Bebee Phool Nahin Lo

Challenging chessboard of Asia

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020208-7593024.htm

William R. Hawkins

President George W. Bush will soon embark on a diplomatic swing through Asia, which will include a summit in China with President Jiang Zemin.

Beijing`s support for the U.S. campaign against al Qaeda, tepid as it has been, has led some observers, particularly former members of the Clinton administration, to argue that China should again be considered a ``strategic partner.`` But a realist look at Beijing`s behavior demolishes this line of thought.

China has recently held naval maneuvers in the East China Sea with the apparent intent to pressure Taiwan. And Chinese interceptors have again been harassing American patrol aircraft flying over the South China Sea, recalling the crisis of last April 1 when a Chinese jet collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane and forced it down on Hainan Island.

The state-run Chinese media have been critical of the United States and its president. The official journal Beijing Liaowang concluded in a year-end review, ``U.S. foreign policy under Bush is overbearing and extremely supercilious; it smacks of unilateralism, and obviously betrays the desire for exclusive domination.`` The Beijing Review, China`s leading English-language journal, opened the new year with an article claiming ``The September 11 tragedy, however, has not weakened America`s superior role in world dynamics; the United States has not given up its demand for world hegemony.``

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said on Feb. 4 that China disapproves of the use of such words as the ``axis of evil`` in international relations. Mr. Kong also claimed that American public opinion does not support President Bush`s characterization of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as terrorist states. ``China always holds that anti-terrorism campaigns should be based on irrefutable evidence, and anti-terrorism attacks should not be expanded arbitrarily,`` said Mr. Kong.

Beijing has itself attempted to use ``anti-terrorism`` to justify suppression of the Muslim independence movement in Xinjiang Province, but this conflict has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Beijing well knows that Osama bin Laden`s focus was the United States. Bin Laden also trained fighters for war in Chechnya against Russia and in Kashmir against India, but he did not make the same effort to train fighters for Xinjiang. This was because the al Qaeda/ Taliban network was created and backed by China`s ally, Pakistan.

The Taliban even sent parts of U.S. cruise missiles fired in 1998 at al Qaeda camps to China for study. Chinese firms also set up the Taliban`s telecommunications system and shipped in weapons through Pakistan.

China`s ambitions remain what they were before September 11, and Beijing continues to see the United States as the main obstacle to fulfilling those ambitions. While seeking a ``multipolar`` world to weaken American influence, China has wanted a unipolar Asia with Beijing as its center. It has worked to isolate India, bully Taiwan, contain Japan, and divide the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

China has been working hard to encircle India. In Tibet, Beijing has built all-weather military roads linking a chain of army bases, major airfields and ballistic missile sites. China is fast increasing its ability to launch deep strikes — by both aircraft and medium-range missiles, against major Indian targets in the hinterland. China still holds the disputed territory in the Aksai Chin, over which the 1962 war with India was fought and through which runs a vital logistical route supporting Beijing`s occupation of Tibet.

In Myanmar (Burma), long recognized as ``the back door to India`` China has strongly supported the military dictatorship by providing arms, and upgrading strategic infrastructure and port facilities. Beijing has built naval bases along Burma`s coastline in the Bay of Bengal, better designed to service Chinese warships than the nonexistent Myanmar fleet.

China is also sending arms and money to support the ``Maoist`` guerrillas in Nepal, and is the main supplier of arms to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Beijing`s strategic calculations have been thrown into turmoil, however, by the vigorous U.S. response to September 11. China sees the United States acquiring a new foothold in Central Asia and improving relations with Russia.

Chinese has long supported Pakistan`s jihad in Kashmir. Pakistan`s top military commanders met with their opposite numbers in Beijing at the height of the India-Pakistan crisis triggered by a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. This Chinese gambit against India has been damaged by American pressure on Islamabad to curtail the infiltration of guerrillas into Kashmir, and by the elimination of the Taliban.

Beijing views a potential U.S.-Indian military alignment with horror. Paired with the U.S.-Japan alliance, it would bracket China and bring into concert with Washington Asia`s other two major powers. Furthermore, the new Changi Naval Station in Singapore, the provision of new weapons to Taiwan, the reintroduction of American troops into the Philippines and U.S. discussions of collaborative work with regional allies on missile defense presents Beijing with the specter of having its encirclement strategy turned against it.

A prominent circle of Chinese military thinkers and hardline academics believe that Beijing needs to demonstrate its strength, rather than look meek, in the wake of the American demonstration of power in Afghanistan. They are urging President Jiang to more forcefully confront President Bush over issues like Taiwan, missile defense and any expansion of the war on terrorism.

