Kissinger: Conflict with China not an option

[SampanViking]

The following is an article written by Henry Kissinger last June. It is well worth reading, especially by some of the younger and more impressionable members on both sides of the PRC vs US debate.

Dr. Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state, receives a gift sword during his visit to the Shaolin Temple in Henan Province in this May 12, 2005 photo. [newsphoto]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1151/xinsrc28206021014174102858735e.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

BEJIJING, June 10 (iht.com, by Henry A. Kissinger) -- The relationship between the United States and China is beset by ambiguity. On the one hand, seven presidents have affirmed the importance of cooperative relations with China and a commitment to a one-China policy.

Nevertheless, ambivalence has suddenly re-emerged. Various U.S. officials, members of Congress and the news media are attacking China's policies, from the exchange rate to military buildup, much of it in a tone implying that China is on some sort of probation.

Before continuing on this subject, I must point out that the consulting company I chair advises clients with business interests around the world, including China. Also, in early May, I spent a week in China, much of it as a guest of the government.

The rise of China - and Asia - will, over the next decades, bring about a substantial reordering of the international system. The center of gravity of world affairs is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

China's emerging role is often compared to that of imperial Germany at the beginning of the last century, the implication being that a strategic confrontation is inevitable and the United States had best prepare for it. That assumption is as dangerous as it is wrong. Military imperialism is not the Chinese style. China seeks its objectives by careful study, patience and the accumulation of nuances.

It is also unwise to apply to China the policy of military containment of the cold war. The Soviet Union was the heir of an imperialist tradition. The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years.

Taiwan is often invoked as a potential trigger. This could happen if either side abandons the restraint that has characterized U.S.-Chinese relations on the subject for more than a generation. But it is far from inevitable. All major countries have recognized China's claim that Taiwan is part of China. So have seven American presidents of both parties, none more emphatically than President George W. Bush.

With respect to the overall balance, China's large and educated population, its vast markets, its growing role in the world economy and global financial system foreshadow an increasing capacity to pose an array of incentives and risks, the currency of international influence.

Short of seeking to destroy China as a functioning entity, however, this capacity is inherent in the global economic and financial processes that America has been pre-eminent in fostering.

The test of China's intentions will be whether its growing capacity will be used to seek to exclude America from Asia or whether it will be part of a cooperative effort.
Paradoxically, the best strategy for achieving antihegemonic objectives is to maintain close relations with all the major countries of Asia, including China. In that sense, the rise of Asia will be a test of America's competitiveness in the world now emerging, especially in the countries of Asia.

The vast majority of Asian nations view their relations with the United States in terms of their perception of their own interests. In a U.S. confrontation with China, they would seek to avoid choosing sides; at the same time, they would generally have greater incentives for participating in a multilateral system with America than adopting an exclusionary Asian nationalism.

They will not want to be seen as pieces of an American design. India, for example, finds no inconsistency between its improving relations with the United States and proclaiming a strategic partnership with China.

China, in its own interest, is seeking cooperation with the United States for many reasons, including the need to close the gap between its own developed and developing regions; the imperative of adjusting its political institutions to the accelerating economic and technological revolutions; the potentially catastrophic impact of a cold war with America on the continued raising of the standard of living, on which the legitimacy of the government depends.

But from this it does not follow that any damage to China caused by a cold war would benefit America. The United States would have few followers anywhere in Asia. Asian countries would continue trading with China. Whatever happens, China will not disappear. The American interest in cooperative relations with China is for the pursuit of world peace.

Attitudes are psychologically important. China needs to be careful about policies that seem to exclude America from Asia and about U.S. sensitivities regarding human rights, which will influence the flexibility and scope of America's stance toward China.

America needs to understand that a hectoring tone evokes in China memories of imperialist condescension and is not appropriate in dealing with a country that has managed 4,000 years of uninterrupted self-government.

As a new century begins, the relations between China and the United States may well determine whether our children will live in turmoil even worse than the 20th century or whether they will witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress.

(Henry A. Kissinger, former US secretary of state, heads the consulting firm Kissinger and Associates.)

(Courtesy of International Herald Tribune)

[walter]

Thank you Sampan for posting this article--Kissinger keeps it short, to the point and thankfully in balanced perspective. If only he had as much clout on capitol hill as he once did, but, alas, it seems these days only retired statesmen, uninfluenced by interest groups, can say what needs to be said in Washington. I would hope the US mass media and many congressmen could one day soon grasp some of the points he makes:

Military imperialism is not the Chinese style

America needs to understand that a hectoring tone evokes in China memories of imperialist condescension and is not appropriate in dealing with a country that has managed 4,000 years of uninterrupted self-government.

[FreeAsia2000]

The rise of China - and Asia - will, over the next decades, bring about a substantial reordering of the international system. The center of gravity of world affairs is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Taiwan is often invoked as a potential trigger. This could happen if either side abandons the restraint that has characterized U.S.-Chinese relations on the subject for more than a generation. But it is far from inevitable. All major countries have recognized China's claim that Taiwan is part of China. So have seven American presidents of both parties, none more emphatically than President George W. Bush.

