Several of my previous posts have warned of the risks associated with "be careful what you wish for....", as related to the perils of democracy and free and open elections.
The recent election results in Palestine have served to confirm this admonition and to underscore the defective US foreign policy and incompetence of Condolezza Rice. Rice, thinking she had achieved a major breakthrough because of the sop given to the Palestinians in opening access to Gaza, completely misread the political climate in the Palestinian territories. So, the US got its wish of free and open elections and then was handed the worst imaginable result; just as happened in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistani western provinces, and Lebanon where Islamic movements have either prevailed or have registered significant victories.
Certainly Fatah corruption was a factor in driving 60% of Palestinians to vote for Hamas, but an equally influential issue was the inability of Fatah to stand up to Israel. Thanks to the US's partiality to Israel, the latter has offered nothing but minimal concessions to the Palestinians; they have refused to abide by UN resolution calling for unconditional withdrawal from the occupied territories and refuse to negotiate the partition of Jerusalem. Little wonder the Palestinians had so little faith in Fatah.
The US now, unsurprisingly, are following their usual flawed policy by waving '‘the big stick' threatening to withdraw financial aid unless Hamas bows to their wishes. The EU might not be so ready to do the same and this pressure could encourage the Arab donors, in particular Iran, to provide more support to Hamas. This would give Iran another opportunity to thumb their nose at the US and reinforce its ambition to be seen as the new force in the Middle East.
Not being satisfied to try to coerce the Palestinians to kowtow, the US is also putting the arm on India to support the US move to take Iran to the Security Council. If not, warns the US, the agreement for support of India's nuclear program could be taken off the table. That is a risky ploy indeed. India is no pushover, and only recently has it seemingly overcome its visceral and long time antipathy to the United States. Such 'hard ball' tactics could set back all the recent progress in relations with a country rapidly developing into a major power.
It is difficult to understand how a country such as the United States, possessing so much material wealth, could be so bereft of intellectual capital.
baoluo
28 January 2006
19 January 2006
Postscript to the Iran Question
I refer to my previous post of 16 January, 'Here we go again'
The interim Prime Minister of Israel recently stated that it would be unacceptable for Iran, the country being an avowed enemy of Israel, to hold nuclear weapons. Presumably this is a thinly veiled threat of military action against Iran should it proceed in that direction.
The question this statement provokes is whether this policy and position applies to any country considered an enemy of Israel. If so, then I must ask what would Israel’s position would be if a country already in possession of nuclear weapons such as Pakistan were to replace the present secular government with one radicalised and overtly opposed to Israel.
Would Israel and the United States then threaten Pakistan with military action? Would Israel, with the support of the United States, nuke Pakistan’s nuclear facilities? I can envisage several consequences of such an action, none of them pleasant.
baoluo
The interim Prime Minister of Israel recently stated that it would be unacceptable for Iran, the country being an avowed enemy of Israel, to hold nuclear weapons. Presumably this is a thinly veiled threat of military action against Iran should it proceed in that direction.
The question this statement provokes is whether this policy and position applies to any country considered an enemy of Israel. If so, then I must ask what would Israel’s position would be if a country already in possession of nuclear weapons such as Pakistan were to replace the present secular government with one radicalised and overtly opposed to Israel.
Would Israel and the United States then threaten Pakistan with military action? Would Israel, with the support of the United States, nuke Pakistan’s nuclear facilities? I can envisage several consequences of such an action, none of them pleasant.
baoluo
16 January 2006
Here we go again!
"This is the most grave (sic) situation that we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror," Sen. John McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation." "It is a serious problem -- probably right now the most serious in the world," (Senator) Lott said. Does that sound familiar? Was it only four years ago that Iraq was the gravest threat facing humanity? And, of course there is or was North Korea, touted as an inhuman regime which could precipitate a nuclear holocaust, a topic now off the shelf of the talking shop.
Then with regard to Chinese and Russian Support: "They need stuff from us. They need trade. They need all kinds of assistance. We ought to play hardball with them," he said. "And if President Bush were to do that, either publicly or privately, I think he'd get broad bipartisan backing." That brilliant reasoning emanating from Senator Schumer of New York. So now China and Russia could replace France and Germany as ungrateful curs. Will vodka, egg foo yong and sweet-sour shrimp soon be taken off the Senate dining room menu?
This intemperate rhetoric is coming from both sides of the aisle, Democrat as well as Republican.
Although the European Big Three: France, Germany and the UK, have come to together to support taking the issue to the Security council, it is still far from certain that two veto toting members, Russia and China, will go along with them. China in particular would be loathe to alienate an important energy source to fuel its growth. Russia too has traditionally close ties to Iran and some lucrative contracts pending for supply of nuclear equipment. One question is what sanctions could be imposed considering that the Europeans and Americans do not want to punish the people there as they did in Iraq with sanctions on essential items. Iran’s biggest export must surely be oil, but who in their right mind wants to deprive the world of oil when it is already in short supply. Sanctions on exports would drive up the price to new highs. Mc Cain thinks the consequences in this regard are acceptable, but I wonder how many other people would be happy with a 50% or more increase in petrol prices. By his reasoning and that of Bayh, any consideration of the Iranian people would be taken off the table.
The US, of course, is, as always, ready to give enthusiastic support to any opposition to Iran, and lurking in the background stirring up the pot, is Israel. The US and Israel would dearly love to undertake military action, their preferred option to any difference of opinion, but that could hold tremendous risks. Another air strike by Israel on Iran (as in the 80s) would be seen, quite correctly, as approved and supported by the US and further inflame Arab sensibilities, confirming the viewpoint that the US is out to destroy Islam.
The US is not in a position to undertake a large scale ground campaign when it does not have enough troops to fight the insurgency in next door Iraq, and any attack on Iran could have serious implications in Iraq amongst the Shia. The latter would not take kindly to the US attacking Shia brothers in Iran. That sort of ill advised action could alienate the largest single ethnic and religious group in Iraq. The Shia have been relatively well-behaved until now, but if they were provoked, they could create worse chaos than already is present in Iraq. They could well do what I have always thought they should and could do, namely declare an autonomous Shiite State. The upshot of that would be to elevate Iran to a major regional power and one with enormous oil reserves in both Iran and the Iraqi Shia territory. The other scenario is that such actions against Iran could tip the Shia in Iraq into an all out war against the US and its coalition allies.
As for the threat of a nuclear wielding Iran, it is difficult to justify singling them out when Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for twenty years and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, but nary a word about this from the West. In any case, I do not fear an attack on either Israel or the West by a nuclear armed Iran. To undertake such a fool hardy action would bring utter and complete destruction of Iran by the US and Iran is well aware of those consequnces.
As for Pakistan, which I have always contended poses a greater threat than any other Muslim state, the US is now playing with fire in that country, an alleged ally in Bush’s war against terrorism. Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that the western provinces in that country are harbouring at the very least remnants of Taliban and probably Al-Qaeda cells. In addition, Al-Zawahiri may well be holed up there, but so what? What if an air strike killed Al-Zawahiri? Would that take the wind out of the sails of the insurgency in Iraq? Would it destroy the ability and wish of Al-Qaeda to strike at western targets? I hardly think so. The insurgency and terrorism have evolved beyond movements centralized and tightly controlled by Osama and any of his lieutenants. The diverse national and local terrorist groups are becoming autonomous, most having their own agenda and resources which will in no way be affected by the removal of a single person such as al-Zawahiri.
The US legislators are virtually unanimous in justifying the deaths of the civilians in Pakistan in order to kill al-Zawahiri, but as with Iraq the Americans are unable to look beyond their immediate objective. Not only are they supporting the action and results, they seem to be proposing the US not recognise Pakistan territorial sovereignty and that the western border area be considered an open warfare zone with or without Pakistan approval. What now? Are the people who took us to war in Iraq now proposing we invade both Iran and Pakistan?
Musharraf is already walking the proverbial tightrope with a regime shot through with radical fundamentalists; his army and intelligence services have been compromised and infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathisers. I argued two years ago that his days were numbered and every incident of the nature of the recent bombing going awry can only hasten his departure. Once that happens, Pakistan could move from being a reluctant collaborator and ally to an outright enemy state, one with nuclear weapons and delivery systems already in place. The risk of a radicalised Pakistan is that it could draw India into a regional nuclear conflict that would then escalate into a wider conflagration.
In the years leading up to Vietnam there was much talk of the ‘domino effect’, namely that any given communist regime would by its propinquity to its neighbours bring them down as well. Now, the invasion of Iraq seems to be leading the US into a succession of unsustainable wars. They will prove unsustainable because, short of bombing the entire territory into rubble and killing the population in the process, there is no way the US can prevail in those wars. Iran is no Iraq. It is an ethnically and religiously homogenous nation and not suffering under a regime any where near as repressive as that of Sadaam. It has a more effective fighting force and a population that on the whole will resist invaders.
If, as Professor Stiglitz of Columbia University estimates, the cost of the Iraqi war could be in the realm of $1.2 trillion, the mind boggles at the cost of financing yet another war in Iran. Then, add the cost to the American economy of increased cost of petrol and you have a recipe for economic disaster, a result Osama could never on his own have achieved.
baoluo
Then with regard to Chinese and Russian Support: "They need stuff from us. They need trade. They need all kinds of assistance. We ought to play hardball with them," he said. "And if President Bush were to do that, either publicly or privately, I think he'd get broad bipartisan backing." That brilliant reasoning emanating from Senator Schumer of New York. So now China and Russia could replace France and Germany as ungrateful curs. Will vodka, egg foo yong and sweet-sour shrimp soon be taken off the Senate dining room menu?
This intemperate rhetoric is coming from both sides of the aisle, Democrat as well as Republican.
Although the European Big Three: France, Germany and the UK, have come to together to support taking the issue to the Security council, it is still far from certain that two veto toting members, Russia and China, will go along with them. China in particular would be loathe to alienate an important energy source to fuel its growth. Russia too has traditionally close ties to Iran and some lucrative contracts pending for supply of nuclear equipment. One question is what sanctions could be imposed considering that the Europeans and Americans do not want to punish the people there as they did in Iraq with sanctions on essential items. Iran’s biggest export must surely be oil, but who in their right mind wants to deprive the world of oil when it is already in short supply. Sanctions on exports would drive up the price to new highs. Mc Cain thinks the consequences in this regard are acceptable, but I wonder how many other people would be happy with a 50% or more increase in petrol prices. By his reasoning and that of Bayh, any consideration of the Iranian people would be taken off the table.
The US, of course, is, as always, ready to give enthusiastic support to any opposition to Iran, and lurking in the background stirring up the pot, is Israel. The US and Israel would dearly love to undertake military action, their preferred option to any difference of opinion, but that could hold tremendous risks. Another air strike by Israel on Iran (as in the 80s) would be seen, quite correctly, as approved and supported by the US and further inflame Arab sensibilities, confirming the viewpoint that the US is out to destroy Islam.
The US is not in a position to undertake a large scale ground campaign when it does not have enough troops to fight the insurgency in next door Iraq, and any attack on Iran could have serious implications in Iraq amongst the Shia. The latter would not take kindly to the US attacking Shia brothers in Iran. That sort of ill advised action could alienate the largest single ethnic and religious group in Iraq. The Shia have been relatively well-behaved until now, but if they were provoked, they could create worse chaos than already is present in Iraq. They could well do what I have always thought they should and could do, namely declare an autonomous Shiite State. The upshot of that would be to elevate Iran to a major regional power and one with enormous oil reserves in both Iran and the Iraqi Shia territory. The other scenario is that such actions against Iran could tip the Shia in Iraq into an all out war against the US and its coalition allies.
