Once more into the breach

This time you really hit a bunch of nails on the head. The only problem is that the poll didn't include a choice that is anything like my reaction to the peace, which is:

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN WITH IT. SUCKER!

I am sure that somewhere in Beijing, there are people who are glad to see us wasting out resources and credibility in that quicksand, and I will be glad to see that shoe on another foot. There was a time when the US was not driven by a faith-based foreign policy, when we were viewed as an unbiased broker (back when oil was cheap), when we even put a stop to Israel's, in company with England and France, invasion of Egypt. There was even a time when the US didn't back Israel (there were some who equated an Israeli Kibbutz with a Russian commune), and we only found Israel as an ally when the Russians started selling arms to Nasser.

THere is a multitude of reasons why the US has lost prsettige because of it's involvement in the MIddle East, and I will spend some time musing on whether there are any of those factors that China will be immune to. An inspiaration for this train of thought will be a blog artiticle from China Digital Times: "In 2021, energy needs and security concerns have focused Beijing on Xinjiang and the restive lands in Central Asia..." http://china.notspecial.org/archives/2006/12/xinjiang_circa.html

So, to continue your Henry V allusion, let the "imitate the action of the tiger... fill up the walls with dead."

This time you really hit a bunch of nails on the head. The only problem is that the poll didn't include a choice that is anything like my reaction to the piece, which is: GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN WITH IT. SUCKER!

I am sure that somewhere in Beijing, there are people who are glad to see us wasting our resources and credibility in that quicksand, and I will be glad to see that shoe on another foot. There was a time when the US was not driven by a faith-based foreign policy, when we were viewed as an unbiased broker (back when oil was cheap), when we even put a stop to Israel's, in company with England and France, invasion of Egypt. There was even a time when the US didn't back Israel (there were some who equated an Israeli Kibbutz with a Russian commune), and we only found Israel as an ally when the Russians started selling arms to Nasser.

There is a multitude of reasons why the US has lost prsetige because of it's involvement in the Middle East, and I will spend some time musing on whether there are any of those factors that China will be immune to. An inspiration for this train of thought will be a blog article from China Digital Times: "In 2021, energy needs and security concerns have focused Beijing on Xinjiang and the restive lands in Central Asia..." http://china.notspecial.org/archives/2006/12/xinji ang_circa.html

So, to continue your Henry V allusion, let the "imitate the action of the tiger... fill up the walls with their Chinese dead."

Are you in some small way intimating that China might actually enjoy watching its largest competitor throwing on the world stage throwing time, money, and the safety of its own citizens, out of the window.

Shame on you.

I'm so bad... I know damn well this song is about me.

What I'm really looking forward to is how China will handle it. As soon as China assumes the role you suggest, its treatment of Moslem minorities will become the reason for a new jihad. That's good, because we could use the rest.

Immagine if you were a member of the XLF, and you had one small homemade nuke and a way to deliver it. Why waste it on Beijing or Shanghai, when you can take out the whole lower Yantze Valley. The Three Gorges Dam would make the World Trade Center look like peanuts.

While I don't think that China will rush to get involved (it's going to hold out for a bigger invitation that it can rub in Japan and America's faces), I see things going slightly differently from the way you predict 'if' China does get involved.

I see China taking one look at the Middle East, being completely unable to understand what all of the fuss is about (China only understands historic claims if they are its own), and then pressing the UN to deploy a couple of thousand troop along the 1948 border (not the 1967 border) in order to keep the two sides apart. Thus winning a lot of credit with a load of Middle Eastern Muslims who've never even heard of East Turkestan, and a load of fanatical Middle eastern leaders who are willing to forgo the Jihad for a while if it means China doing for them what the US did for the big I (they may be crazy, but they know which side their bread is buttered on).

As for the Muslims in China, I wouldn't worry about that, not even in the slightest. It took North Korea 30 years to build nuke, it's going to take Iran another 10 years before they can build theirs, and Al Quida has been looking out for a bomb for who knows how long, and still can't find one for sale. I think that the dams are safe for a good long while.

You've only described the first step into the quagmire.

THe UN had a peacekeeping force in the Sinai after 1967, and they don't want to go back. A similar arrangement was supposed to be part of the recent settlement in Lebanon, but no nation except France was interested. If there is such a force, it will be composed of troops from states who want to do China a favor. As for the 1948 border, that won't satisfy people who say that Israel shouldn't even exist.

