February 8, 2007
Banquet in Beijing; seminar in Singapore
In Singapore, I kept being told how fast China is modernising and changing. And it is true that the first thing that you see as you come out into the arrival hall at Beijing airport is that symbol of American-led globalisation – a giant Starbucks.
But yesterday evening I went to an official banquet, where the official style was very Communist – and the food was like something from Britain in the 1950s.
I should explain that I’m travelling with a small group of American and European think-tankers, sprinkled with a couple of diplomats. I am the lone journalist. Last night we had dinner with Zheng Bijian, who is chairman of the China Reform Forum and the man who coined the famous phrase “peaceful rise” to describe China’s emergence on the world stage. But apparently these days even “peaceful rise” is deemed to be too provocative, so the new formulation is “peaceful development with harmonious characteristics”. I feel more re-assured already.
Verbal formulas are pretty important round here. On a couple of occasions last night, Mr Zheng told us gravely: “Taiwan is a core national interest for China. We have no room for manoeuvre on this issue.” In other words - if the bastards declare independence, we’re invading. Otherwise, he was affability itself. We got the usual toasts of friendship. And we also got nine courses of food – starting with cream of mushroom soup and ending with banana split; all washed down by a cabernet sauvignon with Chinese characteristics.
By the end of the evening, the combination of an excess of food and drink, jet lag and four hours of discussion of Chinese foreign policy was making me feel pretty peculiar. I felt that I was on the verge of a major intellectual breakthrough - or physical and mental collapse. Possibly both.
By the morning, however, I was rejuvenated. Our group went off to the headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army. This is another place where they do things in traditional style. There is a rocket-launcher in the forecourt; glassy-eyed sentries with fixed bayonets guarding the doors; and a gigantic, silent, marble-floored entry hall. Unfortunately, the briefing was “on background”. But I will devote my FT column next Tuesday to Chinese security issues.
The question of how peaceful China’s rise will be was also the subject of our seminar in Singapore, organised by the Brookings Institution and the Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy. Generally speaking, the Americans were pretty wary, the Asians pretty sanguine and the Europeans faintly bemused.
The Americans are very mindful of the big increase in Chinese military spending and are also worried by potential instability inside China - and any potential knock-on effects on Chinese foreign policy.
Kishore Mahbubani of the Lee Kuan Yew school put a different gloss on events. He says that Asians generally “think that the Chinese are going to make it”: they will manage their peaceful rise. He also thinks that China’s neighbours take a largely benign view of its intentions, both in the region and around the world. But, as Mahbubani acknowledges, there are two big exceptions to this Asian optimism: Japan and Taiwan. And there is no doubt that the lone Japanese participant in the Singapore seminar sounded at least as anxious about China as the Americans.
Certainly history suggests that the rise of a big new power is often a fairly fraught affair. I was indirectly reminded of this, when I went to have lunch in Beijing with Richard McGregor and Mure Dickie of the FT. Richard had thoughtfully bought me a present: a pirated DVD of Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”, which he had picked up for a dollar in a local market. It’s good to know that the Chinese are so interested in European history.
“The Americans are very mindful of the big increase in Chinese military spending”…
I wonder why the Americans don’t make the connection between their own military spending (which has now exceeded that of the whole of the rest of the world combined), and other peoples’ worrying that unless they spend significant sums themselves, they are likely to be at the receiving end of America’s gunboat diplomacy and regime change rhetoric, if not outright, catastrophic invasion, a la Iraq?
The Americans’ role as the drunken elephant on the international stage, surely explains the rush of a host of major and minor states towards excessive military spending and toying with ideas of nukes and WMD’s.
As usual, ignoring the root cause of the problem (in this case, US aggression and irresponsibility) is primary the factor in international instability.
Posted by: Pacifist | February 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentLess and less Taiwanese people have the feeling of being a Chinese identity!
Posted by: Ivy | February 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentChina’s cabernet sauvignon is a secret weapon being tested by the military with input from French experts. The whites have WMD potential.
Pacifist, agree with you in general terms, but you can’t reasonably lump all the world’s problems on Washington. The Taiwan issue is the main driver of China’s rising military spending; but if the US did not ensure at least parity across the Straits, what do you think would happen to Taiwan? And in the absence of any other meaningful security arrangement in NE Asia, the US presence there is probably the best solution for all concerned. Even China is generally a beneficiary and knows it.
Posted by: Sid | February 9th, 2007 at 4:05 am | Report this commentIt’g gonna be good to see the rise of another super power to challenge the imperialism of the US. People in Taiwan are indeed Chinese. That’s simply self-evident. I’m very intrigued by the fact that this can even be a debating point for so long.
