New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

almarst-2001 - 06:04pm Apr 15, 2001 EST (#2267 of 2270)

China and the United States - http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/15/opinion/15SUN1.html

"The two nations are nascent military rivals with incompatible political systems. "

No explanation why "military rivals".

Are Arabic Kingdoms or KLA-like "freedom-fighters" more "compatible" with US political system? Not a long time ago Taliban was considered an US friend, as where some pretty nasty military dictatorships. Taiwan was always considered "compatible" even when rulled by a military-nacionalistic dictatorship.

"Mr. Bush ... and his aides should settle on a long-term strategy that protects American interests while encouraging China to play a constructive role"

No definition on what "American interests" are. Nor, what the expected "constructive role" means.

United States and China "have different values, yet common interests"

What those "values" and "interests" are?

"The United States and China need not become enemies, though historical and political forces could push them in that direction."

What are those "historical and political forces"?

"The governing principles of American democracy and Chinese Communism guarantee a degree of friction."

May be right. But the history showed that wars between nations can rarely be attributed to their "governing principles".

"The demise of the Soviet Union has removed a powerful strategic incentive for Washington and Beijing to work together in some areas as a means of isolating Moscow"

Aggree.

"The price of increased trade with China must not be American silence about China's brutal treatment of its own citizens and intolerance for dissent."

I have not lived in China to validate the "brutal treatment of its own citizens and intolerance for dissent." However, based on some analisys, many of the young educated Chinese do not accept this statement as a honest one. And, in any event, why to single-out the China? It is obvious to all the US has a very extended trade with some much more brutal and undemocratic regemes even today, including the Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

"Nor does a stable relationship require Washington to subordinate its strategic interests in the Far East and Western Pacific by reducing the presence of American military forces or curtailing intelligence-gathering operations. The American role has brought a measure of security to the region that has benefited many countries, including China. "

This region sufefred almost two decades of the brutal wars, waged by the US. Always on the opposit side from China. The demilitarization of Japan is presented as the major US achievement on the East. But don't forget the Japan's military budget was always greater then Chinese.

"Taiwan's young democracy and robust economy deserve American support"

May be. But the reason for support is entirely different.

"If China would drop its threats to use force to absorb Taiwan, and instead rely on the long-term political dialogue that some Chinese leaders outlined recently, the issue might cease to be a potential flashpoint between China and the United States."

As I mentioned before, it is clear to China that US will do all it can to prevent the unification. The control of the South China Sea and with it - the fate and alingment of Japan and Korea - are at stakes.

And finally, let's not forget, the principle of "One China" was long adapted by UN and officially approved by US. The situation is somewhat resembling that of Kosovo - the internationally recognised part of Serbian territory.

The question is - "Can US do to china what it did to Serbia?" Very unlikely in my view.

rshowalter - 06:29pm Apr 15, 2001 EST (#2268 of 2270)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You ask some very good questions.

And make points that, if made clear, subject to evidence and argument about specifics, might make all concerned safer. An editorial in any paper, of course, is a statement of opinion. And a problem, of course, is that it, like any other sequence of well written, coherent words, tends to elicit belief, whether it fits evidence or not.

Your most important question is why are the US and China "military rivals?"

Rationally, they ought not to be. There are some reasons, emotionally compelling to the military forces of both sides, that they ARE military rivals. There is a great deal of hatred between China and North Korea, on one side, and the United States and Japan, on the other. There is a desire for revenge against the US that is strong enough, in North Korea, to motivate a missile and nuclear weapons program. At the level of physical threat, the Korean DMZ has been a harrowing place for a front line soldier to serve, for a half a century now.

If ALL these points could be "on the table" a great deal could be sorted out, I believe, to the benefit of all.

The Chinese military and American military, as human groups, hate each other. Quite apart from "rational" or "economic" or idealogical issues, that's a problem.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense