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 RamÃrez, 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
31 March 2005
27 March 2005
US looses sheen; Europe scores
US is no longer the ultimate destination for Indian students as other nations are also wooing them.
22 March 2005
The EU, Emasculated Union
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.
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.
19 March 2005
United States Foreign Policy Blunders Update 2 - confrontation vs. accomnodation
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
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
12 March 2005
China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound
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]
11 March 2005
The Geopolitics of Energy, Food and China
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
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
10 March 2005
America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy Part 2
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
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
8 March 2005
Lebanon: be careful what you wish for...Part 3
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
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
1 March 2005
Saudi Arabia: be careful what you wish for Part 2
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….
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….
26 February 2005
Help wanted - a political oculist
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.
.
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.
.
25 February 2005
Iraqi Elections, a Tipping Point?
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.
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.
23 February 2005
American Arrogance - Vive la France!
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.
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.
20 February 2005
China and the Many Faces of Democracy
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
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
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.
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
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
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
18 February 2005
America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy
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.
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.
12 February 2005
Iraq: be careful what you wish for
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)