What China Thinks
China has finally emerged as a major world power, fullfilling predictions made in the 1950's by American right-wingers who proclaimed that the optimists were teaching their children Russian, but the realists were teaching them Chinese. I don't think that era's Birchers quite expected the route that China would take, though. They didn't expect that the Communist regime would bend to the idea of capitalist market strategies, and they certainly didn't expect Beijing (back then the city was known as Peking) to be a major holder of US debt. But the Chinese did, and the Chinese are. The US has to compete with China for markets and for energy supplies, with very little in the way of leverage because of that debt.
As a result, when China issues an opinion on world affairs, most of the world listens more attentively than it did fifty years ago. One such opinion that bears examining appeared recently in the Beijing News.
If one reviews America's present policy toward Iran, one can see that its main objective is the downfall of Iran's current regime, and that the nuclear issue is seen as the best lever for accomplishing this task. In fact, Iran long ago made a very simple and direct request of the United States: recognize Iran and normalize relations. To achieve this purpose, Iran, just like the U.S., is using the nuclear question as a lever. During the Clinton era, the nuclear question was never as intense or sharp and was almost ignored by the two countries. But high-ranking Bush Administration officials were unwilling to continue this, and jettisoned the policy of their predecessors, making a fresh start.
Iran has been forced into a corner and the Americans, remembering Khatami's reformist policies, have asked him to act as a go-between to address the outstanding issues. But it is precisely the Bush Administration's policies over previous years, of isolating and sidelining Khatami and his reformist policies, which forced Iran's voters to select a hard-line president.
The Bush Administration's greatest concern is that if Iran continues on its present course, there is precious little that the Americans can do. Instituting effective sanctions against Iran, let alone unleashing another war, will be very difficult. And it's not because Bush's Administration doesn't want to attack, it's just that right now, it can't handle another war.
Although the likelihood remains slim, we must pay attention to the possibility that Bush may yet emulate Clinton, and in his final years in office ease relations with Iran. Because of Iran's role and stature across the entire Middle East, when Bush entered office Iran wanted to reintegrate itself into the international community and favored an easing of relations with the U.S.
There is little chance that the next U.S. administration will begin a war with Iran. There is in fact a good chance that a new Democratic Party government will institute a large-scale moderation of American policy. Even if it is a Republican administration, it wouldn't be foolish enough to ignore the difficulties of its present circumstances. The dilemma within which the United States finds itself must be solved somehow, and one of the ways is to make use of Iran's influence. In fact, locking horns with Iran is not in the American interest at all, benefiting only a small number of special interest groups and conservative religious organizations.
If five years ago, starting in 2001, the U.S. had continued with the Clinton Administration's policies, the terrorist ideology now confronting the United States would be far less virulent and "9/11" would not have occurred or would have been delayed; America and the Islamic World will not now be confronting one another; the American and British publics would not now need to live under such strict security; and America would not be caught in its current Middle East quagmire. Furthermore, relations with Iran would not in the present state of frigid stalemate and Palestinian-Israeli talks would have continued to make progress.
What a pity that the U.S. government was replaced, and changed so many of the good policies of the previous administration.
...The most effective way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is for the U.S. and Iran to hold direct talks and to negotiate a normalization of ties. This would help solve many of the important questions that the United States confronts in the Middle East. Iran's influence on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah is well known. Many American experts have repeatedly urged the government to change its policy toward Iran, and to use Iran to overcome the many predicaments the U.S. confronts.
But it seems that Bush simply won't listen. [Emphasis added]
One of the main tenets of Bush's foreign policy is that the US doesn't talk to its enemies, which is foolish. Talking to those with whom we disagree is a more sensible approach than threatening to bomb them into the stone age, and it is almost always a more fruitful one. Negotiation need not be appeasement, nor capitulation, if it is handled with even a modicum of diplomacy. Even Richard Nixon knew that, which is why he went to China. Unfortunately, diplomacy is currently in short supply at the White House.
Perhaps we'll get lucky and in November the Emperor will be put in a position of having to listen.