Posted by: Darcy Fitzwilliam | February 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm | Report this commentTo Darcy Fitzwilliam:
I think the following comments made by the former Malaysian prime minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohammad is interesting and relevant.
http://www.pmo.gov.my/WebNotesApp/PastPM.nsf/acfe72124fbea2e148256e72001d223e/32126b32bc7719ca4825674a0033f3f5?OpenDocument
4. First the unipolar world itself. We had welcomed the end of the Cold War believing that peace and freedom would now be ours. But unfortunately we find that losing the option to defect to the other side has deprived us of the little leverage that we had in defending our interests.
5. The defeat of Communism and Socialism means that only one politico-economic creed is allowed. When Communism and Socialism were contesting with Capitalism, the latter modified itself in order to be more acceptable. Today capitalism finds little need to compete for acceptance. As a result the worst aspects of the system have been bared. Anything done in the name of capitalism must be accepted on pain of being labelled a heretic.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentTo Ivy: ‘Less and less Taiwanese people have the feeling of being a Chinese identity!’
Most of the Scottish don’t see themselves with British identity, so do you consider them not part of the UK?
No matter how you criticise, China’ll soon be the world’s new hegemony, sorry if it threats someone and some so-called democratic countries, but this is the reality.
Posted by: sunny | February 9th, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentTo P,
When I say that China is destined to be another super power, it has nothing to do with regimes. If a communist country like China becomes a super power, which looks set to be the case, then capitalism will find the need to compete for acceptance again. The world is changing, we cannot afford to live in vacuum. The cruel reality is that the Chinese have outpaced our development in so many ways that now we must learn from them instead of being arrogant like we have always been throuhout our short history.
Posted by: Darcy Fitzwilliam | February 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Report this commentDarcy,
Interesting comments, but…
_Is_ there any “communist country like China”? China’s ‘communism’ doesn’t seem very hostile to global capitalism. I have to question whether a dominant China would really force capitalism to “compete for acceptance”. Capitalism, of a sort at least, seems quite well accepted in today’s China.
Regards,
Posted by: Beren | February 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pm | Report this commentBeren
“Taiwan is a core national interest for China. We have no room for manoeuvre on this issue.” In other words - if the bastards declare independence, we’re invading
“invading” is the wrong word, cos Taiwan is a part of Chinese territory.
Do you say :British Navy invaded Falkland Islands?
Posted by: jiang | February 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm | Report this commentPacifist, Russia indiscriminately shell civilians in Grozny, assists the Iranians at Bushehr, shuts down gas deliveries to Europe in the middle of winter, is careless with their nuclear arsenal and kills critics, journalists and expats. I can’t see how “US aggression and irresponsibility” is “the root cause of the problem”. Your arguments generally are only coherent to those who have an anti American slant as well because you never contrast your argument. How is Russian aggression and irresponsibility not a larger threat to “international instability”? If the Iranians do aquire nuclear arms, how is that not a far larger threat? If North Korea does aquire ICBMs, isn’t that a far larger threat? You’re so focused on Americans being the bad guy you become rather silly. Over the last 60 years the USA built an incredibly successful global alliance of democratic capitalist nations that to this day leads millions of people (nowadays in India, China, Brazil and many other nations) out of povery to increased wealth and security. Isn’t that great? Or do you find fault with that as well?
Contrary to your single point, American defense spending actually kept the Europeans, Japanese and many other peoples from having to spend much themselves because they were and are protected by American power. As far as we are aware of any Chinese military doctrine, it is revealed by their actions which include shooting Tibetan refugees and confronting nations (Japan, Vietnam) over marine assets and resources. Vs China the Americans have heavily relied on diplomacy and try to ally with China vs North Korea, the incident with the EP-3E plane also reveals reliance on diplomacy to balance relations. And if there is to be Chinese reunification the US tries to make sure that also would happen in a peaceful and preferably democratic fashion. What’s there not to like for a Pacifist?
I enjoy reading Mr. Rachman’s blogs but it’s both saddening and annoying to see how you try to latch onto some point and twist it into an anti-American tirade whenever you can.
Posted by: jvd70 | February 9th, 2007 at 10:27 pm | Report this commentJiang: your comment is facile and I think you know it - the majority of Falklands residents are Anglophones and trace their heritage to Scottish immigration in the early 1800s. The island’s residents and their governing body are very partial toward Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Also, Argentina not Britain was the first to “invade”. So, I think it is in fact legitimate to draw some comparison between Taiwan and the Falklands, with the U.S. guaranteeing Taiwan’s sovereignty much as Britain did for the Falklands residents (in this case “sovereignty” meaning the people’s desire to stay British).
