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.
.
26 February 2005
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:
Posts (Atom)