"Predictions are hard, especially about the future..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
Democratic views are wrong or chaotic.
Not necessarily wrong but, if essentially a democratic nation, the views will be divergent, sometimes strikingly so.
A Parliamentary system of government accepts divergent views but the the government of the day will decide on a course of action and generally implement that. In the US with our three arm Republican governmental system, The Legislative branch will not reliably support the government of the day. That is particularly true if those branches are of different parties but it can even occur if both are of the same party. The third branch, the Judiciary will not reliably support either of the other two branches and can effectively overrule one or both.
Thus one can be confronted with the Administration or the Congress announcing a policy which is then disavowed by the Congress or Administration. The Admin can implement a foreign policy and Congress can refuse to fund it. Congress can pass a law that says 'X' and the Administration can just not implement or enforce it. An Agency may be directed by the Admin to do 'Y' and drag its feet, waiting for a new Administration. ANY US citizen can take the issue to Court and, if given a bit of success can stall things for years. All democracy is, as you say, chaotic -- we are particularly so and usually slow to decide (when not rushed into knee jerk reactions...:rolleyes: ).
Quote:
Could you explain the Chinese moves in CAR, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar, South China Sea, Afghanistan, even Xinjianng and Tibet (there is no dispute that it is a part of China) , changing the course of water in the Mekong and Brahmaputra and relate it to its 'Peaceful Rise'?
Dichotomy? That would be my explanation based on what I know at this time. Those moves may at this time be viewed as a sort of "Peaceful Rise" but they emphatically do not telegraph that as an ultimate goal...
I'm unsure how to answer this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
If I can have your indulgence in knowing the facts that bring you to that conclusion since that is what I seek to know.
The 'facts' that I know are that China is large and has internal problems. Those facts are gained through open source material and your source are probably more varied then mine. The possibly factual things of which I'm aware are accounts which, in total, suggest all the things you cite and more as indicators that the Chinese are doggedly and aggressively pursuing both resource and a degree of economic investment and return if not hegemony worldwide to include in both Americas. Again, that's all open source and in sum appears reasonably factual but I certainly have not traveled enough lately to say much is indeed fact..
Long observation has led me to believe that a series of events tend to aim toward a logical culmination. The logical culminating event here would seem to be sole superpower. *
So I have no collection of facts, merely a series of reasonably plausible indicators and, as the Intel Wallas say, "Indications lead me to believe..."
* That may be the aim, may not be. If it is, even my limited math skills are adequate to say both your nation and mine can jointly or separately deter that should we wish -- and I do not mean militarily -- and I know (As I'm old...) that unforeseen things can intrude on the best of plans... ;)
Let the Chinese takeover Gwadar Port
Thanks to a "lurker" for this pointer an article by a Pakistani on a Chinese website that advocates Gwadar port become a Chinese responsibility:
Quote:
Pakistan is under pressure to take the port back from SPA (Singapore Ports Authority) owing to the fact that it has not fulfilled its commitments, despite all the concessions made to it. The Singaporean company has failed to make the requisite investments ($550m) in proportion as required and 3 years have already gone by.
(later)...There is a growing consensus in Pakistan that China should be given the operational charge of Gwadar Port. This stance has taken on added momentum against the backdrop of emerging strategic concerns, including an increasing US interest in this Port. There seems to be growing evidence that the American interests would be served by blocking the development of Gwadar, especially as an energy hub and corridor to Central Asia and China.
Unlike earlier times, when China kept in the background to allay US suspicions about its strategic intent in Gwadar, this time round China has tacitly agreed to accept charge of the facility offered by Pakistan.
Link:http://www.youlinmagazine.com/articl...=#.UPr1AKF-xEA
Given the geographical position of Gwadar, still developing transport links to the hinterland, I am surprised anyone wnats to invest there. Perhaps the SPA realised that?
The juice is worth the squeeze
A great game begins as China takes control of Gwadar port, by Syed Fazl-e-Haider. The National (UAE), Oct 7, 2012.
Quote:
Gwadar port, through the proposed energy and trade corridors, gives western China access to the sea. Crude oil imports from Iran, the Arab Gulf states and Africa could be transported overland to north-west China through the port.
China considers Gwadar very important for its oil trade, as the present choke point is the Strait of Hormuz, which is becoming congested. In particular, a strategic pipeline from Gwadar to China's borders enables Beijing to import oil from Saudi Arabia. In 2006, King Abdullah reportedly asked Islamabad to help Saudi Arabia to extend oil exports to China.
China is the world's second largest importer of oil, with 80 per cent of imports going through the unsafe Strait of Malacca. A railroad and oil pipeline linking Gwadar with Kashi in western China provides Beijing with the shortest possible route to the oil-rich Middle East, avoiding the Strait of Malacca and the dangerous maritime routes through the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. Chinese engineers have already completed a feasibility study for a railroad and oil pipeline, which would enable Gwadar to handle most of the oil tankers headed to China.
China's overseas basing strategy
A interesting, short article from Australia's Lowy Institute on whether China wants "pearls" or hotels for its navy (PLAN). It starts with:
Quote:
Will China's growing global economic interests lead it to expand its overseas military presence and capabilities?' This is a question that has been asked by policymakers, academics and strategists since China's economic growth became dependent on its ability to access energy through maritime sea lanes and overseas markets.
Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/..._WEEKLY&utm_me
It cites a report by a Singaporean think tank:http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/D...pectives-7.pdf
Quote:
First, there is no evidence that the Chinese are currently conducting military activities at any of the String of Pearls sites. To date, PLAN Gulf of Aden task forces have not used or visited a single String of Pearls site. Second, transactions between the PLAN and host countries providing support for PLAN Gulf of Aden operations have been commercial in nature. These ports have only provided “hotel services,” replenished supplies, and served as liberty sites for visiting PLAN ships.
US-China rivalry looms off Russia’s Far East borders
In the jockeying for the Pacific Rim, the shadow of Russia cannot be overlooked.
However, this makes interesting reading.
Quote:
Russia, which harbors plans to exploit the economic potential of Siberia and its Far East in close cooperation with its Asian neighbors, has something to mull over — in particular, the fact that any escalation between the U.S. and China is not in its national interest and does not agree with its comprehensive program of modernization.
The author of this article is a Russian who is the director of the ASEAN Center at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) under the Russian Foreign Ministry.