Posted by: Sean | February 11th, 2007 at 4:22 am | Report this commentAttitudes towards China’s peaceful rise
Gideon Rachman’s blog Banquet in Beijing; seminar in Singapore at the Financial Times: …The question of how peaceful China’s rise will be was also the subject of our seminar in Singapore, organised by the Brookings Institution and the Lee Kuan
Posted by: Dave Porter Weblog | February 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentIs trying to figure out whether China’s rise is going to be peaceful or not anything more than an academic excercise? If we say yes, how will it affect how we act as opposed to if we say no? I do not ask this rhetorically, I ask it wanting an answer.
I think that no matter how we come down on the issue, we should follow the advice of Ronald Reagan (regarding Russia, but equally applicable here), trust yet verify. Why not?
Posted by: China Law Blog | February 12th, 2007 at 5:26 am | Report this commentDear Javd70,
First of all, if you enjoy Mr. Rachman’s blog, it is not compulsory to read anybody else’s responses to it if they make you sad
I find it a general condition of NeoCon-types that they are not used to hearing contrary views and are outraged and shocked on occasions when they encounter such perspectives. It is amusing to the rest of us, so please do not stop posting!!
Your ther comments are equally emotional and formulaic rather than fact-based and rational. Briefly I debunk a few of them:
Iran is not trying to acquire nukes. IAEA’s extensive inspections over a long period of time have not turned up any evidence. Iran voluntarily agreed the additional protocols, in exchange for certain safeguards and guarantees of technical and financial co-operation which were not forthcoming from the EU so Iran, again entirely within her rights and treaty obligations, rescinded the additional protocol.
Washington’s current psychological warfare against Iran is simply a re-run of US claims about Iraq’s WMD’s. However, CHUTZPAH being a Yiddish word, The NeoCon-Likudnik axis in Tel Aviv and Washington keep repeating the same lies with complete alacrity, replacing Q with N and hope to use the US military might to destroy another centre of opposition to Israel’s illegal occupation of other people’s lands.
Your chest-beating about the genocide of Chechens was noted. You would sound more convincing if Bush had not referred to it as a part of the “war on terror”, which frankly is a “war OF terror” being waged mainly against Muslims.
(In the same vein, you express sorrow about the Tibetans, but have little to say about the Palestinians.)
North Korea’s acquisition of ICBM’s may be a threat (although the threat of retaliation will be more than enough to stop them using it), but the perishing of 650,000 Iraqis as a result of US actions is not a threat in the future, it is something that has happened already. Similarly, the fact (not the threat) of the terrorist state of Israel being armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons, acquired with America’s connivance at best, and probably active support and financing by America, is a dagger held at the throat of everybody else in the region and an encouragement to them to acquire some kind of protection.
America’s “diplomacy” against the North Koreans consists simply in aggressive posturing, much to the chagrin of the Japanese, S. Koreans and the Chinese who would be the most affected by a blow-up of relationships with the N Koreans.
Whilst I don’t want to attribute motives, what you write is simply a regurgitation of the NeoCons. I suggest you read and reflect a bit more.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 12th, 2007 at 11:31 am | Report this commentPacifist, I am not a neoconservative, I am a European liberal. There are many different views in the political spectrum. On the right they aren’t all neoconservative.
The EU was forthcoming in its talks with Teheran, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1545023,00.html ; The EU offered a package including “long-term supplies of nuclear technology, reactors and fuel for a civil nuclear programme”, it was a very substantial package and Iran ridiculed and rejected it. You say that Iran is not trying to aquire nukes. The IAEA has not had access to facilities under Iranian Pasdaran control. Why not? Do you trust them not to seek to aquire nukes? Why did they obstruct three years of talks with the EU? Should I trust you or Iran over the people in the EU that I voted for?
Earlier you said only neoconservatives “picked up the same unsubstantiated lies” that Iran was assisting the Shia with IEDs and involved in anti coalition activities. You wrote about the UK government that “They could not prove it and subsequently shut up about it.” Read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6410592,00.html “We [uk govt] continue to make our case and the Prime Minister has been at the cutting edge of identifying this problem.”
What I write “is simply a regurgitation of the NeoCons”? It most certainly is not, I invite you to read the post I wrote on feb 9th; my critique of your views isn’t necessarily political but shows an orientation that is fairly typical of many conservative and liberal europeans such as myself. My critique was one of method: I was trying to point out that your posts lack contrast if you say that “US aggression and irresponsibility” is “the root cause of the problem”; the world just isn’t that simple. I illustrated that by contrasting Russia with the US, and from my perspective Russia is a far more alarming actor than the US. In return you write that my perspective is “amusing to the rest of us”. Do you speak for all readers other than myself or just the ones that do not share my amusing perspective?
