Sino-America War
The Cold War between communism and democracy has burned out both the East and West. Democracy won, but paid a tremendous price financially, emotionally, socially and politically. The West’s victory in the Cold War has produced not triumph but exhaustion. As the West’s primacy erodes, much of its power will simply evaporate and the rest will be diffused on a regional basis among the several major civilizations and their core states. The most significant increases in power are accruing to Asian civilizations, with China gradually emerging as the society most likely to challenge America for global influence. This is a reality America has to deal with sensibly and in a timely manner.
The U.S. doesn't want to repeat the mistakes it made in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq with China over the geopolitics of the Pacific, especially Taiwan. The U.S. must not interfere in an internal civil war. If it does, it should expect the same result as its post-World War II military excursions in Asia.
The same can be said about unnecessary, repeated reconnaissance missions by unarmed planes or ships. The U.S. flies more than 400 such missions a year directed at China. Surely there are less intrusive ways to collect information? America’s satellite, land-based and submarine surveillance capabilities give it the necessary access to the Chinese communications information it is trying to collect.
The U.S. National Security Agency also has a signals intelligence facility on Yangmingshan Mountain in suburban Taipei, Taiwan. It was established in the mid-1980s and is able to intercept radio communications within 500 kilometers. One really can't blame the Chinese for not accepting America’s claim of a “right of espionage” and for taking offense to U.S. spy planes regularly flying 19 kilometers off their coast listening in on their military mobile phone, fax and Internet communications to “project the U.S. sphere of influence”.
If the situation was reversed and China flew a spy plane off the coast of California to project its sphere of influence, the U.S. would bring it down. “We seem to be conducting something we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores, we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not,” said President Eisenhower in 1956. He was speaking after the Chinese shot down a U.S. spy plane over the East China Sea, killing all 16 crewmen. The Chinese don’t provoke the U.S. by sending spy planes from Cuba over U.S. shores. In fact the U.S. enforces the 200-mile territorial rule. Why should the U.S. be the only military power that does? What if China did the same? Why create and then provoke a stronger, unnecessary enemy in the 21st century?
In 2003, when China shipped weapons and explosives to Cuba as the two countries increased their cooperation, the U.S. was outraged and threatened to impose sanctions. Why is it OK for the U.S. to sell weapons to Taiwan and not for China to do the same with Cuba? How would America feel if China imposed sanctions on the U.S. for selling weapons to Taiwan and dumped billions of dollars worth of U.S. debt instruments it holds on the world financial markets? Why run the risk of another accident – military or financial? After all, it was a U.S. government surveillance plane that ordered a Peruvian jet to shoot down a single-engine Cessna 185 over Peru in 2001 killing Veronica “Roni” Bowers, an American missionary, and her 7-month-old daughter Charity. It was also faulty U.S. radar information that resulted in the downing of an Iranian passenger jet killing all 298 people on board in 1988 over the Persian Gulf. Repeated accidental bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq have become the norm. Does America need to further risk an accident in the Pacific or the Taiwan Strait?
Although China supported the U.S.-led war to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, respected conservative columnists and politicians in America, including George F. Will and Rep. Henry Hyde, were still arguing that China was a future military threat to America.
Beijing and Tokyo have reached an agreement concerning permitted naval activity in exclusive economic zones, which reach 220 nautical miles from shore. Shouldn’t Washington and Beijing be doing the same?
President Eisenhower apologized for the flight of captured American spy pilot Francis Gary Powers over Russia and ended the U-2 flights over that country. Why couldn’t President Bush do the same when the U.S. reconnaissance plane crash-landed on Hainan Island? Why couldn’t he just pick up the phone and discuss matters amicably with Jiang Zemin? Why was the first American spokesman Admiral Dennis Blair, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific? Why did the U.S Ambassador in Beijing, Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, handle the negotiations? Why was the U.S. defense attaché to Beijing, Brig. Gen. Neal Sealock, wearing his military uniform at his first press conference? Was this diplomacy or a constant subtle military reminder and threat?
When a Russian pilot defected with his MiG-25 in 1976 to Japan, American experts spent nine weeks stripping the plane and examining every part. The Russians eventually got the plane back in boxes. Why was the U.S. surprised then that the Chinese examined the U.S. spy plane? Isn't that part of the risk in the espionage game? Besides, if all the hardware and software was destroyed per the “checklist” by the American crew before the Chinese got access to the plane, what is the big deal? It is face. Symbolic value. It is just as important to the U.S. as it is to China.
