U.S. Plan to Overthrow China's Government

[Martian2]

The U.S. attempt to destabilize China is rational. The U.S. does not want to see the emergence of another country with global influence and power. The problem is how do you prevent the emergence of a near-peer.

Against a mature thermonuclear power like China, military means don't make sense. The other choice is to destabilize China's society and cause a change in government from the inside through her own people.

The attempts at fostering Tibetan and Uighur rebellions failed. The number of Tibetans and Uighurs is simply too small to make a difference among China's 1.3 billion Han citizens. The U.S. has now recognized that the key is to "capture" the minds of young Hans. If the U.S. can successfully bring about an uncensored Chinese internet, the U.S. can directly communicate the benefits of two-party rule to young Hans.

If the U.S. is successful in bringing about two-party rule in China then China will devolve into an inefficient government. There is an example of two-party ethnic-Chinese rule on Taiwan. I cringe every time that I see the KMT and DPP legislators fight (i.e. hair-pulling, punching, kicking, food-throwing, chair-throwing, screaming, etc.) on tv and aired in the BBC video section.

Anyway, the U.S. goal is to end efficient one-party rule in China and change it to a messy two-party rule. The two parties will be too busy fighting each other instead of governing the country. Beyond that, the ruling party would have little energy or time to think about the United States.

The prototype for changing a government is Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. Gorbachev was trying to save the Soviet Union. He believed that if he unleashed "free speech/openness" and economic "restructuring" then Russia could leap ahead of China's incremental reforms and modernize more quickly. It turns out that modernizing a large economy is not that simple. However, Gorbachev's policies did manage to overthrow the Soviet regime and lead to its replacement with Yeltsin's Russia.

In the Ukraine and Georgia, the United States experimented and sought to replace the autocratic regimes of Ukraine and Georgia. By funding and using its influence through non-governmental organizations (i.e. NGOs), the United States successfully overthrew the governments of Ukraine and Georgia in the Orange and Rose revolutions.

However, the Chinese government was also watching the experiment. After seeing its efficacy, the Chinese government responded by restricting the activities of NGOs on its soil to prevent a similar social disruption.

There is an important difference between Chinese society and the societies in Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. The people in Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia wanted to change their governments and way of life because they thought it would help them modernize and attain West European living standards.

Instead of a better life, Yeltsin's Russian economy collapsed by 50% and the Russian people were living in misery. Yeltsin resigned as president and autocratic Putin restored order to Russia. Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika failed.

Similarly, in the Ukraine, a pro-Western government could not solve the corruption and failing Ukrainian economy. President Yushchenko has already lost in the first round of his reelection. He will be replaced by a more pro-Russian Yanukovich or Timoshenko. The Orange revolution has failed.

The Rose revolution in Georgia brought a pro-Western Saakashvili to power. Saakashvili launched an unwise military attack on Russian peacekeepers. Georgia incurred severe military, political, and economic damage in its war with Russia. Russia has effectively annexed 20% of Georgian territory in the former Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Rose revolution has failed.

Chinese citizens have seen the economic misery that the people in Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia have suffered. Most Chinese people are not interested in overthrowing the effective CCP government. During the past 30 years, the CCP has delivered 9% annual economic growth. No sane citizenry would want to change a government with 30 years of experience in creating unparalleled economic growth.

U.S. attempts to create a "color" revolution (i.e. orange or rose) in China are unlikely to succeed. China has already been modernizing for thirty years. With the Chinese bullet trains, everyone can see that China's modernization is accelerating. The CCP has delivered economic prosperity, political stability, and gradual improvements in personal freedoms. Among the Chinese people, the approval rating for the CCP is between 80% to 90%.

Like most mature and stable countries, whether it's the U.S., China, Japan, or Germany, outsiders cannot really change the society and domestic affairs of China. The United States should try a new strategy.