You call things lies often, you call people such as myself who have a different perspective neocons and then you condescend to finding their perspective amusing. Then you say “NeoCon-types … are not used to hearing contrary views”. But you are the one uncomfortable with my view if you feel you need such devices, you are not used to trying to convince others of your view if you reply with such disrespect.
It’s rich that you don’t want to attribute motive to my posts, I do not believe you can be so bold.
Posted by: jvd70 | February 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm | Report this commentDear jvd70,
Posted by: Peter | February 12th, 2007 at 9:32 pm | Report this commentAs to your second link: you quote T. Blair, and it’s like Alan Dershowitz quoting Robert Kagan. they are the same family, or co-authors of certain strategies and actions, and to quote one supporting the other is a joke and mockery of any objective opinion.
As to the first link, I cannot grasp why Iran’s development of nuclear fuel is any worse than that of India, Pakistan and other exotic counties. Is is because Iran is not America’s/Israel’s ally? If its a rogue regime, who would provide the definition of ‘rogue regime’ - US, Israel, Norway? We hear that Iran suports terrorism and theratens the world - but we hear it from Jewish neocons and Zionists who advance the ultimate goal of “Great Israel from Euphrate to Nile”, as reads the inscription on Knesset’s building. And a strong state such as Iran is a very unconvenient neighbour. If we talk about threats to peace and planning for atrocities, do you now that currently discussed plan to devide Iraq into 3 regions was originally devised in… 1982, by Mossad? As they say - divide and conquer; the weaker the opponent, the easier to manipulate them. I have omitted the issue of 200-300 Israel’s warheads developed in the 1980s in Dimona. Why aren’t they your concern? Because they are peaceful? Because they are Jewish? You like many others seem to judge words, not actions. Iran talks war (or that is the translation provided in western maintream media), Israel strives for peace. So please consider how many wars have both countries - Iran and Israel - started after WWII. But even when words are concerned, Israel is no match - Begin or Sharon once said that if any Israeli diplomat, even most junior staff, is killed, they are able to start WWIII. Jad, if you take the effort and do some research, you will find enough facts that would undermine any faith in Israel, Zionists, Jewish neoconservatives and the likes.
It is the officially held view of the UK government over the last two years that Iran is assisting the Shia insurgency against coalition forces, it is credible because like US forces UK forces actally intercepted shipments and have been on the receiving side. After all Blair has been through how would this benefit him or the Labour party politically, if their motive was political in this? You think Labour stands a better chance beating the conservatives if this was fabricated evidence in support of another invasion? Of course not. The concern about Iran is genuine.
An iranian nuclear capability is a threat to the world and this view is shared and expressed in a UN resolution supported by all permanent members of the UN security council including nations critical of US foreign policy such as France, Russia and China. As to whether their view is legitimate and that Iran is a threat I suppose that depends on how far one wants to deviate from what those security council members agree upon to be real.
I’m wondering why you mention Jews in the rest of your post. Exactly what does race or ethnicity have to do with what we are talking about here? I was talking about how I think the US is not the problem in this world and how their concern about Chinese and/or Iranian intentions are widely shared and I think I elaborated my point and in reply you come up with a conspiracy theory that reeks of racism?
Do you really believe that ethnicity is part of the problem?
Posted by: jvd70 | February 13th, 2007 at 1:06 am | Report this commentDear Jvd70,
The poster “Peter” rather stole my thunder and your inability to deal with his points is indicative that you, at least subconsciously, have swallowed all the NeoCon baloney.
Your reference to “officially held view of the UK government” also betrays a lavish amount of Chutzpah, as we consider the same “officially held” views by the same UK government about Iraqi WMD’s. However, before I reward you with a Mazel Tov, I wonder if you like to read the following article in the British Newspaper “The Independent”:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article320004.ece
Quote
We are seeing technology in Iraq today that it took the IRA 20 years to develop,” said a military intelligence officer with experience in Northern Ireland.
He revealed that one trigger used in a recent Iraqi bombing was a three-way device, combining a command wire, a radio signal and an infra-red beam - a technique perfected by the IRA.
Britain claims that the bomb-making expertise now being used in southern Iraq was passed on by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard through Hizbollah, the revolutionary Islamist group it sponsors in Lebanon.
