Replies to post #3650 on Foreign Correspondence

[otraque]

China holds a card that they know they have and that is a huge hoard of U.S.Bonds.
They dump them on the market they crash our economy, the problem is China's Economy is feeding off the U.S. consumer---so what would cause them to dump those bonds unto the world market thus causing our interest rates to explode upwards?
What could force them to do what they rather not as it would cause economic pain to China.
I feel with the Chinese that enigmatic term which we simply call the matter of face is what could trigger them to take hostile action against U.S.
The U.S. has a totally arrogant belief that China has such dependence on the the most insanely consuming people in world history they would never resort to this, so arrogant that we well could think we can create hell in Central Asia and imperil Chinese borders and China will nonetheless restrain themselves.
If China decides matters such as this <<China has already protested the establishment of a Uighur Government-in-Exile in Washington and Beijing has repeatedly made it clear that it will not tolerate any political interference from abroad, where pro-independence Uighur organizations exist. This means us. It would seem we are orchestrating a riot in the Xinjiang province of China. Kyrgyzstan is one of the countries that borders the Xinjiang region.>> is coming from the U.S. arrogance in the belief China would never kick down the U.S. house of cards financial world, it would become a matter of FACE.
I give an example, about 2 years ago, Beijing gave out an official press release, that simply stated that the matter of Taiwan is of such magnitude that if any move was made to recognize Taiwan as singular independent nation they said they would take action and would even accept the loss of 2008 Olympics(which implies also economic sanctions against them would not stop them from "taking action")
In other words China has lines that they will not have crossed, at any cost, and what is building in Central Asia could well be one of those lines.
*********************************************************
Let's jump to another matter , has China made preparation for a possible war with the U.S., the answer is yes.
They know the U.S. in any war with China would rely heavily on the U.S. Navy ships.
I am no expert on weaponry but i have read they have been accumulating a great deal of a particular aircraft from Russia that is devastating against ships at sea.
They also said they have developed laser technology to scramble our satellites and thus take out our ability to do "smart bombing, and cruiser missiles and such that use satellites for hitting a precise target.
The wild part of this is China is in a very non-confrontational status regards U.S. and it is we the U.S. that our dangerously, mindlessly taking action that could turn China to hostile action.
If China ever did make hostile moves , even if just to crush our Bond market, Bush would have pushed the entire world to a brink of falling off a cliff.
This is where the question of Bushes' sanity becomes a crucial question.
I have NOT followed the truly Red Carpet charade Putin put on for Bush.
But one can only imagine what Putin is really thinking, what is he really up to.
He played straight to the Bush megalomania by feeding all his fantasies of being #1 World Bossman.
I think Putin recognizes Bush is a smirking hollow headed fool, but he is also recognizes he is a dangerous fool to be handled with pomp and circumstance and to hate him behind a wall of courtesy and ego stroking.
I haven't been following so i like to hear any thoughts of why Putin went overboard in ingratiating Bush.
What deals might they have struck???? We know that Putin actually endorsed Bush to be re-elected because he has not forgotten Carter and how human rights issues were raised persistently by Carter, and of course the boycott of the Moscow Olympics and such, he didn't want a democrat in office, i am sure. Enough chatter, Welles.

[Amaunet]

China, Uzbekistan vow to push forward bilateral ties

www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-13 20:14:26


BEIJING, May 13 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said here Friday that China is ready to join hands with Uzbekistan to realize the consensus reached by the two heads of state when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Uzbekistan last July, and promote the continuous development of China-Uzbekistan relations.

Li made the remarks when meeting with visiting Uzbekistan First Deputy Prime Minister and Economic Minister Rustam Azimov.

Li said Uzbekistan is China's friendly neighbor and also an important member state of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).China highly values its relations with Uzbekistan.

The two countries firmly support each other on the important issues of each other's concern, and share broad common interests in maintaining regional stability, combating the three forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism, Li said.

China and Uzbekistan also conducted close cooperation in the international framework such as the United Nations and SCO, the foreign minister added.

Li said Hu Jintao and Uzbekistan President Islam AbduganiyevichKarimov reached a series of important consensus on developing bilateral ties. "We are willing to work together with Uzbekistan to fulfill those consensus, enhance mutual understanding and trust,deepen win-win cooperation and benefit the two peoples," he said.

Azimov said Uzbekistan treasures its friendly cooperative partnership with China. Hu's visit to Uzbekistan last year is a histori event in bilateral ties.

"Uzbekistan is China's sincere friend and trustful partner," hesaid, adding that his country firmly pursues the one-China policy."We will make efforts to strengthen cooperation with China in various fields, enhance collaboration within the framework of SCO and push forward the bilateral ties," Azimov said.

The two sides also conferred on regional and international issues of common concern.

