Hey U all there! What do u think about The People Republic of China becoming superpower later in this century? What would be the likely changes in the dynamics of world politics and security in such a changed scenario? Could you make any hypothetical assumption of such transformation? What would be the fate of the US glory? Is this transformation would be easily achieved? Can you imagine, US becoming something like The Great Britain now stands (US becoming unconditional supporter/ally)? What would be the overall prosperity of Asians? What would be the role of Nepal? Nepal would be able to formulate its policies as a sovereign and independent country? What would be the challenges and prospects of Nepal by then?

Nut

Things been cahnging in South Asia. India seems to have just realized the importance of China in SAARC. There's two reasons for this, as far as I can see: Trade and Security. (or it's just India's foreign minister happens to be a Peking University alumn). But it's indeed a strategic move on India's part. Once China becomes a member, India will definately push for SAFTA and will seek China's help in joining the ASEAN free trade agreement.

SAARC to debate China?s association in Dhaka


BY SURENDRA PHUYAL

NEW DELHI, Jan 27 - India on Thursday said it is working "pro-actively" with China to address differences on all issues including the border issue, days before the heads of state of SAARC members meet in Dhaka to discuss a host of regional issues, including associating China with the 20-year-old regional grouping.
Addressing the Asian Security Conference on ?Changing Security Dynamics in East Asia? in New Delhi Thursday, External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh stated that the two neighbors are working to iron out differences, including the border dispute.Singh?s statement comes weeks before the 13th SAARC Summit convenes in the Bangla capital, where heads of state of the seven SAARC members ? Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan ? will discuss a host of issues to foster cooperation in the world?s poorest region.The final declaration issued at the end of the twelfth summit had endorsed, in principle, the idea of exploring possible association with interested countries and organizations.


http://kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=30201

Another developmnet.. what is today? I have been getting surprises all day.. went to a bookstore and found yet to be released in the US book.. that too in paperback! Philip Short's bio of Pol Pot. And now read this piece of news. I say, its a good move on our governmnet's part (or did it have any other choice/option?)

Nepal set to provideconditional transit route to India


By Milan Mani Sharma

KATHMANDU, Jan 27 - The government is all set to provide a transit route to India for conducting trade with China, but with conditions that it provide financial assistance in constructing roads, inland clearance depots (ICD) and other necessary infrastructure.
A government source told the Post that the conditional offer was developed on the basis of a study conducted by Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies (MoICS). India has been pushing Nepal to provide it a transit route for conducting trade with China, Tibet in particular, since the last few years.

ISO,

On militarism again...

It is precisely because the state armies are increasingly required to fight unconventional forces -- religious or political militants, rather than armies of other states -- that I believe militarism will have less relevance in global, state-to-state relations. Wars between states are far less likely to happen now than before, and will continue do so into the future. And in the face of growing military conflicts with unconventional armies (mostly within one nation's borders, as opposed to wars between states) skills in social, political and economic issues, I think, are becoming more valuable in resolving conflicts than military might. Hence, the diminishing relevance of militarism.

On the other hand, economic/trade relations and the competition based on economic advantages are gaining (rapidly, may I add!) more importance in relations between the states. Powerful country of the future will not necessarily have to have a strong military (though it may still play a small role), but rather must have an enormously influential economy with large economic ties throughout the world.

Therefore, in this regard, I still think China emerging as a superpower is a not a question of IF, but of WHEN. And at the pace China's economy is not only growing within, but also without (with increasing economic ties with other nations), I feel that we will see the rise of China to the top of the heirarchy within our life time. [Aba, mora kaal le bholi nai khuttrukkai pardyo bhane chai thaa chhaina hai! ;)]

In a nutshell:

1. Military might is rapidly being replaced by economic ties as a major tool of relations between states, therefore a strong military may not necessary indicate a nation's capacity to act as a superpower in the future.

2. Given US' decline, albeit slow, and China's rapid growth in economy (again, both within AND without), and others (EU, Japan , India, Australia) far behind the competition, it seems highly likely to me that China will take over US as the most influential (or call it being a superpower) country in the world.