But a former agent who infiltrated the IRA told The Independent on Sunday that the technology reached the Middle East through the IRA’s co-operation with Palestinian groups. In turn, some of these groups used to be sponsored by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.
The former agent added: “The photographic flashgun unit was replaced with infra-red and then coded infra-red, but basically they were variations of the same device. The technology came from the security forces, but the IRA always shared its equipment and expertise with Farc guerrillas in Colombia, the Basque separatists, ETA and Palestinian groups. There is no doubt in my mind that the technology used to kill our troops in Basra is the same British technology from a decade ago.”
Even more alarming is the claim that the devices were supplied by the security services to an agent inside the Provisionals as part of a dangerous game of double bluff.
According to investigators examining past collusion between the security forces and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, members of the shadowy army undercover outfit, the Force Research Unit, and officers from MI5 learned in the early 1990s that a senior IRA member in south Armagh was working to develop bombs triggered by light beams. They decided the risks would be diminished if they knew what technology was being used.
“The thinking of the security forces was that if they were intimate with the technology, then they could develop counter-measures, thereby staying one step ahead of the IRA,” a senior source close to the inquiry explained. “It may seem absurd that the security services were supplying technology to the IRA, but the strategy was sound.
“Unfortunately, no one could see back then that this technology would be used to kill British soldiers thousands of miles away in a different war.”
Unquote
How ’bout it, eh?! Now let’s spell the word BLOWBACK, slowly… B L O W B A C K….. You are going to hear it a lot for another generation as the terrorism that is being kicked up today by the UK / US Government action is going to have hundreds of times worse consequences that what went on in N Ireland.
As for the Yanks joining in with the same accusations, why don’t you read the following from Professor Juan Cole?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/30/iran_ashura/
Quote
To begin with, some 99 percent of all attacks on U.S. troops occur in Sunni Arab areas and are carried out by Baathist or Sunni fundamentalist (Salafi) guerrilla groups. Most of the outside help these groups get comes from the Sunni Arab public in countries allied with the United States, notably Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies. Washington has yet to denounce Saudi aid to the Sunni insurgents who are killing U.S. troops.
Unquote
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 13th, 2007 at 11:15 am | Report this commentDear Jvd70,
May I be so bold as to reproduce today’s editorial comment from that hotbed of Jihadi anti-Americanism, the Financial Times?
It is entitled “A dodgy dossier on Iran’s activity in Iraq”.
How Anti-semitic, Anti-American and Anti-British of them! They are even coloured pink to show they are closet communists
Best,
Pacifist (ROTFLMAO)
===========================
A dodgy dossier on Iran’s activity in Iraq
Published: February 13 2007 02:00 | Last updated: February 13 2007 02:00
The much-postponed presentation of the case that Iran is arming opponents of the US army in Iraq finally took place in Baghdad on Sunday. It was unconvincing and resembles, albeit in a minor key, Colin Powell’s misrepresentation four years ago to the United Nations Security Council on Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The former secretary of state’s allegations were not borne out by the facts, but they did smooth the path to invasion. The Bush administration’s recent bellicosity towards Iran may only be the tactical application of pressure, but it is very risky.
Cloaked in anonymity, US officials said Iran is responsible for a device known as an Explosively Formed Penetrator, which has killed 170 American soldiers in Iraq. This much-mystified weapon began life as a weapon Hizbollah used against Israel in south Lebanon. It was known as a roadside bomb and the main requirements were to assemble it, point it and disguise it. In Iraq it became known as an improvised explosive device (IED), viciously effective but now coated with a spurious veneer of technological sophistication.
The main ingredient of the IEDs used by Iraqi insurgents is the high explosive the US left unsecured in nearly 100 arms dumps. Hizbollah, which is Iranian-backed, has helped the most anti-American Shia militia, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army. It may also have imparted its roadside bomb expertise but so, frankly, could the internet.
The Bush administration may be taking aim, ultimately, at Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. But what it is describing here is not rocket science.
Of the current average of 75 suicide bombers a month, nearly all are Sunni and many come from Saudi Arabia - a US ally and wellspring of Sunni jihadism. The Shia forces most closely aligned with Iran and trained by its Revolutionary Guards, the Badr militia and the Da’wa, are the allies upon which Washington depends in Iraq. Indeed, the Da’wa party of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is one of the founders of Hizbollah. It is the Bush administration that is responsible for the debacle in Iraq - including enhancing Iran’s influence among the Iraqi Shia.
It is not rebranded roadside bombs, moreover, that have shot so many US helicopters out of the sky in Sunni areas recently. Those weapons certainly are not coming from Shia Iran.