As for the threat of a nuclear wielding Iran, it is difficult to justify singling them out when Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for twenty years and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, but nary a word about this from the West. In any case, I do not fear an attack on either Israel or the West by a nuclear armed Iran. To undertake such a fool hardy action would bring utter and complete destruction of Iran by the US and Iran is well aware of those consequnces.
As for Pakistan, which I have always contended poses a greater threat than any other Muslim state, the US is now playing with fire in that country, an alleged ally in Bush’s war against terrorism. Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that the western provinces in that country are harbouring at the very least remnants of Taliban and probably Al-Qaeda cells. In addition, Al-Zawahiri may well be holed up there, but so what? What if an air strike killed Al-Zawahiri? Would that take the wind out of the sails of the insurgency in Iraq? Would it destroy the ability and wish of Al-Qaeda to strike at western targets? I hardly think so. The insurgency and terrorism have evolved beyond movements centralized and tightly controlled by Osama and any of his lieutenants. The diverse national and local terrorist groups are becoming autonomous, most having their own agenda and resources which will in no way be affected by the removal of a single person such as al-Zawahiri.
The US legislators are virtually unanimous in justifying the deaths of the civilians in Pakistan in order to kill al-Zawahiri, but as with Iraq the Americans are unable to look beyond their immediate objective. Not only are they supporting the action and results, they seem to be proposing the US not recognise Pakistan territorial sovereignty and that the western border area be considered an open warfare zone with or without Pakistan approval. What now? Are the people who took us to war in Iraq now proposing we invade both Iran and Pakistan?
Musharraf is already walking the proverbial tightrope with a regime shot through with radical fundamentalists; his army and intelligence services have been compromised and infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathisers. I argued two years ago that his days were numbered and every incident of the nature of the recent bombing going awry can only hasten his departure. Once that happens, Pakistan could move from being a reluctant collaborator and ally to an outright enemy state, one with nuclear weapons and delivery systems already in place. The risk of a radicalised Pakistan is that it could draw India into a regional nuclear conflict that would then escalate into a wider conflagration.
In the years leading up to Vietnam there was much talk of the ‘domino effect’, namely that any given communist regime would by its propinquity to its neighbours bring them down as well. Now, the invasion of Iraq seems to be leading the US into a succession of unsustainable wars. They will prove unsustainable because, short of bombing the entire territory into rubble and killing the population in the process, there is no way the US can prevail in those wars. Iran is no Iraq. It is an ethnically and religiously homogenous nation and not suffering under a regime any where near as repressive as that of Sadaam. It has a more effective fighting force and a population that on the whole will resist invaders.
If, as Professor Stiglitz of Columbia University estimates, the cost of the Iraqi war could be in the realm of $1.2 trillion, the mind boggles at the cost of financing yet another war in Iran. Then, add the cost to the American economy of increased cost of petrol and you have a recipe for economic disaster, a result Osama could never on his own have achieved.
baoluo
26 November 2005
An Explanatory Note About this Blog
Many readers of this blog will ask, quite rightly, why my seeming preoccupation with China in the posts. In fact, at the outset, this post should have been placed as a Foreword to the Blog.
The answer is simple: the media, the US and most other governments are narrowly focused on Iraq and the Middle East and to a great extent ignore the developments in Asia, in particular those involving China.
Most news about China centres on the trade deficit, outsourcing and loss of US jobs to China. These are also salient issues, but there are bigger stakes, political ones, that are having global impact, events that are in play, but being overlooked by a public uneducated and poorly informed by media about the region.
As has often been the case, the world, and chiefly the United States, is generally reactive to events. That is to say, it only takes note of happenings in a region of the world when a crisis is already full blown. The reaction is usually one of shock or surprise and more often than not inappropriate, frequently disastrous and hasty decisions are made by a government merely because it was unprepared to deal with the matter and needed to be seen as in control by a nervous and even more ignorant public.
Thus, although this blog will deal with geopolitical questions throughout the world, I make no apologies for the focus on Asia, and the individual topic of China. The latter looms larger in influence on the world with each passing day and it behoves the public, governments and media to prepare for the consequences by understanding the history and staying abreast of events in that area.
baoluo
The answer is simple: the media, the US and most other governments are narrowly focused on Iraq and the Middle East and to a great extent ignore the developments in Asia, in particular those involving China.
Most news about China centres on the trade deficit, outsourcing and loss of US jobs to China. These are also salient issues, but there are bigger stakes, political ones, that are having global impact, events that are in play, but being overlooked by a public uneducated and poorly informed by media about the region.
As has often been the case, the world, and chiefly the United States, is generally reactive to events. That is to say, it only takes note of happenings in a region of the world when a crisis is already full blown. The reaction is usually one of shock or surprise and more often than not inappropriate, frequently disastrous and hasty decisions are made by a government merely because it was unprepared to deal with the matter and needed to be seen as in control by a nervous and even more ignorant public.
Thus, although this blog will deal with geopolitical questions throughout the world, I make no apologies for the focus on Asia, and the individual topic of China. The latter looms larger in influence on the world with each passing day and it behoves the public, governments and media to prepare for the consequences by understanding the history and staying abreast of events in that area.
baoluo
How to Find All Previous Posts
Please Note:
On the left sidebar are listed only the most recent ten posts. In order to view all previous posts, one must scroll down the full text posts on this, the right side of the home page. At this writing there are 38 posts available.
Thank you
On the left sidebar are listed only the most recent ten posts. In order to view all previous posts, one must scroll down the full text posts on this, the right side of the home page. At this writing there are 38 posts available.
Thank you
Condolezza Rice, Dominatrix
When Condolezza Rice was appointed Secretary of State she stated she would be a travelling Secretary of State, more so than Powell who had to stay in Washington and spend his time shoring up Bush’s image and wonky policies by appearing with him at every press conference.
Once Bush secured his reelection, there was no longer need for pretense, no longer for believable Powell to give loyal support to Bush’s lack of credibility. He could come out of the closet and unleash his secret foreign policy weapon – Condolezza Rice, Dominatrix!
Condolezza was set to both play nice and crack the whip with visits in Palestine, Canada, Russia, China, France and Germany.
So, here in this post, will begin a series which will be devoted to Rice’s peregrinations and policies; we will follow and evaluate the results of her approach and objectives.
Aside from her trendy fashion splash wearing her S&M working leather outfit, she has not made an auspicious start.
So far Russia, Iran, N. Korea and Canada have told her not to bother. Iran has said they will not tolerate interference in their affairs and will continue with nuclear development. Russia echoed Iran’s sentiments and signed an agreement to assist Iran in its nuclear plan. Putin and Bush had a “candid” conversation which means that Putin told him to stay out of internal Russian affairs while Bush tried unsuccessfully to reply without a speech prompter by his side, or on his back. Rice, despite being a specialist in Russian affairs, apparently has not been able to bring her expertise to bear on this issue.
Canada’s liberal PM could not muster enough votes to support Bush’s Nintendo Missile Defence system, so Rice cracked the whip and cancelled her trip to Canada. Dear oh dear, how will Canada be able to survive without a visit by Condolezza Rice?
Latin America? My dire warnings of impending disaster are, alas, proving all too correct. What has Rice done to counter the trend toward ant-Americanism in South America? What has she done to counter the influence of Chavez, of a growing move to the Left in Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay? This is not to mention the keystone of Brasil led by Lula who has cozied up to Chavez. All China has to do is wait for the Latin fruit to ripen and drop in their lap.
At this writing she is in the Middle East, as the saying goes, beating a dead horse, trying to resuscitate the corpse of US foreign policy in that region. The Palestinians quite understandably do not take her or the Bush State Department seriously seeing them as a stalking horse for Israel. We have not had an impartial approach to the Israeli/Palestinian problem since the days of Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and the present policy is without question the most biased ever in favour of Israel. With the Evangelicals increasing influence in foreign policy and education that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Her recent much ballyhooed role in bringing the Palestinians and Israelis to an agreement on access to and from the Gaza strip is little more than a band-aid applied to a gaping wound. She, like Dubya, is a dedicated Evangelical and brings with her all that ideological baggage common to evangelicals – moralistic preaching and arrogant belief in the superiority of Western style democracy and Christianity.
Not even mild-mannered Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor and long time Bush Senior friend in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg (see the New Yorker 31 October) could resist criticism of Rice. If you have not or cannot obtain a copy, herewith his take on Rice, “
He correctly point out Rice’s forte is narrow and in the Russian domain, not Asia, not the Middle East. Because of the American preoccupation with Iraq little attention is given to more important areas. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed to attend an important Asean meeting. Moreover, the Americans have sought to use successive Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) summits to push their agenda of security and counter-terrorism - issues which are less central to Asian countries.
Her academic credentials like so many of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld appointees are impeccable academically but lacking “in the trenches” experience. Wolfowitz was another example of the ivory tower pundits and one who led us into the present quagmire in Iraq. Rice with her doctoral badge is in some respects more dangerous because she brings with her the baggage of evangelical religious beliefs and unquestioning loyalty to Bush who has no foreign policy credentials, in practice or on paper – the blind leading the blind.
Finis
Once Bush secured his reelection, there was no longer need for pretense, no longer for believable Powell to give loyal support to Bush’s lack of credibility. He could come out of the closet and unleash his secret foreign policy weapon – Condolezza Rice, Dominatrix!
Condolezza was set to both play nice and crack the whip with visits in Palestine, Canada, Russia, China, France and Germany.
So, here in this post, will begin a series which will be devoted to Rice’s peregrinations and policies; we will follow and evaluate the results of her approach and objectives.
Aside from her trendy fashion splash wearing her S&M working leather outfit, she has not made an auspicious start.
So far Russia, Iran, N. Korea and Canada have told her not to bother. Iran has said they will not tolerate interference in their affairs and will continue with nuclear development. Russia echoed Iran’s sentiments and signed an agreement to assist Iran in its nuclear plan. Putin and Bush had a “candid” conversation which means that Putin told him to stay out of internal Russian affairs while Bush tried unsuccessfully to reply without a speech prompter by his side, or on his back. Rice, despite being a specialist in Russian affairs, apparently has not been able to bring her expertise to bear on this issue.
Canada’s liberal PM could not muster enough votes to support Bush’s Nintendo Missile Defence system, so Rice cracked the whip and cancelled her trip to Canada. Dear oh dear, how will Canada be able to survive without a visit by Condolezza Rice?
Latin America? My dire warnings of impending disaster are, alas, proving all too correct. What has Rice done to counter the trend toward ant-Americanism in South America? What has she done to counter the influence of Chavez, of a growing move to the Left in Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay? This is not to mention the keystone of Brasil led by Lula who has cozied up to Chavez. All China has to do is wait for the Latin fruit to ripen and drop in their lap.
