy is like some wines - it does not travel well, and is best consumed in the country of origin.

In order for a democracy to be fully functioning, there are a few basic requirements – a relatively well educated population, cultural cohesion, security, good nationwide communications, and some experience in self government (my requirements).

With respect to China and the first posit, I am not convinced that Democracy is the answer at this stage of China’s development. China is an enormous landmass with a population in excess of 1.3 billion, many of whom are ill educated, low per capita income and with limited health care (like the USA). Cultural cohesion is also not fully developed, only having been begun under communists and central rule since 1949 in recent history; communications are improving rapidly but are not yet ideal. In other words, there are more pressing priorities than free elections, multi party systems and the right to stand on the street corner mouthing obscenities and promoting religion.

In 1960, I read a book, “The Soul of China”, by Amaury de Riencourt. It may be out of print now, but I remember it well because of its revolutionary thesis (for me), namely that Communism fitted Chinese culture and history “like a glove”. The author argued that the Confucian tenets of obedience to central and senior authority were incorporated into Chinese communism. There was more, but that was the essence of his position. Since then, I have read at least three histories of China. In those books they present the view that Communism in China is merely the successor to the world's oldest and most successful autocracy. China, they argue, "is trying to achieve economic modernisation without the representative political democracy that Americans view as their special gift to the world's salvation." They also caution Americans who are prone to bash China's autocratic government to avoid attempting imposition of the flawed American model on China's unique culture.

A longtime Chinese friend, who with his family fled China and the communist take over in 1947, returned to China in recent years and surprised me with the comment, “the best thing to happen to China was the communist assumption of power in 1949”.

As it turns out I, a dedicated capitalist, had already reached the same conclusion, but I was surprised that a dedicated Chinese capitalist such as my friend would have the same point of view. Communism freed China from the grip of the colonial powers – Great Britain, France, Untied States, and Japan and although it took WWII and the invasion of China by Japan to initiate the process. Communism, with the exception of the years and madness of the Cultural Revolution, maintained and strengthened China’s cultural traditions. Communism united China and its disparate parts for the first time in its 4500 year long history and began to implement a policy of cultural cohesion making Mandarin Chinese an official language of communication; it has harnessed the brilliant and innate Chinese intellect and is on the road to making China a superpower in every respect.

China today has regained the pride it lost under the rule of the colonial powers in the Treaty Port “agreements” forced upon them in the 20th and 19th centuries. It has the fastest growing economy in the world; it has education and the free market economy as its major priorities. Security, in a land as large as China, with a large segment of the population still not educated in the ways of democracy can only be possible with a strong central control. Some day China will evolve in the direction of democracy but China recognizes it should not make the mistake of Russia and rush will nilly into the arms of democratic capitalism in which it has no experience or background. I personally do not believe it will ever have a Western style democracy.

As for suppression of religious freedom, organised religion is more of a liability than a blessing. First, religion has never played a major role in Chinese history or culture. If you examine Chinese history you will see that religious influence, with the exception of Taoism (Daoism), in China always came from outside China and has been pluralistic – Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, all foreign influences. Even Taoism never developed into a religious organisation or institution having been practiced as an individual philosophy. None of the religious doctrines have gained universal appeal to the Chinese. The closest to acceptance could be Confucianism’s moral and ethical tenets which people sometimes confuse with religion. Religions such as Christianity ran counter to and conflicted with the imperial claim to divinity and omniscience and the importance of filial obedience and respect. So, when the Christians tried to preach their doctrine of obeisance to an other-worldly authority, they got very short shrift from the powers that be. As much value as there may be in religious philosophy as ethics, I see no value to organized religion. It is a divisive, not a uniting force in society – just look at the history of Western Civilization and the wars that have been (and still are being) fought for religious motives. If China is wise, it will keep religion institutions under firm control.

I frequently hear the term "afraid" when the subject of China is raised, but China need not be feared as an aggressor. China, unlike its former communist cousin the USSR, China has never aspired to world domination or territorial acquisition. Colonialism has never formed part of Chinese history even in its golden Ming period (1368-1644) when its huge maritime fleets navigated all the way to today's Somalia (with compasses unknown at that time in Europe) in 1403 before Columbus lucked and stumbled his way across the Atlantic pond. Its interests then as now were in creating political and commercial alliances not in imposing its culture on others. Any involvement in wars has been to protect its borders. During the Korean War it became enmeshed in that conflict because of the threat of a superpower, the United States, occupying territory contiguous to China. Taiwan is regarded as a legitimate part of Chinese territory and as such, in China's view, has to return to the fold, and will do so in the not distant future.

Taiwan, held up as an icon of democracy, was ruled by a dictator and thief, Chiang Kai Shek, from 1950 until the 1980s and during the 1950s Chiang instituted a wave of political repression called “The White Terror”. So democracy, aside from being a recent phenomenon, has not necessarily been responsible for Taiwan’s success. Hong Kong was also under an imposed government, the British, from 1842 until 1997, the Brits having allowed democratic elections only when HK was about to be turned over to China – perfidious Albion indeed. Hong Kong flourished because it was in a controlled, secure environment, not riven by internal dissent or threatened by external forces. That political and social situation and the inherent Chinese entrepreneurial spirit were responsible for Hong Kong’s progress which was in place long before elections in 1997.

Those points deal just with China and the Chinese. Then, look at the effect and impact of democracy on former colonial territories in Africa. Are they really better off? I for one do not think so – those countries are totally corrupt, engaged in vicious tribal warfare and subjected to horrific atrocities that seldom took place under firm colonial rule. Look at Russia – now with endemic crime, and rampant corruption that I never saw in the years I worked in that country. Russia, under the inept, drunken and corrupt Yeltsin caved into to US pressure and its ideologues to move the country, before it was in any way ready, into democracy and capitalism. Had they followed instead Gorbachev’s formula for gradual change from communism to democratic socialism to democracy the evolution to democracy would have taken longer but it would have had more positive results. Putin is now trying to hold the line and reverse the rot, but it may be too late. Result – the Russians, with the exception of the Oligarchs and local mafia, are increasingly disenchanted with both democracy and capitalism and long for the good old days of Communism and security.

Many of these countries were catapulted from either stone-age cultures or feudal governments into a full blown democracy without any historical reference points. Using the analogy of wine again, for democracy to flower, it requires time and a process of maturation. Democracy is not a system that can be imposed externally (as we are trying to do in Iraq) on an alien culture, any more than one can transplant flora and expect it to flourish in alien soil conditions.

This is particularly true of American Democracy which has its dubious appeal to Americans but does not necessarily suit other cultures. In Francis Fukuyama’s classical book on liberal democracy “The End of History and The Last Man” Fukuyama argues cogently but not (for me) convincingly, that liberal democracy (liberal in the philosophical sense, not political) is the epitome of political evolution. I disagree. There are too many shortcomings, too many inequities in the system to satisfy me and justify such an assertion. Furthermore, I believe there is an inherent defect in democracy raised by both Aristotle and Alexis de Tocqueville (“Democracy in America” – 1830). Aristotle argued that democracy unrestrained can only lead to mobocracy. De Tocqueville, over 2000 years later, after observing democracy in the making in America in the 1830s, posited that “democracy contains within it the seeds of its own destruction”, a theme echoed from Burke to Tocqueville to Ortega de Gasset to Mencken, related to excessive freedom and misguided egalitarianism.

Finis

"Be careful what you wish for...", a prime example.

2006-01-28T13:38:00.000+01:00

Several of my previous posts have warned of the risks associated with "be careful what you wish for....", as related to the perils of democracy and free and open elections.

The recent election results in Palestine have served to confirm this admonition and to underscore the defective US foreign policy and incompetence of Condolezza Rice. Rice, thinking she had achieved a major breakthrough because of the sop given to the Palestinians in opening access to Gaza, completely misread the political climate in the Palestinian territories. So, the US got its wish of free and open elections and then was handed the worst imaginable result; just as happened in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistani western provinces, and Lebanon where Islamic movements have either prevailed or have registered significant victories.

Certainly Fatah corruption was a factor in driving 60% of Palestinians to vote for Hamas, but an equally influential issue was the inability of Fatah to stand up to Israel. Thanks to the US's partiality to Israel, the latter has offered nothing but minimal concessions to the Palestinians; they have refused to abide by UN resolution calling for unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories and refuse to negotiate the partition of Jerusalem. Little wonder the Palestinians had so little faith in Fatah.

The US now, unsurprisingly, are following their usual flawed policy by waving 'the big stick' threatening to withdraw financial aid unless Hamas bows to their wishes. The EU might not be so ready to do the same and this pressure could encourage the Arab donors, in particular Iran, to provide more support to Hamas. This would give Iran another opportunity to thumb their nose at the US and reinforce its ambition to be seen as the new force in the Middle East.

Not being satisfied to try to coerce the Palestinians to kowtow, the US is also putting the arm on India to support the US move to take Iran to the Security Council. If not, warns the US, the agreement for support of India's nuclear program could be taken off the table. That is a risky ploy indeed. India is no pushover, and only recently has it seemingly overcome its visceral and long time antipathy to the United States. Such 'hard ball' tactics could set back all the recent progress in relations with a country rapidly developing into a major power.

It is difficult to understand how a country such as the United States, possessing so much material wealth, could be so bereft of intellectual capital.

baoluo

Postscript to the Iran Question

2006-01-19T09:58:00.000+01:00

I refer to my previous post of 16 January, 'Here we go again'

The interim Prime Minister of Israel recently stated that it would be unacceptable for Iran, the country being an avowed enemy of Israel, to hold nuclear weapons. Presumably this is a thinly veiled threat of military action against Iran should it proceed in that direction.

The question this statement provokes is whether this policy and position applies to any country considered an enemy of Israel. If so, then I must ask what would Israel’s position would be if a country already in possession of nuclear weapons such as Pakistan were to replace the present secular government with one radicalised and overtly opposed to Israel.

Would Israel and the United States then threaten Pakistan with military action? Would Israel, with the support of the United States, nuke Pakistan’s nuclear facilities? I can envisage several consequences of such an action, none of them pleasant.

baoluo

Here we go again!

2006-01-16T11:05:00.000+01:00

"This is the most grave (sic) situation that we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror," Sen. John McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation." "It is a serious problem -- probably right now the most serious in the world," (Senator) Lott said. Does that sound familiar? Was it only four years ago that Iraq was the gravest threat facing humanity? And, of course there is or was North Korea, touted as an inhuman regime which could precipitate a nuclear holocaust, a topic now off the shelf of the talking shop.

Then with regard to Chinese and Russian Support: "They need stuff from us. They need trade. They need all kinds of assistance. We ought to play hardball with them," he said. "And if President Bush were to do that, either publicly or privately, I think he'd get broad bipartisan backing." That brilliant reasoning emanating from Senator Schumer of New York. So now China and Russia could replace France and Germany as ungrateful curs. Will vodka, egg foo yong and sweet-sour shrimp soon be taken off the Senate dining room menu?

This intemperate rhetoric is coming from both sides of the aisle, Democrat as well as Republican.

Although the European Big Three: France, Germany and the UK, have come to together to support taking the issue to the Security council, it is still far from certain that two veto toting members, Russia and China, will go along with them. China in particular would be loathe to alienate an important energy source to fuel its growth. Russia too has traditionally close ties to Iran and some lucrative contracts pending for supply of nuclear equipment. One question is what sanctions could be imposed considering that the Europeans and Americans do not want to punish the people there as they did in Iraq with sanctions on essential items. Iran’s biggest export must surely be oil, but who in their right mind wants to deprive the world of oil when it is already in short supply. Sanctions on exports would drive up the price to new highs. Mc Cain thinks the consequences in this regard are acceptable, but I wonder how many other people would be happy with a 50% or more increase in petrol prices. By his reasoning and that of Bayh, any consideration of the Iranian people would be taken off the table.