The test of China's intentions will be whether its growing capacity will be used to seek to exclude America from Asia or whether it will be part of a cooperative effort.

The vast majority of Asian nations view their relations with the United States in terms of their perception of their own interests. In a U.S. confrontation with China, they would seek to avoid choosing sides; at the same time, they would generally have greater incentives for participating in a multilateral system with America than adopting an exclusionary Asian nationalism.

They will not want to be seen as pieces of an American design. India, for example, finds no inconsistency between its improving relations with the United States and proclaiming a strategic partnership with China.


But from this it does not follow that any damage to China caused by a cold war would benefit America. The United States would have few followers anywhere in Asia. Asian countries would continue trading with China. Whatever happens, China will not disappear. The American interest in cooperative relations with China is for the pursuit of world peace.

Attitudes are psychologically important. China needs to be careful about policies that seem to exclude America from Asia and about U.S. sensitivities regarding human rights, which will influence the flexibility and scope of America's stance toward China.

America needs to understand that a hectoring tone evokes in China memories of imperialist condescension and is not appropriate in dealing with a country that has managed 4,000 years of uninterrupted self-government.

(Henry A. Kissinger, former US secretary of state, heads the consulting firm Kissinger and Associates.)

(Courtesy of International Herald Tribune)

Kissinger is a snake. He seeks to place honey on a knife.

Paragraph 1. Correction the centre of power will shift to the East. The centre of gravity will be the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf.

Paragraph 2. The restraint will have to be on the American side.

Paragraph 3 & 4. The Asian states particularly in the case of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Pakistan, the Stans all have large Muslim populations who will be ABSOLUTELY opposed to any alliance with America so long as it's middle eastern policy remains in the hands of rabid jewish zionists like Kissinger

Paragraph 5. The Indians are not stupid enough to believe in 'friendship'
with America. The American goal is to turn India into a Japan for the 21st century. They hope to control the rise of India via manipulation of it's financial markets and then bring it down when they're done.

Paragraph 7. What kissinger is really saying here is that if you try to exclude us from Asia we will raise the issue of minority human rights. :D

Kissingers diplomacy is based on 400 years of colonialism. That period is about to come to an end.

[walter]

Kissinger is a snake. He seeks to place honey on a knife.

Paragraph 1. Correction the centre of power will shift to the East. The centre of gravity will be the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf.

Paragraph 2. The restraint will have to be on the American side.

Paragraph 3 & 4. The Asian states particularly in the case of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Pakistan, the Stans all have large Muslim populations who will be ABSOLUTELY opposed to any alliance with America so long as it's middle eastern policy remains in the hands of rabid jewish zionists like Kissinger

Paragraph 5. The Indians are not stupid enough to believe in 'friendship'
with America. The American goal is to turn India into a Japan for the 21st century. They hope to control the rise of India via manipulation of it's financial markets and then bring it down when they're done.

Paragraph 7. What kissinger is really saying here is that if you try to exclude us from Asia we will raise the issue of minority human rights. :D

Kissingers diplomacy is based on 400 years of colonialism. That period is about to come to an end.


Freeasia,

Obviously you have preconcieved notions of Kissinger ("rabid jewish zionist").
So be it.

I am wondering where you came up with your paragraph 5 statement, namely that the US hopes to "control the rise of India ...."? I think it is over the top, regardless if the US wants to see India as some sort of counterwieght to China in Asia. Besides that, it would be perfectly clear to those in Washington that they cannot "control" India, and I do not believe there is any such intention.

[FreeAsia2000]

Freeasia,

Obviously you have preconcieved notions of Kissinger ("rabid jewish zionist").
So be it.

I am wondering where you came up with your paragraph 5 statement, namely that the US hopes to "control the rise of India ...."? I think it is over the top, regardless if the US wants to see India as some sort of counterwieght to China in Asia. Besides that, it would be perfectly clear to those in Washington that they cannot "control" India, and I do not believe there is any such intention.

Well a while ago I had a lunch meeting with a Indian businessman and his son who have pretty extensive links with the Indian business community and we had a long discussion about the problems that could be caused for India if its financial markets were not controlled by people who had best regard for India's future...similar to the situation with Japan

Which brings me back to the subject of India. Since 1991, India has been adopting good policies. It is on a path that will continue that process. There seems to be a political consensus to continue the openings, to continue the market reforms, to continue this process of letting larger and larger portions of the economy of India be affected by market forces. At the same time, we sense some reluctance to go faster. We hear often about the need to proceed gradually, carefully, and slowly. I would argue, much as Mr. Singh [President of AmCham India] did, that there is a cost to gradualism. There is a cost to proceeding slowly. And the cost is all the benefits you give up by seeing the economy perform better, on a faster track. One place we see this, in particular, is the area where Treasury has special competence and that is financial markets.