At this writing she is in the Middle East, as the saying goes, beating a dead horse, trying to resuscitate the corpse of US foreign policy in that region. The Palestinians quite understandably do not take her or the Bush State Department seriously seeing them as a stalking horse for Israel. We have not had an impartial approach to the Israeli/Palestinian problem since the days of Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and the present policy is without question the most biased ever in favour of Israel. With the Evangelicals increasing influence in foreign policy and education that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Her recent much ballyhooed role in bringing the Palestinians and Israelis to an agreement on access to and from the Gaza strip is little more than a band-aid applied to a gaping wound. She, like Dubya, is a dedicated Evangelical and brings with her all that ideological baggage common to evangelicals – moralistic preaching and arrogant belief in the superiority of Western style democracy and Christianity.
Not even mild-mannered Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor and long time Bush Senior friend in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg (see the New Yorker 31 October) could resist criticism of Rice. If you have not or cannot obtain a copy, herewith his take on Rice, “
He correctly point out Rice’s forte is narrow and in the Russian domain, not Asia, not the Middle East. Because of the American preoccupation with Iraq little attention is given to more important areas. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed to attend an important Asean meeting. Moreover, the Americans have sought to use successive Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) summits to push their agenda of security and counter-terrorism - issues which are less central to Asian countries.
Her academic credentials like so many of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld appointees are impeccable academically but lacking “in the trenches” experience. Wolfowitz was another example of the ivory tower pundits and one who led us into the present quagmire in Iraq. Rice with her doctoral badge is in some respects more dangerous because she brings with her the baggage of evangelical religious beliefs and unquestioning loyalty to Bush who has no foreign policy credentials, in practice or on paper – the blind leading the blind.
Finis
17 July 2005
Latin America - a crisis in the making Part III
Further to my series on China's growing influence in Latin America at the expense of the United States and as a result of America's neglect, please read more on the link below.
"So far, official Washington has ignored or denied the significance of China's Latin America strategy. Indeed, "President Hu Jintao spent more time in Latin America last year than President George W Bush," Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer has observed. "China's vice president, Zeng Qinghong, spent more time in the region last month than his US counterpart, Vice President Dick Cheney, over the past four years."
China's tango with Latin America
"So far, official Washington has ignored or denied the significance of China's Latin America strategy. Indeed, "President Hu Jintao spent more time in Latin America last year than President George W Bush," Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer has observed. "China's vice president, Zeng Qinghong, spent more time in the region last month than his US counterpart, Vice President Dick Cheney, over the past four years."
China's tango with Latin America
Much as the US once used the open-door ploy against Europe to get at Chinese resources and labor, China is now playing the same card against the US in Latin America as it aggressively pushes to find new markets and vital energy sources.
[via Asia Times Online]
27 May 2005
More on Chinese Textile Exports and the Yuan
Two recent (26 May) lengthy articles in The Economist dealt with the impact of import restictions on textiles from China and the net effect of a possible revaluation of the Yuan.
I have excerpted three paragraphs from those articles which are relevant to my post of 24 May on these subjects:
"The quotas and tariffs will not save the American textile industry or restore the 1m jobs it has lost since the 1980s. “China isn't their problem,” says Laura Jones of the US Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. “It's the whole rest of the world.”
"At most, the restrictions will slow Chinese export growth to the West. But any slack is likely to be taken up by other poor countries (my Italics). The “safeguard” measures—a product of the tortuous negotiations on China's admission to the World Trade Organisation—cannot be used against other countries. One of the protectionist arguments used last year for prolonging quotas was that their abolition would wipe out export-based industries in poor countries that allegedly relied on quota protection from Chinese competition. "
"The true losers from any return of quotas will be American and European consumers and the retailers that cater to them. It will mean higher prices now, and hinder lower future prices by slowing the emergence of Chinese “supply-chain cities”, as UBS, an investment bank, calls them, that will handle the entire process of making a piece of clothing from sheep to shelf. "
"a small Chinese revaluation would have virtually no impact on America's vast external deficit. China's share of America's imports is around 10%, so even a 10% appreciation would reduce the dollar's trade-weighted value by only 1%. Were China's move followed by the rest of Asia, the dollar's value would fall by something closer to 4%. But even that would do little to close America's $600 billion-plus current-account gap."
I have excerpted three paragraphs from those articles which are relevant to my post of 24 May on these subjects:
"The quotas and tariffs will not save the American textile industry or restore the 1m jobs it has lost since the 1980s. “China isn't their problem,” says Laura Jones of the US Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. “It's the whole rest of the world.”
"At most, the restrictions will slow Chinese export growth to the West. But any slack is likely to be taken up by other poor countries (my Italics). The “safeguard” measures—a product of the tortuous negotiations on China's admission to the World Trade Organisation—cannot be used against other countries. One of the protectionist arguments used last year for prolonging quotas was that their abolition would wipe out export-based industries in poor countries that allegedly relied on quota protection from Chinese competition. "
"The true losers from any return of quotas will be American and European consumers and the retailers that cater to them. It will mean higher prices now, and hinder lower future prices by slowing the emergence of Chinese “supply-chain cities”, as UBS, an investment bank, calls them, that will handle the entire process of making a piece of clothing from sheep to shelf. "
"a small Chinese revaluation would have virtually no impact on America's vast external deficit. China's share of America's imports is around 10%, so even a 10% appreciation would reduce the dollar's trade-weighted value by only 1%. Were China's move followed by the rest of Asia, the dollar's value would fall by something closer to 4%. But even that would do little to close America's $600 billion-plus current-account gap."
24 May 2005
China, Foreign Trade and the Yuan: Be careful what you wish for... Part IV
Recent moves by the Bush administration to punish China for America’s lack of fiscal discipline has once again underscored the US’s inability to look ahead to consequences of its foreign policy. Iraq, of course, is the most outstanding failure, and now we are faced with another colossal blunder, this time with the China policy.
The US contends that a) increased textile imports from China and b) the Yuan peg to the dollar are endangering the US and global economy. Solution: restrict textile imports from China and float the Yuan. Really?
America’s indebtedness resulting from spending more money than it generates in revenues has placed $1.98 trillion of the $4trillion in US Treasury notes in the hands of foreign investors. Japan, the largest holder accounts for $680 billion and China $224 billion. In addition, China buys dollars to ensure its currency, the Yuan, stays at about 8.3 to the dollar, where it has been fixed for nine years.
The U.S. current account deficit widened every quarter last year, to reach an unprecedented 5.6 percent of the economy at the end of the year, while the U.S. federal budget deficit grew to a record $412 billion.
The US needs the inflows, the purchases of Treasury notes to finance its current account deficit. Without ongoing purchases of US Treasury notes the US would literally go broke. There is not enough money in the treasury to pay America’s bills and interest payments on those outstanding notes, or, if you like, America’s IOUs.
If China were to cash in their bonds and demand payment in gold rather than fiat US currency, what would happen to the Dollar? Gold prices? the Yuan? At current prices there is not enough gold in existence to pay off all of China’s holdings of US Bonds. Because of a shortage of freely traded and available gold inventory, prices would likely need to increase by perhaps 8 times or more to make enough gold available to pay China. Buy gold now!
If China wants to cash in their US Bonds, the most likely scenario is that the US will merely print more Dollars as needed and voilà , skyrocketing Inflation.
Although such action by China is not presently in the cards, if China were pushed to the wall, its ace would be the treasury notes. Cashing them in would have a greater negative impact on the United States than a nuclear strike.
Restricting Chinese Imports
If the US stops buying Chinese products, then US prices for products manufactured in China will go up – again big time inflation. As for textiles specifically, limiting only Chinese exports to the US will not stop the inflow of cheap textiles. No action has been taken to reduce the import of textile products from Egypt, Latin American and African exporters of products at prices lower than those of the US textile industry, so how will simply reducing Chinese exports alleviate pressure on the US industry?
Wal-Mart in 2004 estimated purchases from China to reach $18 billion. Think of the impact of a significant increase on prices of the world’s largest retailer. One estimate has it that 80% of microwave ovens in the world are produced in China; China became the biggest producer of mobile phones, colour TVs and monitors in the world last year. The statistics showed that the nation's output for these products has respectively accounted for 35 per cent, 40 per cent and 55 per cent of the world's total.
The Yuan
If China chooses, or is pressured , to float the Yuan, the US dollar could fall as the Yuan rises. Once that happens, prices of Chinese imports could increase more, as will prices for those products in the US – higher US inflation.
If the Dollar falls enough, other countries that currently hold Dollars as central bank reserves, could decide to bail out of the Dollar so it does not drag their own currencies down. Even countries that simply peg their own currencies to the Dollar may decide to allow their currencies to float. The most likely US financial defense would be to raise interest rates significantly.
One considered opinion on the net effect of appreciation of the Yuan by an economist is, “China gains its comparative advantage by low material and labour cost, highly efficient machinery as well as good quality control system. Hence, the appreciation of the Yuan would not exert too much impact on China’s comparative advantage and the US demand for Chinese exports. Besides, China’s share in the US total trade is only about 10%, and even if the Yuan appreciates by 20%, the real effect reflected on the US current account in dollar term will only be about 2%, which is too small to influence the US current account imbalance and relieve its unemployment pressure.”
Conclusion
It would appear then that China holds three trump cards: (1) Remove Yuan peg to the Dollar (US inflation), (2) Cash in their US Bonds (US interest rate rise, US inflation or much, much worse), (3) Threaten to stop or reduce all exports to US (US mega inflation).
America’s Shock and Awe approach will work no better economically with Chiina than it has in Iraq militarily. The consequences of this ill thought out knee jerk reaction to China will have even more serious repercussions than the debacle in Iraq.
The US contends that a) increased textile imports from China and b) the Yuan peg to the dollar are endangering the US and global economy. Solution: restrict textile imports from China and float the Yuan. Really?
America’s indebtedness resulting from spending more money than it generates in revenues has placed $1.98 trillion of the $4trillion in US Treasury notes in the hands of foreign investors. Japan, the largest holder accounts for $680 billion and China $224 billion. In addition, China buys dollars to ensure its currency, the Yuan, stays at about 8.3 to the dollar, where it has been fixed for nine years.
The U.S. current account deficit widened every quarter last year, to reach an unprecedented 5.6 percent of the economy at the end of the year, while the U.S. federal budget deficit grew to a record $412 billion.
The US needs the inflows, the purchases of Treasury notes to finance its current account deficit. Without ongoing purchases of US Treasury notes the US would literally go broke. There is not enough money in the treasury to pay America’s bills and interest payments on those outstanding notes, or, if you like, America’s IOUs.
If China were to cash in their bonds and demand payment in gold rather than fiat US currency, what would happen to the Dollar? Gold prices? the Yuan? At current prices there is not enough gold in existence to pay off all of China’s holdings of US Bonds. Because of a shortage of freely traded and available gold inventory, prices would likely need to increase by perhaps 8 times or more to make enough gold available to pay China. Buy gold now!
If China wants to cash in their US Bonds, the most likely scenario is that the US will merely print more Dollars as needed and voilà , skyrocketing Inflation.
Although such action by China is not presently in the cards, if China were pushed to the wall, its ace would be the treasury notes. Cashing them in would have a greater negative impact on the United States than a nuclear strike.
Restricting Chinese Imports
If the US stops buying Chinese products, then US prices for products manufactured in China will go up – again big time inflation. As for textiles specifically, limiting only Chinese exports to the US will not stop the inflow of cheap textiles. No action has been taken to reduce the import of textile products from Egypt, Latin American and African exporters of products at prices lower than those of the US textile industry, so how will simply reducing Chinese exports alleviate pressure on the US industry?
