It's interesting to read Condoleezza Rice's year 2000 essay in Foreign Affairs in light of the recent nuclear deal with India and Hu Jintao's visit to the U.S.
From Rice's essay:
The United States must deepen its cooperation with Japan and South Korea and maintain its commitment to a robust military presence in the region. It should pay closer attention to India's role in the regional balance. There is a strong tendency conceptually to connect India with Pakistan and to think only of Kashmir or the nuclear competition between the two states. But India is an element in China's calculation, and it should be in America's, too. India is not a great power yet, but it has the potential to emerge as one.
I find it fascinating that all the leaders must know about the underlying strategies and motives of the other parties, but still play the game, at least in public. I wonder if they speak more frankly in private: "So George, I hear you're trying to contain us. You really think you can pull that off?"
5 comments:
Thanks for the pointer to that document Ami.
It was written during Bush's first campaign, but it's interesting how well it still fits our foreign policy goals even after 9/11 and 5 years of the Bush administration.
Yes, the recent agreement with India was designed to strengthen our friendship with that country. Helping a populous and growing country provide civilian power seems to be a great way to help a friend.
Yeah, I'm not opposed to the deal with India. I just find it amusing that the political maneuverings are so transparent.
I don't think China will be particularly worried. They've had some disputes with India, but really they're concerned with Taiwan and Japan.
If anything India represents an economic opportunity as China's own population ages.
... Ami.
I find it refreshing rather than amusing. I actually like having a group of people running the country who tell us what they intend to do, then actually do what they said.
This is the kind of thing I was refering to on Dalythoughs when I said Bush has lied to me less than any other politician (he has to work on spending, he that's one area where he varied). That transparency isn't limited to foreign policy either. Nothing Bush has done should be a surprise if you listened to what he and his advisors said in the campaigns or later speeches instead of what the Dems say he's going to do.
It's a far cry from our last president who would say whatever he thought the current audience wanted to hear, then say the oposite to the next audience and deny what he said the previous day, and finally take an action that was completely different from either thing he said. You never knew what Clinton would do.
I think the bit about containing China is suggesting that we just keep them from spreading communism to other countries long enough to let the seeds of capitalism growing there change the government. It's already had a major effect on China. I expect it to take anotehr 10 - 15 years before China is a democracy rather than a communist state if we just stay out of the way and let nature take its course.
Brian: I can assure you that China has no desire to spread communism. They're not really communist themselves anymore.
The long term desire of the U.S. goes beyond containing China until they become a democracy. The goal of the neocons is to make sure that no other country emerges as a challenge to U.S. power, democracy or otherwise.
... Ami.
Ami, I know they're no longer communist, you know they're no longer communists, but the Chinese government doesn't know it yet. Eventually their government will catch up to reality. That's what I meant by waiting 10 years or so and letting nature take it's course. As long as they're moving in the right direction, don't push them (they're likely to push back rather than move forward). China currently is only a serious threat to Taiwan which they consider to be part of their territory. Over the past 5 years, they've continued to transform from a communist military threat to a trading superpower.
"Containment" from a military point of view is now just a matter of keeping our eyes open (though in early 2001 they were more belligerent). "Containment" from an economic point of view is not possible or desirable.
Post a Comment