SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


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.