Whatever the atmosphere of the summit turns out to be, President Bush needs to remember one thing; he had Beijing pegged right the first time.

China is a ``strategic competitor.``

William R. Hawkins is senior fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation.

PS: Tahnoon. I concede that buying from organic farmers and small stores is more expensive. But, (1)many goods are ``subsidized`` because the social or environmental costs are not worked into their prices (costs to the environment, for eg.)so buying organic would mean that we actually pay what it costs to produce food. (2)buying from small organic farmers and store owners, as opposed to big agro business and the likes of walmart would re-distribute profits to the small guys - the farmers and the storewallahs (3)as I said earlier, even if we cant afford to buy organic, we can refuse plastic bags and use tokeries instead!

Tahnoon, I must thank you for coming through, and eloquently, to my defense :) I can never do as good a job myself. BTW, interesting story about the Irish Guiness drinker. I know if I adopted that lifestyle, I would surely be very very sick (its the truth, not just to support my argument).

Re:Cynic,
Oh, so thats where you`d gotten to. Est-ce que c`est Caroll ou Kipling? S`approprie en tout cas. (Last studied french when 9, sorry for the mess). Donc, ici sont une poeme par reponse.

``Over the land freckled with snow half-thawed,
The speculating rooks at their nests cawed
And saw from elm-tops, delicate as flower of grass,
What we below could not see, Winter pass.``
. Edward Thomas

Surely the dance of the seven veils bit is wearing thin, even if I was incredibly slow in figuring out your identity. :-)

Re:BG/Cynic
D`you know, about a decade ago doctors discovered a woman in Ireland who was about seventy, had subsisted on nothing but Guiness for thirty years and guess what, she smoked!
As the famous Irish homosexual whose name currently escapes me (Portrait of Dorian Grey) said ``It`s not as if immortality is the alternative``.

Opens a whole new and fascinating area of debate though. Should people be allowed to kill themselves? Any takers on the article?

Re:Dr Sense & Hassan Iqbal.
Your logic is flawed, gentlemen. You succeed only in conveying that you have not taken the time to read the debate so far. This is sad, because without the vitriol, a number of people might agree with your point of view. Not all factors of production are either mobile, fungible or infinitely scalable. It is also not possible to substitute one factor for another indefinitely.
The Occident does not work ``harder`` just smarter, and to suggest malicious intent on BG`s part, verges on idiocy. Try again, and this time be polite.

Re:BG/Talib-e-ilm
When sufficient people buy from organic farmers and little stores the cost of goods go up. Rich people draw on their savings, poor people die.

An equitable redistribution of resources after a fashion is achieved by capitalism. After all, they didn`t adopt it because they thought it would ``oppress the masses``.

I have been waiting all this time to hear someone question the 80/20 distrbution. I think this may be a statistical fallacy. Could we get some evidence cited please.

Re: Dea ex-Machina
Hope this is sufficiently impersonal to meet with your approval.

Re talib-e-ilm

I think life-style choices and life at an individual and collective level are inextricably linked. For an extreme example, consider that I decided to eat nothing and drink only alcohol and chain smoke for the rest of my life, as a life style choice. How long and agonizingly would I live?

Re talib-e-ilm

Redistribution of wealth is NOT a bad theory as it has been achieved in practice (for an unlikely eg. consider Libya before Qaddafi`s takeover, besides other examples) . You, like Tahnoon, might disagree with the manner in which it has been done generally -- central oversight -- but that is another matter. Of course, that does not mean that it is the ONLY way it can be achieved. I refuse to believe that 5 billion human beings (and growing) dont have the creativity to come up with alternatives that work better.

It is also something that can be done at an individual level. We can all make choices as active and informed consumers: buy from small , organic farmers rather than big agro-businesses; support a mom-&-pop store on main st., over k-mart. I agree these choices are inconvenient and expensive, but if you can afford it, do it. If you cant afford it monetarily, devote time and support to groups that organize around issues like these (I work for a workers group and a economic justice group, in case people want to know if I put my money - or myself - where my mouth is).

A more general comment: idealism is not just about achieving the ideal, it is also about the process -- the constant struggle and the constant questioning and seeking. I think achieving a little short of the ideal is not always a bad thing as it keeps movements and people invigorated. This, of course, is my opinion.

I dont believe in giving up before trying just because i think its not going to work.