The US, of course, is, as always, ready to give enthusiastic support to any opposition to Iran, and lurking in the background stirring up the pot, is Israel. The US and Israel would dearly love to undertake military action, their preferred option to any difference of opinion, but that could hold tremendous risks. Another air strike by Israel on Iran (as in the 80s) would be seen, quite correctly, as approved and supported by the US and further inflame Arab sensibilities, confirming the viewpoint that the US is out to destroy Islam.

The US is not in a position to undertake a large scale ground campaign when it does not have enough troops to fight the insurgency in next door Iraq, and any attack on Iran could have serious implications in Iraq amongst the Shia. The latter would not take kindly to the US attacking Shia brothers in Iran. That sort of ill advised action could alienate the largest single ethnic and religious group in Iraq. The Shia have been relatively well-behaved until now, but if they were provoked, they could create worse chaos than already is present in Iraq. They could well do what I have always thought they should and could do, namely declare an autonomous Shiite State. The upshot of that would be to elevate Iran to a major regional power and one with enormous oil reserves in both Iran and the Iraqi Shia territory. The other scenario is that such actions against Iran could tip the Shia in Iraq into an all out war against the US and its coalition allies.

As for the threat of a nuclear wielding Iran, it is difficult to justify singling them out when Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for twenty years and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, but nary a word about this from the West. In any case, I do not fear an attack on either Israel or the West by a nuclear armed Iran. To undertake such a fool hardy action would bring utter and complete destruction of Iran by the US and Iran is well aware of those consequnces.

As for Pakistan, which I have always contended poses a greater threat than any other Muslim state, the US is now playing with fire in that country, an alleged ally in Bush’s war against terrorism. Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that the western provinces in that country are harbouring at the very least remnants of Taliban and probably Al-Qaeda cells. In addition, Al-Zawahiri may well be holed up there, but so what? What if an air strike killed Al-Zawahiri? Would that take the wind out of the sails of the insurgency in Iraq? Would it destroy the ability and wish of Al-Qaeda to strike at western targets? I hardly think so. The insurgency and terrorism have evolved beyond movements centralized and tightly controlled by Osama and any of his lieutenants. The diverse national and local terrorist groups are becoming autonomous, most having their own agenda and resources which will in no way be affected by the removal of a single person such as al-Zawahiri.

The US legislators are virtually unanimous in justifying the deaths of the civilians in Pakistan in order to kill al-Zawahiri, but as with Iraq the Americans are unable to look beyond their immediate objective. Not only are they supporting the action and results, they seem to be proposing the US not recognise Pakistan territorial sovereignty and that the western border area be considered an open warfare zone with or without Pakistan approval. What now? Are the people who took us to war in Iraq now proposing we invade both Iran and Pakistan?

Musharraf is already walking the proverbial tightrope with a regime shot through with radical fundamentalists; his army and intelligence services have been compromised and infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathisers. I argued two years ago that his days were numbered and every incident of the nature of the recent bombing going awry can only hasten his departure. Once that happens, Pakistan could move from being a reluctant collaborator and ally to an outright enemy state, one with nuclear weapons and delivery systems already in place. The risk of a radicalised Pakistan is that it could draw India into a regional nuclear conflict that would then escalate into a wider conflagration.

In the years leading up to Vietnam there was much talk of the ‘domino effect’, namely that any given communist regime would by its propinquity to its neighbours bring them down as well. Now, the invasion of Iraq seems to be leading the US into a succession of unsustainable wars. They will prove unsustainable because, short of bombing the entire territory into rubble and killing the population in the process, there is no way the US can prevail in those wars. Iran is no Iraq. It is an ethnically and religiously homogenous nation and not suffering under a regime any where near as repressive as that of Sadaam. It has a more effective fighting force and a population that on the whole will resist invaders.

If, as Professor Stiglitz of Columbia University estimates, the cost of the Iraqi war could be in the realm of $1.2 trillion, the mind boggles at the cost of financing yet another war in Iran. Then, add the cost to the American economy of increased cost of petrol and you have a recipe for economic disaster, a result Osama could never on his own have achieved.

baoluo

An Explanatory Note About this Blog

2005-11-26T11:51:00.000+01:00

Many readers of this blog will ask, quite rightly, why my seeming preoccupation with China in the posts. In fact, at the outset, this post should have been placed as a Foreword to the Blog.

The answer is simple: the media, the US and most other governments are narrowly focused on Iraq and the Middle East and to a great extent ignore the developments in Asia, in particular those involving China.

Most news about China centres on the trade deficit, outsourcing and loss of US jobs to China. These are also salient issues, but there are bigger stakes, political ones, that are having global impact, events that are in play, but being overlooked by a public uneducated and poorly informed by media about the region.

As has often been the case, the world, and chiefly the United States, is generally reactive to events. That is to say, it only takes note of happenings in a region of the world when a crisis is already full blown. The reaction is usually one of shock or surprise and more often than not inappropriate, frequently disastrous and hasty decisions are made by a government merely because it was unprepared to deal with the matter and needed to be seen as in control by a nervous and even more ignorant public.

Thus, although this blog will deal with geopolitical questions throughout the world, I make no apologies for the focus on Asia, and the individual topic of China. The latter looms larger in influence on the world with each passing day and it behoves the public, governments and media to prepare for the consequences by understanding the history and staying abreast of events in that area.

baoluo

How to Find All Previous Posts

2005-11-26T11:28:00.000+01:00

Please Note:

On the left sidebar are listed only the most recent ten posts. In order to view all previous posts, one must scroll down the full text posts on this, the right side of the home page. At this writing there are 38 posts available.

Thank you

Condolezza Rice, Dominatrix

2005-11-26T10:51:00.000+01:00

When Condolezza Rice was appointed Secretary of State she stated she would be a travelling Secretary of State, more so than Powell who had to stay in Washington and spend his time shoring up Bush’s image and wonky policies by appearing with him at every press conference.

Once Bush secured his reelection, there was no longer need for pretense, no longer for believable Powell to give loyal support to Bush’s lack of credibility. He could come out of the closet and unleash his secret foreign policy weapon – Condolezza Rice, Dominatrix!

Condolezza was set to both play nice and crack the whip with visits in Palestine, Canada, Russia, China, France and Germany.

So, here in this post, will begin a series which will be devoted to Rice’s peregrinations and policies; we will follow and evaluate the results of her approach and objectives.

Aside from her trendy fashion splash wearing her S&M working leather outfit, she has not made an auspicious start.

So far Russia, Iran, N. Korea and Canada have told her not to bother. Iran has said they will not tolerate interference in their affairs and will continue with nuclear development. Russia echoed Iran’s sentiments and signed an agreement to assist Iran in its nuclear plan. Putin and Bush had a “candid” conversation which means that Putin told him to stay out of internal Russian affairs while Bush tried unsuccessfully to reply without a speech prompter by his side, or on his back. Rice, despite being a specialist in Russian affairs, apparently has not been able to bring her expertise to bear on this issue.

Canada’s liberal PM could not muster enough votes to support Bush’s Nintendo Missile Defence system, so Rice cracked the whip and cancelled her trip to Canada. Dear oh dear, how will Canada be able to survive without a visit by Condolezza Rice?

Latin America? My dire warnings of impending disaster are, alas, proving all too correct. What has Rice done to counter the trend toward ant-Americanism in South America? What has she done to counter the influence of Chavez, of a growing move to the Left in Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay? This is not to mention the keystone of Brasil led by Lula who has cozied up to Chavez. All China has to do is wait for the Latin fruit to ripen and drop in their lap.

At this writing she is in the Middle East, as the saying goes, beating a dead horse, trying to resuscitate the corpse of US foreign policy in that region. The Palestinians quite understandably do not take her or the Bush State Department seriously seeing them as a stalking horse for Israel. We have not had an impartial approach to the Israeli/Palestinian problem since the days of Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and the present policy is without question the most biased ever in favour of Israel. With the Evangelicals increasing influence in foreign policy and education that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Her recent much ballyhooed role in bringing the Palestinians and Israelis to an agreement on access to and from the Gaza strip is little more than a band-aid applied to a gaping wound. She, like Dubya, is a dedicated Evangelical and brings with her all that ideological baggage common to evangelicals – moralistic preaching and arrogant belief in the superiority of Western style democracy and Christianity.

Not even mild-mannered Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor and long time Bush Senior friend in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg (see the New Yorker 31 October) could resist criticism of Rice. If you have not or cannot obtain a copy, herewith his take on Rice, “
He correctly point out Rice’s forte is narrow and in the Russian domain, not Asia, not the Middle East. Because of the American preoccupation with Iraq little attention is given to more important areas. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed to attend an important Asean meeting. Moreover, the Americans have sought to use successive Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) summits to push their agenda of security and counter-terrorism - issues which are less central to Asian countries.

Her academic credentials like so many of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld appointees are impeccable academically but lacking “in the trenches” experience. Wolfowitz was another example of the ivory tower pundits and one who led us into the present quagmire in Iraq. Rice with her doctoral badge is in some respects more dangerous because she brings with her the baggage of evangelical religious beliefs and unquestioning loyalty to Bush who has no foreign policy credentials, in practice or on paper – the blind leading the blind.

Finis

Latin America - a crisis in the making Part III

2005-07-17T10:21:00.000+02:00

Further to my series on China's growing influence in Latin America at the expense of the United States and as a result of America's neglect, please read more on the link below.

"So far, official Washington has ignored or denied the significance of China's Latin America strategy. Indeed, "President Hu Jintao spent more time in Latin America last year than President George W Bush," Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer has observed. "China's vice president, Zeng Qinghong, spent more time in the region last month than his US counterpart, Vice President Dick Cheney, over the past four years."

China's tango with Latin America

Much as the US once used the open-door ploy against Europe to get at Chinese resources and labor, China is now playing the same card against the US in Latin America as it aggressively pushes to find new markets and vital energy sources.

[via Asia Times Online]

More on Chinese Textile Exports and the Yuan

2005-05-27T07:02:00.000+02:00

Two recent (26 May) lengthy articles in The Economist dealt with the impact of import restictions on textiles from China and the net effect of a possible revaluation of the Yuan.

I have excerpted three paragraphs from those articles which are relevant to my post of 24 May on these subjects:

"The quotas and tariffs will not save the American textile industry or restore the 1m jobs it has lost since the 1980s. “China isn't their problem,” says Laura Jones of the US Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. “It's the whole rest of the world.”

"At most, the restrictions will slow Chinese export growth to the West. But any slack is likely to be taken up by other poor countries (my Italics). The “safeguard” measures—a product of the tortuous negotiations on China's admission to the World Trade Organisation—cannot be used against other countries. One of the protectionist arguments used last year for prolonging quotas was that their abolition would wipe out export-based industries in poor countries that allegedly relied on quota protection from Chinese competition. "

"The true losers from any return of quotas will be American and European consumers and the retailers that cater to them. It will mean higher prices now, and hinder lower future prices by slowing the emergence of Chinese “supply-chain cities”, as UBS, an investment bank, calls them, that will handle the entire process of making a piece of clothing from sheep to shelf. "

"a small Chinese revaluation would have virtually no impact on America's vast external deficit. China's share of America's imports is around 10%, so even a 10% appreciation would reduce the dollar's trade-weighted value by only 1%. Were China's move followed by the rest of Asia, the dollar's value would fall by something closer to 4%. But even that would do little to close America's $600 billion-plus current-account gap."

China, Foreign Trade and the Yuan: Be careful what you wish for... Part IV

2005-05-24T09:18:00.000+02:00

Recent moves by the Bush administration to punish China for America’s lack of fiscal discipline has once again underscored the US’s inability to look ahead to consequences of its foreign policy. Iraq, of course, is the most outstanding failure, and now we are faced with another colossal blunder, this time with the China policy.

The US contends that a) increased textile imports from China and b) the Yuan peg to the dollar are endangering the US and global economy. Solution: restrict textile imports from China and float the Yuan. Really?

