On 6/22/07, Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: [ on 05:53 PM 6/20/2007 ]
[...]
> And what does the last sentence mean, as well? That Taiwan and Tiber
> are at military risk? Explain, please.
I'll have to wait for the weekend before I can spend any more time on
this thread; but no I am not talking of an outright military
confrontation.
Ok, I decided to wait this out over the weekend since I was not sure
it was worth my time to piss off people who want to bet cash money
over a mailing list thread :-) But in the end, it's just a mailing
list on the Internet, and no one should take it all that seriously -
so here goes, I will try to explain my stand in a more comprehensible
fashion.
I like the US as much as a man can like a country; it's been a great
place to live in, and I'd like to see the US economy to continue to do
well; since change usually upsets a lot of things. But that said,
there will be a day when there will be a better economy than the US,
and it could just be that the fading of the petro-dollar is an
indicator of such a change.
Under the assumption that the fall of the dollar (and therefore the US
economy) is underway, one conjectures as to the possible reactions of
the US government to turn the tide.
Given that the US is a major military power, and a powerful figure on
many major international forums, it would be a waste of a very
valuable bargaining position to not bring it to use.
China, it has been pointed out is a major holder of US government
treasury bonds and could cause a run on the US economy by cashing in
the investments and trade deficit. First off, if the Chinese want
their money back, they would do well to not hurt the US economically;
a bankrupt US is not a country that can pay back a large loan.
OTOH, China's strategic position with regard to its neighbors, and
recently annexed provinces is not very strong. This maybe deliberately
so; since China seems to be comfortable with playing for high stakes
over a long term. Tibet and Taiwan are the examples I have in mind.
Tibet's acquisition was a barely concealed act of imperialist
annexation. As much as China would like to claim it otherwise, there
is too much evidence against them. Nevertheless the international
community is a silent spectator that won't protest too much; and will
probably remain so for a while. China probably needs a few more years
to completely stamp out the idea of a free Tibet, while it carries out
PR and political exercises in cultural integration and ownership like
for example, the railway line to Lhasa, or the naming of streets in
prominent western cities like Shanghai after Tibetian themes. It would
be hardly difficult for the US to bring more focus on to the struggle
for Tibetian independence; they could begin with increased political
attention on the subject with the comfort that they could proceed all
the way to sending in a liberating force. It needn't ever get that
far; Tibet is much more important to China than a foreign trade debt.
China treats Taiwan as a yet to be annexed portion of mainland China;
I wouldn't be surprised if in the minds of the Chinese mandarins (!)
Taiwan is treated no differently from Hong Kong. Here too the US could
make things rather queer for the Chinese government by say increasing
the token troop presence in Taiwan and posturing very strongly against
the Chinese intimidation of Taiwan.
There really is no need to engage in an outright war; but certainly
the American imperialist tool chest is well stocked even if the
treasury isn't, and it would be only reasonable to expect the US to
use whatever gets them the maximum benefit from China or any other
nation.
Cheeni