Re Tahnoon.
I guess the our basic disagreement is over how much abuse the world can (or should) take. Just because it survived all kinds of disasters earlier doesnt mean it can continue to do so in definitely. And, as I implied earlier, I really dont think our need for travelling concordes and eating $2.99 big Macs are somehow important enough to justify actions that lead to the destruction of plants and animals. In my opinion the destruction of plants and animals is criminal even if it does not threaten the survival of human beings.
I guess, at this point we can agree to disagree, agreeably ;)?


Re Tariq Khan
Thanks for your response. Please share some of what you know and think of environmental issues with us.

Re:BG`s response

When we talk of directions in national policy, the discussion inevitably degrades into a discussion of ``shades of meaning``.

Your 2nd and 4th para`s from the bottom lay out the framework you suggested. The structure will have some common implications and consequences, whichever specific system you adopt.

Now if you seperate ``oversight`` into reactive (to ensure that laws are not transgressed) and proactive (to specifically control rights to assets)your solutions IMHO lean towards the latter as do the World Bank solutions applied to PNG.

You see, we talk of the world as a fragile entity balanced on a knife edge. This is simply not the way it is. Our little mother has survived glaciations, meteor impacts akin to global nuclear war, changes in flux, periods of intense vulcanism and the loss at various times of up to 80% of its biota. In short, she has a phenomenal capacity for punishment. The only thing we threaten in the long term is the human race itself. (This gets a little zen, but is similar to the tree, forest and sounds).

So, we`re back to deciding ``how much reduction in capacity is enough?``. Yes there are goods which can`t be contained and are therefore treated as free. I don`t think restricting consumption will solve our problems. Amins solution, of moving ahead of the rest of the world, or making better mousetraps cheaper seems more practical.

After all, lets not forget that there is positive feedback in this system. All across Asia people are building strong environmental lobbies for the places they live. If things get bad enough, you run out of a pretty fundamental factor of production, viz. labour, who move away or sicken to the point of ineffectiveness. It works, why fix it?

Correction
Re: Amin
1. a pre-industrial society was NOT mentioned as an option

Re: Tahnoon (as promised)

1. ``central oversight`` ?? Did I say that? In any case, whether we like it or not, it exists to varying degrees, even in the great US of A!

2. Hey, I only said there are more than 2 options. I suggested a framework for other options, I dont believe I laid out a structure. There are many ways of arranging ownership, consumption and production within this framework. After all, Marx did not lay down communism -- that was one interpretation of his ideas!

3. I agree there are very few pure capitalists today, but that actually exacerbates a lot of the problems (long discussion -- another forum?)

4. Do believe a purely agrarian solution was not suggested as the option :)

Re: Amin Saleh

1. As I said to Tahnoon, a pre-industrial society was mentioned as an option.

2. How does ``the knowledge sector`` deal with problems of over-consumption and inequitable distribtuion?

3. Remember that Pakistan`s current legal, tax and education systems are outdated colonial relics. Would you conisder systems instituted by the British western or not? In any event, if we can`t just ``take`` them. Certainly we can learn from those systems that have worked. In the US, at least, all three of the systems, by and large, reinforce privilege and continue to reproduce the status quo of the haves and have nots. Perhaps some Europeans do it better.

4. ``Do something small and something now``. I couldnt agree with you more! I guess we might disagree on the what and how :)

Someone told Ms. Caulfield that the world bank was staffed with enlightened, capable market economists and she bought it?
Theres a bridge in brooklyn I think she might be interested in!

This is the central argument against your pov incidentally. Any organised system of redistributing assets implies organisers. You cannot guarantee their competence.

Re: Faisal, Cynic
Thank you, Faisal. Cynic, the verse Faisal is a poetic rendition of my crude, ``who died and made human beings chaudhry``

Re. Cynic,
Great joke - good play on words. I had a good laugh, but didn`t find it relevant to the discussion. Maybe I missed something.

Anyway, I think I agree with you, Bad Girl, moderation in everything; be it industrialization or nature conservation - everything comes at a cost. The key is to avoid ``bandwagons`` and achieve a good equilibrium. Sustainable development is one answer, but I am sure we can only arrive at possible solutions by having such exchanges. Keep it up.

Re. Safwan:
Sad but true, the 80% is clamoring for what the 20% has. Conspicous consumption is going to do us in.

Bad Girl (I wonder when you will shed this scandalous pseudonym!):

You said, ``Dont impoverish us in the name of development.`` That is entirely my point. To me it is a dilemma that needs to be resolved.

Re Saima
Thanks for the poem. It really says, quite eloquently, what I did not say.