America’s indebtedness resulting from spending more money than it generates in revenues has placed $1.98 trillion of the $4trillion in US Treasury notes in the hands of foreign investors. Japan, the largest holder accounts for $680 billion and China $224 billion. In addition, China buys dollars to ensure its currency, the Yuan, stays at about 8.3 to the dollar, where it has been fixed for nine years.

The U.S. current account deficit widened every quarter last year, to reach an unprecedented 5.6 percent of the economy at the end of the year, while the U.S. federal budget deficit grew to a record $412 billion.

The US needs the inflows, the purchases of Treasury notes to finance its current account deficit. Without ongoing purchases of US Treasury notes the US would literally go broke. There is not enough money in the treasury to pay America’s bills and interest payments on those outstanding notes, or, if you like, America’s IOUs.

If China were to cash in their bonds and demand payment in gold rather than fiat US currency, what would happen to the Dollar? Gold prices? the Yuan? At current prices there is not enough gold in existence to pay off all of China’s holdings of US Bonds. Because of a shortage of freely traded and available gold inventory, prices would likely need to increase by perhaps 8 times or more to make enough gold available to pay China. Buy gold now!

If China wants to cash in their US Bonds, the most likely scenario is that the US will merely print more Dollars as needed and voilà, skyrocketing Inflation.

Although such action by China is not presently in the cards, if China were pushed to the wall, its ace would be the treasury notes. Cashing them in would have a greater negative impact on the United States than a nuclear strike.

Restricting Chinese Imports
If the US stops buying Chinese products, then US prices for products manufactured in China will go up – again big time inflation. As for textiles specifically, limiting only Chinese exports to the US will not stop the inflow of cheap textiles. No action has been taken to reduce the import of textile products from Egypt, Latin American and African exporters of products at prices lower than those of the US textile industry, so how will simply reducing Chinese exports alleviate pressure on the US industry?

Wal-Mart in 2004 estimated purchases from China to reach $18 billion. Think of the impact of a significant increase on prices of the world’s largest retailer. One estimate has it that 80% of microwave ovens in the world are produced in China; China became the biggest producer of mobile phones, colour TVs and monitors in the world last year. The statistics showed that the nation's output for these products has respectively accounted for 35 per cent, 40 per cent and 55 per cent of the world's total.

The Yuan
If China chooses, or is pressured , to float the Yuan, the US dollar could fall as the Yuan rises. Once that happens, prices of Chinese imports could increase more, as will prices for those products in the US – higher US inflation.

If the Dollar falls enough, other countries that currently hold Dollars as central bank reserves, could decide to bail out of the Dollar so it does not drag their own currencies down. Even countries that simply peg their own currencies to the Dollar may decide to allow their currencies to float. The most likely US financial defense would be to raise interest rates significantly.

One considered opinion on the net effect of appreciation of the Yuan by an economist is, “China gains its comparative advantage by low material and labour cost, highly efficient machinery as well as good quality control system. Hence, the appreciation of the Yuan would not exert too much impact on China’s comparative advantage and the US demand for Chinese exports. Besides, China’s share in the US total trade is only about 10%, and even if the Yuan appreciates by 20%, the real effect reflected on the US current account in dollar term will only be about 2%, which is too small to influence the US current account imbalance and relieve its unemployment pressure.”

Conclusion
It would appear then that China holds three trump cards: (1) Remove Yuan peg to the Dollar (US inflation), (2) Cash in their US Bonds (US interest rate rise, US inflation or much, much worse), (3) Threaten to stop or reduce all exports to US (US mega inflation).

America’s Shock and Awe approach will work no better economically with Chiina than it has in Iraq militarily. The consequences of this ill thought out knee jerk reaction to China will have even more serious repercussions than the debacle in Iraq.

Latin America - a crisis in the making Part II

2005-05-16T11:43:00.000+02:00

With reference to my previous post "Latin America - a crisis in the making", I submit the following recent article from The Economist, an article which reflects both my previous comments and which highlights and underscores my criticsm of US Foreign Policy in this region.

Trouble in the "backyard"
Apr 28th 2005 SÃO PAULO From The Economist print edition

Just stop calling it that
Rice and Lula: wary allies

AFTER four years in which South Americans complained of neglect by the United States, George Bush is paying attention. He sent his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to the region in March. Condoleezza Rice, the new secretary of state, set off on a four-nation tour this week. Mr Bush himself is expected in Argentina and Brazil in November. Why the sudden interest? Because things are going badly.

The United States' long-standing project for the region, free trade among the hemisphere's 34 democracies, is stuck. Mr Bush's newer idea of spreading democracy everywhere could suffer reversals in South America. Last week Ecuador's Congress ousted its pro-American president. Democracy in Bolivia and Peru is fragile.

As America's influence in South America has waned, China's has waxed. The noisiest problem for Mr Bush is Venezuela, led by an implacably anti-American populist, Hugo Chávez. He is thought to be fomenting unrest in other Andean countries, and this week scrapped a longstanding military co-operation accord between Venezuela and the United States. The Bush administration has so far failed to persuade fellow members of the Organisation of American States to back its candidate to be the group's secretary-general.

Michael Shifter, an analyst with Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, DC, says that the United States needs to abandon its traditional attitude that Latin America is merely its backyard. Ms Rice, who has recently carried emollient messages to several continents, seems to understand this. Her tour takes in two reliable allies, Colombia and El Salvador. But much of the business that matters is with pricklier countries. She was to attend a pro-democracy jamboree in Chile. She started her tour in Brazil, the region's main power, which the United States hopes will be a bulwark against instability.

Brazil is wary of pan-American free trade, bitter about American farm subsidies and suspicious of American military aid to Colombia. It is too big and ambitious in its own right to accept American leadership. For their part, the Americans deem Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a tad too friendly to Mr Chávez.

In Brasília, however, Ms Rice played down differences. A joint statement spoke the local language of liberty, democracy and social justice, though the secretary mentioned drugs, terrorism and trade in a later speech. The statement called on Ecuador to respect democratic order, though neither country may do much to ensure this. Brazil leads the United Nations' peacekeepers in Haiti and probably restrains Mr Chávez. If other Andean governments fall into anti-American hands, its moderating influence will be sorely needed.

The best hope for stability in South America is to make it richer. The United States alone cannot make that happen, but could do more to help.

The Prescience of George Kennan

2005-05-16T09:44:00.000+02:00

The Prescience of George Kennan

George F. Kennan (1904-2005), a distinguished US diplomat and historian, was one of the primary architects of US strategy during the Truman Administration. Kennan was one of the most thoughtful and eloquent writers not just on history, international politics, and US-Russian relations, but on American society, questions of personal and political philosophy, and contemporary problems such as nuclear weapons, the environment, population growth, and urbanization

The following quote from PPS/23, written in February 1948 when he was head of the US State Department's Policy Planning Staff, is often given as evidence of the iniquity of US foreign policy.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

Fifty seven years later that sensible advice is still valid and ignored.

baoluo

2005-04-13T11:42:00.000+02:00

Asian century: West is watching

LONDON: The West is getting anxious about the possible impact of India and China's pledge to create an 'Asian century'.

[via The Times Of India - India]

The China-India Axis Revisited - Creation of an Asian Heartland

2005-04-11T15:17:00.000+02:00

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.

US, NATO, Europe and a China-India Axis

2005-04-11T09:34:00.000+02:00

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.

Iraq, a Failed State

2005-04-02T10:54:00.001+02:00

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

More on Latin America

2005-04-02T10:50:00.001+02:00

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.

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.

[via washingtonpost.com - World]

More on Pakistan

2005-04-02T10:50:00.000+02:00

Reference my previous post of 22 March - Pakistan a Powder Keg. See the following article from The Asia Times.

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

2005-04-02T10:45:00.000+02:00

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

Latin America - a changing political environment, and statesmanship

2005-04-02T10:44:00.000+02:00

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.

China and the US; Weiqi and Chess; Strategic Thinking vs. Tactical Thinking

2005-03-31T22:00:00.000+02:00

In 1972, in Beijing, Henry Kissinger asked Chou En-lai, the then Chinese foreign minister if he thought the French Revolution of 1789 had benefited humanity. “We Chinese feel it is too soon to tell,” Chou answered. As James Pinkerton wrote,
“sitting atop 5000 years of Chinese history, Chou had a point: it can’t hurt to let events unfold before rushing to judgment. The Chinese, after all, invented the game of weiqi -- known in the West by its Japanese name, go -- which requires the utmost in patience and a sense of long-term positioning. And that outlook spills over into geopolitics; the Chinese worked on their Great Wall, on and off, from the 7th century BC to the 17th century AD.”

Before proceeding with my thesis, a bit of background on Weiqi: The game known in English as go, Igo in Japanese, Weiqi in Chinese, Baduk in Korean — is not just more difficult and subtle than chess. It may also be the world's oldest surviving game of pure mental skill.

As for the origin of the game of Weiqi, it is known to have been developed in China, but the dates are open to much speculation. One story has it that it was invented by the Emperor Yao (ruled 2357-2256 B.C.) as an amusement for his idiot son . A second claims the Emperor Shun (ruled 2255-05) B.C created the game in hopes of improving his weak-minded son's mental prowess . Finally , a third theory suggests that Weiqi was developed by court astrologers during the Chou Dynasty(1045-255 B.C.). In any event , it is generally agreed that Weiqi/GO is at least 3000 to 4000 years old which makes it the world's oldest strategic board game. The origin of Chess being circa 600 AD, considerably later than Weiqi/GO.

Although I am a “newbie” to the game of Weiqi, the differences between Chess and Weiqi quickly became clear to me. At the same time, those dissimilarities seemed to reflect as well the differing approaches to foreign policy and diplomacy of China and the United States.

Whereas Chess is, as one Grandmaster put it, “99% tactical”, Weiqi/GO is a game of strategy. Militarily, Chess is a single battle; Weiqi is a multi-front war. The former is conducted on an 8x8 board; the latter on one of 19x19 squares or 361 interstices. Chess is a game that relies entirely on the left hemisphere of our brain, the analytical function; Weiqi requires the employment of both left and right brain hemispheres – analytical and perception of spatial patterns respectively. Chess is designed for short term engagement and Weiqi for the long term.

Before proceeding to my main thesis and the role the games play in today’s geopolitical joust I submit below a table outlining some of the more salient features of the two games. These features and how they relate to geopolitical theory will be readily apparent.

Object Of The Game
Chess: Checkmate Opposing King = Total Victory
Weiqi: Obtain Larger Territory = Greater "market share"

Brain Functions Used In Playing
Chess: Almost Entirely Analytical (left brain).
Weiqi: Fully utilizes/integrates analytic (left brain) and artistic/pattern recognition (right brain) functions. Intuitive analysis. One requiring multi-tasking.

Number of possible First Moves.
Chess: 20 White x 20 Black = 400.
Weiqi: 361 Black x 360 White = 129960, although symmetry reduces this number to an effective 32,490.

Estimated Number of Possible Board Configurations
Chess: 10 to the 120th power
Weiqi: OMNI Magazine in June, 1991 proposed 10 to the 761th, but most believe that the correct figure is really on the order of 10 to the 174th.

Military Analogy
Chess: A single battle.
Weiqi: An entire multi-front war.

The Nature of Play
Chess: Primarily tactical, with only a modest strategic component.
Weiqi: Profoundly strategic, but with incisive, complex, integral tactics.

Countries Using This Kind Of Thinking In Their Political Decision Making.
Chess: US, Western Democracies, Russia, and Eastern European Nations.
Weiqi: China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore.

(For more detailed information about the differences between Weiqi and Chess I refer the reader to the following online references:
http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/goandpsych.pdf
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007/CognitiveBrainResearchChess.pdf

So, what does all this have to do with China and the US and their respective approaches to geopolitics?

A recent Pentagon report describes Beijing's "string of pearls" strategy as one that aims to project Chinese power overseas and protect China's energy security at home. In fact, that “string of pearls” is closely linked to the technique of the game of Weiqi.