As we met with your business leaders, as we met with your Parliamentarians, as we met with participants in your financial markets -- insurance, pensions, real estate, and banks -- one message kept coming back to us, over and over again, and the message is this: we need infrastructure. Infrastructure is the platform for India's future. But our financing vehicles are not yet appropriate to make possible the capital flows into infrastructure. And we are constraining outside FDI from coming in. And we are limiting the development of our credit markets, our bond markets, our options markets, our derivative markets -- all of the aspects of a well-functioning financial system. I think most of us know that a well-functioning financial system lies right at the heart of a well-functioning economy. A well-functioning financial system is essential to an economy achieving its potential, because a well-functioning financial system energizes the rest of the economy with huge spillover benefits. A well-functioning financial system makes sure that savings get appropriate rates of return and get deployed to the best uses. Well-functioning financial systems have alternative means of disintermediation, not just one. Well-functioning financial systems have means for making capital available in the short-term, the medium-term, and the long-term. Well-functioning financial systems have project financing targeted on infrastructure. In my conversations with the business leaders, and subsequently with the political and economic leaders, I tried to emphasize that point. I think the potential is huge here for India. From freeing up the financial sector, letting the financial sector really do what a well-functioning financial sector can do in aggregating capital, in moving capital from savers to investors, and spreading risks as it does that, the disaggregating risks.


By making available the future's products, derivative products, hedging products, the very things that the financial markets are so competent in doing in which so much benefit the "real" economy, the real sector. Finance facilitates the "real" sector and if you handicap finance you handicap the "real" sector. I think you are on the right path clearly here with these market openings. Telecommunications is a huge success. Telecommunications, I am told now, is leading to something like two million new phones a month. You have got to get used to these numbers in India because they really are staggering, but two million a month with consumers clamoring for those products. There was skepticism when this was first introduced. Many in political life were saying: Well is this really a good idea? Will this lead to the right results? I doubt that many in political life today would want to stand up and go the other way. The market has spoken.

Press Releases 2005
Remarks by U.S. Secretary of Treasury John Snow - "Opportunities for Indo-U.S. Economic Ties" Video

Hosted By FICCI, AmCham and USIBC
Hotel Hyatt Regency
New Delhi, India
November 10, 2005

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr111005b.html

I think we've been here before

The British East India Company originally began as a joint-stock company of traders and investors based in Leadenhall Street, in the City of London, which was granted a Royal Charter by Elizabeth I in 1600, with the intent to favour trade privileges in India. The Royal Charter effectively gave the newly created Honourable East India Company a monopoly on all trade with the East Indies. The Company transformed from a commercial trading venture to one which virtually ruled India as it acquired auxiliary governmental and military functions, along with a very large private army consisting of local Indian sepoys, who were loyal to their British commanders and were probably the most important factor in Britain's Asian conquest. The British East India Company is regarded by some as the world's first multinational corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Free_trade_and_.22informal_empire.2 2

thus to quote

Dr. Mahander Kumar Saini a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Delhi

we have to have a kind of system, where we can control these transnational corporations. These transnational corporations come to our country, they tell us, "Look, you permit us to operate in your country." Then, they do not come alone. They come with the influence and the ideology of their country. That ideology is also backed by the respective government of their countries, by international institutions, the IMF and World Bank: They are the ones who guide us in which direction we have to develop.

Once we've accepted, they give us conditions. With those conditions, we have to follow a certain path of development, which is not good for us, which is not self-reliant, which is not for the betterment of our people.

and because he understands the dangers in accepting gifts from greeks

Third, in my opinion, they need to strengthen the regional associations. Regional associations must come up in these regions. And it has come, because, trade will increase, self-reliance and collective self-reliance will also increase, if the neighbors can come together and contribute to each other the kinds of things which are required. For example, India and Pakistan come together: Our needs and their needs are similar. But, we are developed. We can give them much more, which they cannot get today, or for which they have to pay a high price. Therefore, regional associations must be strengthened.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/jan12-13_berlin/050112_berlin_saini.html

and to REALLY hit the nail on the head..

Today, India's reserves are believed to be in the billions of dollars. From where is the money coming? It is coming from foreign financial institutions. They are investing in India, because the rate of interest in India is higher than the rate of interest in their own country. And the day they decide to take this money back, what will happen? Our economy will come back. Speculation is going on, share prices go up and come down; several times there have been crashes in the share market. So, they can play with countries.

I don't think Indians are as stupid as certain countries think.

Please read the whole post. Thanks !

[IDonT]

Aside from the Taiwan issue, I don't forsee the US and China will ever be in a war. Both countries are so interdependent on each other that the gains from conflict does not outweigh the losses.