I have much more to say about Russia, Iran, Iraq and Euro-US relations, but I think I will continue these discussions on the next thread, for too much information in a single thread seemed to confuse both of us.

Let me now begin with Iraq...

Yes, ISO, I agree Iraq is only ONE example of US's extraordinary blunders, but it is the ONE example that has profound and far-reaching implications on US' role in global politics of the future. Numbering the issues might be helpful:

1. By resorting to "pre-emptive" strike based on false information at best, or flat out lies at worst, it has at least begun to lose respect among the nations of the world. The few of those who are standing by the US are only doing so, I think, because of economic advantages.

2. By faling to control the rag-tag militants who number only in the thousands, the US military, supposedly the mightiest with all the state-of-the-art equipments, are also losing respect. Fewer nations may fear the army of the Goliath in the future.

3. ECONOMY. With the costs of the war amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, the (mis)adventure in Iraq will certainly have a long term adverse effect on US economy. At a time when economy is replacing military might as a chief indicator of a country's power, it surely doesn't help the US' stance a superpower with a weak economy in the future.

Many other issues related to Iraq -- Sunni-Shiite conflicts/fractionalism, oil, Middle-East politics...aadi-ittyadi -- ta chhandai chhan. But I think the above three points relate to super powerism.

On Russia now...

The key to Soviet Empire's fall was it's over indulgence on military. While stock piling all sorts of weaponry from conventional tanks and artillery to nuclear rockets, The Soviets clearly neglected the notion of balanced economy, wchich eventually led the system to collapse.

Now, there may be some hardliners who wish to have the old Soviet's power back. But if they choose to do so, they should know they are bound to fall again. So far, the educated Russian mass who know better, seemes to understand that the way of the future is having a strong economy, as opposed to a strong military. For this reason, I do not think the Europeans need to fear a rise of militarily strong Russia again; and even they do, they can easily tackle the issue by increasing economic ties with Russia, which they have been doing in a rapid pace for the past few years. Againa, no need for the Europeans to kowtow to US interests because the old-style alliance based on militarism (NATO) is becoming irrelevant by the day.

Iran...

You agree that Iranians prevailed for now because of clever diplomacy. Diplomacy won over looming military threat. And you asked what if Iranians go ahead and aqcuire nuclear weapons?

First of all, I don't think the US and/or covert Israeli military assault on Iran is imminent at all. No matter what harline rhetoric the US uses, the fact remains that:

1. It's military remains extremely thin-stretched and the US can ill afford to venture into another country whiule it's having an extremely difficult time controling one.

2. Iran will obviously do everything possible to keep the Yankees busy in Iraq, because they know that a stable Iraq now means the US troops will be marching towards them next.

And, most importantly,

3. US should know that they have been able to hang on to Iraqi situation by a thin thread ONLY because they have been able to fractionalize the Iraqi society. US's ability (as little as it is) to reamin in Iraq comes from a tacit support from the Shiite community. In the end, though, the ultimate loyalty of the Shiites in Iraq goes to clerics in Iran. Should the US make even slightest (and foolish!) mistake of attacking Iran, they are doomed turn Iraqi Shiites against them, greatly jeapardizing their presence in Iraq itself.

Also, there should be no question of covert Israeli attack on Iran just because US' hands are tied. Attack by Israel will not only threaten Shiite-US relations in Iraq, but completely ddevastate entire Muslim-US relations.

Therefore, I foresee three scenarios for vis-a-vis Iran: a. the Europeans, with strong diplomacy and the threats of economic sanctions, will contain Iran. Or, b. In case the Europeans fail, Iran will go on to acquire nuclear weapons, with the world crying foul out loud, and Iran gloating. c. US or Israel will attack, which will further devastate US stance in the world, particularly in the Middle-East. More reason's for the downfall of the US Empire!

uffffffffffffffffffff thaakyo!!!!!!!!!! Aunlaa haru galae...dimag khalbaliyo...khako ni chhaina, nuhayeko ni chhaina...aru lekhna pare aba pachhi lekhchhu...