Amongst the Western nations there is a certain impatience in problem solving, but it is the United States in particular that is easily frustrated by protracted disputes and wars. They want a quick resolution and when it is not forthcoming, they abandon their objectives or change them. They want quick solutions – the “Desert Storm” war in Iraq, Grenada, Panama – in and out with a minimum of fuss. They do not like Vietnams or Koreas that drag on, or Somalias that get messy. Now as “Enduring Freedom” drags on into the third year with no end in sight, the American public is becoming restive and unhappy once again. Eventually, this discontent will percolate upward into the government.

While the United States, a Chess player, is tightly focused on the Iraqi/Middle East conflict, which it considers to be the key to world peace and a springboard for global American hegemony, the Chinese are playing Weiqi on the global game board; with long term goals and multi-front objectives. (See comparative chart above.)

While other global interests and alliances burn, America fiddles in the Middle East.

China, on the other hand, is moving quietly and effectively to forge commercial alliances that bring substantial and long term political influence and benefits. Let us have a look at China’s diplomatic efforts over the last two years

1. China has, for all purposes, finessed the United States in South East Asia by creating its own ad hoc version of ASEAN with bilateral agreements.

2. To secure and broaden its energy sources it has invested in port facilities in Pakistan- I quote from the Asia Times: ” When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Pakistan this month to inaugurate the Gwadar deepsea port, China will take a giant leap forward in gaining a strategic foothold in the Persian Gulf region. It will advance what a recent Pentagon report describes as Beijing's "string of pearls" strategy that aims to project Chinese power overseas and protect China's energy security at home.”

3. In Africa China recently visited Angola with a view to contracting for petroleum supplies from that country

4. China held joint naval maneuvers with India and France and is moving forcefully to create ever stronger commercial ties with the EU. The prospect of penetrating the enormous Chinese market almost certainly will prompt the EU to lift the arms embargo on China and closer political ties will follow. China, in the not too distant future, could supplant the US as the EU’s major tradiing and political partner.

5. Even more intriguing, with greater consequences for the US, are China’s deft moves into Latin America. A few months ago China embarked on a whirlwind tour of Mexico, Argentina, Brasil and Venezuela. China committed to investing $20 billion in Argentina over the next ten years and $7 billion in Brasil immediately to improve Brasil's roads, railways and ports. In total China plans to shell out $50 billion over ten years in Latin America. In that regard please read the following New York Times article of 2 March 2005

“Latin America is becoming a rich destination for China in its global quest for energy, with the Chinese quickly signing accords with Venezuela, investing in largely untapped markets like Peru and exploring possibilities in Bolivia and Colombia.

China’s sights are focused mostly on Venezuela, which ships more than 60 per cent of its crude oil to the United States. With the largest oil reserves outside West Asia, and a president who says his country needs to diversify its energy business beyond the United States, Venezuela has emerged as an obvious contender for Beijing’s attention.

The Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, accompanied by a delegation of 125 officials and businessmen, and Vice President Zeng Qinghong of China signed 19 cooperation agreements in Caracas late in January. They included long-range plans for Chinese stakes in oil and gas fields, most of them now considered marginal but which could become valuable with big investments.

Chavez has been engaged in a war of words with the Bush administration since the White House gave tacit support to a 2002 coup that briefly ousted him.

Still, Venezuela is a major source for American oil companies, one of four main providers of imported crude oil to the United States, inexorably linking the two countries’ interests.

‘‘The United States should not be concerned,’’ Rafael Ramírez, Venezuela’s energy minister, said in an interview, ‘‘because this expansion in no way means that we will be withdrawing from the North American market for political reasons.’’ In recent months, though, China’s voracious economy has brought it to Venezuela, and much of South America, in search of fuel.

‘‘The Chinese are entering without political expectations or demands,’’ said Roger Tissot, an analyst who evaluates political and economic risks in leading oil-producing countries for the PFC Energy Group in Washington.

China’s entry is worrisome to some American energy officials, especially because the US is becoming more dependent on foreign oil at a time when foreign reserves remain tight.

Chinese interest in Venezuela, a senior committee aide said, underlines Washington’s lack of attention toward Latin America. ‘‘For years and years, the hemisphere has been a low priority for the US, and the Chinese are taking advantage of it,’’ the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘‘They’re taking advantage of the fact that we don’t care as much as we should about Latin America.’’ (my bold print)

To be sure, China, the world’s second-largest consumer of oil, has emerged as a leading competitor to the US in its search for oil, gas and minerals throughout the world — notably Central Asia, West Asia and Africa. —NYT”

6. Beyond the events outlined above, one should pay special attention to Latin America and its inexorable move, or rather return, to the Left, a development that can only benefit China. There are now four significant Latin American governments which have leftist credentials: Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela and the freshly minted, newly elected government in Uruguay. The latter, Uruguay, just reopened the Cuba embassy in Montevideo. Cuba, which had been written off after its “sugar daddy”, the USSR collapsed and withdrew its financial largesse to Cuba, is now experiencing a political renaissance. All those socialist left leaning countries can be counted on as strong allies for China; all of them have a history of barely repressed anti-Americanism. They will welcome a counterweight to what they perceive as the domineering and powerful neighbour to the North.

Two points in the NYT article above stand out: 1) the Chinese soft approach – they are entering without expectations – no strings, no small print; they are accumulating a reserve of credits in good will and 2) the Chinese are taking advantage of US neglect of the Latin American regions. The Chinese are looking to the future for its return, to the long term, not to short term gains.

The Chinese are waging a multi front, non-military war while the US is obsessed with extending its domain by threat, and military coercion; seemingly incapable of the multi tasking necessary to look after its global interests. The US is investing several hundred billion dollars in a war, which in the end will bring not benefit to the United States, only grief and increasing, unsustainable debt. In the meanwhile, the Chinese are accumulating trade surpluses, over $200 billion in credit from the United States in the form of Treasury Notes and political and trade alliances.

China is following the basic principles and concepts of Weiqi; the US are looking to those of Chess.

· Acquiring territory by isolating its opponent’s pieces, by finessing them. not using force and the assumption that removing the “King” or the opponents “pieces” will secure victory

· Engaging in a multi front effort: not narrowly concentrating and counting on a single objective to achieve its ends

Finally, a quote: “Dr. Hans Berliner, a leading Chessmaster, former World Correspondence Chess Champion, Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, and one of those whose work on chess led to the development of IBM's Deep Blue and its descendants said: "You don't have to be really good anymore to get good results. Chess is winding down.....What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity". And he concluded: "Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go..."

The people doing war games in Washington should take note; they might want to reconsider their tactical and narrow approach in favour of a more strategic one, one that employs the whole brain, not half of it.
Finis
baoluo

2005-03-27T09:20:00.000+02:00

US looses sheen; Europe scores

US is no longer the ultimate destination for Indian students as other nations are also wooing them.

[via The Times Of India - India]

The EU, Emasculated Union

2005-03-22T19:42:00.000+01:00

Alas, once again the EU is displaying its lack of resolve and inability to cut the umbilical cord with the United States.

The US appoints Bolton as Ambassador to the UN, a slap in the face to both the UN and the Europeans opposed to America's foreign policy. Then, as if that was not enough, Bush designates Wolfowitz, Chief Ideologue of the Neo Cons to head up the World Bank.

Reaction by Europe - Europe expresses "disappointment", Europe is "doubtful", Europe is "hostile"....but not expected to oppose Wolfowitz's appointment"

Now, quailing in fear of Rice's displeasure, the EU is beginning to back off from its intent to lift the arms embargo on China using the puerile excuse of China's anti-secession law. How pathetic! One can only hope that France, playing its traditional role of spoiler, and in self interest, will stand up to the US on this issue. Russia most certainly is under no such constraints and the upcoming military exercises of Russia and China are signals of increasing cooperation between the two. It is ironic that those two countries once driven apart by ideological differences in 1960, are now once again finding a common cause and being brought together to counter American efforts to spread its own ideology and to support Japan as a regional counterweight to China. America’s declarations, expounding the superiority of its political system and threatening its allies and Satrapies should they deviate from the party line, ring eerily of the USSR communist cold war rhetoric. The question now is when and how can the EU be liberated from the stifling grip of the present US regime.

United States Foreign Policy Blunders Update 2 - confrontation vs. accomnodation

2005-03-19T07:58:00.000+01:00

In an article from the Asia Times, Mr. Chalmers supports (at great length) essentially what I wrote in my post “Help Wanted – a Political Oculist” regarding the misguided policy of both the Japanese and Americans vis-a-vis China.

He posits:

"It is popular nowadays to refer to the US as the "lone superpower". This is a myth: there is now a new superpower, China - a fact that Washington and Tokyo ignore at their peril. The current US policy of encouraging and even accelerating Japanese rearmament, and both allies' self-delusion over Taiwan, are huge and very dangerous foreign policy errors."- Chalmers Johnson, President of Japan Policy Institute.
For the complete article see the link below
The real 'China threat'

In this post, I should like to return to that same subject and amplify on it.

The United States has a seeming genius for setting priorities that work against its national interests; supporting the wrong causes, ones that invariably come back to haunt the US. Israel is the first and most obvious of those errors, but a half a world away from Israel another and equally disastrous policy is taking shape.

Condolezza Rice, a.k.a. Dominatrix, has been busy pursuing the neo-con agenda of confrontation with China by enlisting the aid of one of the most reviled countries in Asia, Japan.

Having worked hard to achieve a breakthrough in relations with China in 1971, the US is now intent on provoking and alienating the Middle Kingdom. Why? Surely, it would be in America’s interest to work with China not against it. Perhaps, the US is labouring under the mistaken notion that China is another USSR, a cultural hodge podge held together only by dint of force and fear; or perhaps the US thinks its recipe for success in destroying the old USSR can be applied to China

The US should have another look at China and recognize that it is the largest ethnically homogenous country on the planet, not a Soviet Union made up of fractious culturally incompatible republics. It is a country which is experiencing increasing pride in “Chineseness”; looking to its return to once great glory as a major Civilisation after allowing itself to be exploited by America and the European powers in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Yesterday Rice was preaching the same tired gospel of Democracy to China hoping to achieve the same result as in the USSR. The old USSR, economically depleted within, and unable to maintain the pace of the arms race without, collapsed. Then, before it was ready to walk, it attempted to run by buying into the false promises and benefits of overnight instant democracy promoted by the US. The drunken buffoon Yeltsin was made to order for the designs of the US and with the help of America he finished off the state and put it on the path leading to its present sorry state. One has to grant credit to the United States in this regard. It succeeded far beyond its hopes in eliminating in a matter of only a few years its only competitor to global supremacy.

However, China is not about to be led down the same garden path, being even less inclined to do so after seeing what happened to Russia and its grand experiment with democracy. China is not a country living on the brink of financial collapse as was Russia; it has the fastest growing most vibrant economy in the world. Unlike the USSR and the United States it is not on a mission to impose its ideology on other countries so it is not wasting its intellectual and financial resources on such a hopeless objective. In its own sweet time China will evolve politically, but on its terms and in concert with its priorities of the economy, education and health. Militarily too, China is not the shoddy Soviet scarecrow that the US overestimated for several decades. It has the world’s largest standing army; it has a nuclear missile delivery capability and is in the process of building blue water navy. Notwithstanding the arms embargo foisted upon it by the US, China’s military will continue to grow, so any thought of dealing with China by force would be a mistake of gigantic proportion. General MacArthur once cautioned against mounting a land war any place in Asia, the consequences of which he suffered in Korea. Nevertheless, the United States repeated the mistake two decades later in Vietnam with even worse results. The mind boggles to think of an undertaking of that sort in China.