On the Taiwan issue, if you haven't notice, the US is slowly pushing for a face saving way out of it. Saying things like: "we do not support unilateral moves away from the status quo." Translation: IF Taiwan declares independence and invites a Chinese attack it is on its own. Inversely, attacking Taiwan be the PLA, without provocation, will invite a US response.

[Troika]

Which is why it is in no one's interest to change the status quo. The status quo is excellent to Taiwan (They have little international official recognition, but that usually hurts nothing more than its pride), acceptable to America (it likes to trade with both, and frankly doesn't fancy the idea of a shooting war with China, even if it thinks it can win (I am commenting on American perception, not the military situation), and tolerable to China (likes the trade and investment, hates the constant irritation and possible 'bad example' from Taiwan). Which is why also characterise reaction, whichever one side try to the status quo change too much the other two jumps on it. Of course, the status quo itself is kept ambiguous, although there are certain clearly defined bottomlines (declaring indepdence is one, which is why no sane Taiwanese president will do it), and why attempts to raise the bottomline is met with resistance (anti-secession law, which of itself really isn't much; and pushing of envelop by Taiwanese government).

There is interesting point, that there is such an evolution in mechanics of Sino-Taiwan affairs. It used to be that China wanted unification quick and that 'attempts to indefinitely postpone unifications', stalling, was grounds for forceful intervention. Nowadays, however, both sides basically thinks that time is in its favour, to a degree. China thinks the economic net and her growing power will tip the balance in the long term. Taiwan thinks that de-sinification will only progress with time, and with it any sentiment for re-unification, and that by that time China will be too integrated to risk a war, although Taiwan may have then to live with a status as a semi-vassal of China.

Personally I am thinking that the best case solution for China may be a sort of modus vivendi where there is direct communication; a permenant military alliance between two polities, joint exercises, bases, and the like; and Taiwanese representation in international bodies under some name that does not suggest it is a country (like Hong Kong is doing). Later features may include Taiwanese representatives in the NPC and even later participation of Taiwanese parties in Chinese politics. The time when Taiwan could have been made another province of China is more or less gone in the next century or so.

[Gollevainen]

Now, continue the conversation WHITOUT bashing someones as zionists, ok?

[Fairthought]

Kissinger's ariticle was far from insightful.

It basically says, if you can't destroy China as a functional entity, you're best strategy is a peaceful road pursuing mutual economic benefits. You don't need a genius to tell you that.

His claim that there are few asian countries willing to ally with America in any cold war against China is simply false. Easily manipulated followers are: Japan, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea. Even India would be interested. And of course, Western Europe, which is not an asian country but is nonetheless a significant trading block.

The current European military technology sales embargo against China is an example of US followers assisting America in an escalating cold war with China. Its continued existence is due solely to US pressure.

If the article seems rosy and peacenik, it is only because Kissinger is speaking as the head of a consulting company that profits off of investments in China. This is something Kissinger freely admits in his own article, but it bears repeating.

Keeping this self-interest in mind, one understands why Kissinger chose not to discuss the strategy of 'destroying China as a functional entity.' But there are American strategists who are advocating just that agenda. You will see them in the PNAC (Project for the New American Century -see Cheney), and you will find Hawkish Pentagon Pundits, like Robert Kaplan, who have the ear of Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.

btw, Kissinger is also part of the extremely powerful Carlyle group, the largest private equity firm in the world, that uses ex-presidents (and other illustrious names) to leverage inside deals with world governments for huge profits. In just 14 years, the group has grown to $30 billion for an average 34% nominal return.

[Mr_C]

Kissinger's ariticle was far from insightful.

It basically says, if you can't destroy China as a functional entity, you're best strategy is a peaceful road pursuing mutual economic benefits. You don't need a genius to tell you that.

His claim that there are few asian countries willing to ally with America in any cold war against China is simply false. Easily manipulated followers are: Japan, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea. Even India would be interested. And of course, Western Europe, which is not an asian country but is nonetheless a significant trading block.

The current European military technology sales embargo against China is an example of US followers assisting America in an escalating cold war with China. Its continued existence is due solely to US pressure.



Hows it going, have not been here for a while. Well my friend no country would be easily manipulated by the USA to fight China. The geopolitical and strategic interest have changed alot in the last 10 yrs and will change more in the next 10yrs.
The Australians have already made it very clear to the USA that they will not help the USA out in a war with CHina. Sth Korea will not go to war against China because they actually feel more closer to the CHinese compared with the USA. Also China is their largest trading partner so Sth Korea cannot afford financially to fight a war against them. Taiwan will not fight China unless attacked coz it is strategically and politically stupid for them to do so, also if Taiwan fights china just because the USA said so.... well there will be massive protest by the taiwanese people coz they r not interested in war. India will not go to war against china because they simply have better things to do, they r more interested to be standing where they r and allow both the Chinese and the USA to try to get them on their side, that way they get more benefits politically and economically. Also if India fights a major war with CHina now or in the near future it will destroy the many yrs of hard work in building up their economy and the improvements of their citizen's lives.
The EU is not interested in fighting a war wiht China also simply because they r europeans and they have much more financial and poltical-strategic interest in co-operation compared to confrontation.