BTW, ISO, while you are there, save plenty of Yuans! (hint, hint!) eheheh pachhi dherai faaida hunchha. i am looking into buying them myself! ;)

Good opoints Poonte bro, engaging in a discussion is a nice learning experience, although we have our own ways to look at the world events (liberal view vs. realist view).

Wars between states are far less likely to happen now than before, and will continue do so into the future. And in the face of growing military conflicts with unconventional armies (mostly within one nation's borders, as opposed to wars between states) skills in social, political and economic issues, I think, are becoming more valuable in resolving conflicts than military might. Hence, the diminishing relevance of militarism.

Can I disagree? I believe that for every Athens there will be a Sparta. I totally agree that wars between the nations are less likely today than it was a century ago, but still we haven't eliminated wars from our agenda at all. It is still there, even in the countries of Western Europe who are under a collective defense agreement/treaty/pact.

One man's terrorist is another man's hero. aani, one country's terrorist is another country's power. So terrorists actually fight a proxy war. If I remember correctly from my reading of Herz's brilliant essay on terretorial state (and if i understood it correctly), terrorism is often used to coerce other countries to accept and agree with your terms.

Yes, economy and market are important these days than military, but what happens when there's a surplus of goods, and you have no market? This surplus and argument over trading rights (free trading rights, if I may) will be a major problem, and sicne war and economy are inter-related, the threat of war still exists.

"owerful country of the future will not necessarily have to have a strong military (though it may still play a small role), but rather must have an enormously influential economy with large economic ties throughout the world. "

I agree. But minus the defense capabilities, they will not be superpowers. They will be economic powers and will play an important role in the international arena, but you can't label them superpowers. (my own views hai) because they would have no ideology toe xport, and they will not move to the core of the core. They will remain at the core. Just like Japan and Germany are today.

" Therefore, in this regard, I still think China emerging as a superpower is a not a question of IF, but of WHEN. And at the pace China's economy is not only growing within, but also without (with increasing economic ties with other nations), I feel that we will see the rise of China to the top of the heirarchy within our life time. [Aba, mora kaal le bholi nai khuttrukkai pardyo bhane chai thaa chhaina hai! ;)] "

hahaha Poonte bro, I think we have our own definitions of a superpower. But I agree with you on this one, not entirely though. I too believe that China will be quite influential in coming days ( the sooner the better for me:-), and like I have beens aying again and again, it will play an important role in the world affairs (tyasai 98 dekhi China padhna thaleko ho ta maile? hehe), but to match the US in economy and defense capabilities is still a long way to go. China will certainly take over EU, Japan and Russia economically, but will still lag behind the US and Russia in defense. And I believe to be a true superpower, one has to have a good economy + defense.



2. Given US' decline, albeit slow, and China's rapid growth in economy (again, both within AND without), and others (EU, Japan , India, Australia) far behind the competition, it seems highly likely to me that China will take over US as the most influential (or call it being a superpower) country in the world.

China might take over the US in economic terms, I certainly see your logic here. But defense wise, k? defense wise the US will be still the strongest, even if it stops spending on defense R&D.. Maybe we'll see two types of superpower: Economic and defense. Then China will be an economic superpower and Russia and the US will be defense superpower.

Just to wrap things up before we move on to the next thread on Iran/Central Asia/Russia (I am looking forward to reading your informed and balanced views on those too):

I can totally see China becoming an economic superpower but not a economic-defense superpower because to become a total superpower with money and excellent, unmatched defense capabilities, China has a long way to go.

Imagine this happening: China works out a collective or individual MAD agrreement with India, Pakistan, Russia and North Korea.. That would be awesome. The whole of South Asia (and East Asia) region will become one of the safest regions from what it is today, "one of the most dangerous regions" of the world. Liberals do have certain good strategies :-)

Alright ponte bro...thanks again for your views. aaba kahile kahi agreement, kahile kahi disagreement ta huney bhayo nai. This shouldn't bar us from engaging in other discussions on similar topics... bhandai, la CHEERS... Gambei (black label)...