The US must realize that with its neo-con policies in tatters and its military already stretched beyond capacity in Iraq that it cannot afford another major conflict. So what to do in Asia? Neo-con answer - develop Japan as a counterweight; encourage the nationalistic Japanese samurai regime of Koizumi to rearm and support the US’s myopic policy with regard to Taiwan. This, of course, plays nicely into the hands of the pro-military, Japanese right wing throwbacks, the descendants of the ones who brought us Pearl Harbour and the Pacific War; the ones who invaded China in 1931 and massacred 400,000 Chinese in 1937 in Nanjing; the ones who refuse to acknowledge the war crimes committed in China, not to mention the crimes in Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and other countries under their boots in WWII.

Considering that history, China and other countries in the region can surely be forgiven if they take umbrage with the US machinations and attempts to revive Japanese militarism.

As I wrote above, as bad as it is, US foreign policy is nothing if not consistent. Its inability to recognize the cultural and historical factors have also led it to ignore the fact that the entire Asian region would prefer to ally itself with an economic powerhouse such as China rather than with a country with Japan’s history. Unlike Japan, even at the peak of its strength, China has not aspired to conquer the countries of Southeast Asia, nor does it wish to do so now.

The US appears to be hell bent on antagonizing China rather than seeking an entente whereby China and the US can be friendly competitors. America’s single minded obsession with democracy and its determination to impose it upon China and other countries can only lead to heightened tensions; China, mistrustful and fearful of Japanese military renaissance, might well believe it better to mount an attack on Taiwan now and before Japan does rearm. The threat of an armed and dangerous Japan can only spur China to accelerate its military build up, not slow it as the US would like. As usual, US foreign policy results in making matters worse, not better, for both America and the world.

In this regard, I should like to insert yet another quote from Mr. Chalmers which harks back to my previous post on America’s indebtedness and the precarious position it is in with its creditors. (see my post “America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy” 18 February)

My admonition in that post was: “Above all, the US should cease talk of a shifting balance of power in the Taiwan Straits. The presumption that there could be a "balance" between China and the island of Taiwan exemplifies the unrealistic and myopic US policy toward China. To do so is not solely a question of mollifying a potetnial threat, it is also for the purpose of assuring a malleable and friendly creditor - better a banker your friend than one who wants to foreclose on your farm.”

Mr Chalmers advanced a similar warning in his article : “Japan still possesses the world's largest foreign-exchange reserves, which at the end of January stood at around $841 billion. But China sits on a $609.9 billion pile of dollars (as of the end of 2004), earned from its trade surpluses with the US. Meanwhile, the US government and Japanese followers of George W Bush insult China in every way they can, particularly over the status of China's breakaway province, the island of Taiwan. The distinguished economic analyst William Greider recently noted, "Any profligate debtor who insults his banker is unwise, to put it mildly ... American leadership has ... become increasingly delusional - I mean that literally - and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it." The Bush administration is unwisely threatening China by urging Japan to rearm and by promising Taiwan that, should China use force to prevent a Taiwanese declaration of independence, the US will go to war on its behalf. It is hard to imagine more short-sighted, irresponsible policies, but in light of the Bush administration's Alice in Wonderland war in Iraq, the acute anti-Americanism it has generated globally, and the politicization of America's intelligence services, it seems possible that the US and Japan might actually precipitate a war with China over Taiwan.”

America has become the Dr, Frankenstein of International Affairs. In attempting to create new, or transform existing, political entities into its own image, in the end the US succeeds only in giving birth to malformed and dangerous national states. By trying to thwart the inevitable development of China with rearmament of Japan, the US risks drawing the region and the world into an unimaginable conflagration. The present US foreign policy has become arguably the greatest threat to global security, a negative, reckless and dark force.

baoluo

China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound

2005-03-12T11:07:00.000+01:00

China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound

Dollar jitters continue, with none other than Alan Greenspan now warning that the party may be over for the greenback as foreign investors tire of paying for the US's uncontrollable fiscal deficit and consider shifting to other currencies. Reports reveal that China has been doing that for quite some time now, reducing its dollar holdings from 82% in 2003 to 76% in 2004.

[via Asia Times Online]

The Geopolitics of Energy, Food and China

2005-03-11T09:07:00.000+01:00

The link below should be read by all, and in particular by the eco spoofers, the ones who accuse those concerned with ecology as being nothing more than Chicken Littles crying “the sky is falling!”.. In this interesting, albeit somewhat speculative article the author deals with just one aspect of global economic growth, namely the impact of New China’s entry onto the world economic stage. The title is "LEARNING FROM CHINA. Why the Western Economic Model Will not Work for the World"

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update46.htm

Although we all recognise the need for alternative sources of energy, and there is much talk about it, there is little in the way of action. There seems no urgency, and a naive belief that somehow the problem will solve itself – perhaps by a miraculous scientific breakthrough; perhaps by divine intervention.

The article quoted above brings into sharp and frightening relief the consequences of just one scenario, that of China’s growth. When one adds India’s forecast to the equation and those projections to the numbers, one can only see immigration to another planetary system as an alternative to living on Earth.

In order not to steal the thunder of this very worthwhile article I will close this post and encourage all of you to read and reflect on the possible future repercussions of the underlying energy structure of our economy.

baoluo

America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy Part 2

2005-03-10T22:55:00.000+01:00

I refer the readers to my post of 18 February in which I wrote of the risk of America financing its debt by selling T-Notes to foreign governments and financial institutions. Last week South Korean announced it could well diversify its currency holdings away from the US Dollar by buying Australian and Canadian dollars. South Korea is the fourth largest creditor in terms of T-Notes. Result - the dollar dropped.

Now comes the news that Japan might well diversify its holdings. Japan is the number one holder of US T-Notes at $741 billion. Result - the dollar dropped again.

These events underscore the underlying weakness in the US economy and currency due to its enormous indebtedness in the form of T-Notes held abroad. And we are only talking about "diversifying" holdings. What would happen if any of the major holders of T-Notes decided to cash them in? That would do more than cause a drop in the dollar - it would have a seismic impact on the US and global economies.

The countries in question know this, thus they are quietly diversifying to other currencies in order to lessen the blow. Then, they can slowly move their and other economies to safer ground.

For an interesting insight to these scenarios I refer the reader to the following link

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/GC11Dk01.html

baoluo

Lebanon: be careful what you wish for...Part 3

2005-03-08T11:37:00.000+01:00

In the ongoing series of “be careful what you wish for, you may get it!” I would like to raise the current topic of Lebanon for consideration.

In the past several days here has been much talk from the American State Department and missionaries for the Bush gospel, about the knock on effect of the “liberation” of Iraq and the subsequent elections in that country.

The ever optimistic, seldom realistic US foreign policy establishment points to a truce in the Palestine, to a decision by Mubarak to allow an opposition candidate, and now to the anti-Syrian demonstrators as proof that Democracy is taking root in the Middle East.

In the latter case the Americans regard these anti-Syria demonstrations as the first step toward free elections and removal of a pro-Syrian, Iranian supported regime. At the same time, the US is completely ignoring the fact that the Shiite population in Lebanon accounts for over 40% of the total, while the Maronite Christians, now only 18%. The Shia also just happen to be the bedrock support of the Hizbollah, a ranking member on America’s list of terrorist organizations and sworn enemy of both the US and Israel.

Now, after those first days when it appeared the anti-Syrian contingent would sweep the boards and replace the pro.Syrian government, what did we get but the Prime Minister who had resigned under pressure. Thousands of pro-Syrian, Shiite, Hizbollah demonstrators poured into the streets of Beirut and suddenly talk by Rice turned unhappy, with declarations that Syria was behind the latter demonstrations.

Well they may have been, and it may also have been that the US was behind the initial anti-Syrian demonstrations. That is the nature of politics.

However, let us for the sake of argument follow the American thesis and hoped for result. We would, as US State proposes, have free elections in Iraq. Before we do that it might be well to examine the ethnic cum religious make up of Lebanon and have a quick look at the events which have led to the present sorry state of affairs.

Muslim 59.7% (Shia, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant), other 1.3%

Of the some 60 percent Muslims, the vast majority, about 1.2 million, are Shia Muslims, you know, the ones who represent 60% of Iraq’s population and all of Iran’s. In the case of Lebanon, the Shiites now account for 40% of the population. The Maronite Christians are the second largest group at somewhere between 20-25%. With this mix of not very compatible interests, it is easy to see that there could be and has been considerable conflict in this country. It is also fairly obvious which element would dominate in free elections – the US’s least favourite political flavour, the Shia, who in turn are either active members or supporters of Hezbollah and supported by the US’s other nemesis, Shia Iran.

Now for a brief visit to Lebanon’s convoluted history

In 1861, the Maronite Christian with the help of France secured a foothold in Mount Lebanon with special administrative privileges. Now fast forward to 1920. Following the final break up of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were busy carving up and redrawing the map in the Middle East to suit their respective geopolitical interests. Out of the resulting jig-saw puzzle were born….yes, that is right, Iraq, and along with it Syria and Lebanon. None of these national entities existed prior to 1920. Virtually no thought was given to ethnic divisions – Sunni, Shiite, Maronite. It was all about which territories offered what Britain and France wanted in the way of resources geographical positioning. Iraq was created with a jumble of Shiite, Sunni and Kurds; Lebanon with Shiite, Maronites, Sunni and at that time a mere statelet of Syria. Thus, it is not entirely without some basis that Syria considers Lebanon its rightful territory.

Initially the Maronites in the core area of Mont Lebanon were the dominate force, but as their appetite for territory increased, Lebanon became Greater Lebanon and encompassed what it is today. The Maronites, a distinct minority, lorded it over the Muslims, and in 1943 created a National Pact which accommodated the Sunni majority (not Shiite at that time) and set up a 6 to 5 distribution of ministerial posts in favour of the Christians. This, as someone wrote merely papered over the fault lines.

The next major event took place in 1975, the beginning of a Civil War that was to last until 1992. In that interim warring period both Israel and the United States both got their hands dirty. The US backed Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 1976 with the support of Israel hoping that the Syrians could put an end to the chaos. The Israelis invaded south Lebanon and bombarded Beirut in 1982 to put a stop to incursions into Israel by PLO forces based in South Lebanon.

Internecine war continued until 1992 and new elections, which all had hoped would end the bloodshed. Again, however, the election of a new government only served temporarily to solve underlying geopolitical weaknesses as recent events have shown. The lack of geopolitical sense in 1920 has come back to haunt all concerned just as they have in Iraq.

Now, the United States is calling for free elections, but what if those elections reflect, as they probably will, the strength of the Shia and their fanatical Hezbollah brothers? Is this better than having a Syrian presence in the country, a force to hold the fractious country together? I can hardly think Israel would look benignly upon on a government intertwined with the Hezbollah. What then - a full scale invasion of Lebanon by Israel? What would it bring about other than more Arab resentment? Could it bring into play Lebanon’s chief supporters, the Iranians and a wider an even more dangerous conflict?

The supported Syria in 1976, but times have changed, now that Assad senior has departed and now that Syria has been a less than enthusiastic ally in the Iraqi conflict, Syria is on the The List. Syria is not only identified by the US as a funder of and haven for terrorists, it is now a prime candidate for regime change. The US wants desperately to put pressure on Syria wherever, whenever, however and Lebanon is an opportunity to do just that. Alas, as usual, the US has not thought through the implications of this policy and could well find that it has an even more unpleasant lot in Lebanon than the Syrians.

Be careful what you wish for…..

Should you wish to read more on the subject of Lebanon’s history I commend you to the following pages:

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/
and
www.ghazi.de/civwar.html

Saudi Arabia: be careful what you wish for Part 2

2005-03-01T11:36:00.000+01:00

This is the second of a series of "be careful what you wish for" posts, the first dealt with Iraq.

This one has to do with Saudi Arabia and its role in the messianic Bush/Rice rush to transform the Middle East into a redoubt of Democracy.

Just as the recent exercise in democracy and elections has done more to reveal the geopolitical fault lines in fictitious Iraq, so have the recent elections in Saudi Arabia cast a focus on the underlying dangers of the Saudi political picture.

