13 March 2006
That old whiff of rank hypocrisy
In recent remarks, Condi Rice warned that the US and its regional allies (read as principally Australia and Japan),
"have a joint responsibility and obligation to produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force."
Let's understand what she really means by saying this.
The US leadership is alarmed at the rapid growth of China's economic and political influence in East Asia, concomitant with its own rapid decline in political and economic clout in the region. Understanding all too clearly from lessons learned during its own rise, the US fears China will follow in its footsteps of building a gargantuan military machine on the back of its economic wealth.
For if China were to really follow the US model of using the military as the spear carrying arm of corporate America, Team Neo-Con fears the US cannot retain its dominance of the global economy. And with its loss of economic dominance, decline of military power would eventually follow. After all, a US$491.5b military budget for 2006 has to be funded somehow. More about this later.
The "conditions" to which Rice refers, is diplomatic speak for that quaint American politico-military concept of "containment" of enemies. During the Cold War, Washington sought to build ring fences of allied countries around America's strategic competitors (to use a more modern day term for enemies). It was believed that with a ring fence around its enemies, the USSR and China, these threats to truth, justice and the American way would be "contained." Let's digress a little to understand the context of how the ring fence for China is being constructed.
Today, despite India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), the Bush regime agreed to provide nuclear technology to the Indians anyway. Some 40% of India's nuclear facilities (which are obviously dedicated to military activities) won't be subject to any inspections or external review despite the US providing the promised technology. Hardly a positive step for preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, is it?
Yet if it's verboten for Iran to even think of building nuclear weapons, why is it acceptable to transfer nuclear technology to an India already possessing nuclear weapons? Likewise kid gloves treatment has also been extended to Pakistan despite this country peddling nuclear weapons technology around the world. What's driving Team Neo-Con's agenda?
For India and Pakistan, they form the south-western portions of the ring fence around China (click on map below for a larger image). So despite having broken the same rules Dubya wishes to enforce upon Iran and North Korea, they are feted rather than having a finger and stick wagged at them. Hmm, do you detect a whiff of rank hypocrisy here?
Team Neo-Con tells us that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Iran has indeed been providing weapons and training to Iraqi resistance forces. Bad boys. But you know, Iran is only practising what the US had done in South America, Laos and Afghanistan. Indeed, in the case of Afghanistan, the USSR invaded a sovereign country, and ended up having to fight resistance forces armed and trained by the US.
By the way, that is how Public Enemy Number One, Osama bin Laden, was created. He is a creature of the US government, raised originally to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Likewise, Public Enemy Number Two, Saddam Hussein was nurtured to keep the pesky Iranians at bay! Funny about that whiff of rank hypocrisy. It seems to follow some people all over the world, doesn't it?
Let's briefly return to the topic of military budgets. In a recent news report, China announced that its 2006 military budget would rise by 14.7% to US$35b. While the country justifies its military expenditure as remaining similar to historical percentages of GDP, there is little doubt that the true budget is higher.
And of course, that old speaker of nothing but truth and wisdom, Donald Rumsfeld, was reported telling a security conference in 2005,
"China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities here in the region. Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?"
Using the Pentagon's own self-serving estimate of China's true spending to be two to three times the declared budget, the true Chinese military budget could be between US$70b to US$105b. Big and worrisome, huh? Compared to the US$491.5b 2006 defence budget for the US, I think the neo-cons should take a Tylenol and lie down.
Interestingly, a Jane's Defence Weekly article tells us that the US defence budget is very close to being equal to the combined defence budgets for the Rest of the World! If this fact alone isn't sufficient to silence critics of Chinese defence spending, then it exposes them for what they really are - people with self-serving agendas.
By the way, I should point out that if China had the same per capita expenditure on defence as the US, the 2006 Chinese defence budget would be US$2,181b rather than the highest Pentagon estimate of $105b. So should we really be worried that a nation of 1.308 billion people has a defence budget just 21% that of a country of 295 million people?
Do we remember when China last deployed its aircraft carrier battle groups to launch air strikes in support of the invasion of Iraq? Answer: Never, since they have no carriers.
How many troops did that war mongering nation, China, send into battle to smash Iraq into the rubble strewn wasteland that it is today? Answer: None, since they didn't buy the lies peddled by Bush et al.
Exactly how many NBC weapons did Bush's own appointed weapons inspector find in that wretched wasteland? Answer: Exactly zero, since there were none, as David Kay, himself concluded.
Given that the US has a record bar none, for engaging in direct and proxy wars around the world, has recently again declared China to be a strategic competitor, and has been encircling them, I'd say that the Chinese had better wake up to the threat of 10,600 nuclear warheads, 12 carrier battle groups etc ringing them. Because the global top dog doesn't look like it will give up its status without a fight.