Poonte bro le Iran, Iraq Russia pani yahi thread ma halidiyeko? . mero ni aunla dukhyo.. euta choorot fukera, majale padhera, aani bujhera, aani reply garchu.. socnu paryo ni.

"Yes, ISO, I agree Iraq is only ONE example of US's extraordinary blunders, but it is the ONE example that has profound and far-reaching implications on US' role in global politics of the future. Numbering the issues might be helpful........

....chhan. But I think the above three points relate to super powerism."

=> But Poonte bro, look at the Vietnam example. America bombed Laos and Cambodia, and engaged in a bloody senseless battle in Vietnam. Afterall, one of the most widely acknowledged author on war and an able general of the Prussian Army, Carl Von Clausewitz wrote: ?Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain.? I see many similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. Then it was ?domino theory?, today it?s ?pre-emptive strikes? or the fear of WMD. Then too, people protested. And when America finally withdrew from Vietnam, people made similar predictions? but, America remained America. People fear America, and it?s the country/people you fear, you tend to respect more. Rule by fear. America rules by fear and $$.. And the Bush administration is not just sitting idly. Condalezza Rice says, Diplomacy is in. She will work towards rebuilding the international community?s trust because she ahs no other options. If she doesn?t then the next national Security Advisor and Secretary of State will do that. Bush, Rice and Rumsfield aren?t going to be in the office forever.

On Russia:

"The key to Soviet Empire's fall was it's over indulgence on military. While stock piling all sorts of weaponry from conventional tanks and artillery to nuclear rockets, The Soviets clearly neglected the notion of balanced economy, wchich eventually led the system to collapse."

=> I totally agree with it. The Soviet Empire broke down because it had to deploy a large number of troops in Siberia because of it?s ?perceived? China threat. And it took it?s toll in it?s economy. The Soviet Union disintegrated. People give Regan much credit for it, but I personally think Nixon deserves more credit for the American Cold War victory, than Regan or Bush.

?Now, there may be some hardliners who wish to have the old Soviet's power back. But if they choose to do so, they should know they are bound to fall again. So far, the educated Russian mass who know better, seemes to understand that the way of the future is having a strong economy, as opposed to a strong military. For this reason, I do not think the Europeans need to fear a rise of militarily strong Russia again; and even they do, they can easily tackle the issue by increasing economic ties with Russia, which they have been doing in a rapid pace for the past few years. Againa, no need for the Europeans to kowtow to US interests because the old-style alliance based on militarism (NATO) is becoming irrelevant by the day.?

=> I don't disagree with you on entirely this one either. Of course, the Russian mass wants a stable economy at this point, but Russia isn?t a fully liberal democracy in which the mass dictates the government. It?s the opposite in Russia. Putin and his FSB (The new version of KGB- CIA+FBI combined) will do what it thinks is in the country?s best interests, not what the mass thinks. If there?s a majority that wants a stable economy, there?s a significant minority that wants the Old Soviet Glory back, let?s not forget that. Given the internal problems in Central Asia, Russia might militarily interfare there and bring it under it?s control, if not incorporate them in the Russian federation. Recently Putin made it clear that Russia will follow the American pre-emptive strikes policy to counter the Chechnyans. If you translate this into a lay man?s terms: Watch out Central Asians and others (look at what happened in the Ukranian elections), we will do whatever we need to do to protect our citizens and our INTERESTS.

Speaking collectively of the Europeans, they have a reason to fear Russia. Russia has its own natural resources, so it does not have to depend on others for it. So Russia has more bargaining power than China. Also Russia is far more stronger than the Western European nations, and although the chances of a war is not there, the Europeans cannot completely rule out the possibility of a war with Russia. Yes, the Europeans are engaging Russia economically, but Russia hasn?t given up it?s aspirations to again become a superpower, if not recreate the Soviet Empire. Recently they developed a missile that can penetrate Missile Defense of America. They are also experimenting with new models of aircrafts/bombers. Therefore, the Russian nationalism has to be taken into consideration. Economy and all that aside, NATIONALISM is also a major factor when we analyze the events unfolding in the world.