I recommend fixing America's economic problems and federal budget deficit and debt. The best course of action is for America to negotiate with China from a position of economic strength and let the Chinese people decide on their own preference of domestic political structure. Trying to convince the Chinese to adopt a Yeltsin, Yushchenko, or Saakashvili type of government is never going to work.

 

[Martian2]

How do you control China if you can't overthrow the Chinese government in a color revolution? With 1.3 billion Hans and a 93 percent support for President Hu, an overthrow of the CCP from within China through a social revolution does not look plausible.

How about a military containment of China? That is a hard sell. No Chinese combat troop has left China's borders in over 30 years. The Chinese send businessmen, not combatants, to knock on your country's door. If you don't want to conduct business with them, there are almost 200 countries in the world that do. In contrast, the Soviet Union was an aggressive and expansionist empire (i.e. see invasion of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989). The Chinese are businessmen. There is nothing to contain.

There are two other options. China is dependent on foreign oil. If you can control all of the major Middle Eastern oil sources, the Chinese will have to accommodate U.S. demands. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are long-time U.S. allies. There are only two other major oil suppliers left in the Persian Gulf.

Let's invent a term called "Axis of Evil," which contains three countries: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. North Korea is a necessary decoy. An Axis of Evil with only Iraq and Iran would be too transparent. The plan is to depose Saddam Hussein (it doesn't really matter whether WMD exists or not) and impose U.S. control over Iraq. After securing Iraq, the U.S. Army should swing eastward and change the regime in Iran. Installing U.S. "controlled/influenced" regimes is the important task. By controlling Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran, the U.S. has effectively gained control over China. Having problems fueling China's industries, Mr. Hu? Please review this long list of U.S. concerns and interests. We might be able to help you secure adequate oil supplies for your factories.

If the plan to control the four major Middle Eastern oil countries fails, there is a back-up plan. Currently, the U.S. has a technological advantage over China. If the United States can control a country that borders China and establish permanent military bases for the F-22 stealth fighters and B-2 bombers, the U.S. can implicitly threaten China with a military attack. Of course, the flaw with this plan is that the Chinese will use short-range ballistic missiles (i.e. SRBMs) to destroy the military bases, but the U.S. can always worry about that later. One step at a time.

Do these arguments make sense? Let's think it through. Iraq and Iran have to sell oil to earn money to buy food for their people. Food doesn't grow very well in the Middle Eastern deserts. The U.S. have been and always will be able to buy oil from the Middle East. There is also plenty of oil off America's East and West Coasts. No company is allowed to drill due to elitist environmental restrictions. There is also plenty of coal and oil shale in Colorado. The U.S. has plenty of domestic energy alternatives to Middle Eastern oil.

Did the U.S. invade Iraq to steal the oil wealth? No, to the contrary, the U.S. has spent almost a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. Also, the U.S. has never made an attempt to seize Iraqi oil fields for itself. The only rational conclusion is that the U.S. wanted to directly or indirectly control Iraqi oil.

Why is the U.S. fighting in Afghanistan? There is nothing of any value in Afghanistan, except the location of the real estate. Afghanistan is a mountainous country with hostile tribes. Why is the U.S. trying to pacify and control Afghanistan? The only rational answer is that Afghanistan is located next to western China. After turning Afghanistan into a giant U.S. military base, the U.S. military will finally be at China's doorstep.

I will now lay out my arguments and supplement them with newslinks.

In my opinion, the United States invaded Iraq to control its oil. One year after the U.S. invasion, the Iraqi people finally realized that if they didn't rebel then Paul Bremer would stay as the U.S. Viceroy of Iraq permanently (see newslink below). Despite facing overwhelming U.S. firepower and technological superiority, the Iraqi people made a decision to retake their own country and claim their birthright to the Iraqi oil wealth.

The United States has estimated that there are only 100 Al-Qaeda members left in Afghanistan (see newslink below). Why the massive U.S. and NATO troop presence? The goal of the United States was always to pacify and control Afghanistan.