Why is it that the U.S. insists on pursuing its bullying global power trip? Is it in denial about its reluctant withdrawal from the wars in Korea and Vietnam or is it deluding itself about its “victories” in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia? After all, who really won? Based on what happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan, does America really think it can pursue gunboat diplomacy with China over Taiwan?
The U.S. doesn't want to repeat the mistakes it made in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq with China over the geopolitics of the Pacific, especially Taiwan. The U.S. must not interfere in an internal civil war. If it does, it should expect the same result as its post-World War II military excursions in Asia.
The same can be said about unnecessary, repeated reconnaissance missions by unarmed planes or ships. The U.S. flies more than 400 such missions a year directed at China. Surely there are less intrusive ways to collect information? America’s satellite, land-based and submarine surveillance capabilities give it the necessary access to the Chinese communications information it is trying to collect.
The U.S. National Security Agency also has a signals intelligence facility on Yangmingshan Mountain in suburban Taipei, Taiwan. It was established in the mid-1980s and is able to intercept radio communications within 500 kilometers. One really can't blame the Chinese for not accepting America’s claim of a “right of espionage” and for taking offense to U.S. spy planes regularly flying 19 kilometers off their coast listening in on their military mobile phone, fax and Internet communications to “project the U.S. sphere of influence”.
If the situation was reversed and China flew a spy plane off the coast of California to project its sphere of influence, the U.S. would bring it down. “We seem to be conducting something we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores, we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not,” said President Eisenhower in 1956. He was speaking after the Chinese shot down a U.S. spy plane over the East China Sea, killing all 16 crewmen. The Chinese don’t provoke the U.S. by sending spy planes from Cuba over U.S. shores. In fact the U.S. enforces the 200-mile territorial rule. Why should the U.S. be the only military power that does? What if China did the same? Why create and then provoke a stronger, unnecessary enemy in the 21st century?
In 2003, when China shipped weapons and explosives to Cuba as the two countries increased their cooperation, the U.S. was outraged and threatened to impose sanctions. Why is it OK for the U.S. to sell weapons to Taiwan and not for China to do the same with Cuba? How would America feel if China imposed sanctions on the U.S. for selling weapons to Taiwan and dumped billions of dollars worth of U.S. debt instruments it holds on the world financial markets? Why run the risk of another accident – military or financial? After all, it was a U.S. government surveillance plane that ordered a Peruvian jet to shoot down a single-engine Cessna 185 over Peru in 2001 killing Veronica “Roni” Bowers, an American missionary, and her 7-month-old daughter Charity. It was also faulty U.S. radar information that resulted in the downing of an Iranian passenger jet killing all 298 people on board in 1988 over the Persian Gulf. Repeated accidental bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq have become the norm. Does America need to further risk an accident in the Pacific or the Taiwan Strait?
Although China supported the U.S.-led war to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, respected conservative columnists and politicians in America, including George F. Will and Rep. Henry Hyde, were still arguing that China was a future military threat to America.
Beijing and Tokyo have reached an agreement concerning permitted naval activity in exclusive economic zones, which reach 220 nautical miles from shore. Shouldn’t Washington and Beijing be doing the same?
President Eisenhower apologized for the flight of captured American spy pilot Francis Gary Powers over Russia and ended the U-2 flights over that country. Why couldn’t President Bush do the same when the U.S. reconnaissance plane crash-landed on Hainan Island? Why couldn’t he just pick up the phone and discuss matters amicably with Jiang Zemin? Why was the first American spokesman Admiral Dennis Blair, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific? Why did the U.S Ambassador in Beijing, Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, handle the negotiations? Why was the U.S. defense attaché to Beijing, Brig. Gen. Neal Sealock, wearing his military uniform at his first press conference? Was this diplomacy or a constant subtle military reminder and threat?
When a Russian pilot defected with his MiG-25 in 1976 to Japan, American experts spent nine weeks stripping the plane and examining every part. The Russians eventually got the plane back in boxes. Why was the U.S. surprised then that the Chinese examined the U.S. spy plane? Isn't that part of the risk in the espionage game? Besides, if all the hardware and software was destroyed per the “checklist” by the American crew before the Chinese got access to the plane, what is the big deal? It is face. Symbolic value. It is just as important to the U.S. as it is to China.
Why is it that the U.S. insists on pursuing its bullying global power trip? Is it in denial about its reluctant withdrawal from the wars in Korea and Vietnam or is it deluding itself about its “victories” in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia? After all, who really won? Based on what happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan, does America really think it can pursue gunboat diplomacy with China over Taiwan?
posted by Peter de Krassel's Custom Maid Politics at 11:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home