Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (17520)	1/29/2002 3:09:05 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Our Man in Beijing nytimes.com [I'd never noticed Nicholas Kristof in the NYT op-ed lineup before today, so I checked on previous columns. This one was quite entertaining, but also germane on broader FA grounds. Before 9/11, dumping on China seemed to be a primary preoccupation in certain "diplomatic" circles; maybe there's a chance to move forward now]. One of the silver linings to 9/11 is the historic opportunity it has created to make the world safe for the world's most critical rivalry: that between the 21st century's two most important countries, China and the United States. So far this opportunity has been largely squandered. President Bush's visit to China next month creates another chance. The stars are aligned to permit a major drive to put Chinese-American relations on a better footing, and Mr. Bush should show the same enthusiasm to build relations that he did on his last visit to Beijing. That was in 1975, when he had just graduated from business school. His fellow graduates were going off to begin sparkling careers, but Mr. Bush spent the whole summer loafing around Beijing, where his father was then the American envoy. What was he up to? Did he have some secret intelligence mission? Was he trying to use his connections to launch a business? Nope. Mr. Bush, it turns out, took the summer off because he wanted to date Chinese women. Seriously. China was in the last fanatical throes of its Cultural Revolution and Mr. Bush was a stinking imperialist capitalist running dog, but even then (as a single man) he was trying hard to build bridges. Predictably, he spent the summer striking out. (Actually, he was lucky he did, for State Security agents sometimes use gorgeous young women as "honey traps" for well-connected American men and then burst in with cameras. If that had happened, President Jiang Zemin would be able to show Mr. Bush some amazing photos in the course of a most interesting negotiation). Anyway, let's hope that Mr. Bush tries as hard this time to warm Chinese hearts. Long after Afghanistan is a faded memory, the world's prosperity and security will depend on the globe's two dominant players getting along (Remember: China will very likely surpass the United States as the world's largest economy by 2020). The attacks of 9/11 changed the dynamic of Chinese-American relations. Already China is sharing its intelligence on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan (pretty good stuff, I hear). Beijing was also very helpful in twisting arms in Pakistan to crack down on Islamic fundamentalists. What few Americans realize is that Mr. Jiang is, in Chinese terms, deeply pro-American. Everybody sees that but the Americans. As one Chinese friend put it: "The general feeling here is that Jiang and the entire leadership are very pro-American. They're willing to do anything to fix up the relationship with the U.S." I spent a couple of days at Beijing University talking to students, and almost every time Mr. Jiang's name came up he was dismissed as qin mei, an expression that means sweet on America (qin means beloved, dear or kiss, and mei stands for America). If Mr. Jiang is mocked as qin mei, that is partly his own fault. He has cultivated nationalism as the new ideological "glue" to hold China together, replacing Communism, in ways that breed anti-Americanism. Mr. Bush needs to object to this, and the bottom line is that Mr. Jiang will be responsive because he wants to be respected by the United States. One reassuring sign: Mr. Jiang has tried to quell the fallout from the American bugging of his luxurious new Chinese Air Force One. Of course, let's not kid ourselves: The reason he hushed it up is that he is already criticized for self-aggrandizement, and for many Chinese the insult is that Mr. Jiang spent $120 million on a lavish plane with a huge bed to bug. I lived in China too many years to have any sweet illusions about this regime. I was on Tiananmen Square when the troops opened fire, I've had friends imprisoned and tortured by the authorities, and I've been denounced by the Communist Party for writing "science fiction" (judging from my e-mail, this may be one point on which people in many countries can agree). But China is also becoming more open, tolerant and important. The aftermath of the terror attacks underscores precisely the useful role China can play if our two countries cooperate, and it creates an opportunity to put our relationship on a more solid footing. Mr. Jiang is a lame duck, retiring from his key posts this fall, and for his legacy he wants to cement an improved Chinese-American relationship. It's in our own interest to help him do that.

To: Win Smith who wrote (17520)	1/29/2002 3:15:44 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

>> That conflict was a muddy one, not involving a declared war against a government. << Durant was clearing acting as a soldier of the United States. So are, and would be, our Special Ops troops. That's not muddy at all. There's clearly a sovereign state to negotiate with and hold to some form of accountability. I suspect the Somali were less "scrupulous about international law" than about not inviting escalation or serious reprisal from the United States itself.

To: Win Smith who wrote (17520)	1/29/2002 3:33:30 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Let Them Be P.O.W.'s Makes a great deal of sense. I still think it's hubris that will put this administration in danger. But we'll see. John

To: Win Smith who wrote (17520)	1/29/2002 4:32:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That is simply wrong. Anyone who bothers to read the convention will see that those tests apply to "resistance movements" outside a country's armed forces. The tests do not apply to military units within a nation's armed forces — such as all Taliban soldiers and perhaps also Qaeda's "Arab Brigade" in the Taliban army. Under the Geneva Convention, all these fighters within the Afghan armed forces are P.O.W.'s whether or not they wear uniforms or obey the rules of war. I can see it now... The Crips, Bloods, Aryan Nations, and oh so many other organized criminal elements that prey upon civilians, will now suddenly have to be granted POW status. Heck.. Patty Hearst would have had to be given POW status using this logic, since she was part of the Sybionese Liberation Army. THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE JUSTIFYING POW STATUS is for those who are shown to have NOT targeted attacks against unarmed civilians, but only military targets. These guys were terrorists.. Criminals who unwilling to directly confront a military force of the country they claimed to be at war with. They specifically targeted defenseless civilians. I remember when some members of the Aryan Nations offshoot, "The Order", killed a Jewish radio show host. Those who were not later shot committing other acts, were sent to prison as the criminals they are. Why is this argument so difficult for people to understand?? Give these thugs legal status as combatants and you'll have every criminal group from the Mafia, to the Colombian cartels, trying to assert POW status for themselves... Geesuzz.... Is that what we want?? Hawk