Azimov arrived here Wednesday for a five-day working visit to China at the invitation of the Chinese government. Enditem

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-05/13/content_2955224.htm

[Amaunet]

Central Asia: An iron fist, without the glove
May 17, 2005



By Sergei Blagov

MOSCOW - More or less peaceful regime changes in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, as well as Georgia and Ukraine, could have given protesters in Andijan, Uzbekistan's fourth-largest city, a sense that the Uzbek regime was vulnerable as well. But instead they faced bullets, with hundreds of people killed in an uncompromising crackdown on any hint of a "franchised revolution".

There had been ominous signs for Uzbekistan authorities. Uneasiness among residents of the Ferghana Valley, Uzbekistan's main agricultural region and a hub of Islamic extremism, has been growing for some time. Since early 2005, human-rights activists in the region have contacted foreign media outlets, indicating plans to stage protests throughout the valley.

And just a few days ago, Uzbekistan moved to abandon the pro-US regional cooperation organization, GUUAM. The grouping was set up in 1997 by Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova with a view to enhancing energy and economic cooperation among its founding members. Uzbekistan joined in 1999.

Before Ukraine's Orange Revolution in late 2004, GUUAM was widely seen as a political deadweight. However, the new administrations in Georgia and Ukraine have expressed renewed interest in GUUAM, seeing it as a potential vehicle to promote integration with Western economic and political structures.

The regime changes in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan over the past 18 months seemingly affected Uzbekistan's decision. Strongman President Islam Karimov did not want to remain in partnership with Georgia's Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko. Distancing Uzbekistan from GUUAM appears to be part of Karimov's strategy to diminish revolutionary pressures on his regime.

Uzbekistan said GUUAM had drifted away from its initial goal of economic cooperation, focusing too much recently on security issues. Uzbekistan regretted that GUUAM had turned into what it said was a "political organization". Coincidence or not, the Andijan riots ensued just a week after Karimov's decision to quit GUUAM.

Karimov has defended his heavy-handed crackdown and mentioned only 10 fatalities. Other sources indicate up to 500 were killed, including many civilians.

"The organizers of the unrest were 'Akramites', a new offshoot of the Hizbut Tehrir [HT] group. Its goals are hatred and denial of the secular way of development," Karimov told a press conference in the capital Tashkent. "They are brainwashing young people with ideas of creating a unified Islamic state," he said. "Their aim is to unite the Muslims and establish a caliphate," Karimov said.

The HT claims to be non-violent, but the ultimate goal of the clandestine, cadre-operated, radical Islamist political organization is jihad against non-believers, the overthrow of existing political regimes and their replacement with a caliphate, a theocratic dictatorship based on religious Islamic law.

Following a series of simultaneous bombings in Tashkent in February 1999 and an alleged assassination attempt against Karimov, blamed on Islamic militants, the authorities pledged a tough crackdown. Karimov reportedly promised to shoot and kill extremists himself, if necessary.

Karimov is the longest serving post-Soviet politician. A native of Samarkand and once a finance minister in the Uzbek Soviet Republic, he came to power in 1989 and led the country to independence in 1991. He is considered one of the toughest leaders in Central Asia, and is in no mood to surrender his almost absolute powers.

Nonetheless, presumably anticipating Western criticism over civilian casualties, Karimov tried to distance himself from the reported atrocities. Karimov claimed that on Saturday no order had been given to shoot on a crowd. "No one ordered [troops] to fire at them," Karimov told a news conference.

The Uzbekistan strongman has seemingly learned from the recent revolution in Kyrgyzstan, which demonstrated that control over the military and police are crucial in the event of any uprising. Unlike Kyrgyzstan's ousted president Askar Akayev, who did nothing in the face of mounting protests, Karimov rushed to Andijan and personally directed the crackdown on demonstrations.

In the meantime, apart from violence, Uzbekistan authorities have also relied on an information blackout. No footage of the events in Andijan was released in Uzbekistan. Foreign journalists in the city of Andijan were ordered to leave. Broadcasts by foreign TV news channels, including Russian, were cut off on Friday. Authorities have jammed foreign television channels inside Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan is one of America's strongest allies in Central Asia. At the March 2002 meeting in Washington between President George W Bush and Karimov, the two countries signed the Declaration of Strategic Partnership. According to State Department "background notes", last updated in February, "Uzbekistan has been a strong partner of the United States on foreign policy and security issues ranging from Iraq to Cuba, and nuclear proliferation to narcotics trafficking" and "is a strong supporter of US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and of the global war against terror". The note said the US "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region".

On the other hand, Uzbekistan has been wary of US criticism on its human-rights situation. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on Friday, "We've been very clear about the human rights situation there, been very factual about it, but unfortunately the facts are not pretty. We think everybody should be doing everything they can to avoid violence, to calm down the situation and to deal with these differences peacefully," he said.

Facing American criticism, Uzbekistan officials appear increasingly suspicious of US intentions, as they consider Washington to be a supporter of the regime-change trend in the former Soviet Union states.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan urged "both the government and the demonstrators to exercise restraint at this time". "The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence."

