Hi CB, <<most reasonable>> I do not view myself as the most reasonable, although I may be so. I see myself as primarily as matter of fact, for truth and justice.
I am not hostile to India and Indians, nor am I hostile to the Japanese. I regularly discuss India-China issues with Indian diplomats and strategy thinkers, and they actually appreciate my candor and come back for more. I believe I told you of these meetings once before.
My public view point on India is here, mostly, and comprised of observations, to a large degree …
Message 16178484
So, no hostility to India and Indians.
However, I do know that the brand of Islam in India, encompassing its 180 mm believers, is of the most docile variety in the world, and as they constitute a minority in the midst of the Hindu mass, it is unlikely that they would deliberately provoke a fight. Justice cries out, and for Maurice’s dream of 1.x billion CDMA subscribers, say bye bye.
<<Makes me wonder what other elite Chinese in PRC are like. Very militant, I fear.>>
And so, this comment has more to do with the price of potato in Idaho than elite in China.
On China, my matter of fact observations are sampled as follows …
Message 15853335
And on the Americans …
Message 15128571
Message 15134944
Finally, on the Japanese …
Message 15859195
<<Why?>>
Where am I wrong?
<<Maybe when it's time to be the hegemon, these things just happen. Like bees swarming. The drive to go forth and multiply is one of the strongest.>>
As I told you once before by PM, on that day of hegemon born, I am out of here, because I am of the wrong shade of colour.
<<Muslims all over the world are attacking whoever is nearest and not Muslim>>
In the particular case of India, and maybe only India, the Muslims are being attacked, out of the blue, for the most part.
Sure, Muslims are being attacked in the ME, Russia, China, and by Americans all over the world, for a bunch of the same reasons, but, in the case of India, with an aggregated number of 180 mm, attacks by the majority of a substantial minority may not be pain-free.
<<We talked about this last year, before 9/11. I think you thought the idea of Muslim violence keeping the US busy was good for China. I wonder if you still think that.>>
I think I did not use the word ‘good’.
First, a self-introduction …
Message 15700670
Then, a total recall …
Message 15839776
Message 16330798
Message 16336760
Message 16341488
Message 16346418
Message 16348592
Message 16350684
… and the comments you referred to, perhaps from this amusing exchange …
Message 15629301
… in conjunction with a PM to you dated back in June 2001, is as follows …
QUOTE
On the interaction between Russia, China and the US, let me adopt a Maoist type analysis to the matter:
1. The world is comprised of contradictions (yin vs. yan);
2. From the US view, the major contradiction today is between the rise of China, and the sustainable supremacy of the US;
3. From the Chinese view, the major contradiction is between the rise of China, and the fall of China;
4. From the Russian view, the major contradiction is between the fall of Russia and the rebirth of Russia;
5. These contradiction will guide matters for the next umpteen years, and each vector of contradiction has its own momentum and velocity (mass, force, speed, direction) and equation of time (elapsed time during which momentum and velocity matter);
6. The US efforts to enlarge NATO mainly serves to undermine Russia’s claim to future leadership of its ‘sphere of influence’, loosely delineated as the ex-USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. The enlargement of NATO is being characterized as something other than this transparent motivation, and does not fool a man such as Putin, and certainly cannot put the traditionally suspicious Russian population at ease. I agree with you that Putin is very smart, necessarily so, else he would not have risen to where he is today. The brutal nature of politics in countries such as Russia and China necessarily makes the current leadership “foxes” by definition;
7. The US willingness to “go MD with or without XYZ” and to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Treaty serves only to undermine US credibility as a treaty partner, and the US willingness to scuttle the Kyoto Treaty negotiations serves only to undermine the US as a negotiating partner. In an age where the world is requiring long term solutions for deadly problems, the US model of 4 year election, 2 term presidency, two party oligopoly, multiple and diverse interest group horse trade, is simply not dependable for solutions, not dependable for partnership, and not dependable for security;
8. I believe the Russians, Chinese on the mainland and on Taiwan, and even the Japanese are beginning to realize this, all attributable to Bush’s election victory. The damage Bush is doing to the US interest has been enormous, only not realized in the US;
9. Bush is viewed by folks I talk to (all none US folks, such as PRC and Taiwan leadership types, HK business types, Russian consul general in HK, Japan ambassador to China, etc) as an intellectual lightweight, and all view it as a good thing that Bush Sr. is still around, along with Colin Powell;
10. Ms. Rice is viewed as a pretender, and climber, of no particular substance, and dangerous;
11. In such circumstances, Bush is humored by all, even as they busily make their own preparations for their own needs. The US press is not realizing this at all, to my amazement, but then I have high expectations for people doing their jobs;
12. When two smiling foxes (Jiang and Putin) say they can do business with Bush, Bush will be taken on a ride;
13. So, my short term predictions – China will focus on the economy and nuclear parity, Russia will not reduce their missile count further, Japan will rearm, Taiwan will make nice with mainland, SE Asia will watch, cower, and stay very quiet, Europe will do what is best for itself (difficult, because to many interest groups);
14. Russia will need to, Putin willing, put economy ahead of democracy;
15. Any US financial aid given to Russia will end up in offshore banks via Cyprus. There is no shortcut to development of political economy and financial economy;
16. Germany and France will press for more substantive Euro, EU etc; and
17. EU may not hold.
<<cultural ties between Russia and Europe>>
There is very little similarity between Russia and rest of Europe, and what similarity there is, is washed away by bad experiences of European-American interventions in the past, and current aggressiveness in line with perceived Russian weakness. There is a reason why China and Russia have pulled troops back from the border, so that they can both concentrate on what matters to them most, control of their respective spheres of influence elsewhere, development of Siberia, and stability in Central Asia.
China is bending backwards to be not threatening to Russia in her weakened state, and the US is shouting on top of lungs “we will do with or without you” “we will expand NATO to your doorsteps” “we will stop financing you”. BTW, the Russian submarine matter is on par with the Chinese Belgrade Embassy matter to Russia and China.
America is playing the game all wrong, to America’s long-term detriment. America needs to listen to its geopolitical-aware folks.
<<At the same time, the economic importance of China to Russia is also quite strong. They're going to try to have it both ways>>
They can have it both ways, because American diplomacy will grow up fast, even with Ms Rice in charge. What must be, will be.
<<The old balance of power may not have seemed like a balance to China, but it felt stable to us. China is the destabilizing factor, now.>>
Rumsfield’s view is that China must be actively stopped from developing the means to challenge the US on any and all issues, which basically comes down to that China must be stopped from developing economically under politically and geo-politically stable conditions. This is a naïve, cynical, and sinister approach that has no support of progressive elements around the world, and certainly has no support within any faction of the Chinese population, and thus will fail. The US hollar concerning democracy, Taiwan, Tibet and labor rights are all interpreted in light of such geopolitical noise, and this is precisely why relationship between the US and China is tense. The NY Times, and WSJ type rationales are all a side show to the main event … power geopolitics. This Rumsfield attitude comes across again even in global warming … as in “China emits the most greenhouse gas” which is counter-balanced by “person for person, US accounts for most of the emissions”.
Matters are never as clear-cut, black and white, right and wrong, as the media would like to make it out to be. In the end, truth prevails and the good guys always win, god willing.
UNQUOTE
So, you see, it just is, reasonable or not.
Chugs, Jay
P.S. This post should generate some controversy, no doubt:0?
Come Mike AC Flyer, Maurice, Ray, chime in, lets do it. Elmat, get out here, and do not forget to drag in DJ nilly by the willy. |
