To: quidditch who wrote (37620 ) 8/4/1999 8:56:00 PM From: quidditch Respond to of 152472
Peripheral, not altogether OT: China and CDMA While I know the thread has a somewhat limited tolerance for China discussions, "there some thing happenin' out there, what it is ain't exacly clear, but there's a man with a gun... " (with apologies to the Buffalo Springfield, as long as we're in the month of celebrating Woodstock anniversaires). The following has profoundly disturbing implications for me, if not for Q's near-term prospects in China, if not for global stability generally. Today's NYT ran a page one piece entitled "2 Wary Neighbors Unite to Confront North Korea Arms", in which the Tokyo-based correspondent described the increasing concern and fear on the part of Japan and S. Korea about an upcoming advanced missile test by N. Korea. I have no illusions about the Kim Jong Il regime, and US strategic deterrence may go only so far in dissuading a rogue state with little or nothing to lose from engaging in a destabilizing missile test. And perhaps N. Korea has everything to gain by whipping up popular frenzy against a putative US aggressor who comes to the aid of its client states in and around the Sea of Japan. But the elements of the NYT story that are worrisome are these: Japan has agreed to take part in a missile-defense system that Washington is developing that would use rockets to shoot down incoming missiles. And Japan is sppeeding its plans for a satellite surveillance system...[The article goes on to detail other ways in which Japan may be forced to deviate from its constitutionally mandated limitations on defense spending.]...[L]ast week Defense Secretary William S. Cohen indicated that Washington would work with Seoul to overcome [the limit of 112 miles on any missiles developed or deployed by Seoul], which could be accomplished if South Kooreajoined the Missile Technology Control Regime... The article explored in some depth other options at the US Department of State's disposal--continuing to woo Pyongyang with carrots/letting it stew in its own juices without aid until it simply imploded because of internal famine and economic chaos. Evidently, those supporting either one of those strategies has lost to a more jingoistic approach. All of this, in the context of (according to China) the US: (i) continuing to sell arms and materiele to Taiwan in the midst of the most serious "one China" crisis in years, (ii) on a de facto basis, supporting a break-away province in a civil struggle with the sovereign, i.e., Kosovo (obviously, it was more complicated than that), (iii) bombing the Chinese embassy, (iv) Slick stiffing Zhu on WTO at the last minute, (v) the satellite/export/spying paranoia, one would, in the shoes of the already paranoid Chinese leadership (look at what it's doing with Falun Gong, or however you spell this mystic cult with its leader comfortably ensconced in the US) take this as a broadside aggressive bear-hug from Uncle Sam. One is reminded of the Russian paranoia of the "cordon sanitaire" in the George Kennan era: with the US now inviting constitutionally mandated pacifist Japan and nuclear constrained South Korea into a little anti-missile system clutch in concert with the Pentagon, China may well feel somewhat claustrophobic about its embrace of an open market (relatively speaking) and links, official and unofficial, to the west. Was it suckered into a broker's deal to revive its economy only to find that it is hemmed in, with little room for domestic maneuver? As the world's preeminent military and economic power, the US can club almost anyone into submission. The question is, with our geopolitical position (not to say we are not susceptible to rogue state blackmail) almost impregnable, aren't there times when we can affort not to have to resort to heavy handed force. Isn't this itself destabilizing of the so-called "new world order" over which we could have presided. (Indeed, in the inside page on which the N. Korea piece continued, there was a story about a report commissioned by Japan (albeit through UN auspices) that the US failure to endorse nuclear test bans was in effect encouraging nuclear brinksmanship elsewhere). One wonders who has got hold of Slick's organs now. This seems to me the kind of unnecessary flailing of a weenie power, not the kind of Teddy Roosevelt "speak softly...big stick" power. This will give credence to the Yahoo poster quoted here who advance "16 Reasons Why...(apologies to Connie Stevens) China Won't Embrace (nor for the moment) CDMA". The WSJ, for once, had it right when it did its investigative piece on the Ministry of Communications and how Zhu overrode the entrenched Minister to open China to CDMA. The balmy spring season of that miracle seems far distant now amongst the sounds of war mongering, re-unification talk and paranoia. End of rant/screed (I like that word--glad you used it Mq). Liacos_samui