Afghanistan borders western China. If you want to militarily threaten (i.e. "contain" is the euphemism) China, the U.S. needs to control a country that borders China. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and others (i.e. Philippines) will never permit the United States to drag their countries into an unnecessary military confrontation with China. No Asian country wants to be bombed by thousands of Chinese short-range ballistic missiles.

The proclaimed goal by the United States to install democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is merely a cover for the real strategic goals and U.S. interests in controlling Iraqi oil and turning Afghanistan into an U.S. military base against China.

The U.S. government has demonstrated a willingness to "bend" the truth (i.e. see Gulf of Tonkin Incident newslink below) to achieve its strategic goals. However, the U.S. government does not waste American lives, money, and time on frivolous goals, such as democracy in irrelevant Third-World countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6011902695.html

"The Viceroy
The Bush administration's man in Baghdad ran a hastily improvised occupation, with fateful consequences.

Reviewed by George Packer
Sunday, January 22, 2006

On the desk of his cavernous and bare office at the Republican Palace in Baghdad, from which he governed Iraq in 2003-04, L. Paul Bremer III kept a carved wooden maxim: "Success Has a Thousand Fathers." It told visitors that the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was a can-do leader who would shun grandiose gestures while demanding relentless results from his Anglo-American staff and the Iraqi politicians who were his negotiating partners and resentful underlings."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-ob...tory?id=9227861

"President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said he could not comment on intelligence matters."

Gulf of Tonkin Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats.[1][2]

The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War.

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[3] that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated

t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[4]
...
The use of the set of incidents as a pretext for escalation of U.S. involvement follows the issuance of public threats against North Vietnam, as well as calls from American politicians in favor of escalating the war.[22] On May 4, 1964, William Bundy called for the U.S. to “drive the Communists out of South Vietnam,” even if that meant attacking both North Vietnam and Communist China.[22] Even so, the Johnson administration in the second half of 1964 focused on convincing the American public that there was no chance of war between North Vietnam and the U.S.[22]
...
US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara failed to inform US President Lyndon B. Johnson that the U.S. naval task group commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, had changed his mind about the alleged North Vietnamese torpedo attack on U.S. warships he had reported earlier that day.
...
Later statements about the incident

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."[24]

In 1981, Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheer re-examined Herrick's ship's log and determined that the first torpedo report from August 4, which Herrick had maintained had occurred—the "apparent ambush"—was in fact unfounded.[14]"

 

[Martian2]

In the competition between the United States and China, we've seen the moves by the U.S. to either hobble (i.e. human rights), disrupt (i.e. Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan), control (i.e. control all Middle Eastern oil), or militarily (i.e. control an Afghan puppet state on China's doorstep) threaten China.

Now, let's look at China's response. What is China's plan to achieve ascendancy over the United States? An important part of the Chinese plan is to attain technological parity with the United States through higher research and development (i.e. R&D) spending.

http://www.basilandspice.com/financial-wel...%20Well%20Being

"Overall, Fallows' points are well-made and all true. However, I contend he's missing one of the great turning points in history, going on at this moment: China's economy continues to grow, while ours is stagnating. China's leadership is also setting clear direction for the future, while U.S. leadership is unable to do so.

Perhaps China's most important current action is that of hanging out a "Help Wanted" sign to entice science expatriates back with higher salaries and high relocation awards - their most recent 'acquisition' is molecular biologist, Dr. Shi Yigong, an 18-year American citizen who just won a $10 million Howard Hughes Medical Institute award (Dr. Shi turned it down).

Doubling their GNP proportion for R&D expenditures to match and exceed that in the U.S. is also underway. China's intent is to simultaneously strengthen their economy by expanding beyond the manufacture of generic goods into the new areas of tomorrow -- biotechnology, solar energy, battery-powered vehicles, etc. while also creating world-class universities and R&D facilities within its own borders.