The only country that would have the slightest interest in war with CHina is Japan, but the disadvantages of war far exceeds any benefits to Japan especially for its economic recovery. Japanese leaders r more interested in making politically noise by playing the CHina threat to get what they want at home, but they r far from willing to fight in a war.

did i say too much?

[FreeAsia2000]

Hows it going, have not been here for a while. Well my friend no country would be easily manipulated by the USA to fight China. The geopolitical and strategic interest have changed alot in the last 10 yrs and will change more in the next 10yrs.
The Australians have already made it very clear to the USA that they will not help the USA out in a war with CHina.

did i say too much?

No.

Fairthoughts response as usual was brilliant.

I think you made some good points, however Australia although not directly
saying that it will be opposing China is part of a group to do so.

See for instance the article below on Australia military purchases

It's not necessary to go all the way with the USA

March 9, 2006

Australia is capable of playing a more independent role in the Middle East, writes Anthony Bubalo.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

LAST Friday, the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, announced that Australia would acquire four long-range, heavy-lift aircraft capable of moving soldiers and equipment to far-flung battlefields. Like the plan to buy large troopships for the navy, the acquisition is consistent with the Government's effort to project military power well beyond Australia's shores.

The obvious question is: to project power where? A recent government statement provides a clue. A curious line in Australia's national security, published in November last year as an "update" to the 2000 defence white paper, reads: "Australia's vital interests are inextricably linked to the achievement of peace and security in the Middle East."

http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-not-necessary-to-go-all-the-way-with-the-usa/2006/03/08/1141701574027.html

ostensibly this is supposed to be for power projection in 'the middle east' this like the convenient term 'anti-terrorist' measures is just a cover for what's really going on and the Australian author is wise enough to point out that

What makes the Middle East truly "vital" to Australia is where its conflicts intersect with key national interests in Asia.

Middle Eastern oil, for example, increasingly fuels a Chinese economy whose health is central to Australian prosperity and regional security; on present trends the region will supply China with more than half its oil by 2010 and almost three-quarters by 2030.

Instability in the Middle East, therefore, threatens Chinese economic growth (and ours). It could also undermine a hitherto harmonious Sino-US relationship should missteps or misunderstandings result from Beijing's active energy diplomacy in the region - a diplomacy that is deepening its links to US foes such as Iran and Sudan.

Ties between the Middle East and Islamic Asia are also growing. The extent to which Middle Eastern ideas have radicalised Muslims in the region is often overstated. There is no doubt that Islamist and fundamentalist currents from countries in the region have had an impact in South-East Asia, most notably in Indonesia. The politics and conflicts of the Middle East often echo in our region.

This is really an attempt to control China's growth via control of oil.

If anybody is in any doubt see the new attempt to form a India-Australia
pact

Australia, India to explore nuclear pact

Australia and India will set up a working group to explore the detail of a nuclear pact that has put the issue of Australian uranium sales in the spotlight.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Australia-India-to-explore-nuclear-pact/2006/03/07/1141493632556.html

[walter]

Kissinger's ariticle was far from insightful.

It basically says, if you can't destroy China as a functional entity, you're best strategy is a peaceful road pursuing mutual economic benefits. You don't need a genius to tell you that.


nowhere did he state "since we can't destroy China, let's do business with them"--Your statement implies Kissinger would favor China's destruction if it were at all feasible--I did not find anything in his article remotely supporting that.


His claim that there are few asian countries willing to ally with America in any cold war against China is simply false. Easily manipulated followers are: Japan, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea. Even India would be interested. And of course, Western Europe, which is not an asian country but is nonetheless a significant trading block.

Mr_C already made the point. Even if all those countries you do name were to side with the US in a confrontation over China (never happen) they are still just a few countries in Asia (albeit powerful), but there are dozens more that would have nothing to do with it, or in fact side with China.



The current European military technology sales embargo against China is an example of US followers assisting America in an escalating cold war with China. Its continued existence is due solely to US pressure.


could very well be as you say, yet there are still some in Europe firmly against the sale of military hardware to China based purely on their own convictions and not those stipulated to them by Washington.


If the article seems rosy and peacenik, it is only because Kissinger is speaking as the head of a consulting company that profits off of investments in China. This is something Kissinger freely admits in his own article, but it bears repeating.

Keeping this self-interest in mind, one understands why Kissinger chose not to discuss the strategy of 'destroying China as a functional entity.'

Just my opinion, but I think Kissinger's article has far more to do with his convictions and personal analysis of China than his personal financial interests.
Let us also keep in mind that Kissinger was National Security Advisor during Nixon's administration and was instrumental in the normalization between the US and China achieved in 1972. So, he may very well have personal self-interest at mind since he personally helped the two countries in this matter--he doesn't want to see his hard work from those times shattered by ignorance.