Wal-Mart in 2004 estimated purchases from China to reach $18 billion. Think of the impact of a significant increase on prices of the world’s largest retailer. One estimate has it that 80% of microwave ovens in the world are produced in China; China became the biggest producer of mobile phones, colour TVs and monitors in the world last year. The statistics showed that the nation's output for these products has respectively accounted for 35 per cent, 40 per cent and 55 per cent of the world's total.
The Yuan
If China chooses, or is pressured , to float the Yuan, the US dollar could fall as the Yuan rises. Once that happens, prices of Chinese imports could increase more, as will prices for those products in the US – higher US inflation.
If the Dollar falls enough, other countries that currently hold Dollars as central bank reserves, could decide to bail out of the Dollar so it does not drag their own currencies down. Even countries that simply peg their own currencies to the Dollar may decide to allow their currencies to float. The most likely US financial defense would be to raise interest rates significantly.
One considered opinion on the net effect of appreciation of the Yuan by an economist is, “China gains its comparative advantage by low material and labour cost, highly efficient machinery as well as good quality control system. Hence, the appreciation of the Yuan would not exert too much impact on China’s comparative advantage and the US demand for Chinese exports. Besides, China’s share in the US total trade is only about 10%, and even if the Yuan appreciates by 20%, the real effect reflected on the US current account in dollar term will only be about 2%, which is too small to influence the US current account imbalance and relieve its unemployment pressure.”
Conclusion
It would appear then that China holds three trump cards: (1) Remove Yuan peg to the Dollar (US inflation), (2) Cash in their US Bonds (US interest rate rise, US inflation or much, much worse), (3) Threaten to stop or reduce all exports to US (US mega inflation).
America’s Shock and Awe approach will work no better economically with Chiina than it has in Iraq militarily. The consequences of this ill thought out knee jerk reaction to China will have even more serious repercussions than the debacle in Iraq.
16 May 2005
Latin America - a crisis in the making Part II
With reference to my previous post "Latin America - a crisis in the making", I submit the following recent article from The Economist, an article which reflects both my previous comments and which highlights and underscores my criticsm of US Foreign Policy in this region.
Trouble in the "backyard"
Apr 28th 2005 SÃO PAULO From The Economist print edition
Just stop calling it that
Rice and Lula: wary allies
AFTER four years in which South Americans complained of neglect by the United States, George Bush is paying attention. He sent his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to the region in March. Condoleezza Rice, the new secretary of state, set off on a four-nation tour this week. Mr Bush himself is expected in Argentina and Brazil in November. Why the sudden interest? Because things are going badly.
The United States' long-standing project for the region, free trade among the hemisphere's 34 democracies, is stuck. Mr Bush's newer idea of spreading democracy everywhere could suffer reversals in South America. Last week Ecuador's Congress ousted its pro-American president. Democracy in Bolivia and Peru is fragile.
As America's influence in South America has waned, China's has waxed. The noisiest problem for Mr Bush is Venezuela, led by an implacably anti-American populist, Hugo Chávez. He is thought to be fomenting unrest in other Andean countries, and this week scrapped a longstanding military co-operation accord between Venezuela and the United States. The Bush administration has so far failed to persuade fellow members of the Organisation of American States to back its candidate to be the group's secretary-general.
Michael Shifter, an analyst with Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, DC, says that the United States needs to abandon its traditional attitude that Latin America is merely its “backyard”. Ms Rice, who has recently carried emollient messages to several continents, seems to understand this. Her tour takes in two reliable allies, Colombia and El Salvador. But much of the business that matters is with pricklier countries. She was to attend a pro-democracy jamboree in Chile. She started her tour in Brazil, the region's main power, which the United States hopes will be a bulwark against instability.
Brazil is wary of pan-American free trade, bitter about American farm subsidies and suspicious of American military aid to Colombia. It is too big and ambitious in its own right to accept American leadership. For their part, the Americans deem Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a tad too friendly to Mr Chávez.
In BrasÃlia, however, Ms Rice played down differences. A joint statement spoke the local language of “liberty, democracy and social justice”, though the secretary mentioned drugs, terrorism and trade in a later speech. The statement called on Ecuador to respect “democratic order”, though neither country may do much to ensure this. Brazil leads the United Nations' peacekeepers in Haiti and probably restrains Mr Chávez. If other Andean governments fall into anti-American hands, its moderating influence will be sorely needed.
The best hope for stability in South America is to make it richer. The United States alone cannot make that happen, but could do more to help.
Trouble in the "backyard"
Apr 28th 2005 SÃO PAULO From The Economist print edition
Just stop calling it that
Rice and Lula: wary allies
AFTER four years in which South Americans complained of neglect by the United States, George Bush is paying attention. He sent his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to the region in March. Condoleezza Rice, the new secretary of state, set off on a four-nation tour this week. Mr Bush himself is expected in Argentina and Brazil in November. Why the sudden interest? Because things are going badly.
The United States' long-standing project for the region, free trade among the hemisphere's 34 democracies, is stuck. Mr Bush's newer idea of spreading democracy everywhere could suffer reversals in South America. Last week Ecuador's Congress ousted its pro-American president. Democracy in Bolivia and Peru is fragile.
As America's influence in South America has waned, China's has waxed. The noisiest problem for Mr Bush is Venezuela, led by an implacably anti-American populist, Hugo Chávez. He is thought to be fomenting unrest in other Andean countries, and this week scrapped a longstanding military co-operation accord between Venezuela and the United States. The Bush administration has so far failed to persuade fellow members of the Organisation of American States to back its candidate to be the group's secretary-general.
Michael Shifter, an analyst with Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, DC, says that the United States needs to abandon its traditional attitude that Latin America is merely its “backyard”. Ms Rice, who has recently carried emollient messages to several continents, seems to understand this. Her tour takes in two reliable allies, Colombia and El Salvador. But much of the business that matters is with pricklier countries. She was to attend a pro-democracy jamboree in Chile. She started her tour in Brazil, the region's main power, which the United States hopes will be a bulwark against instability.
Brazil is wary of pan-American free trade, bitter about American farm subsidies and suspicious of American military aid to Colombia. It is too big and ambitious in its own right to accept American leadership. For their part, the Americans deem Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a tad too friendly to Mr Chávez.
In BrasÃlia, however, Ms Rice played down differences. A joint statement spoke the local language of “liberty, democracy and social justice”, though the secretary mentioned drugs, terrorism and trade in a later speech. The statement called on Ecuador to respect “democratic order”, though neither country may do much to ensure this. Brazil leads the United Nations' peacekeepers in Haiti and probably restrains Mr Chávez. If other Andean governments fall into anti-American hands, its moderating influence will be sorely needed.
The best hope for stability in South America is to make it richer. The United States alone cannot make that happen, but could do more to help.
The Prescience of George Kennan
The Prescience of George Kennan
George F. Kennan (1904-2005), a distinguished US diplomat and historian, was one of the primary architects of US strategy during the Truman Administration. Kennan was one of the most thoughtful and eloquent writers not just on history, international politics, and US-Russian relations, but on American society, questions of personal and political philosophy, and contemporary problems such as nuclear weapons, the environment, population growth, and urbanization
The following quote from PPS/23, written in February 1948 when he was head of the US State Department's Policy Planning Staff, is often given as evidence of the iniquity of US foreign policy.
"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
Fifty seven years later that sensible advice is still valid and ignored.
baoluo
George F. Kennan (1904-2005), a distinguished US diplomat and historian, was one of the primary architects of US strategy during the Truman Administration. Kennan was one of the most thoughtful and eloquent writers not just on history, international politics, and US-Russian relations, but on American society, questions of personal and political philosophy, and contemporary problems such as nuclear weapons, the environment, population growth, and urbanization
The following quote from PPS/23, written in February 1948 when he was head of the US State Department's Policy Planning Staff, is often given as evidence of the iniquity of US foreign policy.
"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
Fifty seven years later that sensible advice is still valid and ignored.
baoluo
13 April 2005
Asian century: West is watching
LONDON: The West is getting anxious about the possible impact of India and China's pledge to create an 'Asian century'.
11 April 2005
The China-India Axis Revisited - Creation of an Asian Heartland
I refer to previous postings, namely "Wanted - a Political Oculist" and "US, NATO, Europe and the China-India Axis"
In both those posts, now republished I pointed out that the US has ignored events in Asia and elsewhere as a result of its disastrous and myopic focus on Iraq.
This week's news of the historic meetings and agreements between India and China support my long held view that the centre of global gravity is shifting inexorably away from both America and Europe to an Asian Heartland.
Once the long festering border dispute between the two countries is put to rest this week , close ties can be forged. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, made a proposition that the two giants collaborate not only in a regional free trade agreement, but build what could be a Hi-Tech colossus and economic powerhouse. See the following link:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67181,00.html
Just as important, if not more so, is the potential that the combined economies of India and China have to replace America as the engine that drives world commerce and/or add a new dimension to world trade. The two countries, representing 2.4 billion people or 40% of the world population could provide a consumer base far in excess of the 250 million Americans.
In addition, the creation of this commercial axis would liberate the world from being hostage to America’s mounting debt stemming from its financial profligacy. As matters now stand, countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, the UK and many others are forced to buy US Treasury bonds of increasingly doubtful value in order to prop up the US financial house of cards.. Should these creditors cease to buy the bonds or reduce the purchases, the dollar and with it the global economy, would go into free-fall. It would result in what one pundit describes as “mutual self-assured destruction” - if the US economy goes under, so do all the others. Without those purchases needed to finance America’s insatiable consumer appetite, US domestic consumption would decrease and the global economy would go into precipitous decline. The rest of the world is held hostage by one country’s economy, an economy that is being irresponsibly mismanaged by the Bush administration..
At present there is not alternative to the US economic engine, and that is precisely why India and China should be encouraged and supported to build a new global commercial and geopolitical heartland. The US is too short-sighted and self serving to recognise the advantage, and with the exception of France, Europe is simply too reliant on the United States politically, militarily and commercially.
Fortunately, unlike Europe, Asia, led by China and India, is not content to lean on America, and the sooner the Asian Heartland takes global leadership, the safer, saner and economically healthier the world will be.
A move away from a US dollar driven global economy and shift in commercial gravity will undoubtedly create turmoil in world markets and economies. A period of painful readjustment will take place, but readjust the world will.
In both those posts, now republished I pointed out that the US has ignored events in Asia and elsewhere as a result of its disastrous and myopic focus on Iraq.
This week's news of the historic meetings and agreements between India and China support my long held view that the centre of global gravity is shifting inexorably away from both America and Europe to an Asian Heartland.
Once the long festering border dispute between the two countries is put to rest this week , close ties can be forged. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, made a proposition that the two giants collaborate not only in a regional free trade agreement, but build what could be a Hi-Tech colossus and economic powerhouse. See the following link:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67181,00.html
Just as important, if not more so, is the potential that the combined economies of India and China have to replace America as the engine that drives world commerce and/or add a new dimension to world trade. The two countries, representing 2.4 billion people or 40% of the world population could provide a consumer base far in excess of the 250 million Americans.