If Washington wants to beat the war drums it should do so more credibly, and for a purpose; Tehran is again signalling it may compromise over uranium enrichment. A smart diplomatic offensive would test Iranian intentions with a calibrated mix of penalties - including escalating sanctions that the European Union signed up to yesterday - and rewards. The latter would need the US to be willing to talk to Iran about security guarantees. In the current stand-off, there is, regrettably no sign of that.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
“FT” and “Financial Times” are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms
Posted by: Pacifist | February 13th, 2007 at 11:57 am | Report this commentDear jvd70,
Please note that I do mention Jews in their entirety, but only those from criminal/detrimental organizations. If you want to atribute all the atrocious characterists to all Jews, you demonstrate utmost anti-semitism. Are you anti-semitic, jvd70?
However, the issue of racism and ethnicity is a tricky one. Namely: when neocons, AIPAC, Zionists, AJC etc. talk about the Jewish holocaust (perpetrated by Adolf Eichmann, himself a Jew), do they speak about “Jews” or “Poles, Russians, Germans, French” etc.? To avoid accusations of racism and ethnic bias, they should use the category of citizenship, not ethnic/racial roots.
hope to hear from you soon
Posted by: Peter | February 13th, 2007 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentPeter,
I can’t stand neo-conservatism, and I’m no likudnik or anything like it, but I’ve got to take issue with some of your points.
First, there’s almost no government on earth that doesn’t think Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Lots of Iranians themselves think so, and approve. The Arab states are quite worried about the possibility. And Iran hasn’t really behaved like a country that is only striving for a peaceful nuclear program. Its refusal of various compromises that would have allowed for a peaceful energy program makes it seem likely that Iran is interested in developing weapons. Of course, we can’t be sure, but it seems likely.
I don’t say these things because I advocate an attack on Iran (I don’t), but simply because I think that they are true and are worthy of concern. There is a good chance that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and will succeed, and that will have consequences for the whole region. Dealing with them is going to be tricky for everyone involved.
Thus, I think it’s misguided of you to say, “As to the first link, I cannot grasp why Iran’s development of nuclear fuel is any worse than that of India, Pakistan and other exotic counties. Is it because Iran is not America’s/Israel’s ally?”
Well, that might be why jvd70 was concerned about it. But you could also be concerned about it simply from the point of view of wanting there to be peace, and to avoid increasing the chances that millions of innocent civilians will die in a nuclear attack, whether intentional or accidental. I don’t like the fact that Israel (or the US, or China, or any other country) is a nuclear power. But Iran’s joining the club doesn’t make things any better and it definitely makes the world more dangerous. Your citation of India and Pakistan as examples is astonishing. The fact that both parties to the ongoing Kashmiri conflict now have their fingers on the nuclear button is not a good thing for anyone who inhabits this planet.
On the whole I think you missed jvd70’s original point. He wasn’t claiming that the US is blameless. Rather, he was responding to Pacifist’s sweeping generalization that US behavior is _the_ root cause behind the troubles we now face. What jvd70 did was to point out other contributors (such as Russia) to global instability. I’m no fan of US imperial adventures, but to lay 100% of the blame for global instability at the US’s door seems more like an emotion than a thought. One can criticize US policies without blaming them for everything, and while reserving some criticism for other governments as well.
Regards,
Beren
Posted by: Beren | February 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm | Report this commentDear jvd70,
Since you say you are a European liberal, I wanted to draw your attention to the following poll that indicates that 70 percent of Germans agree with Putin’s views:
http://www.kommersant.com/p-10106/r_527/Germans_criticism/
If I were a betting man, I would wager that similar percentages in most of Western Europe would agree with Putin’s views too.
This is despite the fact that Putin, who made his name with his genocidal actions in Chechniya when he was prime minister, is a very blackened “pot” to be calling the American “kettle” names. So go figure what standing America has got itself after its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and its constant threats against Iran.
For anyone who missed Putin’s speech, this link may help:
http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?cmd%5B40%5D=i-43-&x=550420
Posted by: Pacifist | February 14th, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Report this commentDear Beren,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
“A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.”
Your attribution of positions to myself and Peter falls squarely within the ambits of setting up a straw man.
If you go back to the top of the thread and read on you will see that I explained the Chinese build up of arms in terms of America’s excessive military spending and posturing. This is entirely reasonable and natural. It is also exactly supported by what president Putin has said in his Munich speech which I referenced in my yesterday’s post.
It is also true that the current troubles in Iraq (and consequent tension in the Middle East) were caused by the unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the destruction of that state by the US on the fraudulent premises of Iraq’s ownership of WMD’s and its links with Al Qaeda.