But there are American strategists who are advocating just that agenda. You will see them in the PNAC (Project for the New American Century -see Cheney), and you will find Hawkish Pentagon Pundits, like Robert Kaplan, who have the ear of Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.


Yes, and in his article Kissinger warns against "a hectoring tone" among other things on the side of the US. In my opinion, although Kissinger has tact and would not state so directly, he means just the sort of things that the Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, etc. sometimes blow out their holes.


btw, Kissinger is also part of the extremely powerful Carlyle group, the largest private equity firm in the world, that uses ex-presidents (and other illustrious names) to leverage inside deals with world governments for huge profits. In just 14 years, the group has grown to $30 billion for an average 34% nominal return.

That's outstanding performance, too bad I can't invest in Carlyle stock!

[FreeAsia2000]

nowhere did he state "since we can't destroy China, let's do business with them"--Your statement implies Kissinger would favor China's destruction if it were at all feasible--I did not find anything in his article remotely supporting that.

Mr_C already made the point. Even if all those countries you do name were to side with the US in a confrontation over China (never happen) they are still just a few countries in Asia (albeit powerful), but there are dozens more that would have nothing to do with it, or in fact side with China.

could very well be as you say, yet there are still some in Europe firmly against the sale of military hardware to China based purely on their own convictions and not those stipulated to them by Washington.

Just my opinion, but I think Kissinger's article has far more to do with his convictions and personal analysis of China than his personal financial interests.
Let us also keep in mind that Kissinger was National Security Advisor during Nixon's administration and was instrumental in the normalization between the US and China achieved in 1972. So, he may very well have personal self-interest at mind since he personally helped the two countries in this matter--he doesn't want to see his hard work from those times shattered by ignorance.

Yes, and in his article Kissinger warns against "a hectoring tone" among other things on the side of the US. In my opinion, although Kissinger has tact and would not state so directly, he means just the sort of things that the Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, etc. sometimes blow out their holes.


That's outstanding performance, too bad I can't invest in Carlyle stock!

How would you propose that ANY country destroy China ? kissinger is interested in ensuring that america remains THE dominent power in the 21st century. His advice is that the policy of military containment of the USSR put forward by Keenan in the famous Mr X letter will not work with China.

Therefore he is proposing an alternative strategy his warning to China is that

China needs to be careful about policies that seem to exclude America from Asia and about U.S. sensitivities regarding human rights, which will influence the flexibility and scope of America's stance toward China.

If you try to reduce our influence in Asia we will respond by playing the human rights card and supporting Anti-Han movements as well as pro-democracy movements in China. The above is an extremely old strategy even the Romans used it as an excuse to interfere in the affairs of other states.

See the article below for how China and Pakistan will respond to the above
threat


Thursday, February 23, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Pakistan will stand by China against US ‘siege’, says Rashid

BEIJING: Pakistan will stand by China if the US ever tries to “besiege” it, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad has said. He said this while talking to a private television channel in Beijing on Wednesday.

Rashid said that President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to China will open new avenues of development and cooperation between the two countries in all sectors. Pakistan and China have signed 42 bilateral agreements during the president’s current visit, 13 of which have been reached at the government level and 27 are between the traders and entrepreneurs of both countries.

These accords are aimed at boosting cooperation in economy, defence, trade and the social sector. The information minister said that Pakistan and China are jointly manufacturing an F-17 thunder combat aircraft. He said that the test-flight of a second combat plane, an F-10, is scheduled for today (Thursday).

He said that Musharraf told the Chinese leadership that Pakistan wanted full membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). He said that Russian President Vladimir Putin, due to visit China next month, along with the Chinese leadership will help Pakistan acquire SCO membership. Cooperation of other SCO members – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – will also be sought, he said.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/02/23/story_23-2-2006_pg7_50

[Fairthought]

I have been misinterpreted.


I never said there were countries willing to support america in a confrontation with China. I said there are countries willing to support america in a COLD WAR with China. I even gave an example with the European Union military technology embargo.

Notice, this cold war is not as cold as the one between US/USSR. Not yet anyway. It is fundamentally different in nature due to the high level of economic trade. This means there will be less overt challenges in the manner of 'bay of pigs' or olympic boycotts. Instead, it will be dominated by a flurry of covert activity

There are others, who are seeking ways to destroy China as a functional entity. The plan is to make China implode, like the Soviet Union. The plan takes advantage of the opening of China's economy to foreign influence (and subversive agents) and when they are ready these agents will strike with another 'color' revolution. This was tried in Tianenmen Square prematurely. But China's economic opening will make it easier for the US to try again next time.

China will be divided and its economy will collapse. The subversive agents will take over the countries and the successor states will be exploited economically for foreigners, while indenturing themselves to the West with impossibly huge debts.