The fanfare which greeted the Saudi elections in February has suddenly, but not surprisingly, quieted. The elections were hailed by the UK’s Daily Telegraph and various American media with joy and exclamations such as “Welcome to today's free elections in Saudi Arabia, the first since the country's creation and an extraordinary display of democracy after 70 years of absolute monarchy”. The joy was somewhat dampened by a following paragraph in the Telegraph stating that “The wave of enthusiasm that swept the country when the election was announced last year rapidly dissipated when it emerged that women would not be taking part and that real power would remain with unelected council members”, but the US State Department with its usually head-in-the sand (no pun intended) view, was quoted in a news report: “A US state department spokesman said the polls were ‘a sign that Saudi Arabia is not immune to the reforms sweeping the region’".

Reforms? Really? In what direction will the reforms take Saudi Arabia?

The Riyadh results have already given the pollyannas in the US Department of State, not only pause for thought, but probably considerable concern. “Islamist-backed candidates have taken a commanding lead in Saudi Arabia's first municipal election, in Riyadh, according to preliminary results”, announced BBC News following the Riyadh poll on 11 February.

The elections will be phased and take place over three months, already completed Phase 1 - 10 Feb (Riyadh region); then come Phase 2 - 3 Mar; (5 regions) Phase 3 - 21 Apr (7 regions).

The electoral results in the outlying and remaining 12 regions could bring even greater disquiet, being farther from the more westernised Riyadh region. If the clerics can prevail in Riyadh, what can we expect in the other 12 regions where they hold greater sway?

For anyone even vaguely familiar with Saudi history it will come as no surprise to know that the extremist Wahhabi religious movement has held the Saudi royal family’s feet to the fire for almost two centuries. It was and remains the price the Saud family paid and is paying to remain in power. While presenting a modernised, urbane face to the West, the Saud have virtually conceded control over social and religious matters in the peninsula to the Wahhabi clerics. There are few if any Islamic groups more fanatical, more anti-Semitic and anti-West than the Wahhabi.

Recently, and just a disturbing as the election results, comes the news that an ultra-conservative religious leader, Abdullah bin Saleh al-Obaid, was apponted as the new education minister for Saudi Arabia. This announcement was made only one day before the elections and buried by the Western press in favour of trumpeting the “free and democratic” elections in Saudi Arabia.

John Bradley, Asia Times, wrote, “Al-Obaid's appointment was, one would wager, among the most significant political developments inside Saudi Arabia since the September 11 attacks. It showed, first of all, that the local elections, rather than being proof of the spread of democracy in the wake of the war on Iraq, had merely provided a cover for the al-Saud to pacify the Wahhabis by appointing one of their own as the head of what it considers the most important ministry. But it also put the final nail in the coffin of a now truly dead and buried domestic reform agenda.

Unlike the town councillors, the education minister wields a great deal of influence, not least over the minds of the next generation of Saudis already steeped in a school curriculum that oozes anti-Semitism and the celebration of jihad.”

Whether the unelected councillors or the council wields significant power or, if the clerics do prevail in the forthcoming regional votes, it must bode poorly for future of reform in Saudi Arabia.

Well now, is this where America’s vaunted Democracy on the March is leading us? We have an Iraq, or fragments thereof, in the hands of Islamic clerics manipulating events behind the scenes; a regional government council in Saudi Arabia, half of whom could be allied with the dreaded Wahhabi?

Democracy could indeed turn out to be a vehicle for change in the Middle East, but Democracy does not necessarily produce a more democratic, freer or pro-American government.

Be careful what you wish for….

Help wanted - a political oculist

2005-02-26T14:05:00.000+01:00

A Political oculist? Is there such a thing? Well, if not, perhaps someone should become one, because the United States is in dire need of treatment for political short sightedness.

America’s foreign policy establishment, whether Red or Blue, has displayed astonishing genius for picking the wrong causes and allies to serve short term goals. That is to say, the US formulates policies which are expedient for the short term but turn out to be medium and long term catastrophes.

Aside from the most glaring examples of Israel and Taiwan, the most damaging of these ill advised relationships was the support of the Jihad in Afghanistan. That movement, supported enthusiastically with money and weaponry from the US, gave sustenance to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda. The armaments and money given to them to fight against the Soviet invasion are now being used to attack the UN troops in Afghanistan and the Coalition troops in Iraq.

The United States has become the Dr. Frankenstein of the global political arena creating political and military monsters which come back to haunt them. The people in Washington are seemingly unable to look ahead beyond immediate considerations. They would be poor chess players and even worse GO players, the latter requiring not only calculating and anticipating moves, but multi-tasking.

Aside from the obvious mistakes already made and mentioned above, another is looming.

The US, desperate to brake the onrushing Asian giant, China, is now enlisting Japan, former nemesis to the US and all of Asia to counter balance the Middle Kingdom. The US has involved Japan in the Taiwan dispute and is encouraging the militarization of Japan, something presently not allowed under the Japanese Post WWII constitution written by the United States.

This partnership does indeed serve the short term interests of both parties in the narrow focus of China. Japan is in imminent danger of losing its dominant position as the economic engine in Asia and it fears China’s growing military strength. Ditto for the United States, which wants to maintain its role as the preeminent power in the Pacific region.

An article in the online Washington Post of 26 February dealt in part with this issue. It pointed out that China is quietly assuming leadership in an area once the target of Japan’s ill fated Co-Prosperity Sphere in the early 1940s. The article goes on to say that whereas China is looked upon as a benign influence by the ASEAN member states, there remain some bad memories and mistrust of Japan’s WWII atrocities and heavy handedness. Ironically, China is now at the forefront of the region represented by ASEAN, an organization created at the behest of the United States, also a member. Now, however, China is finessing the US by dealing on a one-to-one basis with the ASEAN members, developing bilateral agreements and forming its own pro-China bloc within ASEAN.

Bad enough that the US wants is attempting to its influence over a region with which it has little cultural relation, but what is worse is the partner it has picked to further that cause, Japan. Japan is now considered by many to be the “Britain of the Far East”, the Asian “lap dog” of the United States. As a result of America’s global bullying, it is already in bad odour in Asia, and by associating itself with Japan, that impression will be not be improved, quite the contrary. The US could gain in terms of an ally on the questions of Taiwan and potential counterbalance to China, but it stands to lose allies in the entire South East Asia region and worsen relations with China.

.

Iraqi Elections, a Tipping Point?

2005-02-25T07:43:00.000+01:00

A few days ago I watched an ABC Nightline exchange between Thomas Friedman, a NYT columnist and Malcolm Gladwell, the author of the "Tipping Point". The subject dealt with Gladwell's theory that there are "tipping points", sometimes very small ones, which trigger and lead to events of greater magnitude. Other than examples of disease epidemics, he cited the collapse of the Berlin Wall as leading to the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Empire, a sort of domino, or “butterfly” effect.

Friedman, an apologist for Bush policies in the Middle East, chimed in with the view that once developed the trigger for change acts as a contagion and spreads. In addition, he opined that the Iraqi elections could even be said to have played a role in bringing about the agreement by Israel to withdraw its troops from some of the occupied territories; responsible for the unified and universal condemnation in Lebanon against the Syrian presence.

When pressed by Koppel as to whether the elections in Iraq can now be seen as a turning point toward a stable democratic government, they both hedged. Well, said the two, we might just be missing a couple of essential ingredients such as a charismatic leader, a Gorbachev; such as a pre-existing movement along the lines of a Polish Solidarity movement.

Gladwell's theoretical formula which might better apply to disease, and Friedman's wishful thinking, both ignore the complexities in Iraq. There has been a tendency from the outset to use prior experience in replacing totalitarian regimes with democratic ones. The US offered post WWII Germany and Japan as examples of how such regimes could be successfully followed by liberal democracy completely ignoring the historical and cultural differences between those countries and the Middle East. In the case of both Germany and Japan, we were dealing with countries with well educated populations, intellectually, and industrially highly developed; in both cases education and technology were held in high regard. Iraq, on the other hand, as a country, has abominably low literacy rates, and with the exception of oil, does not have an industrial base. Under the thumb of a series of dictators and despotic monarchs little has been done to educate the people. Their religion, that of Islam, once the driving force behind one of the most advanced civilisations had become one of the most backward technologically and intellectually repressive. To compare the Germany and Japan with Iraq is truly to compare apples and oranges.

Another of the complexities which I have raised in the past is the Kurdish question, which came to the fore in yesterday’s news. Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdish regional government, not surprisingly, fired the opening salvo in the bid for power in the New Iraq. The Kurds are offering to throw their votes to any coalition which will support their control over the Kirkuk oil fields.

Since the Shia did not win sufficient seats to name outright the senior government posts of President and Prime Minister they are forced into a bargaining position. Giving away the rights to Kirkuk oil fields would not materially affect the Shia as they are sitting on reserves much larger than those in Kirkuk. However, it would surely enrage the self-disenfranchised Sunni already feeling marginalised politically. Where does this leave the Sunni in the grand scheme of a united Iraq? There are no oil fields in Sunni territory, and whatever industry there was has been pretty much obliterated by the war. Presumably the Shiites will also want that all the oil fields in their part of “Iraq” be designated as “their oil fields”.

Furthermore, and probably more to the point, why are the Kurds talking about the oil fields being “their” oil fields? I thought the idea was to continue the fiction of an Iraqi national entity, and all that goes with it – all Iraqis sharing not only politically, but economically, including all the natural resources in the territory first created and called “Iraq” in 1920 by the British.

If the Shia, having won 48% of the vote and a majority of the seats, were to refuse Barzani’s demands then what? If Barzani were able to strike a deal with a coalition of, let us say, Allawi’s party, which garnered only 14% of the vote, plus a ragtag grab bag of other vote getters and cobble together a government, where would that leave the Shia. Despite representing 60% of the population they would once again be a majority ruled by an alien minority, this time the Kurds. No, somehow, I do not see that as a viable option. In fact I can only see it as a recipe for disaster, a civil war or a move to partitioning of the country, probably the best answer in any case..

From the outset of the Iraqi debacle I have never subscribed to the unrealistic scenario of a united Iraqi nation embracing these three disparate cultural groups. They were killing each other when the British invaded Mesopotamia in 1919 and since then have been held together only by a series of brutal dictators

Now that the latest of the despots is no longer around, they are free once again to pursue their own provincial interests and hound each other. They are not in the least interested in Bush’s high flown rhetoric about a unified, democratic Iraq, and they will give it lip service so long as it serves their interest, but no longer.

The elections may have been a Tipping Point, but it remains to be seen in which direction the constituent parts of that country will be tipped. My view is through a glass darkly.

American Arrogance - Vive la France!

2005-02-23T10:30:00.000+01:00

Perhaps it will come as a surprise to the citizens of the EU that their European Parliament and governments must look to the Untied States for approval of its legislation and foreign policy decisions.

George Bush made this quite clear yesterday at a news conference with reference to the EU intention to lift the arms embargo on China. The NYT article read, "In his news conference, Mr. Bush also told the Europeans that when they settled on their new code of conduct, they needed to "sell it to the United States Congress." What is this? Need to sell it to the US Congress? What unmitigated arrogance!

The article went on to state "Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a resolution by a 411-3 vote that condemned the European Union's plans.” That being the case, it is highly unlikely that Congress can "be sold" on an EU decision to do so. France then stated that it is determined to carry through on its plans to lift the embargo. Vive la France!

It is precisely this arrogance, this presumption of prerogative over other countries' affairs that is widening the gulf between America and the rest of the world. What cheek!

Senator Lugar went so far as to propose restrictions on sales of military technology to Europe should Europe decide to lift the arms embargo. Brilliant! The US opposes German and French proposals to form their own European military alliance, insisting on an obsolete and America led NATO. So, should Europe have the temerity to thwart US wishes on export of arms, the US would cut off supply of weapons technology to its allies in NATO.