As a result, when China issues an opinion on world affairs, most of the world listens more attentively than it did fifty years ago. One such opinion that bears examining appeared recently in the Beijing News.
If one reviews America's present policy toward Iran, one can see that its main objective is the downfall of Iran's current regime, and that the nuclear issue is seen as the best lever for accomplishing this task. In fact, Iran long ago made a very simple and direct request of the United States: recognize Iran and normalize relations. To achieve this purpose, Iran, just like the U.S., is using the nuclear question as a lever. During the Clinton era, the nuclear question was never as intense or sharp and was almost ignored by the two countries. But high-ranking Bush Administration officials were unwilling to continue this, and jettisoned the policy of their predecessors, making a fresh start.
Iran has been forced into a corner and the Americans, remembering Khatami's reformist policies, have asked him to act as a go-between to address the outstanding issues. But it is precisely the Bush Administration's policies over previous years, of isolating and sidelining Khatami and his reformist policies, which forced Iran's voters to select a hard-line president.
The Bush Administration's greatest concern is that if Iran continues on its present course, there is precious little that the Americans can do. Instituting effective sanctions against Iran, let alone unleashing another war, will be very difficult. And it's not because Bush's Administration doesn't want to attack, it's just that right now, it can't handle another war.
Although the likelihood remains slim, we must pay attention to the possibility that Bush may yet emulate Clinton, and in his final years in office ease relations with Iran. Because of Iran's role and stature across the entire Middle East, when Bush entered office Iran wanted to reintegrate itself into the international community and favored an easing of relations with the U.S.
There is little chance that the next U.S. administration will begin a war with Iran. There is in fact a good chance that a new Democratic Party government will institute a large-scale moderation of American policy. Even if it is a Republican administration, it wouldn't be foolish enough to ignore the difficulties of its present circumstances. The dilemma within which the United States finds itself must be solved somehow, and one of the ways is to make use of Iran's influence. In fact, locking horns with Iran is not in the American interest at all, benefiting only a small number of special interest groups and conservative religious organizations.
If five years ago, starting in 2001, the U.S. had continued with the Clinton Administration's policies, the terrorist ideology now confronting the United States would be far less virulent and "9/11" would not have occurred or would have been delayed; America and the Islamic World will not now be confronting one another; the American and British publics would not now need to live under such strict security; and America would not be caught in its current Middle East quagmire. Furthermore, relations with Iran would not in the present state of frigid stalemate and Palestinian-Israeli talks would have continued to make progress.
What a pity that the U.S. government was replaced, and changed so many of the good policies of the previous administration.
...The most effective way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is for the U.S. and Iran to hold direct talks and to negotiate a normalization of ties. This would help solve many of the important questions that the United States confronts in the Middle East. Iran's influence on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah is well known. Many American experts have repeatedly urged the government to change its policy toward Iran, and to use Iran to overcome the many predicaments the U.S. confronts.
But it seems that Bush simply won't listen. [Emphasis added]
One of the main tenets of Bush's foreign policy is that the US doesn't talk to its enemies, which is foolish. Talking to those with whom we disagree is a more sensible approach than threatening to bomb them into the stone age, and it is almost always a more fruitful one. Negotiation need not be appeasement, nor capitulation, if it is handled with even a modicum of diplomacy. Even Richard Nixon knew that, which is why he went to China. Unfortunately, diplomacy is currently in short supply at the White House.
Perhaps we'll get lucky and in November the Emperor will be put in a position of having to listen.
posted by Diane at 4:19 AM
1 Comments:
Notice also that the Chinese -- and probably the rest of the world -- have already registered that the Bush Administration came into office with one main goal: to do the opposite of everything the Clinton administration had done or tried to do.
And the sensible part of the world has already come to the obvious conclusion: that if it hadn't been for the Bush Administration's obstinate and short-sighted rejection of everything Clinton did in foreign policy, things wouldn't be half as fucked up in the United States or in the world. The rest of the world knows we were better off with Clinton. Pity so many Americans don't get it
Post a Comment
<< Home