Unlike Russia, China does not have Huge oil reserves to pull themselves out of perpetual debt. If this plan succeeds, China's future is very grim.

This bears repeating: Kissinger is speaking as the head of a consulting company that profits off of investments in China. It just so happens, his financial plans don't really obstruct the plans for 'destroying China as a functional entity' either.

[taijisheng]

I have been misinterpreted.
I never said there were countries willing to support america in a confrontation with China. I said there are countries willing to support america in a COLD WAR with China. I even gave an example with the European Union military technology embargo.

Notice, this cold war is not as cold as the one between US/USSR. Not yet anyway. It is fundamentally different in nature due to the high level of economic trade. This means there will be less overt challenges in the manner of 'bay of pigs' or olympic boycotts. Instead, it will be dominated by a flurry of covert activity


There are huge differences though between current China and the old USSR. Current china is economically powerful, and have been acting as the economic engine of whole south east asia for 20 years, many countries, including all the ones you named, are depending more or less on China's growth, at same time, none of them execpt taiwan face millitary threat. The old USSR had no economical ties with any western countrys and was a huge millitary threat. It's just simply impossible for those countries to join a cold war against china, because they can't afford the loss and the U.S is not going to compensate them for that.

In the event of a millitary crisis or a real war, I can image though that Japan and Australia may take side of the U.S, but not Taiwan, unless Taiwanese want the war to be fought on their island.

[JonMan]

War is not feasible for anyone. I'm thinking there will be a depression if some of the top economic powers fight. George Bush Sr. and Clinton explored possibility of fighting China, but they feared their military, but economic consequences even more.

[SampanViking]

Well, I never cease to be amazed:confused: :(

I took what I believed to be a soothing and pacific article and never once dreamed that such a fight would break out over it.

In the first instance the article (and this forum) and entirely Sino-Centric, so the view should be simple based on that world view.

In the sceond, irrespective of what people think about Kissenger, he is who he is, - to whit, a very well respected elder statesman of the USA. His views; be they from his time in Office, or relating to the people he now represents, are listened too. He speaks for and on behalf, of many powerful figures in the USA and it is generally comforting to know that these are the words they use rather than those of some populist junior Senator from the Mid West.

Now of course some might say, that the underlying sentiments may not be that different, it is simply that the Kissengers of this world are far more clever and infinitly more dangerous. But that would probably be both flaming and highly offtopic;)

[Abcdweller]

I'm baffled at the attitude of this forum. First of all where do all these english speaking chinese nationalists come from? Hong kong?

It seems like this site was set up by a british guy. I'm not exactly sure who would be interested in these details of the chinese military except for government professionals, and I hardly think they need a public website for it.

You guys seem to be debating some strange topics. Of course India wants to develop its economy. Of course countries like Australia, etc. want to avoid conflict between the US and China. Of course Kissinger is known to be a China dove from his days in the Nixon administration. At the same time of course he is an American and when he speaks publicly does so under the assumption of the American interest. I don't see why these things generate such heated debate.

And I dont' see whats wrong with calling a zionist a zionist, but I've seen no evidence that kissinger is a zionist. He's not exceptionally outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[FreeAsia2000]

I'm baffled at the attitude of this forum. First of all where do all these english speaking chinese nationalists come from? Hong kong?

It seems like this site was set up by a british guy. I'm not exactly sure who would be interested in these details of the chinese military except for government professionals, and I hardly think they need a public website for it.

You guys seem to be debating some strange topics. Of course India wants to develop its economy. Of course countries like Australia, etc. want to avoid conflict between the US and China. Of course Kissinger is known to be a China dove from his days in the Nixon administration. At the same time of course he is an American and when he speaks publicly does so under the assumption of the American interest. I don't see why these things generate such heated debate.

And I dont' see whats wrong with calling a zionist a zionist, but I've seen no evidence that kissinger is a zionist. He's not exceptionally outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hi abcd this forum is for weird people like us who want to discuss
weird esoteric subjects like 'the indian economy'....:)

Really 'normal' people like yourself need not be concerned by us
'strange' people. Why don't you go home and have a muffin with a
nice cup of tea. :(

'One born every minute....' *thinks to himself*

[Abcdweller]

Hi abcd this forum is for weird people like us who want to discuss
weird esoteric subjects like 'the indian economy'....:)

Really 'normal' people like yourself need not be concerned by us
'strange' people. Why don't you go home and have a muffin with a
nice cup of tea. :(

'One born every minute....' *thinks to himself*

:rofl: :rofl:

I meant you were taking strange approaches to things. Perhaps I'm only too used to the western perspective because I only read the western media. I've never seen anything quite like this forum however. I think I'm the really weird one.

[KYli]

I'm baffled at the attitude of this forum. First of all where do all these english speaking chinese nationalists come from? Hong kong?
Most of the chinese members are in western nations.