Meanwhile, other experts project that China's economy will become enormous by 2040 - $123 trillion, 40% of the world GNP. Supporting that will be a high-school graduation rate of 100% and college graduation rate of about 50% (Robert Fogel, Foreign Policy, Jan. 2010). Low labor costs at all levels, a highly educated work force, enormous financial reserves and savings, and unmatched economies of scale will create a 'perfect storm' for the U.S. economy. And finally, even if GDP/capita still favors the U.S. in 2040, the enthusiasm and excitement that dominated the U.S. post WWII will have long since disappeared. Opinion polls that report a majority believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction suggest it already has."

 

[Martian2]

I can see that this topic on US Human Rights is more popular than the Chinese outer space program....

Charles, this is a rational response. For China, the U.S. is a tougher challenge than outer space. No one doubts China's competency in math, science, and technological capability. What is the worst thing that can happen in China's space program? A temporary setback can easily be overcome in a year or two.

The challenge posed by the United States is far more formidable and the stakes are much higher. The purpose of the U.S. human rights reports is to demonize China and scare the world on an emotional level. The strategic goal and implication are that the Chinese are a threat and not quite civilized.

The United States does not want other countries of the world to consider the possibility of China becoming the world leader or as an economic model. The United States cannot beat China on the economic battlefield. There is no way that U.S. workers can match the hardworking Chinese. The alternative is to attack China politically.

The goal is to convince the world that China is not fit to be a world leader and to look to the U.S. for leadership. The U.S. knows that it cannot defeat China alone. The only hope for victory is to convince Asians, Africans, Arabs, and Latin Americans to follow U.S. policies. If the U.S. succeeds in its public-relations efforts then the U.S. can continue to control the world on its own terms.

What do you mean you (e.g. Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans) want to abandon the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency and move to the Chinese Yuan? Are you crazy? Haven't you read the U.S. reports on Chinese human rights?

Be a good country and continue to use the U.S. dollar as your reserve currency. This way, the U.S. Federal Reserve can continue to print more money and devalue the dollars in your currency reserves. We can continue to tax your country (through inflation) without you being aware of it. Life is good for the world leader.

 

[Martian2]

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/the-pani...les-the-dragon/

"The Panicky Eagle Circles the Dragon

U.S. Policy Demands That the Chinese People Be Kept Poor

by John Walsh / March 17th, 2010

China’s Premier Wen Jiaboa has thrown the U.S. press and Congress into a tizzy with statements at his annual meeting with the press. The NYT grumbles on page one that China is employing the dastardly tactic of “using the rules” of international trade to its own advantage. Paul Krugman, an increasingly strident economic chauvinist, in a column titled “Taking on China” bellows that “something must be done.” China is threatening the world’s recovery from crisis he cries, omitting the facts that said crisis was engineered on Wall Street right here in the good old USA and that China has produced a stimulus package in a timely fashion which has arguably done more than anything else to jerk us back from the brink of Depression. Calling for a 25% punitive tariff on Chinese goods, Field Marshall Krugman seems bent on leading us into economic warfare with the awful consequences that may entail. Nor did Krugman mention that roughly 60% of China’s exports are made in U.S.-owned enterprises there, a result of the offshoring to which Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly called attention. Within hours 130 members of Congress, from both wings of the Ruling Party, acting with uncharacteristic speed, released a letter calling for the same kind of damaging tariffs.

To get relief from the hyperventilation coming out of Washington and to gain some perspective on the place of China and U.S. Empire in the world, let’s look at some numbers. The annual global total of national GDP’s is now about $60 trillion dollars. That of the U.S. is about $14 trillion, a staggering one quarter of the total, of which at least $1 trillion is spent on “national security,” mostly on the Pentagon’s tools of war. The second and the third largest national GDP’s on the planet are those of Japan and China, at a little less than $5 trillion each, and together only about two thirds of the U.S.’s. Thus, the U.S. Empire rests on a fabulously wealthy economy, a testimony to the unmatched power of unbridled capitalism, using everything at its disposal including slavery and war, to produce wealth. The U.S. economy is way out in front and will remain so for a long while, barring a major unforeseen calamity. Even more enlightening is a per capita comparison of GDP’s. Since China’s population is roughly four times that of the U.S., its per capita GDP is about 10% that of the US. No wonder Wen Jibao made the point that it will take 100 years before China reaches the developmental level of the rich Western countries. China is no longer dirt poor as before its revolution, but it is not rich; and for the U.S. to go after such a country with a living standard far below its own smacks of ugly bullying and cruelty.