I wonder how many Muslims had heard of Afghanistan before the Russians invaded; once the word spread, the volunteers swarmed in. It does not take anything like a "leader" as we understand it, to declare a jihad. Like any other fatwa, it can be declared by almost anyone. The Muslims in China don't need to be involved, since ghazis will come from all over the Muslim world - this has been the tradition from Spain through Afghanistan. Pakistan already has the bomb - not as efficient as it could be. As for buying one, where there's money, there's a way (come to think of it, North Korea is a bit short of cash right now).

I'm not talking about next year; it took us fifty years to get from Suez to Baghdad.

"As for the 1948 border, that won't satisfy people who say that Israel shouldn't even exist."

No offense, but I think that you've fallen into a very familiar trap of forgetting that these people have the same basic psychology as you do. People might say that they want to destroy the big I, but in reality most will settle for less. Give them 1948, and give Palestine its dignity back, and you will basically steal all of the terrorist's thunder. Sure, a few people will still call for death and destruction, but most Palestinians and their neighbors will be more concerned about loosing 1948 again than rolling things back to 1947.

"It does not take anything like a "leader" as we understand it, to declare a jihad"

No, but it takes one to finance it. Iran and Syria and Alquida wouldn't be stupid enough to fund attacks on China if they thought that China was their ticket to greater things.

"where there's money, there's a way"

If there was a way, do you think that Bin Laden would have used commercial airliners?

Point 1) The bomb is prestige, and a weapon that could be used against you at a later date. Kim wouldn't sell in a million years, it would be like America selling the copyright for old glory. Musharaf also wouldn't sell, he'd be afraid that Al Quida would use the bomb against him in retaliation for his support of the US in the War on Terror.

Point 2) Who do they hate more, America or China?

"I'm not talking about next year"

Since when do world leaders ever think that far ahead?

China will either wade in believing that it can gain face and add to its "peaceful rise" image, in which case its going to say 1967 going on 1948, or it will stay on the sidelines and watch America waste time money and lives refusing to make consecions, not talking to people, and not getting anywhere.

Whether or not China will be the next target will barely enter into the equation.

That's one thankless task I'm sure many in America would love to hand off to China.

Foreign policy under a one-party dictatorship might be more efficient, but then again the lack of open and meaningful policy debates could backfire on Beijing, too. (I'm reminded of all the ham-handedness toward Taiwan under Jiang Zemin) And China, the PRC at least, has no tradition of looking beyond the interests of China only -- a state of affairs that is getting them in at least reputational trouble over Sudan and elsewhere. In addition to the Xinjiang/Muslim troubles Dave refers to, if I were Chinese I'd worry about other PRC-occupied people (Tibetans) who might remind the world of their uncomfortable parallels with the Palestinians and raise the question of why China won't/can't address its own territorial disputes. Then there will be those who ask that if China is such a great force of diplomacy, why can't they get very familiar, near-client North Korea on a more constructive path. I predict caution and pragmatism to continue to govern Chinese behavior in the far abroad.

It's funny, while are actually a lot of parallels between China and the P I question (particularly as a lot of land claims are historic/cultural), you just know that Beijing will see things with a slightly twisted view, don't you.

Beijing's mentality means that it is far more likely to compare itself to Palestine under Japanese occupation or European colonization than it is to compare Tibet to Palestine.

"why China won't/can't address its own territorial disputes. "

Same reason that Israel can't/won't. A lot of people in China believe that they have a signed and sealed mandate to the land, and they won't surrender what they see as being is rightfully theirs.

"if China is such a great force of diplomacy, why can't they get very familiar, near-client North Korea on a more constructive path"

Simple, Beijing REALLY doesn't want to force a solution on any non-Chinese group. China's record on the UN security council shows that it is an anti-interventionist nation. Anti war, anti sanction and pro dialog.

"I predict caution and pragmatism to continue to govern Chinese behavior in the far abroad."

That one's a given. Unless something directly involves its people, territory or policies, China is a non-confrontational player that doesn't like to become embroiled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6241073.stm

It's been all over the news for the last few days.

Ironically, before 9/11 Beijing would have covered this up, or at least covered it far more selectively, because these 'Terrorists' are actually separatists and Beijing likes to make out that they barely exist, but since 9/11 .....

The simple truth is that the only easy solution to these types of problems is to completely ignore one side of the conflict. In particular, it makes good strategic sense to just roll right over the interests of Israel whenever they conflict with anyone else's. The evangelical lobby in the US is the only reason Israel still exists. Most Jews in America are actually anti-Zionist these days. If only the Israelis didn't have nuclear weapons.

er, there's guilt too, don't forget about the guilt. Or the Jewish lobby, or the fact that they are living breathing humans whom it would be rather irresponsible of the world to let die.