In addition, the creation of this commercial axis would liberate the world from being hostage to America’s mounting debt stemming from its financial profligacy. As matters now stand, countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, the UK and many others are forced to buy US Treasury bonds of increasingly doubtful value in order to prop up the US financial house of cards.. Should these creditors cease to buy the bonds or reduce the purchases, the dollar and with it the global economy, would go into free-fall. It would result in what one pundit describes as “mutual self-assured destruction” - if the US economy goes under, so do all the others. Without those purchases needed to finance America’s insatiable consumer appetite, US domestic consumption would decrease and the global economy would go into precipitous decline. The rest of the world is held hostage by one country’s economy, an economy that is being irresponsibly mismanaged by the Bush administration..
At present there is not alternative to the US economic engine, and that is precisely why India and China should be encouraged and supported to build a new global commercial and geopolitical heartland. The US is too short-sighted and self serving to recognise the advantage, and with the exception of France, Europe is simply too reliant on the United States politically, militarily and commercially.
Fortunately, unlike Europe, Asia, led by China and India, is not content to lean on America, and the sooner the Asian Heartland takes global leadership, the safer, saner and economically healthier the world will be.
A move away from a US dollar driven global economy and shift in commercial gravity will undoubtedly create turmoil in world markets and economies. A period of painful readjustment will take place, but readjust the world will.
US, NATO, Europe and a China-India Axis
As Gerhard Schroeder posited last week, NATO is passé. It has served its purpose, one overtaken by world events and a “New Europe”, comprised of both old West and East Europe, should develop its own independent military capability.
"Old Europe", struggled to rebuild itself following WWII, while under threat from Soviet hegemony and was protected by the NATO shield under the leadership of the United States. NATO was the bulwark against communist expansion in West Europe and it did its job well. It protected both Western European and US economic interests. Under the circumstances of the war ravaged European economies, it fell to the US to finance and lead the alliance, a benefit to both parties.
Now that the Soviet threat to Old East and West Europe, no longer exists; there is no necessity for American leadership of what should be a European military alliance. Nevertheless, the United States balks at and opposes every attempt by the Europeans to cut the umbilical cord. As Mark Joyce, of the Royal United Services Institute, put it, "What the Americans fear is that the Europeans will develop a weapons capability that operates independently of NATO and could eventually emerge as a competitor to the United States."
That pretty well sums up the American global strategy – keep the world dependant, or at least thinking it is dependant on the United States. The United States wants to maintain its pre-eminent position in world affairs; that is precisely the reason the Europeans should develop into a full fledged economic and military competitor to the United States, and craft their own foreign policy independent from the US one.
This will be difficult, considering the lack of global political and economic clout it presently wields, but if Europe were to build a stronger alliance with an India-China axis, it could be done. Neither bloc presently is strong enough to stand up to the US, but together they could forge a significant power base. The biggest single obstacle is the lack of internal cohesion in the EU, particularly with a US sycophant, the UK, in its midst.
One way to circumvent this problem is for countries more apt to oppose US policies, such as France, to build stronger bilateral ties to the China-India axis. France is already working in this direction with commercial agreements and joint military exercises with both India and China. Russia, becoming increasingly fed up with America’s meddling and moralizing, is also making overtures to both India and China with a view to forming an alliance of contiguous nations to thwart United States global designs. If the EU as an entity continues to bend to the will of the US, there needs to be more such activity on the part of individual nations. EU countries can help fill the technological gaps in China’s military and industry; they will in turn benefit from trade with what is becoming the world’s biggest market and ally themselves with a bloc that wields global political, commercial and military power. Russia with its huge oil reserves, can supply badly needed petroleum to both China and India and benefit economically from those sales and sales of military equipment. By binding itself politically with China and India, Russia also stands to regain some of its lost leverage and national pride.
Europe (456 million), Russia (144 billion), China (1.3 billion) India (1.1 billion) – a population of 3 billion, just under 50% of the world total, ten times that of the United States. With the exception of Russia, each constituent part larger than the United States. Truly a powerhouse in the offing.
"Old Europe", struggled to rebuild itself following WWII, while under threat from Soviet hegemony and was protected by the NATO shield under the leadership of the United States. NATO was the bulwark against communist expansion in West Europe and it did its job well. It protected both Western European and US economic interests. Under the circumstances of the war ravaged European economies, it fell to the US to finance and lead the alliance, a benefit to both parties.
Now that the Soviet threat to Old East and West Europe, no longer exists; there is no necessity for American leadership of what should be a European military alliance. Nevertheless, the United States balks at and opposes every attempt by the Europeans to cut the umbilical cord. As Mark Joyce, of the Royal United Services Institute, put it, "What the Americans fear is that the Europeans will develop a weapons capability that operates independently of NATO and could eventually emerge as a competitor to the United States."
That pretty well sums up the American global strategy – keep the world dependant, or at least thinking it is dependant on the United States. The United States wants to maintain its pre-eminent position in world affairs; that is precisely the reason the Europeans should develop into a full fledged economic and military competitor to the United States, and craft their own foreign policy independent from the US one.
This will be difficult, considering the lack of global political and economic clout it presently wields, but if Europe were to build a stronger alliance with an India-China axis, it could be done. Neither bloc presently is strong enough to stand up to the US, but together they could forge a significant power base. The biggest single obstacle is the lack of internal cohesion in the EU, particularly with a US sycophant, the UK, in its midst.
One way to circumvent this problem is for countries more apt to oppose US policies, such as France, to build stronger bilateral ties to the China-India axis. France is already working in this direction with commercial agreements and joint military exercises with both India and China. Russia, becoming increasingly fed up with America’s meddling and moralizing, is also making overtures to both India and China with a view to forming an alliance of contiguous nations to thwart United States global designs. If the EU as an entity continues to bend to the will of the US, there needs to be more such activity on the part of individual nations. EU countries can help fill the technological gaps in China’s military and industry; they will in turn benefit from trade with what is becoming the world’s biggest market and ally themselves with a bloc that wields global political, commercial and military power. Russia with its huge oil reserves, can supply badly needed petroleum to both China and India and benefit economically from those sales and sales of military equipment. By binding itself politically with China and India, Russia also stands to regain some of its lost leverage and national pride.
Europe (456 million), Russia (144 billion), China (1.3 billion) India (1.1 billion) – a population of 3 billion, just under 50% of the world total, ten times that of the United States. With the exception of Russia, each constituent part larger than the United States. Truly a powerhouse in the offing.
2 April 2005
Iraq, a Failed State
With elections in Iraq due on 7 March I reprint below a paper I wrote in April 2005, now right on five years ago. I believe what I wrote was, and still is relevant
The events of the past week in Iraq, the abortive attempts to form a government amongst the fractious parties have brought into sharp relief the deep and inherent differences separating them. The situation has more than ever underscored the importance of applied Geopolitics in nation building.
This post is a lengthy one, but if the subject is to be studied seriously, there are many considerations to be taken on board and analysed. Bear with me.
In order to consider as objectively as possible the viability of an “Iraqi” state or nation I believe it behooves one to look both into history and political philosophy for reference points.
Since August 2002 I have written often of my belief that an invasion of Iraq with the objective of promoting democracy and transforming that country into a stable nation state would prove well nigh impossible and counterproductive. My reasoning was based on a study of Geopolitics and how it relates to foreign policy, and not prompted by US domestic politics preferences. In that regard, there is not, nor has there been in recent history, any substantial difference between the two major political parties.
Now, almost three years later, just over two years after the invasion and two months following the elections in Iraq it would appear my fears are being realised.
In August 2002 I warned that the US was once again ignoring history in favour of wishful thinking. I pointed to the British experience in Mesopotamia in 1920; the ill-fated attempt to bring together the disparate parts of that benighted territory – the Sunni and the Shia, who were at each other’s throats in a bloody war. The British did indeed bring them together, redrew the map and created a new country which they duly anointed “Iraq”. The irony and tragedy of that success was that the warring parties bonded to fight and eventually drive out the infidel British. Finally, after constant strife and loss of 2000-3000 troops, the British turned over “Iraq” to an off the shelf monarch, Faisal, in 1921. Since then, that arbitrary geopolitical creation, Iraq, has been ruled by a succession of despots, the only way it could survive given the incompatibility of the constituent cultures.
For those wishing to read more on the subject of the British experience in Iraq I refer you to the following two brief articles:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr20/firaq1920.htm
http://hnn.us/comments/8770.html
The United States, having ignored or having been ignorant of that historical episode, decided to proceed on the same well trodden and failed path in 2003.
What the US has been trying to do not only ignores history, it flies in the face of what my professor of Geopolitics at SFS Georgetown University described as one the basic principles of Geopolitics, raison d’etre; it goes against the basis of what constitutes a nation or nation-state, a reason for being.
In writing this post I thought it a good idea to re-examine the nature of a nation or nation-state under the lens of contemporary thought; then, see if present day Iraq, or rather its fissiparous parts, qualify for that appellation.
If one consults dictionaries or an encyclopaedia, one is more likely than not to come up with some fairly simplistic definitions, to wit:
Merriam Webster: nation-state, a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities
Brittanica: People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community. Their political identity usually comprises such characteristics as a common language, culture, ethnicity, and history. More than one nation may comprise a state, but the terms nation, state, and country are often used interchangeably. A nation-state is a state populated primarily by the people of one nationality.
Then there are the following:
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.web-savvy.com/river/schuylkill/glossary.html
Once a synonym for "ethnic group," designating a single culture sharing a language, religion, history, territory, ancestry, and kinship; now usually a synonym for state or nation-state.highered.mcgraw-ill.com/sites/0072426527/student_view0/chapter12/key_terms.html
In researching this topic one of the most reasoned but lengthy discourses I came across was produced by Dr. John G. Boswell, Professor of Education, George Washington University. The link to his full tract is below:
http://www.gwu.edu/~edpol/manuscript/Chap1-2.htm
For purposes of this post I shall merely extract some of the relevant arguments in which he takes care to differentiate amongst State, Nation and Nation-State. I quote:
“Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was "nasty, brutish, and short," individuals must necessarily surrender many of their rights -- including that of attacking each other -- to the "Leviathan", a unified and centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the "government": the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state.”
“For Weber, this was an "ideal type" or model or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (in June-July 2004) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and various militias and terrorist groups, while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. (This situation has been called that of a "failed state.") The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the important role of U.S. domination.”
“A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is important to the establishment of its sovereignty. The "state" can also be defined in terms of domestic conditions, specifically the role of the monopolization of the legitimate use of force within a country.”
“nation— or an ethnos ("ethnic group")— is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.”
He goes on to point out “Nations are often thought of as having a common language. However, language fits Japan and Britain, but not India and Canada, and certainly not Nigeria. Ethnicity is another attribute often used in thinking about nation. While the Japanese see themselves as ethnically homogeneous, the Swiss are multi-ethnic. Religion is another often used characteristic of nation, but, the rise of secularism in the modern world that has made religion less of a force in some societies. Further, for every Poland and Saudi Arabia with their single, dominant religion, there are an India and a United States with varieties of religious belief.”
So where does all this leave us in characterizing the status of Iraq Version 2005?
Going beyond Boswell’s statement above that Iraq is a “failed state”; that it lacked sovereignty because it shared the necessary tools of violence and because of US influence, I believe there are other more salient arguments. Let us take the various common points raised in the several definitions of nation or nation-state and see how they apply to a unified Iraq.