Equally inescapable in such consideration of the place of China and the U.S. is the weight of thousands of years of culture. In the case of Europe including the U.S., that culture has been imperial and colonial. When Columbus set out on his voyages, a whole new epoch in European expansionism was opened up. The United States joined this overseas plunder in a decisive way at 19th Century’s end in the Spanish-American war with the annexation of Cuba, Hawaii and, most violently and notably, the Philippines.

China, in marked contrast, has a history of defensiveness spanning many millennia after the consolidation of the Middle Kingdom. China always had to contend with invaders from without, usually from the North and West, a fact that molded its mentality. The final invaders, however, came by sea from the East, from Europe and America. But almost a century before Columbus set sail, the Ming emperor sent out the navigator Zheng He at the head of a fleet of 200 ships, which dwarfed the puny vessels sailed later by European explorers. Over 28 years, Zheng reached 30 countires, including India, the East African Coast, the Red Sea and perhaps far beyond. But the Chinese did not colonize, much less conquer. The Chinese have always been avid traders but not conquerors. The Silk Road and not Crusades were the mark they left on Eurasia.

While Krugman and his rabid troops in Congress cry out that China threatens the U.S., quite the opposite is the case. Of this there can be little doubt. The declared policy of the U.S. is to dominate the globe militarily and economically. In fact these two goals cannot be separated since wealth is the key to military power. But, consistent with its history of adopting a defensive posture, China shows no inclination so far to pursue military dominance. China’s present policy is to have no overseas military bases, and it has none. And of course military expenditure is at odds with investment that raises the standard of living, the project that the Chinese government has accepted to retain the Mandate of Heaven.

U.S. policy is to “contain” China. What precisely does this mean? In the economic realm it apparently means tariffs or worse. In the military realm, always the U.S. Empire’s strong suit, “containment” means placing a Great Wall of alliances and military bases around China. In this context, the U.S. wars in Central Asia take on meaning, beyond the simple goals of gaining access to energy reserves and laying waste as many Arab and Muslim lands as possible, converting them into client states in order to satisfy Israel’s demands. Some in the Chinese military have expressed increasing alarm about this development. But over and above this crescent of U.S. bases and alliances in Central Asia, a military confrontation if one were to come requires a U.S. ally with a vast reserve of manpower. Hence, aided by Israel, the U.S. is developing an ever deepening alliance with populous and poverty-stricken India, 1.1 billion strong, as Vijay Prashad documents in his excellent book, Namaste Sharon. China is trying to thwart this alliance by the tactic of developing tighter commercial ties with India. Here China pursues the Libertarian prescription that armies do not cross borders when trade does. But to set India against China militarily could involve human suffering and slaughter on a scale worse than World War II.

In sum, to remain number one economically, the U.S. has no choice but to halt China’s development or slow it to a crawl by whatever means. One way would be to choke off its energy supplies. Another would be to force upon it crippling military expenditures. Or both. While it is true that China’s economy is less than a third of the U.S.’s, China’s growth rate is much greater. Again do the numbers. If China can grow at the rate of 8% per year and the U.S. at 3.5%, then in 25 years China will slip ahead of the U.S. economically – on the basis of total GDP but not per capita GDP which is likely to take 100 years. Impossible? Perhaps, but China has a giant internal market with enormous demand which has the potential to sustain high growth rates for a long time. 25 years is an eye blink in history and certainly U.S. planners and strategic thinkers know that the time is short to stop China in its tracks.