One can hardly interpret Lugar’s remarks and the House of Representatives vote as being a very convincing argument for retaining NATO. On the contrary, the sooner Europe moves to develop its own armed forces and move out of the shadow of the United States, the sooner it can be master of its own destiny.

The NYT article also echoed the thesis in my Post of 21 February, “US, NATO, Europe and a China-India Axis”; namely, that lifting of the ban is inevitable in view of the benefits accruing to Europe in arms sales, financially and politically.

Bush's puerile efforts to bridge the differences between the United States and Europe are only serving to underscore the differences. However, one should not lay the responsibility for this ham fisted approach solely to Bush. The US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is equally myopic and haughty.

Yesterday, Senators Liebermann, Democrat, and McCain, Republican put forth a demand that Russia be expelled from the Gang of Eight because it does not meet theocratic America’s standard for a democratic government. All the more reason for Russia to join force with France and China. The upcoming talks between Bush and Putin will be all the more interesting to follow in light of these rash statements.

China and the Many Faces of Democracy

2005-02-20T22:43:00.000+01:00

Harking back to previous observations on Asia, and China in particular, I should preface my remarks with two of my favourite homemade adages:

1. Democracy is not a panacea for all of a society’s ills
2. American Democracy is like some wines - it does not travel well, and is best consumed in the country of origin.

In order for a democracy to be fully functioning, there are a few basic requirements – a relatively well educated population, cultural cohesion, security, good nationwide communications, and some experience in self government (my requirements).

With respect to China and the first posit, I am not convinced that Democracy is the answer at this stage of China’s development. China is an enormous land mass with a population in excess of 1.3 billion, many of whom are ill educated, low per capita income and with limited health care. Cultural cohesion is also not fully developed, only having been begun under the communists in 1949; communications are improving but not by any means ideal. In other words, there are more pressing priorities than free elections and the right to stand on the street corner mouthing obscenities and promoting religion.

In 1960, I read a book, “The Soul of China”, by Amaury de Riencourt. It may be out of print now, but I remember it well because of its revolutionary thesis (for me), namely that Communism fitted Chinese culture and history “like a glove”. The author argued that the Confucian tenets of obedience to central and senior authority were incorporated into Chinese communism. There was more, but that was the essence of his position. Since then, I have read at least three histories of China and I am presently reading "China, a New History" by Fairbanks and Goldman. In their book they present the view that Communism in China is merely the successor to the world's oldest and most successful autocracy. China, they argue, "is trying to achieve economic modernisation without the representative political democracy that Americans view as their special gift to the world's salvation." They also caution Americans who are prone to bash China's autocratic government to avoid attempting imposition of the flawed American model on China's unique culture.

A Chinese friend, who with his family fled China and the communist take over in 1947, returned to China in recent years and surprised me with the comment, “the best thing to happen to China was the communist assumption of power in 1949”.

As it turns out I, a dedicated capitalist, had already reached the same conclusion, but I was surprised that a dedicated Chinese capitalist such as my friend would have the same point of view. Communism freed China from the grip of the colonial powers – Great Britain, France, Untied States, and although it took WWII and the invasion of China by Japan to initiate the process. Communism, with the exception of the years and madness of the Cultural Revolution, maintained and strengthened China’s cultural traditions. Communism united China and its disparate parts for the first time in its 4500 year long history and began to implement a policy of cultural cohesion making Mandarin Chinese an official language of communication; it has harnessed the brilliant and innate Chinese intellect and is on the road to making China a superpower in every respect.

China today has regained the pride it lost under the rule of the colonial powers in the Treaty Port “agreements” forced upon them in the 20th and 19th centuries. It has the fastest growing economy in the world; it has education and the free market economy as its major priorities. Security, in a land as large as China, with a large segment of the population still not educated in the ways of democracy can only be possible with a strong central control. Some day China will evolve in the direction of democracy but China recognizes it should not make the mistake of Russia and rush will nilly into the arms of democratic capitalism in which it has no experience or background.

As for suppression of religious freedom, organised religion is more of a liability than a blessing. First, religion has never played a major role in Chinese history or culture. If you examine Chinese history you will see that religious influence, with the exception of Taoism (Daoism), in China always came from outside China and has been pluralistic – Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, all foreign influences. Even Taoism never developed into a religious organisation or institution having been practiced as an individual philosophy. None of the religious doctrines have gained universal appeal to the Chinese. The closest to acceptance could be Confucianism’s moral and ethical tenets which people sometimes confuse with religion. Religions such as Christianity ran counter to and conflicted with the imperial claim to divinity and omniscience and the importance of filial obedience and respect. So when the Christians tried to preach their doctrine of obeisance to an other-worldly authority, they got very short shrift from the powers that be. As much value as there may be in religious philosophy as ethics, I see no value to organized religion. It is a dividing, not a uniting force in society – just look at the history of Western Civilization and the wars that have been (and still are being) fought for religious motives. If China is wise, it will keep religion institutions under firm control.

I frequently hear the term "afraid" when the subject of china is raised, but China need not be feared as an aggressor. China, unlike its former communist cousin the USSR, China has never aspired to world domination or territorial acquisition. Colonialism has never formed part of Chinese history even in its golden Ming period (1368-1644) when its huge maritime fleets navigated all the way to today's Somalia (with compasses unknown at that time in Europe) and before Columbus lucked his way across the Atlantic pond. Its interests then as now were in creating political and commercial alliances not in imposing its culture on others. Any involvement in wars has been to protect its borders. During the Korean War it became enmeshed in that conflict because of the threat of a superpower, the United States, occupying territory contiguous to China. Taiwan is regarded as a legitimate part of Chinese territory and as such, in China's view, has to return to the fold.

Taiwan, held up as an icon of democracy, was ruled by a dictator and thief, Chiang, from 1950 until the 1980s and during the 1950s Chiang instituted a wave of political repression called “The White Terror”. So democracy, aside from being a recent phenomenon, has not necessarily been responsible for Taiwan’s success. Hong Kong was also under an imposed government, the British, from 1842 until 1997, the Brits having allowed democratic elections only when HK was about to be turned over to China – perfidious Albion indeed. Hong Kong flourished because it was in a controlled, secure environment, not raven by internal dissent or threatened by external forces. That political and social situation and the inherent Chinese entrepreneurial spirit were responsible for Hong Kong’s progress which was in place long before elections in 1997.

Those points deal just with China and the Chinese. Then, look at the effect and impact of democracy on former colonial territories in Africa. Are they really better off? I for one do not think so – those countries are totally corrupt, engaged in vicious tribal warfare and subjected to horrific atrocities that seldom took place under firm colonial rule. Look at Russia – now with endemic crime, and rampant corruption that I never saw in the years I worked in that country. Russia, under the inept, drunken and corrupt Yeltsin caved into to US pressure and its ideologues to move the country, before it was in any way ready, into democracy and capitalism. Had they followed instead Gorbachev’s formula for gradual change from communism to democratic socialism to democracy the evolution to democracy would have taken longer but it would have had more positive results. Putin is now trying to hold the line and reverse the rot, but it may be too late. Result – the Russians, with the exception of the Oligarchs, and local mafia are increasingly disenchanted with both democracy and capitalism and long for the good old days of Communism and security.

Many of these countries were catapulted from either stone-age cultures or feudal governments into a full blown democracy without any historical reference points. Using the analogy of wine again, for democracy to flower, it requires time and a process of maturation. Democracy is not a system that can be imposed externally (as we are trying to do in Iraq) on an alien culture, any more than one can transplant flora and expect it to flourish in alien soil conditions.

This is particularly true of American Democracy which has its dubious appeal to Americans but does not necessarily suit other cultures. In Francis Fukuyama’s classical book on liberal democracy “The End of History and The Last Man” Fukuyama argues cogently but not (for me) convincingly, that liberal democracy (liberal in the philosophical sense, not political) is the epitome of political evolution. I disagree. There are too many shortcomings, too many inequities in the system to satisfy me and justify such an assertion. Furthermore, I believe there is an inherent defect in democracy raised by both Aristotle and Alexis de Tocqueville (“Democracy in America” – 1830). Aristotle argued that democracy unrestrained can only lead to mobocracy. De Tocqueville, over 2000 years later, after observing democracy in the making in America in the 1830s, posited that “democracy contains within it the seeds of its own destruction”, a theme echoed from Burke to Tocqueville to Ortega de Gasset to Mencken, related to excessive freedom and misguided egalitarianism.

Finis

Territorial Disputes - Israel/Palestine and China/Tibet

2005-02-20T14:03:00.000+01:00

In reponse to my post on China and my contention that it does not have a history of extra territorial acquisition, I was reminded ever so gently of the "Tibet Question". The writer was quite right in questioning my statement, and I should have taken more care to qualify it.

The question of territorial sovereignty is a highly charged, emotional issue and almost alwasy subject to arguments of self interest of the contesting parties.

First, to the question at hand, anmely that of Tibet, I would refer you to a web site which looks at this thorny matter with fair objectivity, if tha ti spossble.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccba/cear/issues/spring98/text-only/bell.htm In this article the author attempts to trace both the roots of Buddhism in Tibet and the contested views of Chinese sovereignty. I can say little more than he with the following exception.

China has always been sensitive to its borders on a land mass of that dimension. That vulnerability prompted China to build walls and taek care that its heartland be protected from invaders by securing buffer states. For China I can well understand that both Tibet represents and additional gurantee for ots security. At the ime of the assumption of rule over Tibet, India had only recently emrged from under the shadow of British rule. For another emerging power of similar size, India must have been seen as a prospective competitor and foe, not to mention on the otehr side of teh ideological fence.

For every argument put forward by the Chinese to support their claim to Tibet, there is an opposing point of view and argument.

However, border and territorial disputes are common fare in history. For one, take Israel and Palestine. The Israelis base their claim on prior occupation of all or part of the land and on biblical references. The bible is not a legal doccument, nor is prior occupation necessarily grounds for soverignty. The Palestinians lay equal historical claim to the same land. So, does it belong to Israel or the Palestinians? Whether one likes it or not the territory annexed by Israel in 1947 is not going to be returnd to the Palestininans. The Palestinians will be lucky to retain the West Bank.

It all comes down to power, or raher who hold the balance of power at a given time in hisotry, not some historical or biblical reference, whether centuries old or a few decades. It is thus with respect to both Palestine and Tibet.

In the case of Tibet, even india, which strongly opposed and objected to China's occupation of Tibet has recently and publicly agreed to take steps to "control" (discorage) anti-Chinese, pro-Tibet Independence groups on Indian territory.

What is more important to India are good relations with China, not supporting a hopeless cause that serves no useful purpose for India.

Alas, if only the United States had the good sense to formulate foreign policies with the same pragmatism.

United States Foreign Policy Blunders Update 1

2005-02-20T09:48:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, Secretary of State Rice, probably the most inept NSC Advisor ever, and Donald Rumsfeld, the most inept, powerful and dangerous Secretary of Defence ever, made fools of themselves once again. Japan, now no longer number one regional power, merely played a supporting role. The American Enterprise Institute, the wonderful people that helped produce the epic flop, “Enduring Freedom” also lent a helping hand in yesterday’s foreign policy stumble. One can always depend on the AEI to make the wrong decision.

As I have written before, the United States cannot decide how to handle China – one day they are making nice, the next, doing everything possible to provoke the Chinese.

At the same time the US is encouraging China to actively push North Korea into talks; it seemingly is doing everything to discourage China from cooperating. Yesterday, not being content to raise the issue of North Korea and diplomatically suggest that China give an assist, the US, Japan and the AEI raised the highly sensitive matter of Taiwan. Not only did they speak the ‘T’ word, a no-no with China, they lectured and hectored China and got the not unexpected, short and sharp reaction from China.