It seems like this site was set up by a british guy. I'm not exactly sure who would be interested in these details of the chinese military except for government professionals, and I hardly think they need a public website for it.

You guys seem to be debating some strange topics. Of course India wants to develop its economy. Of course countries like Australia, etc. want to avoid conflict between the US and China. Of course Kissinger is known to be a China dove from his days in the Nixon administration. At the same time of course he is an American and when he speaks publicly does so under the assumption of the American interest. I don't see why these things generate such heated debate.

And I dont' see whats wrong with calling a zionist a zionist, but I've seen no evidence that kissinger is a zionist. He's not exceptionally outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Then you are wrong. There are half of the members here who are westerns with interest in Chinese military.

[Gollevainen]

I'm baffled at the attitude of this forum. First of all where do all these english speaking chinese nationalists come from? Hong kong?

It seems like this site was set up by a british guy. I'm not exactly sure who would be interested in these details of the chinese military except for government professionals, and I hardly think they need a public website for it.

It seems that your depute to our forum has started with wrong feet...

You see this is chinese military forum, subsite for the Sinodefence.com to talk about chinese military matters, mostly technologial subjects, but also strategical issues like this one. I hardly see it anyway odd. I'm finnish, nothing to do with china in my herritage, but i still found chinese military matters highly interresting so does many of our members who come form Germany, USA, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France, Russia, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and from many other places around the wolrd.
Perhaps you are in a wrong forum, at least i wonder why someone would join us if he isen't anyway interessed of military matters? This isen't a forum for all kind of chitchat, and most importantly, this ISEN'T a forum for pointless political depates and discussions. If you are interested of those matters, i recomend that you join to the Globaltalk network, a link is provided in the main site.

But i hope you learn to understand our forum and appriciate it and provide your own toughts about chinese military matters:china:

Gollevainen, speaking on the voice of forum leaders.

[Nethappy]

I was here during the old site.. but haven't be back here for a while......
My family from Hong Kong and am living there now too but... but I grew up in Australia.

I hear all these American Politicans accusing CHina of being responsible for the trade-related pressure bearing down on struggling U.S. Workers and record high trade deficit. But the Chinese should not be the one to be blamed cos it
the federal budget deficit, which accounted for the bulk of the recent natinal saving is made by Washington, not Bejing. The Negative personal saving rate is an outgrowth of proconsumption tax policies again, made in Washington.
However, washington being an expert in the Blame Games allows it to duck responsiblity for the very problems it has created and put all the blame on Chinese Pinned currency, or so-called Chinese market dumping and Chinese unfair trade. Illustrating, Bejing as the american enemy and the roots of american problem and some time even the roots of the world problem

But not back to reality it is in fact Washington interst dat the Chinese economic keep on growing and the Chinese currency kept low.

Any way i post this on any other form b4, but I'll pull it agian here

The america's net national saving rate fell into negative territory in later 2005, at minus 1.2 percent of the national income. This means the US doesn;t save enough even to cover the replacement of worn-out plants and equipment. The frist for any hegemonic power over a much longer span if world history. Faced with a shortfall of domestic saving, countries can curtail economic growth or blorrow from the rest of the world. The frist option just doesn;t cut in the land of abundance. That leave the second option: borrowing. So America must run a massice current-account deficit to attract the foreign capital it needs to fund economic growth and now closing in on $800B per or about $3B er business day, up for $2B 2 years ago. That where China fit into America equation, thank to China, the US got a rather extraordinary deal for its trade-deficit dollar in 2005, a net balance of some $200B in low-cost, high-quality Chinese made goods that enlarged the purchasing power of American consumers. Therefore if any saction, high tariffs or a major Chinese currency revaluation who greatly impact the US economics as a whole. The absent of China's supply line the trade deficit wouldn't shrink, but instead who merely gravitate toward other foerign producters, which most likily dun enjoy China's low-cost and pricing advantages, therefore increasing US foregin debt.

China never really been a world problem, It just the armerica trying to have some one to blame all it problem.

China economics can do more good then bad to the world, and there is really no reason for the Chinese military to start a wars with anyone, unless taiwan problem.

Is the Chinese military build up really a problem for the world I mean it just a ncrease of 14.7% at 283.8 billion yuan (about US$35.1 billion) or about 1.something of it GDP, the United States defense budget US$401.7 billion or 3.6% of its GDP in 2005.

I mean the US has population of about 296M and China has a population of 1.3B. $35B isn't much and it need to protect 1.3B people.
The US souldn't be saiding anything till China start having defense budget $1600B but i dun thing that will ever happen. But I am just trying to point the chinese should be able to protect themself with out US trying to illustrating them as trying to control the world or something.

Conflict with China economically or military is really not an option, cos it like a two sided needle can in anyway and even if they won the economic consequences would be unbearable even for the mightly USA.

Any know the cost of the Iraq war, think about the cost of a China war and the collapse the world enocomic engine, in the end it really does no good for anyone.