But such an effort, if successful, will leave the per capita GDP of China at very low levels. So for the U.S. Empire to remain number one, it must ensure that the one fifth of humanity who occupy the Middle Kingdom be kept in poverty, cut off from the higher living standards enjoyed by the West. Whatever way one looks at it, that policy is a colossal crime against humanity, whether pursued militarily or “simply” by economic means. Do we the citizens of America want to be part of such a project?"

 

[Martian2]

The Dragon and the Eagle

Despite the best organizational (e.g. planning) efforts and funding by the CIA, German Marshall Fund, George Soros, and other numerous non-governmental organizations with the clandestine goal of overthrowing China's government, it is not a viable strategy.

According to Wikipedia, the membership of the Chinese Communist Party (i.e. CCP) is 77,995,000. In comparison, the population of Britain is only 62 million or 65 million in France. How could a little agitation in Tibet (e.g. population of 2.4 million ethnic Tibetans in 2000 census) and Xinjiang (e.g. 8.3 million Uighurs and 1.2 million Kazakhs in 2000 census) possibly dislodge the 78 million-strong CCP? Never mind trying to destabilize the 1.3 billion Hans in China.

Anybody with common sense can see that this is a fool's task. The CCP "is the world's largest political party." A CCP member comprises 1 out of every 20 Chinese. Furthermore, the latest survey shows that the CCP has the backing of 97% of the people. A government supported by a 78 million-member political party, which is larger than many countries, and 97% popular support is virtually immune to external propaganda or agitation.

The United States has been wasting its time and resources with these pie-in-the-sky covert activities. While it's true that the governments of the Ukraine (e.g. Orange revolution), Georgia (e.g. Rose),and Kyrgyzstan (e.g. Tulip) were overthrown, those situations were distinctly different from China. The economies in those countries were already in trouble and the populations were looking for new leadership.

Also, there is a scale problem. A fisherman may be able to catch a few tiny sardines from his little boat, but it is ridiculous to think that he can catch a giant whale.

The bottom line is that no amount of American-inspired social unrest will have any meaningful and lasting effect on the CCP and China. The United States might as well get used to the idea of peaceful co-existence with a CCP-led China.

Communist Party of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Communist Party of China (CPC), also known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the founding and the ruling political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). It is the world's largest political party.[1]

The legal power of the Communist Party is enshrined in the the PRC constitution[2]and its position as the supreme political authority in the PRC is realized through its control of all state and legislative processes.[3]

The Communist Party of China was founded in May 1921 in Shanghai, and came to rule all of mainland China in 1949 after defeating its rival the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War. The CPC claimed nearly 78 million members[4] at the end of 2009 which constitutes about 5.6% of the total population of mainland China."

http://digg.com/news/world_news/Dalai_Lama...ng_from_the_CIA
"Declassified document from the Department of State revealed that the Dalai Lama and the Free Tibet movement receives secret funding and support from the CIA. — Submitted Mar 24, 2008"

AEI - The Strategic Importance of Tibet
"The Strategic Importance of Tibet
...
Panelists will discuss questions about the strategic importance of Tibet to the United States ... the forty-ninth anniversary of an uprising against Chinese rule. ... Daniel Twining, German Marshall Fund. Moderator: Dan Blumenthal, AEI ..."

George Soros | Open Society Foundations
"To date, Soros has given away over $7 billion to support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in 70 countries."

 

[Martian2]

One Question If USA a democracy is trying to destabilize china Wont the simplest option be to shore up with India ,who is China's only real competitor in China's proximity??
-If USA does try to do a move like that Won't it be good for China to settle disputes with India so as to reduce the Indo-USA co-operation against it??
(Both are plausible situations )
What are your views on this???

I don't think that it matters whether India is a democracy or not. Vietnam is not a democracy and yet, the United States has been making overtures to its former enemy.

The United States has attempted to strike a bargain with India, but former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was rebuffed by India. The United States has repeatedly asked for three permanent U.S. military bases on Indian soil. The goal is to draw India, willing or not, into an U.S.-China military conflict.

