Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Agathon]

You can argue along those lines, but I think you're mistaken.

The people of Eastern Europe, including parts of the USSR, were well and truely tired of the police states they lived in. The pressure for change predated Tiananmen by a fair margin.

I agree with everything in this quotation. I don't agree that Tiananmen had nothing to do with the method of the East Germans and the way things turned out.

I say this, because the German protesters have said it.

Many were worried that any such revolt would be violently repressed. One way of getting around that is to do it the way the Chinese did (although it didn't work for them, which shows that it only lowers the risk).

Honecker wanted to deal with them violently, but was ousted for that very reason. The East Germans correctly identified that their own overlords had less will than the Chinese, and the Chinese thing nearly worked (although it would have been a disaster if it had obtained for them everything they wanted - a truth about most student protests).

[Dinner]

If the US really wanted to make European defense contractors think twice then they can play the eithor or game. Either defense contractors sell to China or the US but not both. Selling to China means they get blocked out of the US market which is 80%-85% larger.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

You can argue along those lines, but I think you're mistaken.

The people of Eastern Europe, including parts of the USSR, were well and truely tired of the police states they lived in. The pressure for change predated Tiananmen by a fair margin.

I agree with everything in this quotation. I don't agree that Tiananmen had nothing to do with the method of the East Germans and the way things turned out.

I say this, because the German protesters have said it.

Many were worried that any such revolt would be violently repressed. One way of getting around that is to do it the way the Chinese did (although it didn't work for them, which shows that it only lowers the risk).

Honecker wanted to deal with them violently, but was ousted for that very reason. The East Germans correctly identified that their own overlords had less will than the Chinese, and the Chinese thing nearly worked (although it would have been a disaster if it had obtained for them everything they wanted - a truth about most student protests).

How's that? Protestors?

East Germans of all stations were voting with their feet by going West through Czechoslovakia and Hungary. They weren't camped in a city square daring the authorities to do something about it.

The two situations were not at all the same.

[BeBMan]

There were big public protests during the weeks before the fall of the wall. While it is right that lots of people left for Western Germany via Hungary etc, there was another big part of the population which wanted to stay, but also wanted changes.....

[DinoDoc]

France and Germany do observe it, but even so are believed by some experts to be the next largest suppliers to China, though with much smaller sales.

Why am I not suprised?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Can you name any successful motions by one nation state to invade, conquer, and pacify another state since 1945?.

I can think of attempts that failed because the the locals resisting the invading power were assisted by a power that was as strong as or stronger than the invading power, sometimes by a BALANCING coalition. In particular attempts by the USSR or its allies to advance their sphere. In afghanistan the USSR was opposed by insurgents receiving financial and arms help from the US, with the support of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Pakistan provided the sanctuary, and the US and China deterred any Soviet threat against Pakistan. The US alone had more resources than the USSR, and China added to the strategic force of that coalition.

Viet Nam attempted to take over Cambodia, with the strategic support of the USSR. This was resisted by a mixed bag of insurgents support by China and the US, with Thailand as the sanctuary. This succeeded despite US reluctance to support Chinas favorites among the resistance, largely because of the power of China and the US, and the limited support the USSR could spare for VN. Thailand was protected from Viet Nam by its own power and by US support.


If an aggressive China were to occupy a neighbor the US would again have to A. Finance and arm an insurgency B. Provide conventional protection to a neighboring sanctuary country. Depending on the balance of forces, that might not be as easy as the above cases. China could also attempt a counter insurgency (as the Soviets did, unsuccessfuly supporting Baluchi revolt in Pakistan).


and of course Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait NOT by local insurgents, whom Iraq could easily have crushed, but by a coalition, led by the US, UK, France, and Saudi Arabia. The coalition was able to dislodge Iraq only by conventional war, which went relatively easily because of the coalitions composition of powers much larger and more powerful than Iraq.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Viet Nam attempted to take over Cambodia, with the strategic support of the USSR. This was resisted by a mixed bag of insurgents support by China and the US, with Thailand as the sanctuary. This succeeded despite US reluctance to support Chinas favorites among the resistance, largely because of the power of China and the US, and the limited support the USSR could spare for VN. Thailand was protected from Viet Nam by its own power and by US support.

Um? Last I heard, the regime the Vietnamese installed is still in power, while the Khmer Rouge have rotted away.

[The Vagabond]

A country can become a superpower only if it can design and produce weapons all by itself. So I don't see how selling weapons to China can affect its status superpowerwise. OTOH selling techs can.

[pchang]

China is very good at reverse engineering. Do you think when you sell them stuff, they don't look inside? This whole thing about China being a huge market in which to make money is a false one. With difficulty and perseverance, you can sell stuff to China. However, you will never be able to take a significant portion of your profits out of China.

[Kidlicious]

We don't have much competitive advantage with China. We used to have a significant technological advantage, but they take all of our technology. Now they have the cheap labor and the technology.

There are limits to China's growth though. They only have so many ports. Their trade can't expand much more.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Um? Last I heard, the regime the Vietnamese installed is still in power, while the Khmer Rouge have rotted away.