Moreover, it is true the NeoCon-Likudnik axis that dominate Dubya’s thinking are trying to corner Iran into a fight over its non-existent bomb-making programme.
Finally, your claims that no government on earth doesn’t think that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons is false. Here are 118 of them that supported Iran!!
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070204/2007020409.html
The trouble with your kind is that you seem unaware of the rest of the world and even those of you who take an interest in politics, seem to think that the “international community” consists of Washington, London and Tel Aviv.
Don’t take any solace in the security council vote against Iran, either. It was obtained after threats and bribes of other nations by the Americans. If the UN mattered, Israel wouldn’t get away with flouting 60 resolutions.
Shalom,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
Thanks for your message. If I misunderstood any part of your post, of course I’m sorry.
I’m quite familiar with what a straw-man argument is, thanks. Indeed, I rather feel you’re attacking a straw man in my place, when you write that the trouble with ‘my kind’ is that we are ‘unaware of the rest of the world’ and ‘think that the international community consists of Washington, London, and Tel Aviv’. Did I say anything along those lines at all? Bit of a straw man, no? In fact, yes, I’m quite aware of the rest of the world, and lived in parts of it other than the US, Britain, or Israel, for about half of my life, and I read the news from there as well.
I did read the article to which you linked (thanks) as well as other articles dealing with the same visit. In none of them did I see any statement by the 118 governments fully or partially represented (as you know, only a few governments actually had representatives there), to the effect that Iran was clearly not attempting to build nuclear weapons. (I know that’s Cuba’s position, but the position of all the non-aligned countries?) What the article actually says is that they support Tehran’s right, along with the right of any other country, to have a peaceful nuclear program. (I don’t disagree, btw.) If there’s some other place, in which those countries actually express the opinion that Iran is clearly not trying to build nuclear weapons, could you link to it? I certainly haven’t found any such statement.
As for the original posting with which you began, and to which jvd70 replied, you wrote:
“The Americans’ role as the drunken elephant on the international stage, surely explains the rush of a host of major and minor states towards excessive military spending and toying with ideas of nukes and WMD’s.
“As usual, ignoring the root cause of the problem (in this case, US aggression and irresponsibility) is primary the factor in international instability.”
In this it didn’t sound like you were just talking about China’s military build-up as a response to US military spending. It sounded (in the first paragraph) like you thought all the cases in which countries have been militarising or seeking WMD were in response to the US’s role. And that’s certainly not true (cf. India, for use against Pakistan and v.v.).
As for the second paragraph, I think I did misunderstand you. I’m still not 100% sure that I know what you mean, because there seems to be a word missing somewhere (or did you mean ‘primarily’ for ‘primary’?), but if you mean that the main source of instability is ignoring the root causes of problems, and that in this particular case the root cause is US aggresssion, then I did misunderstand you, and that may be what led me (and jvd70) to attack a straw man. I thought you were saying that the US was _the_ root cause behind global instability. If that’s not the position that you take, I apologize for having misunderstood you.
I oppose the US’s massive, almost cancerous, defense spending. It’s becoming absurd, and naturally alarms other countries. But I don’t think that that’s the only reason why some countries are arming themselves, seeking WMD, etc.
Pax,
Beren
Posted by: Beren | February 15th, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Report this commentHi Beren,
What US/K/Israel are saying boils down to the simple demand that Iranians should stop doing what is their right under the international treaties.
That they couch this racist, colonialist demand in terms that “Iran should stop building A bombs” is indeed the mother of all straw men.
How do you expect Iran to prove a negative?
Iran did allow intrusive inspections, over and above its treaty obligations and nothing was found by the IAEA.
The IAEA did not find them, most probably because the Iranian nukes exist in the same place as the Iraqi WMD’s did, in NeoCon-Zionist propaganda and disinformation only.
This is the same trap as was set for Iraq, i.e., a logically impossible task set only to justify aggression.
Iran has not proposed to build N bombs (indeed the spiritual leader, Khamenei, solemnly issued a fatwa saying that it is anti-Islamic) and has a right, under NPT to carry on the research that it is doing. Nobody has shown that it is doing otherwise.
The 118 non-aligned countries, despite what you claimed, agree with this (which they perceive to be their own rights too.)
As for American actions being the root cause of the Chinese, Russians and the Iranians desire to arms themselves, I think there is very little doubt. You are very correct in pointing out that there are localised conflicts such as Pakistan-India too, but even there the American intervention has been malign (such as Bush’s recent agreement with India for technology transfer which, itself, is in breach of the NPT.)