The Indian government has repeatedly said "no" and it wanted to preserve India's sovereignty. This means that India is not very useful to the United States. As an alternative, the United States intended to gain control over Afghanistan through a puppet ruler. After nine years and a raging Taliban insurgency, the back-up plan is not proceeding very well.

China is not in a rush to settle disputes with India, because India does not pose a serious threat to China. The firepower in all of India's atomic weapons is approximately equal to one or two 3-megaton Chinese thermonuclear weapons. Also, China has ASAT to destroy satellite guidance of an Indian ICBM. Furthermore, an Indian land-based missile must fly over Tibet to reach China's important eastern seaboard. China has developed (and successfully tested in January of this year) its mid-course Ground Based Interceptor (i.e. GBI) to shoot down any hostile missiles flying over its territory.

The bottom line is that India will not agree to the American terms of three permanent American military bases under sovereign American control (e.g. Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba). India does not want to be caught in the crossfire between the United States and China. The United States and China have clashed before in the Korean War (e.g. a stalemate) and Vietnam War (e.g. a bloody decade-long war). For this reason, to avoid collateral damage, Vietnam has refused the American request to lease the former Soviet naval base at Cam Rahn Bay.

When two continental-sized countries (i.e. both China and America represent 1/15th of the Earth's landmass each) clash that are the world's largest and second-largest economies, world's foremost and second-largest military spenders, and thermonuclear powers, no one is really interested in joining their conflict. Taking sides will only mean that a country will be targeted. That is not rational or wise.

I think the best and easiest way to answer your question is to look at China's deterrence against Russia and India. The Chinese thermonuclear weapons based in Western China are a good reason to stay out of a Sino-American dispute. Let the two giants go at it and hope that they don't drag others into their messy disagreement.

[Note: Ignore the last ten seconds of the video. The ducks are provocative. However, the thermonuclear missiles are a real deterrent.]

 

[somebozo]

With China even unsucessfully destablized US would have chopped off its economy at large. With markets crimpled and investor confidence lost China would be set atleast 20 years behind. Ask any american and the first point of investing in China is releative business stability than cheap labours. That is no strikes, no rebellion by union at large and so forth. US auto industry is an epitaph what out of labour unions manned by high school drop out can do to national industry.


With soviet union gone America does not enjoys unquestioned hegemony it once did. When all major contracts were defacto american share of pie for saving the world from communisim demon.

The current day america is like the last phase of nazi regime. Increasinly shrinking good will but rapidly expanding millitary power along with ambitions.

 

[Martian2]

@ Martian, most of the material that you have posted is symptomatic. ...going to the root causes, why do you exactly think that America is out to destabilize China? And why do you think that they will go via the Uighurs or the Tibetans? Why does the Hans being 1.3 Billion matter so much when considering the Uighur and the Tibet scenario??

What do you think does China stand for that is not acceptable to other countries in the region such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, India etc? Why do you think that USA (if at all) is able to find supportive and converging viewpoints with these countries?

Also what do you think is the dichotomy of thoughts in the above countries versus other few nations in Asia such as Pakistan, North Korea, Myanmaar etc. What do you think is the gravitating point of either of these poles? Where do you think does the affinity stand? Afterall some of the nations are not at all ethnically similar or dis-similar to China irrespective of their affinity.....

And further, why do you think that India will support US in this endeavour (if you at all are skeptic about Indian support to ventures against China)? Probably we can then bring a lot that you have posted in some perspective.......

That my friend, is going to be one hell of a discussion....

America has publicly proclaimed that it will not permit any nation to challenge it for military or economic (e.g. this is implied; economic strength is the underpinning of long-term military power) supremacy.

The Bubble of American Supremacy
"The Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002, and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

America is urging the Tibetans to revolt because they are a large group, relatively speaking, of ethnic non-Hans in China. If the 1.3 billion Hans were serious about permanently solving the Tibetan problem, they have the power to impose American-style Native-American/"Indian" reservations on the rampaging and murdering Tibetans.

