To: shadowman who wrote (9424 ) 10/26/1999 9:20:00 PM From: Dayuhan Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9980
A journalist friend just came back from doing some time in Indonesia; we had some interesting conversations. Both of us had our Indonesian exposure close to a decade ago, and both of us expected much stronger opposition to the separation of East Timor, especially among the military. I am relieved that it didn't go as I expected, but also curious about why; my friend had some interesting observations. He came back convinced that the Indonesian elite did not resist strongly simply because they have been so thoroughly integrated, economically, with the west. The generals have large amounts of money outside the country; their investments inside the country depend on trade with the west for their viability. They've grown accustomed to prosperity, and can't face the economic results of serious conflict. In other words, they're hooked. I don't think Clinton's China policy is aimed at duplicating this phenomenon in China; I don't think he's that sophisticated. My guess is that he just wants to be remembered as "the guy who made peace", and isn't taking it much farther than creating the rhetoric of good relations. I do think that economic integration should be the primary goal of our China policy, simply because its accomplishment would give us a degree of leverage over China that we do not now possess. You can't use leverage you haven't got, and since we do not now have significant economic leverage - the only relevant kind - our policy should be to attain it. Some may see this as appeasement, but I think it will be more effective than shaking a stick that everyone knows we won't use. If we're seen "giving things away" - making deals that do not appear to be immediately advantageous - what of it? All smart dope dealers pass the stuff out at a loss until the target is hooked. We want to get them addicted to money, and we should do whatever is needed to accomplish that.