Betting on World War III
By DAVID WALL
Special to The Japan Times
LONDON -- U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick has a way with
words. On a recent trip to Europe he tried to persuade European Union
politicians not to lift the arms embargo that they had imposed on China
after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989. If the EU lifted the ban, he
said, the Europeans would be painting bull's-eye targets on the back of
U.S. soldiers' uniforms. (It was not clear why he said back rather than
front.)
Zoellick also said, in Brussels on April 4, that "senior U.S. lawmakers
would be quick to cut off burgeoning defense procurement cooperation
between the United States and Europe, fearing that American weapons and
technology could be used against U.S. soldiers in Asia, if EU countries
start to sell arms to China."
Interesting. Zoellick obviously thinks a war between the United States
and China is on the cards. He was recently appointed cochairman, by
President George W. Bush, of a new high-level bilateral forum intended
to hold regular "talks on a range of political, security and possibly
economic issues," according to senior administration officials.
"Possibly" suggests that they may not have time to get around to
economic issues, even though the smooth running of the U.S. economy is
increasingly dependent on China. It suggests that Bush thinks that the
political and security issues will take up most of the time; well, he
would, wouldn't he, if he thought that war between the two countries is
a real possibility.
According to the leading foreign-policy guru of the "neocon" clique
that dominates foreign policy debate in Washington, war between the two
countries is inevitable. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's New Labour
foreign policy think tank, the Foreign Policy Center, recently invited
the guru, professor John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago,
to explain why he thought that a U.S.-China war was inevitable. He did
just that convincingly, adding that the U.S. could not possibly win
such a war.
Mearsheimer's argument, that of an "offensive realist," is quite
simple: Offensive realists believe that the absence of a world power,
an enforcing agency, means that states are free to press their own
interests in an anarchic international system of sovereign states. If a
hegemon emerges in this system, it will seek to maintain its status by
seeking to suppress the rise of new hegemons.
With the regions of the world separated by water, the argument
continues, there can be no global hegemon. But to ensure that its
interests prevail throughout the world, an existing regional hegemon
will need to prevent the development of any hegemonic power in regions
outside its own -- by war if need be, if other forms of containment
prove ineffective.
The senior U.S. administration officials who announced the formation of
the new bilateral forum said it was established as part of the
administration's efforts "to come to grips with (China's) rising
influence in Asia." Although Premier Wen Jiabao recently said China has
no aspirations of becoming a regional hegemon, he was being a little
naive. China's rising influence in Asia has already given it a great
power role verging on hegemony, helped by at least 350
nuclear-weapon-tipped missiles pointed at Taiwan and maybe Japan, too.
China's ability to assert its move toward regional hegemonic status is
currently limited by the U.S. military presence in the region: the
troops and planes in South Korea, Japan and Guam and the 7th Fleet
floating around in the area. They are backed up with nuclear weapons.
However, the relative effectiveness of the U.S. military containment of
China is diminishing as China's own military capability grows. Its
capacity to grow that capability further and improve its technological
capability expands with the country's rapid economic growth.
America's response to the growth of China as a regional great power and
potential hegemon is twofold: First, it is trying to limit the growth
of China's technological capability by restricting access to American
military technology through various embargoes. It is also pressuring
other countries with the relevant technology not to make it available
to China. This includes Israel, Pakistan and, most recently, the EU.
The second approach is to strengthen the military ring around China as
a containment exercise. Friendly relations have been established with
the Philippines and even Vietnam. The embargoes on arms sales to India
and Pakistan, imposed after they developed their own nuclear
capabilities, have been lifted -- both are to be sold American fighter
planes. In Central Asia, the Americans have built and are expanding
bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
But most important, the U.S. is pressuring Japan to become a "normal"
country, i.e., one with offensive military capability. It is
encouraging the revision of the constitution imposed on Japan after
World War II, when the U.S. was the occupying power. Article 9 of the
Japanese Constitution renounces the use of war as a sovereign right and
as a means of settling international disputes. It also states that
Japan will not maintain land, sea or air forces. This is a bit of a
joke as Japan has one of the largest and best-equipped military forces
in the world -- the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Japan is also now
supporting, technologically and financially, the development of U.S.
missile defense systems.
Japan and the U.S. stated in February this year, at a high-level
meeting in Washington D.C., that their alliance has a "common security
interest" in ensuring that the Taiwan issue is not solved by force.
This was a direct and aggressive threat to China.
By denying China access to modern military technology and tightening
the band of military containment around it, the U.S. has made it clear
that it fears a war with China and seeks to prevent one from breaking
out.
