Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Successful in the sense that decades after they did it they still have to have troops there and still face problems, and the international community has not forgotten (the the degree that its not shown as part of Morocco on any maps)? Yeah, thats a ringing success, even when the aim is a slightly populated region of small value.

Phosphates. Massive amounts. Which the govt keeps most of, even under the autonomy agreement, I think.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, Chechnya was independent in the realy 1800s, wasn't it?

I don't know why it should be particularly reassuring that would should merely expect invasion-with-regime-change from a future Chinese superpower.

Its called changing the subject

example
Greenie - Im afraid of global warming
Pollution apologist - the club of Rome predictions of resource shortages were totally wrong
Greenie - WTF???


so here
side A - Chinas growing power should give the EU (and not just the US and Japan) pause, as they may use that power to coerce the region, and threaten the interests of the EU.
Side B - theres virtually zero change that China will ever annex any territory other than Taiwan.
Side A - WTF?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

t is thought a revisionist power, in so far as the current world system is a unipolar one

US dominance is a temporary condition - im not sure your definition of a "world system"

with US military hegemony

I dont think the US exercises any meaningful hegemony.

, and this system, specially what it signifies for the Pacific Area, will fall, no matter what, and states will be forced to come up with a new balance.

That I think is what we are talking about.

So instead of trying to worry about keeping a system that will fall anyway around for say, maybe 20 years more (for all the talk about China never catching up someone like Patrokolos makes, the richer China gets the faster it is to catch up- its all simply a matter of spending) we are better served by trying to create a new system from scratch

I doubt workable international systems are ever created quite from scratch. Rather they are evolved from prior systems. We would be well to consider that.

that takens into account the coming changes and tries to further deligitimize and marginalize military power as an acceptable way of resolving international disputes.

And in the case of the Straights dispute, that would seem to be served by agreeing that it must not be resolved by force. IIUC several leading pols on Taiwan, including Chen Shui Bien (sp?) are suggesting a
compromise on that line - a 20 year truce, during which they pledge not to declare independence, in return for the PRCs pledge not to use force. Will the PRC take them up on it?

Because if all we do is try to extend an inherently doomed system, the costs of that, and the possible consequences might be just what people think they are trying to avoid.

IE better not balance and isolate China, or theyl be forced to be aggressive.

Certainly - we need to integrate China into the world system, NOT isolate her. We should NOT A. Encourage Taiwan to declare independence or B. Keep China out of the WTO, etc. or in other ways isolate her, or ignore her legitimate security needs. But for Western countries to CHOOSE to not sell weapons to China is NOT to isolate China - in the case of the EU, its a continuation of a policy that has been followed even as CHina HAS integrated in the world system.

[Last Conformist]

LOTM:

I dont think the US exercises any meaningful hegemony.

You seem to be fairly alone in taking that view in this thread, tho.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
LOTM:

I dont think the US exercises any meaningful hegemony.

You seem to be fairly alone in taking that view in this thread, tho.

define hegemony.

[Last Conformist]

Why won't people obsessively read the threads they're debatng in? I already did define hegemony in this thread.

A hegemonial power is a dominant power within some sphere (in this case world politics) that is in a league of its own above everyone else, and is willing to use that power to shape affairs in that sphere.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Why won't people obsessively read the threads they're debatng in? I already did define hegemony in this thread.

A hegemonial power is a dominant power within some sphere (in this case world politics) that is in a league of its own above everyone else, and is willing to use that power to shape affairs in that sphere.

a league of its own - Damn, i keep thinking of Madonna and Geena Davis playing baseball

really, I think thats setting the bar a tad low. The US cant help but be different power than everyone else, given current GDP numbers, and of course it willing to use its power, as are all powers. Hegemony to me means that no one else can reasonably challenge the number one power on any matter of importance, and even the collective of other major powers cant challenge the number one power on some important issues. And the US really isnt there. Really. Id rather no go through examples - I fear this will devolve into yet another thread about a oil rich land in the mideast.

[Last Conformist]

By that definition, I don't think the Greek city-states the word was first used to describe would qualify. But let's drop the definitional debate.