Little wonder China is being less than cooperative with the US on North Korea. The PRC should be taking a harder line with the US and demand that the US strike the word from the State Department vocabulary. If the US and Japan truly want peace in the region they should support, nay, insist on the Hongkonisation of Taiwan, in return for China putting the arm on North Korea. End game – no more “tension” in the Taiwan Straits, no more nuclear threat from North Korea. What could be sweeter?

Japan, of course, is playing the role of the perfidious and sulking samurai by contributing to the bitter stew. Japan, now relegated to number two regional power politically, militarily and commercially is looking more affectionately on the US. Looking to the West at an enormous and still growing power, Japan, still very much despised by the Chinese for the atrocities it committed in WWII, needs desperately a protector. Thus, rather than trying to come to terms with China, it is identifying more with another hopeless cause, Taiwan. That could be a mistake. When Asia is awakening and manifesting self interest, pride and independence from the West, Japan should not be seen as betraying that cause for selfish reasons. Japan has a bad history in the region and should be careful playing a double game.

baoluo

America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy

2005-02-18T14:58:00.000+01:00

I recently read an article by William Thomas in which he pointed out that the present administration is borrowing $1.9 billion a day to stay afloat. He goes on to write, "Much of this borrowing involves selling interest-bearing promissory notes called treasury bonds to foreign investors, whose eagerness to “buy America” has financed an illusory prosperity...The USA owes its creditors about $4.4 trillion right now. Paying all that interest means more borrowing – which requires still more loans to keep “rolling over” all those 10-year Treasury notes as they become due for repayment plus interest."

This is all pretty terrifying when one reads that the interest on these loans totalling over $4 trillion is unpayable, loans that as treasury notes, are guaranteed by the US government upon maturity and on demand.

The only reassuring note made by Thomas is that for the holders of these notes to cash them in would amount to bringing the entire global financial house of cards down, something he accurately calls “Mutually Assured Financial Destruction”.

That is the good news. The bad news is that the holders of US Treasury notes must continue to buy the notes in order to finance America’s ballooning debt. Should they reduce their purchases significantly, the support mechanism will be weakened, i.e. there will not be enough financing for the interest on the notes. As it is, over 20% of the $4 trillion (more since I began writing this blog) in notes is held by two countries – Japan and China. Japan can probably be relied upon to continue lending a helping hand, but China could for various reasons decide buying US Treasury notes is not a good idea. One disincentive could be the wonky dollar. After all, why would China want to invest in a reserve currency that is losing value?

The other implications of the soaring debt are diplomatic, political if you will, but none the less worrying. That is where China comes into the equation.

The United States has been sending mixed and not very reassuring signals to China for some time; now with the neoconservatives the driving force behind US foreign policy, those signals look more like storm clouds.

Rice makes the statement that China is not a “strategic partner”, nor an enemy. She goes on to criticize China’s designs on Taiwan and China’s objection to the American military presence in that region. The United States seems to somehow regard its military presence as imperative in every part of the world. Now, a recent CIA analysis of China’s growing power and the threat it poses to American dominance in that region. The US may be able to slow down the Chinese juggernaut, but not stop it.

The US continues to pressure the EU not to relinquish its ban on arms sales to China, but that is wishful thinking. The prospect of arms sales to China are just too tempting, and sooner rather than later, that ban will have to go.
So, how does all this relate to the US Debt? Well, China as one of the two biggest creditors of the United States, hold $200 billion in US treasuries, and so far has cooperated in continuing purchases of these ever more suspect pieces of paper. The mere rumour of a Chinese reduction of purchases some weeks ago sent the dollar down.

The US wants China to let up on Taiwan; they want China to revalue the Yuan; they want China to intervene in the nuclear dispute with North Korea. The US is pressuring China on many fronts while China fills its poker hand with aces by acquiring and holding US treasury notes. How, I ask, can a debtor nation like the United States exercise any influence on one of its two major creditors?

It is highly unlikely, no, almost impossible that the US can address and rid itself of its indebtedness to China in the foreseeable future, so what is the answer to dealing with China?

For me the solution is clear. First, the US has to recognize the inevitability of Chinese predominance in Asia, both commercially and politically. Second, the US should give tacit approval to the Honkongnisation of Taiwan, an utterly useless ally, nay, worse than that – it is the obstacle to partnering and working peacefully with China.

Unless the United States accepts its regional demotion and recognize that it is no longer the major player in Asia, it will lose out altogether. Even the most committed of the neocons cannot contemplate armed conflict as a way of prevailing over China, so a pragmatic diplomatic solution is the only one.

Above all, the US should cease talk of a shifting balance of power in the Taiwan Straits. The presumption that there could be a "balance" between China and the island of Taiwan exemplifies the unrealistic and myopic US policy toward China.

To do so is not solely a question of mollifying a potetnial threat, it is also for the purpose of assuring a malleable and friendly creditor - better a banker your friend than one who wants to foreclose on your farm.

Iraq: be careful what you wish for

2005-02-12T15:44:00.000+01:00

Be careful what you wish for goes the saying. You might just get your wish. And so it is with Iraq.

America wished and fought for an Iraq without a Bathist, Saddam regime, a secular democracy. It saw free elections as the key to these objectives. Americans contending that the desire for free elections and democracy is the natural state of mankind was certain the Iraqis, once free from the shackles of Saddam's repressive regime would instinctively embrace these principles.

Now two years after the invasion, over 100.000 Iraqis have died, most of whom are innocent civilians and many of those killed by American armed forces in the course of the war as collateral casualties while combatting the insurgents. The embryonic insurgency has grown from a few thousand to 20.000, perhaps more and 80% are native Iraqis, not so-called foreign fighters or Al-Qaeda imports. There is no security, there are food shortages, patchy electricity services and the Iraqis in central Iraq are becoming nostalgic for Saddam.

In Shiite country in the South, the Shia have won a significant win in the recent elections, so one would expect them to be both grateful for and welcoming of the America presence

Not so. Neither the Sunni nor the Shia want the Americans to remain in their respective dominions. While negotiations are underway to cobbel together a working coalition with the Kurds, the Sunnis have been marginalised and will be allocated a demeaning role in a new government. That mix can only exacerbate an already bad situation.

The long term prospects for such an unlikely coalition amongst traditional enemies are dim indeed. It is only a question of time before the Kurds manifest their wish to form an autonomous state. The Sunnis, bitter and isolated have no where to go except into the hands of the extremists. The so-called Sunni Triangle could become the next refuge for Al-Qaeda and other such groups dedicated to destabilising all its secular neighbours - Sauidi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf States.

The Shia will move into the Iranian orbit and thus catpult Iran from a minor role in the region to a position of a major player and oil supplier. America, while threatening Iran, should take into account the Shia majority next door in Iraq. They will not stand by idely while their brothers and mentors in Iran are attacked.

Should, as is likely, the coalition with the Kurds collapse, the Shia have only two options: 1) establish an independent Islamic Republic or 2) become a satrapy of Iran. None of these scenarios bode well for continuing the fiction of a state called "Iraq".

The United States in wishing for a Saddamless Hussein, asserting his regime's threat to the United States and the world, have instead created a hydra-headed monster that dwarfs any imagined threat from Saddam's Iraq.

Nationalism and Wars of Liberation

2005-02-12T12:44:00.000+01:00

At the heart of America's post 9/11 foreign policy is the thesis that all countries are desirous first and foremost of freedom and with it free elections. America sees itself as the divinely appointed messenger and implementer of this objective despite experience to the contrary.

Since WWII. America has been engaged in several wars with the explicit end of freeing oppressed peoples from the yoke of tyrants and non-democratic ideologies. Yet, how many of these efforts have met with success and had the long term approval of the populace?

The most stunning setback to these principals came with the Vietnam War, a war fought to prevent the home-grown communist movement of North Vietnam taking over a "free" South Vietnam. The upshot of ten years of conflict was that not only did the North have the unqualified support of its people; eventually a significant portion of the population in South turned on its American defenders and sided with its fellow Vietnamese from the North. Better them they said than the corrupt South Vietnamese government funded and propped up militarily by a foreign culture and armed forces. Whatever the crimes committed by the repressive regimes, the people seemingly preferred their native sons ruling them to foreigners.

Subsequently, after the ignominious defeat of the United States, the passion for intervening in other such regimes was cooled but only for brief period of time. Then as memory of Vietnam dimmed, came small easy targets such as Grenada, Panama, Haiti and Somalia. Even of these victories, there are few successes to boast. Since then, Haiti has reverted time and again to a self inflicted tyranny and Somalia became a disaster seldom mentioned today by the proponents of wars of liberation. However, these virtually uncontested conflicts restored America’s belief in its superiority, both moral and military, and the stage was set for more ambitious targets.

Not having learned from the misadventure in Vietnam, the US once again embarked on the same failed policy, allegedly to liberate the Iraqi people from the murderous despot Saddam Hussein and to save the world from his enormous stockpile of WMD. Now two years after the invasion, the United States are ensnared once again in an unwinnable war, one more brutal than Vietnam.

This war, having liberated the peoples of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, has, now, unleashed far more dangerous forces than the now discredited threat of WMD in that country. In addition, the Iraqi War of Liberation has exacerbated already existing resentment of America and carved an even deeper divide between the world of Islam and Christianity. The hatred of Saddam by people of Iraq has been supplanted by their loathing of America. As bad as Saddam was, more and more Iraqis are of the opinion that life, on the whole was better before the “liberation”. They had electricity, water, security. Their children could attend school and the people walk the streets and enjoy an evening in restaurants without fear of suicide bombers or being the victim a stray bullet from foreign occupation forces. There were no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, no “foreign fighters”.

Now, the country has become a free fire zone, and a launching pad for terrorism and destabilisation throughout the Middle East. This War of Liberation mounted by the United States will serve only one purpose and that is to discredit America and the concept of Democracy.

baoluo

North Korea and Iran

2005-02-12T09:55:00.000+01:00

Whether North Korea possesses nuclear weapons or simply lusts after them, one cannot help noting that the United States is adopting a very different approach to that of Iran. The latter denies development of nuclear weapons, while North Korea blatantly advertises it, true or not. Iran is a theocratic state with a vague element of democracy within its ruling party. North Korea is ruled by a tyrannical sociopath with not even the faintest hint or pretension of democracy.

Yet, in the latter case, the US walks and talks ever so softly threatening "isolation" and/or "sanctions" while refusing bilateral discussions to resolve the dispute. Iran, on the other hand, is subjected to thinly veiled threats of military action either by the United States or Israel.

Why is this?

Could it be that Iran is considered a softer target with only 500.000 Iranians under arms and 300.000 reservists as opposed to the 1.2 million North Korean standing army plus another 7 million in reserve units?

Could it be that Iran is considered a greater threat to American hegemony and oil supplies in the Middle East?

Perhaps it is the fear of a resurgent Persia. The Shia are poised to assume political control of Iraq, or at the very least to form an independent Shia state on the border of neighbouring Shiite Iran. An additional and oil rich Iraqi Shia state closely allied with next door Iran would create a substantial power base for the heretofore relatively weak minority Shia population in the Islamic world. This would change not only the religious complexion and alter the balance of power of Islam; in a region historically dominated by the Sunni.

Is it that Iran is considered a threat to Israel, America's client state in the Middle East, whereas, North Korea neither threatens oil supply nor America's regional client state, Taiwan?

It is in China's interest to use North Korea both to keep the US off balance in the region, yet not allow North Korea to undertake military action against any of its neighbours, including South Korea. The Chinese dislike disharmony and turbulence.

Should North Korea step out of line, China could squash it, and NK knows this. As it is now, NK is a card China can play in the Taiwan dispute should it be necessary. In return for US tacit support for HongKongisation of Taiwan, China would, I am sure, be happy to sacrifice North Korea. What China should not allow on its border is a North Korea which would become an American client state. Should North Korea fall, China would wisely demand a demilitarisation of the entire Korean peninsula.

The US with its history of failure in diplomacy in Asia, would be best advised to allow China to be its proxy negotiator - for a price, of course.

baoluo