The Kremlin also supports Karimov, hence Russia promptly denounced the riots. President Vladimir Putin and Karimov discussed the situation by telephone on Saturday and expressed "serious concern" over possible destabilization in Central Asia.

"We are receiving disquieting information that everything that happened there was pre-planned," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Sunday. "According to our information, the group that had prepared all this and tried to bring it to fruition included various representatives, including the Taliban," Lavrov said. Lavrov also suggested the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) should investigate the riots.

Uzbekistan is a member of the SCO, which groups together Russia, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The group drafted "the Shanghai anti-terror convention" and decided that the organization would have a regional anti-terrorist force to tackle jointly such threats as terrorism, separatism and extremism. There have been no reports that Uzbekistan sought assistance from the force. However, in the wake of the riots in Andijan, Kazakhstan has increased border security, and Kyrgyz border guards followed suit along the Uzbek frontier.

Beijing could have reasons for concern about the Uzbekistan riots as well. There have been reports of cooperation between the militant groups and Uighur separatists, who, like the HT, have never formally advocated violence.

As it is evident that a soft approach does not work with franchised revolutions, Karimov's heavy-handed response could become a model for similar situations. On the other hand, the riots in Uzbekistan once again contradict claims that the American-led offensive in Afghanistan had effectively destroyed the hotbed of Muslim radicalism in the region.

Sergei Blagov covers Russia and post-Soviet states, with special attention to Asia-related issues. He has contributed to Asia Times Online since1996. Between 1983 and 1997, he was based in Southeast Asia. In 2001 and 2002, Nova Science Publishers, NY, published two of his books on Vietnamese history.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE17Ag02.html

[Amaunet]

Don't mess with China


By William S. Lind
Outside View Commentator


Washington, DC, May. 21 (UPI) -- A war with China -- hot or cold -- would be perhaps the greatest strategic blunder the United States could make, beyond those it has already made. The end result would be the same as that from the 20th century wars between Britain and Germany: it reduced both to second-rate powers. In the 21st century, the real victors would be the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation, who would fill the gap created by the reduction of both Chinese and U.S. power.

Given my foreboding, I was struck by the title of Robert D. Kaplan's article in the June Atlantic Monthly, "How We Would Fight China." Kaplan has written some excellent material on the breakdown of the state and the rise of non-state elements. Here, however, I think he gets it wrong. Kaplan sees the 21st century being defined by a new Cold War between China and the United States, rather than the clash between states and non-state forces. I believe this phenomenon will be far more century-shaping than any conflict between states.

While Kaplan writes about how the United States could use naval power -- subtly -- to contain a rising China, within the framework of a Bismarckian Realpolitik that accommodates everyone's interests, he recognizes the danger to all of a Cold War turning hot. He writes, "Only a similarly pragmatic approach (similar to Bismarck's) will allow us to accommodate China's inevitable re-emergence as a great power. The alternative will be to turn the earth of the twenty-first century into a battleground."

Regrettably, there are influential voices in Washington that want a war with China, the sooner the better. The most likely cause is Taiwan.

Few in Washington understand why China is so adamant about Taiwan remaining officially part of China. The reason is China's history, throughout which her greatest threat has not been foreign invasion but internal division. China has often fractured, sometimes into many parts. Today, Beijing fears that if one province, Taiwan, achieves independence, others will follow. China will go to war, including with the United States, to prevent that from happening.

Correctly, Kaplan observes that China is not able to successfully fight a sea and air war with America: China has committed itself to significant military spending, but its navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II.

So how would China fight us? If we send some carrier battle groups to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan, I think China will do something Kaplan does not mention: It will go nuclear at sea from the outset.

When the Cold War ended, we found out that the Soviet Union planned to do exactly that (so much for Reagan administration plans to send our carriers charging up to the Kola Peninsula).

The Chinese might employ nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, fired from submarines or surface ships, but I think her little surprise for us may be nastier. Kaplan briefly mentions that China "may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific" from deep in Chinese territory. I think those missiles, ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, may be ready now -- perhaps with a bit of clandestine targeting assistance from a Russia whose sphere of influence the United States is aggressively invading.

The Chinese way of war is indirect. In most cases, that means China will engage us with "soft power," as she is already doing on multiple fronts. But in the case of American intervention in a Taiwan crisis, what if a Chinese ballistic missile popped a nuke say, 100 miles from an advancing U.S. carrier battle group? No one gets hurt, but the message would be loud and clear: keep coming and you're toast.

If we kept coming anyway and the Chinese did nuke a carrier, we would immediately face an asymmetrical situation. How would we respond? By nuking a Chinese carrier? China doesn't have any. If we drop a nuke on Chinese territory, we have initiated a strategic nuclear exchange. Is Taiwan worth Seattle or Los Angeles?

The right answer, as Kaplan recognizes, is don't go to war with China. Perhaps if someone could talk to Karl Rove about the importance of the Chinese vote.



(William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.)

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050520-032013-8961r.htm