Oh, yeah its more complicated. First the insurgency wasnt only Khmer Rouge, but included royalists and others, which is the US-Chinese distinction I alluded to earlier. And yes, the peace settlement involved numerous factions including elements of the VN supported govt, who seem to have gained the upper hand. However Cambodia is NOT occupied by VN, and the Hang Sen govt seems to not be controlled by VN now. So id give this to Gepap as another example of an occupation failing, albeit after huge (and morally compromising) effort to stop it. I take it youd view it otherwise?

[Last Conformist]

I'm not intimately familiar with the issue, but it seems to me VN basically achieved its objectives; getting rid of the Khmer Rouge and placing Cambodia under a friendly regime. AFAIK, annexing or indefinitely occupying Cambodia was not a VNese goal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I can think of attempts that failed because the the locals resisting the invading power were assisted by a power that was as strong as or stronger than the invading power, sometimes by a BALANCING coalition. In particular attempts by the USSR or its allies to advance their sphere. In afghanistan the USSR was opposed by insurgents receiving financial and arms help from the US, with the support of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Pakistan provided the sanctuary, and the US and China deterred any Soviet threat against Pakistan. The US alone had more resources than the USSR, and China added to the strategic force of that coalition.

None of this was part of formal alliences, and the Pakistanis and Saudis were already US clients, so the US did not bring anything new into the mix, nor did it have to form any sort of brand new allience. Pakistan and China both had direct aims of their own to go against the Soviets on this.

A gathering of already friendly parties coming to work together in a common cause is NOT a "balancing coolition". The US's actual, direct allies were not pumping in money into the afghanistan hole.

Viet Nam attempted to take over Cambodia, with the strategic support of the USSR. This was resisted by a mixed bag of insurgents support by China and the US, with Thailand as the sanctuary. This succeeded despite US reluctance to support Chinas favorites among the resistance, largely because of the power of China and the US, and the limited support the USSR could spare for VN. Thailand was protected from Viet Nam by its own power and by US support.

Actually, Vietnam succeeded, as was pointed out, in removing the regime and installing the new regime. BUt the problem here is your idea that Vietnam wanted to take over Cambodia,which is false- Vietnam wanted to get rid of the pro-China, anti-Vietnam genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, which was aggrevating it accross the border. While it is unfortunate that anyone would give the Khmer Rouge anything after their ouster of power, the Vietnamese achieved their aim of regime change, and pulled out relatively quickly.

Unless you see the US invasion of Iraq itself as a attampt by the US to "take over" Iraq.

If an aggressive China were to occupy a neighbor the US would again have to A. Finance and arm an insurgency B. Provide conventional protection to a neighboring sanctuary country. Depending on the balance of forces, that might not be as easy as the above cases. China could also attempt a counter insurgency (as the Soviets did, unsuccessfuly supporting Baluchi revolt in Pakistan).

and of course Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait NOT by local insurgents, whom Iraq could easily have crushed, but by a coalition, led by the US, UK, France, and Saudi Arabia. The coalition was able to dislodge Iraq only by conventional war, which went relatively easily because of the coalitions composition of powers much larger and more powerful than Iraq.

Funding an insurgency can only work because the technology of warfare is such that a relative small expenditure can assure the creation of a militaryt force capable of harrasing the invader- not defeateing them, but making the costs of the whole business simply unacceptable. Back in 1930 you could not really "finance an insurgency" in the same way that you could in 1980. So technology has made it easier for the weak to frustrate the strong.

As for the Kuwait example, it shows another major difference in the world, thanks to the UN- the notion of simply swalloing a state is no longer acceptable, so if any one nation-state decided to utterly conquer another one, all nation states would react negatively, since this is someone messing with the whole system.

In fact, the two examples you gave, Afghanistan and Cambodia, neither were attempts to conquer the country, but to imposse on the country a local friendly regime- if the Soviets had been able to set up a friendly regime, and that regime been able to keep the peace by itself, the great bulk of Soviet forces would have left, period.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon is another exaple (unsuccessful) of going into a neighboring state and trying to set up a friendly regime. It also shows for relatively how little an insurgency against could be set up by the opposition, without ever needing to get directly involved.

So, yet again, the simple cost, both in money, and in diplomatic standing, of trying to conquer another nation states has become prohibitive.

Wars now are, at the most, attempts tp impose a friendly local regime, and most of these fail if any significant portion of the local populace is against you.

The only other possible type of war, which I have already stted is a monumentally stupid form of war, is dying for pieces of rock in order to impose your deed title on it.

[Dinner]

Syria occupies Lebenon, Israel Palestine, China occupied all of North Korea for a time, South Africa occupied Nambia for 50 years, Indonesia occupied East Timor for 45 years, India annexed Goa from Portugal, Hungary got invaded and occupied by the Soviets in the 1960's, Panama got knocked over by the US in 1989, Haiti is still occupied, as is Bosnia, as is Kosovo, Chechnya is occupied, and Sadam pretty much had Kuwait pacified. I'm see a number of successful invsions and occupations including some virtual annexations.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Italian domination would be much better.

They tried and failed over a thousand years ago. No second chances.