As Putin pointed out, it is America that is springing out of its own borders and jumping on others more than anybody else and this makes our world a much worse place than it needs to be. The comparison to the drunken elephant is an apt one, since America’s misdeeds are disproportionately destructive.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
I’d still be interested in any story you could link to that showed that the 118 non-aligned states had publicly stated that Iran was clearly not attempting to develop nuclear weapons. The article you linked to did not contain such a claim.
Do you think Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, or do you not? At one point you seem to claim that they aren’t (unless I misunderstand you), but at another point you argue (again, unless I misunderstand you) that Iran is trying to arm itself to counter the United States. A good way of arming yourself to counter the United States would, in fact, be to develop nuclear weapons, just as N. Korea has done. So which is your position? That the Iranians aren’t building such weapons, or that they are, but it’s justified as a response to US behavior?
Putin’s Russia has more reasons to want to arm itself than just as a counter to the US. His government’s intervention in nearly all of its neighbours has been malign. I think, for example, of Moldova, where my parents lived for a few years. Putin basically just tried to get the place to surrender its sovereignty. The massive stockpiles of ex-soviet weaponry in trans-dniestria have nothing to do with opposing US hegemony and everything to do with imposing Russian hegemony over a country that Putin regards as belonging within his orbit.
Iran, too, has had other reasons for militarization, besides US behavior.
Pax,
Beren
Posted by: Beren | February 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentHi Beren and Shabat Shalom.
1-) Iran has consistently asserted that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, so why would the 118 non-aligned states support Iran in something that she is not trying to do? The point that you miss is that USrael (with B Liar in tow) are trying to deny Iran the right to peaceful nuclear research. Iran has not, repeat not, done anything that breaches its treaty obligations and the Washington-Tel Aviv axis (going through B Liar) is trying to deny them what they are allowed under the NPT.
This is the crux of the matter and why the non-aligned movement supports Iran’s right to her research.
2-) My position is that the onus is on USrael to put up or shut up. Over 2,200 hours of intrusive inspections by the IAEA have not turned up any evidence of weaponisation and Iran is entitled to continue its research for peaceful purposes. It is ridiculous and logically faulty to ask Iran to prove a negative. The only people who advocate this are those who want war. (The same people have been caught in a similar lie, over Iraq very recently and they clearly have the same motives to tell the same lies again.)
3-) Iran, under the UN charter, has the right of self-defence. You say a good way is to arm itself with nukes but that is probably not the best way for them as it puts them in the wrong, encourages a regional arms race and goes against their religious beliefs.
Like you, I hope another war is not started by the warmongers in Washington and Tel Aviv, but I believe that Iran’s ability to defend herself would be a deterrent because the NeoCon-Likudnik axis have an ideological attachment to use of force. For them, war is not a last resort but a strategy of choice. They shall not ignore reason and simply turn up the volume of propaganda as they did in Iraq. Sadly, Iran needs to be able to hit back. Although she will suffer terribly, it would still not be as bad as falling to Iraq’s fate. I perceive Iran vs. US to be a bit like Hezbollah vs. Israel. Hezbollah suffered materially, but stood its ground. I think Iran will do the same.
(Let’s hope against hope that it won’t come to that and somebody can stop the crazies and the traitors in the US administration.)
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am | Report this commentOne last thing Beren:
I like you to provide evidence about your statement to Peter that “There’s almost no government on earth that doesn’t think that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons”.
You say you know that the international community does not merely consist of USrael+UK and I grant you a generous 5% margin to cover your “almost”.
Just to be helpful, here’s a list of the member states of the UN for you to provide evidence to back up your statement:
http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifst | February 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm | Report this commenti think many people and media have selective memory, they forgot even 20 years ago, most taiwanese still believe, they will fight back in mainland china, and took the power to rule china all over again, taiwanese don’t like being recognized as chinese, one of the reason they realise they can never have the chance to win the fight with chinese communist government
Posted by: dustin | February 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm | Report this commentBeren,
Certainly, not all other nations are militarizing in response to American military build-up. I think you misunderstood the previous writer. What he is saying is that American military build-up is accelerating the arms build-up of other nations. That’s is the arms build-up is not going to be as fast if the Americans have not chosen to spend so much 200 billion +++ on the military.
For instance, China’s build-up may be because of a possible Taiwan secession, but also certainly more so because America has hinted that it may defend Taiwan in case of a war. And in face of a strong American spending on “defense”, the only logic is that China will build up its military as a faster rate.
Posted by: TIMES | May 9th, 2007 at 9:56 pm | Report this comment