In my view, the Europeans need the US for the balance of power in Europe. You don?t feel secure living next door to someone who has 200 guns and is always acquiring new ones with better shooting capabilities. If you are forced to live next to him, you?ll definitely try to be on his good side. But you won?t be completely trustful towards him. Ressh uthyo bhane padkai diyee halcha Kalishnikov.bhatatata .. ratatatatata .So you look for someone who will come to your rescue if that person tries to shoot you. Rational human beings look for security against these kind of unpredictable neighbors, and the Europeans being a bit more rational than many others, they will look towards the Global Policeman, i.e., America.

on Iran ekai chin pachi... poonte bro le kasto garo test diyeko!!! Arko churot fukera ramrrari nasochi bhayena..!

On Iran...

"You agree that Iranians prevailed for now because of clever diplomacy. Diplomacy won over looming military threat. And you asked what if Iranians go ahead and aqcuire nuclear weapons? "

=> Yes, I do agree. Even the word's only superpoower has its limits. It has to choose it's moves carefully. Superpower bhayo bhandai ma sabai tira ekai choti haat halnu parcha bhanne ta chaina ni.. one country at a time.

Ianians prevailed because of diplomacy and the fact that the European allies of America, especially the UK, after it?s gross misadventure and miscalculation in Iraq, did not want to commit it?s troops in the Iran war. America, although it has the ability to go alone in Iran and install a new regime, isn?t doing it either because of the Iraqi problems.

:First of all, I don't think the US and/or covert Israeli military assault on Iran is imminent at all. No matter what harline rhetoric the US uses, the fact remains that:

1. It's military remains extremely thin-stretched and the US can ill afford to venture into another country whiule it's having an extremely difficult time controling one.
2. Iran will obviously do everything possible to keep the Yankees busy in Iraq, because they know that a stable Iraq now means the US troops will be marching towards them next. "

Yes. I agree. Also, invading Iran at this point is not a good idea. If America changes it?s rhetoric on Iran, I am 99% sure that Iraq will be more peaceful. Iran and Syria are fighting a proxy war in Iraq with the US, so that it does not invade them. If Iraq was peaceful, America wouldn?t have any problem invading Iran, Syria and whoever comes its way.

And, most importantly,

"3. US should know that they have been able to hang on to Iraqi situation by a thin thread ONLY because they have been able to fractionalize the Iraqi society. US's ability (as little as it is) to reamin in Iraq comes from a tacit support from the Shiite community........
-US relations in Iraq, but completely ddevastate entire Muslim-US relations. "

I agree with the first paragraph, but not with the second paragraph. Sharon?s hands are tied too, he is not as free as he was during the Lebanon or the West Bank Settlement days.

You rasied the issue of an Iran-Iran coalition against the US. As you said, the societies are divided in terms of religious faiths and if you look at the history, they have been busy fighting among themselves.. A Iranian?s Islam is different than a Saudi Arabian?s Islam, which is different than an Iraqi's version of Islam.. All consider America to be evil Satan but they will never forge an alliance to deal with the Satan collectively, and individually, they can do nothing as a legitimate force. In ground-to-ground conventional warfare, their armies won't be able to face the US more than 100 hrs.

on the options, I think, America will go with the option [a] because its the most cost effective one. But we shouldn't be too quick to say that just because Ameirica doesn't/didn't invade Iran, its global, regional influence is going down. The thing is America itself doesn't want a war in Iran at this moment. If they had wanted a war, they would have waited for this long. "chori pitera buhari tarsaune" - hamro purano nepali startegy seems to be a favored Bush strategy these days.. but let's not forget.. someone who can beat chori, can beat buhari too!

If they had wanted a war, they would have waited for this long. "chori pitera buhari tarsaune" - hamro purano nepali startegy seems to be a favored Bush strategy these days.. but let's not forget.. someone who can beat chori, can beat buhari too!