Religion: As Boswell posits, there are indeed nations which have diverse religions such as India and the United States, but the former has been wracked by internecine religious warfare for centuries. As for the United States, secularism was dominant but it would seem to be losing out to increasing influence of religious fundamentalism and is in danger of acting as a divisive not a unifying force. North Ireland can hardly be regarded as a example of people living together in religious harmony, nor can Nigeria with its periodic civil strife between Muslims and Christians. Then, and more to the point, where do the Sunni and Shia live in complete peace – that is, unless they are united in fighting a common enemy? Weighted value: Considering the almost fanatical loyalty and belief extant in Islam I would have to award Religion a value of 85.
Common ancestry: Despite the assertion by the Kurds that they are distinctive, in the mists of history they do share a common heritage of sorts bound together by living in the same general neighbourhood as the Sunni and Shia. Weighted value: Almost insignificant – at most a 5
Language: There is a common language, Arabic, shared by the Sunni and Shia, but the Kurds take great pride in promoting the use of their own Kurdish tongue. I have often contended that language is the glue that holds a culture together, but I believe it is not the only factor necessary for cultural cohesion. Without a common language it is difficult, even in well developed countries such as Belgium and Switzerland to carry on daily civic affairs. At the very least a fully multi-linguistic society creates an enormous bureaucracy and paperwork to satisfy the sensibilities of the various language groups. The old USSR laboured for seven decades to impose the Russian language on all its Republics without total success. However, against the backdrop of religious differences in the context of Iraq it is not as significant. Weighted Value: 10
Common Interest: Here is the rub and the nub of the problem. For people of diverse beliefs and culture to live in harmony, there must be an overriding common interest, a benefit in the case of the Sunni and Shia that will override the trenchant differences that have divided them for centuries.
One must ask what the relative advantages are of a unified Iraq that could overcome the seemingly rigid ideology that stirs such passion?
For the Kurds, I see no advantage. They have within the territory considered theirs, The Asset, oil. From that they can build a prosperous society, and have their long cherished dream of being independent, of having a Kurdish State. I am not arguing the external considerations here, namely the objections by Turkey, the fear of a Greater Kurdistan. I am merely putting forward what is of interest to the Kurds.
The Shiites also have nothing in particular to gain from melding their culture with the Sunni or with the Kurds in the north. Under Shia soil lie some of the biggest oil reserves in the Middle east. All that is lacking is development and there will be no wanting for countries happy to finance and carry forward that work, something that was already in process before the war. Furthermore, their Iranian Shia brethren to the East will be on standby to provide political and military support to them should it be needed.
Ironically, the Sunni are the ones that would profit the most from a unified Iraq, yet they are the least disposed to collaborate. Why? Two reasons: 1) because of the profound religious differences separating them and 2) as a distinct minority, they are loathe to subjugate themselves to people they formerly ruled and repressed. The Sunni, electing to be marginalised will, I fear, become a refuge and platform for continuing instability in the region. They have no industrial or natural resource base but they will be sustained by negative forces, internal and external, whose interests are to create turmoil.
The latter point takes us back to my question as to whether there are common interests and practical considerations which can overcome ages old prejudices and cultural divides. I conclude that in the case of Iraq the answer is a resounding NO. Self interest, even if destructive, plays a more decisive role.
Weighted Value: Theoretically common interest should be a major factor in encouraging cooperation and the formation of a Nation-State, but in Iraq, ideology and self interest trump – Value 0.
All considered, it is possible that Iraq could be held together into something vaguely resembling a Nation-State, but only in the short term, and only in an atmosphere of continuing strife and civil war. In the medium to long term, the internal, centrifugal forces would tear it apart.
My final words are that I recommend the US foreign policy establishment review the basic principles of Geopolitics before embarking on similar misadventures or before staying with the present policy that can lead only to an Iraq that is a Failed State.
2 April 2005
Baoluo
The events of the past week in Iraq, the abortive attempts to form a government amongst the fractious parties have brought into sharp relief the deep and inherent differences separating them. The situation has more than ever underscored the importance of applied Geopolitics in nation building.
This post is a lengthy one, but if the subject is to be studied seriously, there are many considerations to be taken on board and analysed. Bear with me.
In order to consider as objectively as possible the viability of an “Iraqi” state or nation I believe it behooves one to look both into history and political philosophy for reference points.
Since August 2002 I have written often of my belief that an invasion of Iraq with the objective of promoting democracy and transforming that country into a stable nation state would prove well nigh impossible and counterproductive. My reasoning was based on a study of Geopolitics and how it relates to foreign policy, and not prompted by US domestic politics preferences. In that regard, there is not, nor has there been in recent history, any substantial difference between the two major political parties.
Now, almost three years later, just over two years after the invasion and two months following the elections in Iraq it would appear my fears are being realised.
In August 2002 I warned that the US was once again ignoring history in favour of wishful thinking. I pointed to the British experience in Mesopotamia in 1920; the ill-fated attempt to bring together the disparate parts of that benighted territory – the Sunni and the Shia, who were at each other’s throats in a bloody war. The British did indeed bring them together, redrew the map and created a new country which they duly anointed “Iraq”. The irony and tragedy of that success was that the warring parties bonded to fight and eventually drive out the infidel British. Finally, after constant strife and loss of 2000-3000 troops, the British turned over “Iraq” to an off the shelf monarch, Faisal, in 1921. Since then, that arbitrary geopolitical creation, Iraq, has been ruled by a succession of despots, the only way it could survive given the incompatibility of the constituent cultures.
For those wishing to read more on the subject of the British experience in Iraq I refer you to the following two brief articles:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr20/firaq1920.htm
http://hnn.us/comments/8770.html
The United States, having ignored or having been ignorant of that historical episode, decided to proceed on the same well trodden and failed path in 2003.
What the US has been trying to do not only ignores history, it flies in the face of what my professor of Geopolitics at SFS Georgetown University described as one the basic principles of Geopolitics, raison d’etre; it goes against the basis of what constitutes a nation or nation-state, a reason for being.
In writing this post I thought it a good idea to re-examine the nature of a nation or nation-state under the lens of contemporary thought; then, see if present day Iraq, or rather its fissiparous parts, qualify for that appellation.
If one consults dictionaries or an encyclopaedia, one is more likely than not to come up with some fairly simplistic definitions, to wit:
Merriam Webster: nation-state, a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities
Brittanica: People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community. Their political identity usually comprises such characteristics as a common language, culture, ethnicity, and history. More than one nation may comprise a state, but the terms nation, state, and country are often used interchangeably. A nation-state is a state populated primarily by the people of one nationality.
Then there are the following:
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.web-savvy.com/river/schuylkill/glossary.html
Once a synonym for "ethnic group," designating a single culture sharing a language, religion, history, territory, ancestry, and kinship; now usually a synonym for state or nation-state.highered.mcgraw-ill.com/sites/0072426527/student_view0/chapter12/key_terms.html
In researching this topic one of the most reasoned but lengthy discourses I came across was produced by Dr. John G. Boswell, Professor of Education, George Washington University. The link to his full tract is below:
http://www.gwu.edu/~edpol/manuscript/Chap1-2.htm
For purposes of this post I shall merely extract some of the relevant arguments in which he takes care to differentiate amongst State, Nation and Nation-State. I quote:
“Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was "nasty, brutish, and short," individuals must necessarily surrender many of their rights -- including that of attacking each other -- to the "Leviathan", a unified and centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the "government": the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state.”
“For Weber, this was an "ideal type" or model or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (in June-July 2004) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and various militias and terrorist groups, while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. (This situation has been called that of a "failed state.") The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the important role of U.S. domination.”
“A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is important to the establishment of its sovereignty. The "state" can also be defined in terms of domestic conditions, specifically the role of the monopolization of the legitimate use of force within a country.”
“nation— or an ethnos ("ethnic group")— is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.”
He goes on to point out “Nations are often thought of as having a common language. However, language fits Japan and Britain, but not India and Canada, and certainly not Nigeria. Ethnicity is another attribute often used in thinking about nation. While the Japanese see themselves as ethnically homogeneous, the Swiss are multi-ethnic. Religion is another often used characteristic of nation, but, the rise of secularism in the modern world that has made religion less of a force in some societies. Further, for every Poland and Saudi Arabia with their single, dominant religion, there are an India and a United States with varieties of religious belief.”
So where does all this leave us in characterizing the status of Iraq Version 2005?
Going beyond Boswell’s statement above that Iraq is a “failed state”; that it lacked sovereignty because it shared the necessary tools of violence and because of US influence, I believe there are other more salient arguments. Let us take the various common points raised in the several definitions of nation or nation-state and see how they apply to a unified Iraq.
Religion: As Boswell posits, there are indeed nations which have diverse religions such as India and the United States, but the former has been wracked by internecine religious warfare for centuries. As for the United States, secularism was dominant but it would seem to be losing out to increasing influence of religious fundamentalism and is in danger of acting as a divisive not a unifying force. North Ireland can hardly be regarded as a example of people living together in religious harmony, nor can Nigeria with its periodic civil strife between Muslims and Christians. Then, and more to the point, where do the Sunni and Shia live in complete peace – that is, unless they are united in fighting a common enemy? Weighted value: Considering the almost fanatical loyalty and belief extant in Islam I would have to award Religion a value of 85.
Common ancestry: Despite the assertion by the Kurds that they are distinctive, in the mists of history they do share a common heritage of sorts bound together by living in the same general neighbourhood as the Sunni and Shia. Weighted value: Almost insignificant – at most a 5
Language: There is a common language, Arabic, shared by the Sunni and Shia, but the Kurds take great pride in promoting the use of their own Kurdish tongue. I have often contended that language is the glue that holds a culture together, but I believe it is not the only factor necessary for cultural cohesion. Without a common language it is difficult, even in well developed countries such as Belgium and Switzerland to carry on daily civic affairs. At the very least a fully multi-linguistic society creates an enormous bureaucracy and paperwork to satisfy the sensibilities of the various language groups. The old USSR laboured for seven decades to impose the Russian language on all its Republics without total success. However, against the backdrop of religious differences in the context of Iraq it is not as significant. Weighted Value: 10
Common Interest: Here is the rub and the nub of the problem. For people of diverse beliefs and culture to live in harmony, there must be an overriding common interest, a benefit in the case of the Sunni and Shia that will override the trenchant differences that have divided them for centuries.
One must ask what the relative advantages are of a unified Iraq that could overcome the seemingly rigid ideology that stirs such passion?
For the Kurds, I see no advantage. They have within the territory considered theirs, The Asset, oil. From that they can build a prosperous society, and have their long cherished dream of being independent, of having a Kurdish State. I am not arguing the external considerations here, namely the objections by Turkey, the fear of a Greater Kurdistan. I am merely putting forward what is of interest to the Kurds.
The Shiites also have nothing in particular to gain from melding their culture with the Sunni or with the Kurds in the north. Under Shia soil lie some of the biggest oil reserves in the Middle east. All that is lacking is development and there will be no wanting for countries happy to finance and carry forward that work, something that was already in process before the war. Furthermore, their Iranian Shia brethren to the East will be on standby to provide political and military support to them should it be needed.