Most of this military activity is irrelevant. The U.S. knows that it
could not win a military war with China. The nuclear capability of both
states is redundant; neither side could use it. A land operation
against China would make the current mess in Iraq seem like a tea
party. Military capability, on the sea and in the air but not on the
land, would only be of use in local skirmishes, such as keeping sea
lanes open and weakening the effect of any attempt to blockade Taiwan.
Yet, for the foreseeable future, China can do more damage to America
through economic policies and through "cyber warfare" than it can
militarily. North Korea is said to be training more than 600
technicians in the science of cyber war -- how many more is China
training? I am sure the number runs into thousands. They could
devastate the U.S. economy, and have a go at destroying a good part of
U.S. military capability.
Simply by threatening to sell its holdings of hundreds of billions of
dollars worth of U.S. Treasury Bills, China could wreak havoc in U.S.
financial markets. By actually selling them and then refusing to buy
any more, it would do serious damage. A Chinese embargo on exports to
the U.S. would have U.S. consumers in the streets; many of the U.S.
companies that have invested heavily in China would find themselves in
bankruptcy.
And then of course there is the question of global access to supplies
of raw materials, especially the gas and oil that the Chinese are now
tying up in contracts.
Yes, it does seem as though war between the U.S. and China is
inevitable. Some would say that it has already started. It will not be
a military war, however. Apart from some local skirmishes, the real war
will be in the economy and in cyberspace. U.S. soldiers need not worry
about those bull's eyes. Yet.
David Wall is an associate fellow at Chatham House.
The Japan Times: May 22, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
===================================================
.
|
|
| User: "The Psychedelic Pope - Saint Isadore of Laytonville - Patron Saint of the Internet" |
|
| Title: Re: Betting on World War III......8/5/5 |
08 Jun 2005 01:21:05 AM |
|
|
So you think August 5th is the day it starts!
I thought it started four years ago in September.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Betting on World War III......8/5/5 |
08 Jun 2005 05:14:00 PM |
|
|
No it is going to be a case of catch up, like follow the leader, just
because those sneaky Chinese copy everyones products (it saves a bundle
on R&D.)
But China is not ready, so it is playing let's watch Imperial running
Dogs try to surround us whilst we surpass them, and then when we are
ready we foreclose on them.
Japan being a near neighbour it's best chance is an alliance with
China, or be the next Taiwan.
Being only one of the two speed bumps in the Asian region.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Betting on World War III......8/5/5 |
09 Jun 2005 03:33:03 AM |
|
|
I could be seriously wrong here, but Subato and Nostradamus never acknowledged China
as being the World Adversary in the Third World War
Infact Subato saw China (or more directly), the Chinese insurgents (landed immigrants
worldwide) as Allies to the cause of the 'Truly Religious', and that they, as
defenders (and backers) during this World War would support this CAUSE. (Could this be
the current Anglican Religion as established be the British Monarchy ???)
OR, has the current Chinese immigrants conformed to Musslim belief.
Just A Thought.
:-(]
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1118268840.180494.239700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
No it is going to be a case of catch up, like follow the leader, just
because those sneaky Chinese copy everyones products (it saves a bundle
on R&D.)
But China is not ready, so it is playing let's watch Imperial running
Dogs try to surround us whilst we surpass them, and then when we are
ready we foreclose on them.
Japan being a near neighbour it's best chance is an alliance with
China, or be the next Taiwan.
Being only one of the two speed bumps in the Asian region.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
World War III **NEWS** Wednesday, July 9, 2003
World War III ***NEWS*** Thursday, July 31, 2003..........
World War III ***NEWS*** Wednesday, August 6, 2003.....+
World War III ***NEWS*** Saturday, August 9th, 2003
World War III 2003.....+
World War III ***NEWS***Monday, August 25, 2003....+
World War III **NEWS** Tuesday, September 30, 2003..Iran warns Israel against strike on nuclear sites
World War Three 2003 **NEWS** CHINA RENEWS WAR THREAT....20/11/3
| Flashback: Bush: Iraq war 'good for the world'
Re: Speilberg, Hanks Leading US Push For World War III
World War III **NEWS** 22/7/4.........
World War III ***BREAKING NEWS*** 6.48 PM 28/7/4.....
World War III **NEWS** Update......2/9/4
Re: World War III is heating up.......nuke strike on Iran.
The Prophecies of Nostradamus: Nosty Baby, World War III & 2005: A Truly Wondrous Webography: Part 2
|
|
|