= If they had wanted a war, they wouldn't have waited for this long. "chori pitera buhari tarsaune" - hamro purano nepali startegy seems to be a favored Bush strategy these days.. but let's not forget.. someone who can beat chori, can beat buhari too!

Indeed very enlightening deliberations of the two consummate minds on a subject of growing global interest. I am printing it out to take with me to my weekend vacation for a closer read. :-)

But in the meantime, now that I believe I have found the masters, I'm inclined to post a question or two, maybe vaguely related to the topic of this thread:

Recently, here in Chicago, I had an opportunity of meeting with some business elites at a private event. One of the gentlemen, who apparently owns a major US toy company with several factories in China said that he couldn't believe how Shanghai had changed in the last 10 years that he had been in/out of China. He argued that an average Chinese lived a much better life now than only a few years ago.

I did some research afterwards on that topic but couldn't find a whole a lot that could potentially back up his claim. I am wondering what the experts' (like of ISO/Poonte dais') observations are on the area of less glamorous issues of human development in China.

That is one.

The gentleman also suggested that China might not suffer much even if the US stops Chinese imports. His point was that China had now identified a solid consumer base in the country itself, and was soon going to be a self-supporting economy in case of a sudden pullout of the foreign investment. So I guess my question to the experts is if that is really the case. What will happen to China if, lets say, the West stops buying the cheap Chinese goods? Is there a substance to what seems to be a rapidly inflating Chinese economy?

Thanks!
Echoes

ओ हो! कति लामो लेख्न सक्या नि IF ब्रोले!
चुरोट फुक्दै, सोच्दै, लेख्दै रे?
हैन एक बट्टा चुरोट त पक्का सकियो होला जस्तो छ। "किन्दे!" भन न पुन्टेलाई।
माथिको कुरा यसो छोटो पारेर भनम् त ७ हरप जतिमा।

....potentially back up his claim. I am wondering what the experts' (like of ISO/Poonte dais') observations are on the area of less glamorous issues of human development in China"

Echoes,

This thread owes a lot to Poonte bro. So all credits to him. Being a bit younger than him (in age and in the IR stuff), I benifit a lot from his views too. Just as for everybody else, its been a learning experience for me too.

Here's my answer to your questions.

China has now adopted a market economy, which means, the previous totalitarian state is not required anymore. I use the word totalitarian in a strict political sense.[Totalitarian state: A highly centralized state organization]. Since the Soviet style planned economy was discarded a long time ago, there was not much sense in having a totalitarian state anyways. Now the society and the governmnet is following what the western politicals sicentists call the "liberal path". The society is in a transition phase now. China has more freedom than many officially "liberal" democracies in the world. Of course, you cannot compare the situation in Western Europe and China, because the former has a history of 200 years of democracy and free-market, but the situation in China is not as bad as it is portrayed in the western media every now and then. To sum up, the Chinese have already started democratizing, but its a different form of democracy. They are strengthening the institutions necessary to safeguard democracy and the rule of law. Minxin Pei, a scholar at Princeton (now at Carnegie Endowmnet for International Peace) and a renowned East Asia Expert in America has written an artcile on this- "Is China Democratizing?: (Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 1998 jasto lagcha malai.. ).

In health care etc. they have made a great leap forward. Its not easy to solve all the problems at once in a country which stretches from Siberia to Karakoram, Sagarmatha to Vietnam.. but they are making efforts.

The other question is more related to eonomy, and I have to admit that economics to me is a whole new language. But as far as I understand, I think the scholar who said that China does not need America or any other country for trade does not quite make sense..because without foreign trade and foreign investment, your foreign currecny reserve will go down, and that is not a good sign if you want a stable economy. Plus China will have a hard time buying raw materials in the international market if it has no $$. Plus, in this age of WTO and globalziation, no country even imagines to remain isolated. The policy makers in China will not do anything that will jeopardize their developmenet process.

Mero views hai...I can be totally wrong.. so please do cross check, verify the informanation from your own sources before coming to any conclusion on this.

Lol Dada Giri, Poonte ji le Iso lai Churoot kini dine re? Well said..