Ironically, the Sunni are the ones that would profit the most from a unified Iraq, yet they are the least disposed to collaborate. Why? Two reasons: 1) because of the profound religious differences separating them and 2) as a distinct minority, they are loathe to subjugate themselves to people they formerly ruled and repressed. The Sunni, electing to be marginalised will, I fear, become a refuge and platform for continuing instability in the region. They have no industrial or natural resource base but they will be sustained by negative forces, internal and external, whose interests are to create turmoil.
The latter point takes us back to my question as to whether there are common interests and practical considerations which can overcome ages old prejudices and cultural divides. I conclude that in the case of Iraq the answer is a resounding NO. Self interest, even if destructive, plays a more decisive role.
Weighted Value: Theoretically common interest should be a major factor in encouraging cooperation and the formation of a Nation-State, but in Iraq, ideology and self interest trump – Value 0.
All considered, it is possible that Iraq could be held together into something vaguely resembling a Nation-State, but only in the short term, and only in an atmosphere of continuing strife and civil war. In the medium to long term, the internal, centrifugal forces would tear it apart.
My final words are that I recommend the US foreign policy establishment review the basic principles of Geopolitics before embarking on similar misadventures or before staying with the present policy that can lead only to an Iraq that is a Failed State.
2 April 2005
Baoluo
More on Latin America
Reference my previous post on Latin America, 23 March - see the following article from the Washington Post
Chavez Uses Presidential Summit to Chide U.S.
Chavez Uses Presidential Summit to Chide U.S.
By Silene Ramirez
CIUDAD GUAYANA, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan PresidentHugo Chavez on Tuesday dismissed U.S. criticism of his leftistrule at a summit with the leaders of Brazil, Colombia and Spainand said new geopolitical alliances were emerging in the world.
More on Pakistan
Reference my previous post of 22 March - Pakistan a Powder Keg. See the following article from The Asia Times.
Pakistan approaches boiling point
Pakistan approaches boiling point
Revitalized religious-political opposition parties in Pakistan are stepping up the pressure on President General Pervez Musharraf, after the success of their recent "Million March" in Karachi. Sidelined jihadis are ready to enter the fray, while the economy is a time bomb waiting to go off. Political and economic realities are pushing Musharraf further and further into a corner. - Syed Saleem Shahzad and Masood Anwar
[via Asia Times Online]
Foreign Policy Blunders Update 3 - The Pakistani Powder Keg
Since the invasion of Iraq, I have been warning that Pakistan is potentially a far more important geopolitical linchpin than Iraq, Iran, or North Korea.
Now,following Rice’s pronouncements lauding Musharraf and his alleged efforts to lead Pakistan down the path of democracy, it was interesting to note the massive demonstration against his regime and against his unstinting support for the United States two days ago. Musharraf, now praised by Rice, was reviled by the United States in 1999 when he executed a military coup d’etat and appointed himself President and Chief of the Armed Forces. That tag stayed on Musharraf until the US woke up to the need for an alliance with Pakistan after 9/11. From that point until now, he has been slowly rehabilitated and repackaged as a regional beacon of democracy.
This political sleight of hand has not been easy what with the news that the Pakistani Father of The Bomb had been sharing and selling his expertise to all and sundry, from North Korea to Libya. Our erstwhile ally and great democratic hope, General President Musharraf, very likely was aware of his good friend Khan's extracurricular activities.
For more on the subject of Pakistan, its nukes and Khan click on the following link:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC24Df03.html
Lying as it does between Afghanistan and India, with a population of 159 million, 97% of whom are Muslim, 80% of which are Sunni Muslims, makes Pakistan a geopolitical pivot point. With its large Muslim population, it is second only to Indonesia in that regard. The Western provinces, bordering on Afghanistan, in last year’s elections voted overwhelmingly for radical Islamic parties, and many areas have become no-go zones for Pakistan’s armed forces and a safe haven for Taliban and perhaps, Osama bin Laden. The Pakistan army and its intelligence services, have been thoroughly infiltrated by Islamic sympathisers and are considered to be of very doubtful reliability by the US. They would be the key to the overthrow of Musharraf.
Pakistan also possesses The Bomb and the wherewithal to deliver it to nearby targets, such as India, its longstanding regional foe which also possesses The Bomb and delivery systems. Pakistan is now working to develop a long range nuclear missile delivery capability that would extend that radius to the Mediterranean.
Thus, when one does a simple equation involving Pakistan and the following factors:
A= large Sunni population
B= a substantial opposition to the United States
C= growing opposition to Musharraf’s support of the United States
D= Neighbor and enemy of India
E= Already possesses The Bomb
X= The Apocalypse in various manifestations
any variation of the four constituent parts of the equation could add up to a very dangerous solution:
A+B+C = X these are theconstants. The large and increasingly hostile anti-American, Sunni population replacing the pro-US Musharraf regime with an Islamic Republic. From that volatile set of factors flow the following possibilities:
A+C+D+E = X1 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could precipitate a regional nuclear war with India. This variation would have a United States, without the necessary military resources to take on The Islamic Republic of Pakistan call upon India to act as the US surrogate and attack Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. India could well take such a decision fearing a preemptive nuclear strike by an Islamic Pakistan.
A+B+C+D+E = X2 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could lead to revived support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and a head on clash with the United States. Any attempt by the US to perform a surgical and preemptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities would trigger an all-out ground war and force the United States into another conflict when it does not have the resources to fight the one in Iraq; India would unquestionably be dragged into the war and quite possibly Indonesia.
The US would be well advised to “war game” this scenario, one that has developed as a direct consequence of the Iraqi war, and one potentially far more threatening than either Iran or North Korea. However, considering the US's inability to look ahead farther than what captures its immediate attention, it is not wise to expect much in the way of forward planning from Washington.
baoluo
Now,following Rice’s pronouncements lauding Musharraf and his alleged efforts to lead Pakistan down the path of democracy, it was interesting to note the massive demonstration against his regime and against his unstinting support for the United States two days ago. Musharraf, now praised by Rice, was reviled by the United States in 1999 when he executed a military coup d’etat and appointed himself President and Chief of the Armed Forces. That tag stayed on Musharraf until the US woke up to the need for an alliance with Pakistan after 9/11. From that point until now, he has been slowly rehabilitated and repackaged as a regional beacon of democracy.
This political sleight of hand has not been easy what with the news that the Pakistani Father of The Bomb had been sharing and selling his expertise to all and sundry, from North Korea to Libya. Our erstwhile ally and great democratic hope, General President Musharraf, very likely was aware of his good friend Khan's extracurricular activities.
For more on the subject of Pakistan, its nukes and Khan click on the following link:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC24Df03.html
Lying as it does between Afghanistan and India, with a population of 159 million, 97% of whom are Muslim, 80% of which are Sunni Muslims, makes Pakistan a geopolitical pivot point. With its large Muslim population, it is second only to Indonesia in that regard. The Western provinces, bordering on Afghanistan, in last year’s elections voted overwhelmingly for radical Islamic parties, and many areas have become no-go zones for Pakistan’s armed forces and a safe haven for Taliban and perhaps, Osama bin Laden. The Pakistan army and its intelligence services, have been thoroughly infiltrated by Islamic sympathisers and are considered to be of very doubtful reliability by the US. They would be the key to the overthrow of Musharraf.
Pakistan also possesses The Bomb and the wherewithal to deliver it to nearby targets, such as India, its longstanding regional foe which also possesses The Bomb and delivery systems. Pakistan is now working to develop a long range nuclear missile delivery capability that would extend that radius to the Mediterranean.
Thus, when one does a simple equation involving Pakistan and the following factors:
A= large Sunni population
B= a substantial opposition to the United States
C= growing opposition to Musharraf’s support of the United States
D= Neighbor and enemy of India
E= Already possesses The Bomb
X= The Apocalypse in various manifestations
any variation of the four constituent parts of the equation could add up to a very dangerous solution:
A+B+C = X these are theconstants. The large and increasingly hostile anti-American, Sunni population replacing the pro-US Musharraf regime with an Islamic Republic. From that volatile set of factors flow the following possibilities:
A+C+D+E = X1 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could precipitate a regional nuclear war with India. This variation would have a United States, without the necessary military resources to take on The Islamic Republic of Pakistan call upon India to act as the US surrogate and attack Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. India could well take such a decision fearing a preemptive nuclear strike by an Islamic Pakistan.
A+B+C+D+E = X2 = overthrow of the Musharraf regime in favour of an Islamic Republic which could lead to revived support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and a head on clash with the United States. Any attempt by the US to perform a surgical and preemptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities would trigger an all-out ground war and force the United States into another conflict when it does not have the resources to fight the one in Iraq; India would unquestionably be dragged into the war and quite possibly Indonesia.
The US would be well advised to “war game” this scenario, one that has developed as a direct consequence of the Iraqi war, and one potentially far more threatening than either Iran or North Korea. However, considering the US's inability to look ahead farther than what captures its immediate attention, it is not wise to expect much in the way of forward planning from Washington.
baoluo
Latin America - a changing political environment, and statesmanship
In an earlier post I wrote of America’s alliances burning while it fiddles in Iraq. In yet another, I observed that China is busy building alliances around the globe, including in the US’s own backyard as it were, Latin America.
Latin America, alas, has always been fertile ground for ferment, and not always in its best interests. No less than Simon Bolivar, the vaunted and still revered liberator of several South American countries wrote the following words as he neared his end:
"I was in command for twenty years, and during that time came to only a few definite conclusions: (1) I consider that, for us, [Latin] America is ungovernable; (2) whoever works for a revolution is plowing the sea; (3) the most sensible action to take in [Latin] America is to emigrate;(4) this country [Great Columbia, later to be divided into Columbia, Venezuela, and Equador] will ineluctably fall into the hands of a mob gone wild, later again to fall under the domination of obscure small tyrants of every color and race; (5) though decimated by every kind of crime and exhausted by our cruel excesses, we shall still not be tempting to Europeans for a reconquest;(6) if any part of the world were to return to a primeval chaos, such would be the last avatar of [Latin] America." (Quoted in Carlos Rangel's “The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship With the United States”
Since then, Latin America has indeed had a stormy history, trading domination by Spain for the corruption and repression of its own homegrown tyrants.
In recent times, post WWII, it became a battleground for political conquest between the USSR and the USA. Aside from the strategic threat to America, the USA, under the Monroe Doctrine, has always asserted its right to thwart an attempt by a non-Western hemisphere power to intrude on what it considers its patch.
During the Cold War America fought tenaciously and employed any method and anyone to that end, and with the exception of a close brush with Cuba, pretty well succeeded. There were a few temporary glitches, as in the case of Chile and Allende but that was put to bed fairly quickly by Pinochet and, of course, Nicaragua, once again on the boil.
Now, however, Latin America seems to have drifted off the US geopolitical radar, which does not seem to be picking up some alarming signals emanating from that region. Argentina with Kirchner has moved to the left, and thumbed his nose at Argentina’s international creditors by restructuring their huge debt and agreeing to repay only $0.35 on the dollar. Moving a tad north, sleepy Uruguay, in the doldrums for many a year, has made headlines by electing a leftist government and inviting the heretofore pariah Castro to the presidential inauguration; Bolivia, with a leftist populist administration in the making has begun a controversial land reform and is saying nasty things about the United States and making very complimentary remarks about Cuba and Venezuela.
