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.

Strategies & Market Trends : HONG KONG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2738)	3/17/1999 3:12:00 AM
From: Tom	Respond to of 2951

Double-OT. I'm forced by time to be brief, Steve. Been burning the late-night oil. If I can't respond suitably, I'll continue later in our morning. ----- Another curious item from Moorer's discourse, which further emphasizes my point: - I have already pointed out in extensive testimony how they have positioned themselves at our weakest link, the Isthmus of Panama, through the use of closely allied commercial entities. See my Senate testimony from this past Summer. Cutting us off at that weakest point would enable the Chinese Communist military to so weaken our capacity to keep our forward forces supplied with munitions and jet fuel that we would have to bring all the troops and ships home in a matter of days. - Again we see a pattern of distortion designed to inspire fear. Moorer makes a clean leap from the presence of Chinese commercial entities to the capacity to cut off traffic through the Panama canal. This leap, frankly, is way over the top. In order for a commercial entity to exert this kind of force, that commercial entity would have to be transformed into a full scale military installation. I certainly hope that US military intelligence would be sufficiently sophisticated to detect this happening, and that the US military would have the capacity to prevent it from happening. It doesn't require much in the way of a "leap." There is no distortion or attempt to inspire fear. Preventing transit through the canal would not be a difficult feat. The ease with which it can be accomplished is what lends urgency to the presence of a reluctant operator, and is the reason for his mentioning it as "that weakest point." Its operational features are much like the lock&dam situations one would encounter on many inland waterways around the world. Moorer seems to believe that the presence of any Chinese commercial interest anywhere is a security threat to the US. Chinese? That covers a lot of ground. PRC/CCP/PLA/Communist Chinese...more specific, more correct, and nearer the truth. Please, substitute freely. I assume he would have the US oppose the establishment of Chinese commercial presences in any strategic areas. Only ones with a communist interest, operating under the direction of Beijing's Trade Ministry. I can't see that he expands beyond that or similar circumstance. Panama Ports is the name of the company. This, in my view, is tantamount to forcing China into the kind of economic isolation that is likely to produce military adventurism. We should be encouraging China's integration into the world economy: the more Chinese are making money out of the world, the less likely China will be to rock the boat; the more China interacts with the world outside, the more internal pressure will be generated toward political liberalization. Preventing control does not equivocate with "economic isolation." The PLA needs no primer on "military adventurism." The PLA, with sufficient opportunity to do so, has failed to provide evidence of a responsible military strategy. Much to the contrary. The U.S. has been encouraging the PRC and no one has subordinated their economic needs. It's inarguable. Obviously it is prudent to monitor Chinese commercial presences to a sufficient degree that we will know if they are being upgraded to military facilities. I think this is well within our capability. Closing the canal does not require a military presence. That is the urgency of the issue. Are you following the discussion of these issues on the Asia Forum thread? I've seen Bosco, Ramsey, Ron and others discussing Los Alamos. I do read the thread but, for lack of time, avoid contributing. -----