ISo and Poonte thanx for great deal of information. But still I have some comments though I knowledge is not even close to you guys'.

China might take over the US in economic terms, I certainly see your logic here. But defense wise, k? defense wise the US will be still the strongest, even if it stops spending on defense R&D.. Maybe we'll see two types of superpower: Economic and defense. Then China will be an economic superpower and Russia and the US will be defense superpower.

I am absolutely with you, but how long "defense wise" US will be strongest? Again what if China and Russia jointly exercise for the defense system that may challege US? Somewhere you said Sino-Russia relations is not that worth taking because of their decade long rivalry (if you don't mean to say this, then my apology) . But things has been changed after soviet's collapse. China is not niche market for Russian defense industry, and China wont hesitate to contribute billions of dollars in Russia's struggling economy for the sake of defense system.This is win-win situation for both China and Russia. Having said that, why in the world Russia shacked the deal with its strategic partner and romance with someone others? I don't think Russian are that stupid. In the other hand Russia, now knows that only Chinese would be legitimate ally, if Russia has to face EU or America in whatever form. We can't disagree with the fact that Russian and Chinese are going to hold biggest military exercise in Chinese territory with Russian State-of-Art weaponary. These maneuvers can't be rule out, should be consider as China's ambitious deployment of defense system.

Let me add something,

More than Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea (alone), biggest pontential threats to US are China and Russia. And this the sole reason why US is in Middle East. My point is US need playgroud (Afganisthan and Iraq) to tackle with these threats not just militarily but economically as well. Control over Aghanisthan and Iraq is merely for logistic purpose, if US happen to attack on Iran.

Ek tir se teen sikar bhane justai, US, in worst case scenario, is diverting possible attack in its main land, Secondly US somehow wants to take control over scarced enery source, that may forced China to remain senile, being China world third largest consumer of natural gas and Iran is the biggest suppliers to China. Finally, US wants to penalize Russia's weaponary trade in Mid-East.


The relationship, which has been nurtured by China and Iran for decades, is growing exponentially now, primarily out of China's insatiable energy needs and Iran's increasing hunger for consumer goods, as the economies of both countries continue to expand. Therefore, whatever NATAK is US performing is the well planed tactics to paralize China.

In the other hand Russia is seeking for establishement to strengthen its position. After she fails to established equal-to-equal partners with US, she looks for former soviet's state to reconstruct its political and ecomical primacy, which again fail due to anti-Russian perception of those states. Finally Russia looks towards Far-Mid-East, which turn to be more lucrative than Russia has ever thought. This alliance trigger an anxiety among Americans. But somehow by distablalizing Iran, Russian sphere of influence through arms sales and energy will be nullified on that region.

I would say Iran is merely victim of Sino-Iranian-Russian ties.

Conclusion:

If US ever go war with Iran all by itself (along with its 51st state) without being permitted by Security Council, US has to suffer from catastrophic economic crash, which trigger devaluation of dollar. This will definately affect global economy but US will be the one to suffer the most.

China will have Latin America for its energy demand. And I don't think US will able to influence Latino on that matter. China later may look for Nigeria for more supply. Russia and China will continue their joint military exercise. Finally CHINA will be most powerful. Lau maile sabailai Hasaye.

ISO and POONTE this is just my thoughts I may be completely wrong hai.

There are too many ifs and buts in China's becoming super power. I doubt if China will achieve all these.

I am absolutely with you, but how long "defense wise" US will be strongest? Again what if China and Russia jointly exercise for the defense system that may challege US? Somewhere you said Sino-Russia relations is not that worth taking because of their decade long rivalry (if you don't mean to say this, then my apology) . But things has been changed after soviet's collapse....... Having said that, why in the world Russia shacked the deal with its strategic partner and romance with someone others?.... We can't disagree with the fact that Russian and Chinese are going to hold biggest military exercise in Chinese territory with Russian State-of-Art weaponary. These maneuvers can't be rule out, should be consider as China's ambitious deployment of defense system.