Then, a really big blip missing on the US screen – Brasil. For the first time I can recall, since the short lived government of Jango Goulart in the 1960s, Brasilian voters brought to power a leftist administration under the guiding hand of the charismatic, life-long labour agitator, “Lula”, now President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Passing over the ever chaotic countries of Peru, and Ecuador and drug and terrorist nest Colombia, we arrive in Venezuela, home to Hugo Chavez the president, and the fifth largest producer of oil in the world which accounts for 13% of the US oil supply. Chavez, self appointed Bolivarian liberator of Latin America, has made a point of cultivating ties with Iran, Libya, China, India and France none of which are exactly on the warmest of terms with the US. In addition to his anti-American tirades, he is busy forging a decidedly left wing socialist alliance amongst the aforementioned Latin American nations, preferably under his tutelage and leadership. Not only could Chavez create serious problems for the US economy by reducing oil supplies, he could reignite a war over long simmering differences with Colombia, a key US ally in the war on drugs.
Suddenly, Cuba, lonely and pining for a sugar daddy since the USSR went broke now finds itself welcome in some significant neighboring company.
What is the US doing amidst this sea change? Well, just recently, this week, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, toured Latin America while his fellow apostle, Rice, did Asia. Presumably Rumsfeld was tipped for the task of mending fences with the Latinos because of his proved tact and diplomacy in dealing with US European allies.
In his recent peregrinations, he has concentrated on the following issues:
While in Argentina, he chastised Venezuela for wanting to buy 100,000 AK-47s from Russia. He said, “I cannot understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s” I guess US Intelligence, an oxymoron if ever there were one, has not been able to figure that out any better than Iraq. It would not be too far fetched to surmise Chavez would like to arm a loyal militia considering the attempts that have been made to do away with him both from within and without. He has the great mass of the poor and downtrodden in his country behind him, and with guns in their hands they could wield quite a bit influence and support for him. In addition to internal opposition, he has expressed fears of a US move to overthrow him. I think that must be in the cards considering the US dependence on Venezuela’s oil, but I would rule out an outright invasion. Where would the US come up with the troops? They need all the boots they can muster in Iraq.
Continuing Rumsfeld’s contribution to making the Latins love America, he also visited Brasil where he raised the same issue of Venezuela with Brazil's vice president and defence minister, Jose Alencar, who declined to offer similar criticism of Chavez. Alencar would only say that Brasil respects the right of self-determination of other countries, an alien concept to Rumsfeld, Rice and the Bush regime.
When one contrasts the headlines generated by Rumsfeld in his visits to Brasil and Argentina with those publicised during the visit by the Chinese President to the same countries, the difference is striking. Following are the lead stories on President Hu Jintao’s visits to Argentina and Brasil
“Hu said in a written speech upon arrival at the airport that he will discuss major international and regional issues with them and "learn from the experiences of Chile's development and success."
“China will invest nearly $20bn (£11bn) in Argentina over the next 10 years. The announcement of the trade and investment deals came on the first day of a state visit to Argentina by China's President Hu Jintao.”
“During the visit, Brazil met Chinese wishes to recognise it as a market economy. In return, Brazil was granted greater access to China's market for chicken and beef products. The beef deal alone is expected to be worth $600m (£324m) a year for Brazil, ministers said. It also gained a commitment from China to order at least 10 aeroplanes from Brazilian maker Embraer, reported the AFP news agency. To facilitate trade, the Chinese are offering between $5bn (£3bn) and $7bn (£4bn) worth of investment to improve Brazil's roads, railways and ports.“
No threats, no warnings, no hectoring and lecturing about democracy; no fear mongering about “terism”; no attempts to enlist them in a war against Iraq, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea. Instead, China pursues a low key policy built on enterprise and investment in other countries. China, unlike the US, is not attempting to involve itself in the quagmire of Latin American politics; China has heeded Bolivar’s admonitions and learned from America’s failures in that regard.
Harking back to my post on Weiqi and strategic thinking, and looking at the global geopolitical game being played out, the US is losing territory, influence and respect apace. Even to keep its traditional European allies in line, the US has to rely on threats of economic and technological sanctions (reference the recent clash over the arms embargo on China). Regions once considered to be solid allies of the United States are now being courted successfully by the Chinese. Southeast Asia, and Latin America are the most obvious examples of this policy; it is worth noting that with the exception of the United States, and its satrapies of Taiwan and Japan, China has no significant enemies. The same cannot be said for the United States.
However, the US seems impervious to changes taking place in the world, following instead a policy based on a rigid and doctrinaire ideology, one that can only lead to its undoing.
Latin America, alas, has always been fertile ground for ferment, and not always in its best interests. No less than Simon Bolivar, the vaunted and still revered liberator of several South American countries wrote the following words as he neared his end:
"I was in command for twenty years, and during that time came to only a few definite conclusions: (1) I consider that, for us, [Latin] America is ungovernable; (2) whoever works for a revolution is plowing the sea; (3) the most sensible action to take in [Latin] America is to emigrate;(4) this country [Great Columbia, later to be divided into Columbia, Venezuela, and Equador] will ineluctably fall into the hands of a mob gone wild, later again to fall under the domination of obscure small tyrants of every color and race; (5) though decimated by every kind of crime and exhausted by our cruel excesses, we shall still not be tempting to Europeans for a reconquest;(6) if any part of the world were to return to a primeval chaos, such would be the last avatar of [Latin] America." (Quoted in Carlos Rangel's “The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship With the United States”
Since then, Latin America has indeed had a stormy history, trading domination by Spain for the corruption and repression of its own homegrown tyrants.
In recent times, post WWII, it became a battleground for political conquest between the USSR and the USA. Aside from the strategic threat to America, the USA, under the Monroe Doctrine, has always asserted its right to thwart an attempt by a non-Western hemisphere power to intrude on what it considers its patch.
During the Cold War America fought tenaciously and employed any method and anyone to that end, and with the exception of a close brush with Cuba, pretty well succeeded. There were a few temporary glitches, as in the case of Chile and Allende but that was put to bed fairly quickly by Pinochet and, of course, Nicaragua, once again on the boil.
Now, however, Latin America seems to have drifted off the US geopolitical radar, which does not seem to be picking up some alarming signals emanating from that region. Argentina with Kirchner has moved to the left, and thumbed his nose at Argentina’s international creditors by restructuring their huge debt and agreeing to repay only $0.35 on the dollar. Moving a tad north, sleepy Uruguay, in the doldrums for many a year, has made headlines by electing a leftist government and inviting the heretofore pariah Castro to the presidential inauguration; Bolivia, with a leftist populist administration in the making has begun a controversial land reform and is saying nasty things about the United States and making very complimentary remarks about Cuba and Venezuela.
Then, a really big blip missing on the US screen – Brasil. For the first time I can recall, since the short lived government of Jango Goulart in the 1960s, Brasilian voters brought to power a leftist administration under the guiding hand of the charismatic, life-long labour agitator, “Lula”, now President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Passing over the ever chaotic countries of Peru, and Ecuador and drug and terrorist nest Colombia, we arrive in Venezuela, home to Hugo Chavez the president, and the fifth largest producer of oil in the world which accounts for 13% of the US oil supply. Chavez, self appointed Bolivarian liberator of Latin America, has made a point of cultivating ties with Iran, Libya, China, India and France none of which are exactly on the warmest of terms with the US. In addition to his anti-American tirades, he is busy forging a decidedly left wing socialist alliance amongst the aforementioned Latin American nations, preferably under his tutelage and leadership. Not only could Chavez create serious problems for the US economy by reducing oil supplies, he could reignite a war over long simmering differences with Colombia, a key US ally in the war on drugs.
Suddenly, Cuba, lonely and pining for a sugar daddy since the USSR went broke now finds itself welcome in some significant neighboring company.
What is the US doing amidst this sea change? Well, just recently, this week, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, toured Latin America while his fellow apostle, Rice, did Asia. Presumably Rumsfeld was tipped for the task of mending fences with the Latinos because of his proved tact and diplomacy in dealing with US European allies.
In his recent peregrinations, he has concentrated on the following issues:
While in Argentina, he chastised Venezuela for wanting to buy 100,000 AK-47s from Russia. He said, “I cannot understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s” I guess US Intelligence, an oxymoron if ever there were one, has not been able to figure that out any better than Iraq. It would not be too far fetched to surmise Chavez would like to arm a loyal militia considering the attempts that have been made to do away with him both from within and without. He has the great mass of the poor and downtrodden in his country behind him, and with guns in their hands they could wield quite a bit influence and support for him. In addition to internal opposition, he has expressed fears of a US move to overthrow him. I think that must be in the cards considering the US dependence on Venezuela’s oil, but I would rule out an outright invasion. Where would the US come up with the troops? They need all the boots they can muster in Iraq.
Continuing Rumsfeld’s contribution to making the Latins love America, he also visited Brasil where he raised the same issue of Venezuela with Brazil's vice president and defence minister, Jose Alencar, who declined to offer similar criticism of Chavez. Alencar would only say that Brasil respects the right of self-determination of other countries, an alien concept to Rumsfeld, Rice and the Bush regime.
When one contrasts the headlines generated by Rumsfeld in his visits to Brasil and Argentina with those publicised during the visit by the Chinese President to the same countries, the difference is striking. Following are the lead stories on President Hu Jintao’s visits to Argentina and Brasil
“Hu said in a written speech upon arrival at the airport that he will discuss major international and regional issues with them and "learn from the experiences of Chile's development and success."
“China will invest nearly $20bn (£11bn) in Argentina over the next 10 years. The announcement of the trade and investment deals came on the first day of a state visit to Argentina by China's President Hu Jintao.”
“During the visit, Brazil met Chinese wishes to recognise it as a market economy. In return, Brazil was granted greater access to China's market for chicken and beef products. The beef deal alone is expected to be worth $600m (£324m) a year for Brazil, ministers said. It also gained a commitment from China to order at least 10 aeroplanes from Brazilian maker Embraer, reported the AFP news agency. To facilitate trade, the Chinese are offering between $5bn (£3bn) and $7bn (£4bn) worth of investment to improve Brazil's roads, railways and ports.“
No threats, no warnings, no hectoring and lecturing about democracy; no fear mongering about “terism”; no attempts to enlist them in a war against Iraq, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea. Instead, China pursues a low key policy built on enterprise and investment in other countries. China, unlike the US, is not attempting to involve itself in the quagmire of Latin American politics; China has heeded Bolivar’s admonitions and learned from America’s failures in that regard.
Harking back to my post on Weiqi and strategic thinking, and looking at the global geopolitical game being played out, the US is losing territory, influence and respect apace. Even to keep its traditional European allies in line, the US has to rely on threats of economic and technological sanctions (reference the recent clash over the arms embargo on China). Regions once considered to be solid allies of the United States are now being courted successfully by the Chinese. Southeast Asia, and Latin America are the most obvious examples of this policy; it is worth noting that with the exception of the United States, and its satrapies of Taiwan and Japan, China has no significant enemies. The same cannot be said for the United States.
However, the US seems impervious to changes taking place in the world, following instead a policy based on a rigid and doctrinaire ideology, one that can only lead to its undoing.
31 March 2005
China and the US; Weiqi and Chess; Strategic Thinking vs. Tactical Thinking
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
“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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)