[lord of the mark]

John Mearsheimer defines a regional hegemon as a power that can exclude other great powers from its sphere. He calls the US a regional hegemon, one that wishes to prevent other competing regional hegemons, but says that global hegemony is impossible.

Im not sure hegemon as used in recent years has the same meaning or connotations as in the ancient world.

[Last Conformist]

I think "hegemon" is being in a continuous of more-or-less liberal definition.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont have numbers on US support in afghanistan in the 1980s, or US - Chinese support in Cambodia, but I dont think the cost to successfully defeat a determined and large occupier is all that low, depending on local political conditions. And in the absolute prerequisite is the availability of a neighbor country willing to act defy the occupying power and act as sanctuary/funnel. Which willingness depends on the balance of CONVENTIONAL forces, which favored the US in both instances.

The US spent about 4 billion in Afghanistan- lets say everyone else spent the same. that's 8 billion. The Soviets costs were much higher than that, since keeping severals tens of thousands of men supplied and in action is not cheap.

As for your last notion- a USSR invasion of Pakistan, a nation of 100 Million people at the time, would hardly ever have been in the cards- specially since it might lead to furhter unwanted effects- this US conventional superiority you speak of would only matter if you are claiming the US would have been willing to start an all out war to defend Pakistan, and I seriously doubt that.

I certainly recognize that nationalist insurgency is an important factor in world affairs, and one that works against empire building - but I dont think, contra JJ Rousseau (no pun intended) that its a magic thing that can be counted on to always, everywhere stop empire building without regard to the conventional balance, and thus make traditional balance of power thinking (1850 thinking?) obsolete.

Empires have been in the retreat since 1945- if anything we get increasing fragmentation of states, NOT amalgmations anymore. Its a pattern as clear as the nose on our faces.

[pchang]

In that case, shouldn't Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan be splitting off instead of being absorbed?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
John Mearsheimer defines a regional hegemon as a power that can exclude other great powers from its sphere. He calls the US a regional hegemon, one that wishes to prevent other competing regional hegemons, but says that global hegemony is impossible.

Im not sure hegemon as used in recent years has the same meaning or connotations as in the ancient world.

The US is the only power than can claim to be a regional hegimon in most regions of the world- The Us can call itself a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, in Europe, in the Pacific, and in the ME. NO other state can claim that.

Oerdin's military spending figures tell the tale- the US has about 20-25% of the worlds eocnomic activity, yet accounts for 49% of its military spending.

The US is the ONLY state that has multiple large aircraft carrier battle groups in all the oceans of the world (save the artic)- we are the only state that patrols all oceans of the world regualrly, and has the ability to land troops in hostile situations anywhere in the world probably within a couple of months of hostilities begtinning. We are the only power in the world with a startegic bomber force capable of hitting any spot on earth.

Militarilly, it is pretty obvious that the US is a global military hegemon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
In that case, shouldn't Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan be splitting off instead of being absorbed?

Yes, gloabl trends must be the same everywhere...

Hong Kong was on elase to the UK- everyone knew were that was going.

Taiwan is part of China at least on paper.

So, NO.

The collapse of the Britsh, French, and Soviet empires are the reason for this pretty clear trend, as well as the fragmentation in Europe.

Simple line- more states in 1965 than 1945, more in 1985 than 1965, and more in 2005 than 1985.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Why is our situation in Iraq the gold standard? If China can dominate a neighbor the way Syria has dominated Lebanon, and a neighbor that proportionate in size to China as Lebanon is to Syria, that would be a HUGE thing, and one of great concern to the EU i would think. Hell, the EU is apparently not happy with Syrians dominance in Lebanon.

Except that things are not just linear, and Syrians entry into Lebanon, as well all know, occured while the country had fallen apart. Syria came in when there was no Lebanon to speak off, and stayed while it was being glued together.

So maybe Vietnam will break into a horrible civil war and China will come in to aid one side, and then, after decades of conflict, will keep troops in to ensure that its previous costs bear fruit....

Maybe the EU should prevent the nasty civil war in the first place.....