Good points, Pisces. For Russia, China is more of a threat than America or EU like in the Cold War days because it shares its borders with China. Russia will not want a deffensively strong China. For EU and America, Russia is a threat already. Furthermore, the Clinton administration by expanding the NATO (by bringing in Poland and Czech republic in the organization) antagonized Russia. Also, America has unilaterally broken the agreement on missile shield with Russia. All these actions are seen/interpreted by the Russians as conferring a second-class status on them. So they will do anything to regain thgeir status and by resuming its various defense programs and the recent development of "misile shield breaking" missile, the Russians have embarked on their temporarily halted journey of defense development. For this Russia will need money, so it will side with Japan, an economic superpower, and will sell Japan weapons if Japan does change its offensive army to a more defensive one, which it has been proposing. Russia already awarded a huge oil contract to a Japanese company. Japan has already singled out China as a potential security threat. In the Russian and Japanese eyes, China is a threat. In the Chinese eye, Russia because of its sophisticated weaponry and Japan because of the long standing historical disputes (and some terretorial disputes) pose a long-term security threat. America is in a difficult position in East Asia. On the one hand, it has faile dto remain neutral (in the case of Taiwan), on the other hand, it has failed to win the trust of Russia, Japan and China. This is why, the Russian-Japanese pact seems quite likely. Then America's option will be to side with China (which it has already started, on the issue of Taiwan.. it has been restraining Taiwan but not encouraging China to take over militarily either). Americans will be able to achieve the balance of power in East Asia by joining hands with the Chinese. More or less you'll see the revival of cold-war politics with some changes.

Of course, Joint Military exercises symbolize the trust developing between the two countries-China and Russia. But let's not forget, China recently conducted a joint military exercise with India too. These military maneuvers do help clear out the mistrust, but not entirely. The only way, both China and Russia will feel secure now is to have a mutual MAD agreement but its a bit early for that. Depends on the Japanese foreign/security policy.

To sum up: I don't see a Russian-Chinese colaboration against America very likely. BOth countries have their own agenda, and they will pursue those. Russia at this point is laready capable enough to challenge America and EU, so it will go ahaed with its defense programs alone. China is highly unlikely to partcipate in any program - defense related- with Russia, except for some occassional joint military exercies.

"More than Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea (alone), biggest pontential threats to US are China and Russia. And this the sole reason why US is in Middle East. My point is US need playgroud (Afganisthan and Iraq) to tackle with these threats not just militarily but economically as well. Control over Aghanisthan and Iraq is merely for logistic purpose, if US happen to attack on Iran. "


Bingo! now analyze your own paragraph. Russia and China are potential threats to the US. This means, the US has to side with one to deter the other. This means, either US-Russia alliance against China, or China-US alliance to keep Russians in check. I think the US will go with the US-China alliance because it's more sensible. By joining hands with the Chinese, the US will make Russia spend more on its defense because an US-China alliance means Russia spending a lot of $$ on deploying troops in Siberia.

From the US perspective it's presence in the Middle East and Central Asia is to keep both China and Russia in check. The Russians don't like the US presence in Central Asia, the Chinese don't like it either but the Chinese would not like to see a heavy Russian presence in Central Asia either. So the US is now equalizing the BOP in that region. In Chinese perspective, the US is encircling China, in the Russian perspective, the US is not being respectful to Russia's position.. its an interesting triangle. But what will happen if and when the US leaves the region? The Russians will immediately take over, which will pose a security threat to China. So its in the best Chinese interests to side with the US and vice-versa because they both have less and less reasons to go against war with each other.

I agree with you. The US is trying to control China's energy supply. The US wants to use the energy sources as its trump card in its dealings with China. China has started to look for the energy sources in Latin America and Africa, but as I wrote earlier, given the history of instability in those regions, China cannot be 100% certain regarding uninterrupted energy supplies from those regions.

So a common Russian threat will again be a reason to forge a strategic partnership between China and the US. The US knows it cannot stop Russia so it won't make much noise when Japan pumps money to Russia. The US will actually support that because it will let it (US) side with China, and China will have less reasons to complain about growing US presence in the region(s).

My views.