After all, there are 491.5 billion reasons and over 100,00 dead Iraqi civilians to support this point of view.
"have a joint responsibility and obligation to produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force."
Let's understand what she really means by saying this.
The US leadership is alarmed at the rapid growth of China's economic and political influence in East Asia, concomitant with its own rapid decline in political and economic clout in the region. Understanding all too clearly from lessons learned during its own rise, the US fears China will follow in its footsteps of building a gargantuan military machine on the back of its economic wealth.
For if China were to really follow the US model of using the military as the spear carrying arm of corporate America, Team Neo-Con fears the US cannot retain its dominance of the global economy. And with its loss of economic dominance, decline of military power would eventually follow. After all, a US$491.5b military budget for 2006 has to be funded somehow. More about this later.
The "conditions" to which Rice refers, is diplomatic speak for that quaint American politico-military concept of "containment" of enemies. During the Cold War, Washington sought to build ring fences of allied countries around America's strategic competitors (to use a more modern day term for enemies). It was believed that with a ring fence around its enemies, the USSR and China, these threats to truth, justice and the American way would be "contained." Let's digress a little to understand the context of how the ring fence for China is being constructed.
Today, despite India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), the Bush regime agreed to provide nuclear technology to the Indians anyway. Some 40% of India's nuclear facilities (which are obviously dedicated to military activities) won't be subject to any inspections or external review despite the US providing the promised technology. Hardly a positive step for preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, is it?
Yet if it's verboten for Iran to even think of building nuclear weapons, why is it acceptable to transfer nuclear technology to an India already possessing nuclear weapons? Likewise kid gloves treatment has also been extended to Pakistan despite this country peddling nuclear weapons technology around the world. What's driving Team Neo-Con's agenda?
For India and Pakistan, they form the south-western portions of the ring fence around China (click on map below for a larger image). So despite having broken the same rules Dubya wishes to enforce upon Iran and North Korea, they are feted rather than having a finger and stick wagged at them. Hmm, do you detect a whiff of rank hypocrisy here?
Team Neo-Con tells us that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Iran has indeed been providing weapons and training to Iraqi resistance forces. Bad boys. But you know, Iran is only practising what the US had done in South America, Laos and Afghanistan. Indeed, in the case of Afghanistan, the USSR invaded a sovereign country, and ended up having to fight resistance forces armed and trained by the US.
By the way, that is how Public Enemy Number One, Osama bin Laden, was created. He is a creature of the US government, raised originally to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Likewise, Public Enemy Number Two, Saddam Hussein was nurtured to keep the pesky Iranians at bay! Funny about that whiff of rank hypocrisy. It seems to follow some people all over the world, doesn't it?
Let's briefly return to the topic of military budgets. In a recent news report, China announced that its 2006 military budget would rise by 14.7% to US$35b. While the country justifies its military expenditure as remaining similar to historical percentages of GDP, there is little doubt that the true budget is higher.
And of course, that old speaker of nothing but truth and wisdom, Donald Rumsfeld, was reported telling a security conference in 2005,
"China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities here in the region. Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?"
Using the Pentagon's own self-serving estimate of China's true spending to be two to three times the declared budget, the true Chinese military budget could be between US$70b to US$105b. Big and worrisome, huh? Compared to the US$491.5b 2006 defence budget for the US, I think the neo-cons should take a Tylenol and lie down.
Interestingly, a Jane's Defence Weekly article tells us that the US defence budget is very close to being equal to the combined defence budgets for the Rest of the World! If this fact alone isn't sufficient to silence critics of Chinese defence spending, then it exposes them for what they really are - people with self-serving agendas.
By the way, I should point out that if China had the same per capita expenditure on defence as the US, the 2006 Chinese defence budget would be US$2,181b rather than the highest Pentagon estimate of $105b. So should we really be worried that a nation of 1.308 billion people has a defence budget just 21% that of a country of 295 million people?
Do we remember when China last deployed its aircraft carrier battle groups to launch air strikes in support of the invasion of Iraq? Answer: Never, since they have no carriers.
How many troops did that war mongering nation, China, send into battle to smash Iraq into the rubble strewn wasteland that it is today? Answer: None, since they didn't buy the lies peddled by Bush et al.
Exactly how many NBC weapons did Bush's own appointed weapons inspector find in that wretched wasteland? Answer: Exactly zero, since there were none, as David Kay, himself concluded.
Given that the US has a record bar none, for engaging in direct and proxy wars around the world, has recently again declared China to be a strategic competitor, and has been encircling them, I'd say that the Chinese had better wake up to the threat of 10,600 nuclear warheads, 12 carrier battle groups etc ringing them. Because the global top dog doesn't look like it will give up its status without a fight.
After all, there are 491.5 billion reasons and over 100,00 dead Iraqi civilians to support this point of view.
