Saturday, June 04, 2005
Rumsfeld's great game
Might as well follow one story of hypocrisy with another. Some of you may have noticed that Donald Rumsfeld is on a tour of Asia right now. He started his trip by demanding more democracy in China (a legitimate request) and then playing off India against China in all new version of the Great Game.
Rumsfeld drew a stark contrast between China and India, the world's largest democracy, which America is courting as a counter-weight to the communist nation. "We anticipate that the relationship with India will continue to be strengthened. With respect to China, it's not completely clear which way they are going because you have the tension I characterised between the nature of their political system and the nature of their economic system," he told reporters.
Rapidly improving U.S.-India ties are driven largely by relations between the two militaries, while the Pentagon's ties with China's army, badly damaged by the EP-3 surveillance plane incident in April 2001, are just now "evolving again in a way that's appropriate for the times," Rumsfeld said. "India clearly is a major power ... It has a democratic political system. It has a relatively free economic system. We have what I would characterise as an excellent relationship with India. From a mil-to-mil (military-to-military) standpoint, it has improved and strengthened every year," Rumsfeld said.
Not satisfied with merely playing an updated version of the great game, Rumsfeld is now questioning China's military buildup saying it could threaten the military balance in Asia. Oh, so they are serious about their pre-emptive policy about not letting anyone challenge their spheres of influence?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a gathering of defense ministers from 21 nations that China now has the third-largest military budget in the world and the largest in Asia. And he said China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to target many parts of the world. "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder why this growing investment, why these continuing large and expensive arms purchases, why this continuing robust deployment?" he said.
That last comment is an absolute gem. Mr. Rumsfeld, who exactly threatens America to the extent that you need to spend $500 billion every year on continuing large and expensive arms purchases? What is the threat that the U.S. faces that requires you to continue to have 9000+ nuclear bombs? Why this continuing robust deployment?
One line of response (especially from conservatives) may well be that the U.S. is a guarantor of peace around the world as the dominant military power. Even assuming that we buy this particular line (most of us won't), why shouldn't China carve out a role as a co-guarantor of world peace? Why is competition a great idea in every sphere except when it affects your national interest? What's more, after that crazy invasion of Iraq (and the non-invasion of North Korea), the U.S. has basically sent out a message that if you arm yourself to the teeth (preferably with nukes) the U.S. will not attack you. Don't blame other countries for having learnt the exact right lessons from the invasion of Iraq.
Rumsfeld drew a stark contrast between China and India, the world's largest democracy, which America is courting as a counter-weight to the communist nation. "We anticipate that the relationship with India will continue to be strengthened. With respect to China, it's not completely clear which way they are going because you have the tension I characterised between the nature of their political system and the nature of their economic system," he told reporters.
Rapidly improving U.S.-India ties are driven largely by relations between the two militaries, while the Pentagon's ties with China's army, badly damaged by the EP-3 surveillance plane incident in April 2001, are just now "evolving again in a way that's appropriate for the times," Rumsfeld said. "India clearly is a major power ... It has a democratic political system. It has a relatively free economic system. We have what I would characterise as an excellent relationship with India. From a mil-to-mil (military-to-military) standpoint, it has improved and strengthened every year," Rumsfeld said.
Not satisfied with merely playing an updated version of the great game, Rumsfeld is now questioning China's military buildup saying it could threaten the military balance in Asia. Oh, so they are serious about their pre-emptive policy about not letting anyone challenge their spheres of influence?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a gathering of defense ministers from 21 nations that China now has the third-largest military budget in the world and the largest in Asia. And he said China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to target many parts of the world. "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder why this growing investment, why these continuing large and expensive arms purchases, why this continuing robust deployment?" he said.
That last comment is an absolute gem. Mr. Rumsfeld, who exactly threatens America to the extent that you need to spend $500 billion every year on continuing large and expensive arms purchases? What is the threat that the U.S. faces that requires you to continue to have 9000+ nuclear bombs? Why this continuing robust deployment?
One line of response (especially from conservatives) may well be that the U.S. is a guarantor of peace around the world as the dominant military power. Even assuming that we buy this particular line (most of us won't), why shouldn't China carve out a role as a co-guarantor of world peace? Why is competition a great idea in every sphere except when it affects your national interest? What's more, after that crazy invasion of Iraq (and the non-invasion of North Korea), the U.S. has basically sent out a message that if you arm yourself to the teeth (preferably with nukes) the U.S. will not attack you. Don't blame other countries for having learnt the exact right lessons from the invasion of Iraq.