China's neighbors have territorial disputes with China or they're simply afraid of a budding superpower. These countries look to the United States because the U.S. is an ocean away and there are no potential territorial disputes.

China's allies in Asia can look to China for economic, political, and military aid or support. Also, in the long term, having access on favorable terms to the increasingly vast Chinese market is a smart business proposition.

In my view, India wants to play the old game during the Cold War. India wants to be a swing state and extract as much economic and technological benefits from the U.S. and China. However, this strategy is unlikely to work.

During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union were bitter ideological enemies. In contrast, the U.S. and China are frenemies. They cooperate in many areas, but remain suspicious of each other. The two countries continue to talk and cooperate. This greatly lessens any bargaining power that India (or any other country) may possess.

"The World Depends on U.S.-China Cooperation" - Wall Street Journal

I do not agree that Sino-American relations are heading into a crisis. It only looks that way because China is growing stronger and the U.S. is unhappy at the loss of overwhelming unilateral economic power. The closing of the military technology gap has also contributed to the sense of "crisis."

The only true crisis is how does America intend to interact with an increasingly co-equal China. For those that doubt this proposition, the IMF 5-year projection is that China's nominal GDP will be 1/2 of American GDP by 2015 (see List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). If you believe that purchasing-power-parity (i.e. PPP) is a better measure then China's PPP GDP will be the same as the United States in 5 years (see List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

China's military budget is the second-largest in the world. However, it is only a fraction of the U.S. military budget. The caveat is that China's military budget continues to grow year-after-year while the U.S. is talking about cutting its military budget to tackle the federal deficit and debt.

The U.S. is the leader of the developed world. Arguably, China is the leader of the developing world (e.g. most of Africa and Southeast Asia support China at the U.N.). The world is split roughly into two halves. Nothing will be accomplished if the developed world and the developing world do not cooperate (e.g. the current standoff at the WTO Doha round is a prime example).

In conclusion, the United States and China will continue to squabble, but they will compromise. Both countries are pragmatic and they understand that problems need to be solved. There is very little to be gained from confrontation or finger-pointing.

U.S.-China Cooperation on Global Issues, with Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg - Brookings Institution
"May 10, 2010 ... The United States is increasingly reaching out to China for cooperation in managing multiple international challenges, including economic ..."

The World Depends on U.S.-China Cooperation - WSJ.com
"* APRIL 23, 2009
The World Depends on U.S.-China Cooperation
The two countries have many shared interests."

BBC News - Barack Obama invites China's Hu Jintao for state visit
"BBC News - ‎Jun 26, 2010‎
China's President Hu Jintao has accepted an invitation for a state visit from US President Barack Obama, the White House has said. The invitation was made ..."

 

[Hafizzz]

Wet Dream of USA. LOL

 

[TOPGUN]

The most stuipd and silly thing i have ever read haha keep dreaming will never happen take that to the bank with the thought to pay up lolz.

 

[saurabh]

Barak Obama will write on a card board - China's Government. Than some US marines would throw it away. That's the only possible way for US to overthrow China's Government !!

 

[gpit]

I don’t think US is going to really overthrow the CPC government. On the contrast, CPC bureaucrats are now in hands with foreign (especially US let) capitals, resulting in nowadays Chinese economy. USA should support CPC, and vise versa. They are actually in the same pants: one supplies goods and the other supplies money. They form an almost self-contained system called G2.

Should China have been ruled by means of democracy, extreme nationalists would dominate the political arena and Taiwan would be drenched in blood and US might have been nuked three times by now. If afore-mentioned hypers didn’t happen, at least China wouldn’t have resolve land disputes with any of its neighbors due to the extreme nationalism. Trust me, it would just look like another democratic India, or perhaps worse, like a democratic the Philippines, or a worst combination of the two: corruption, violence, malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty, Maoists… laden with all sorts of social illness.

I remember some knowledgeable people (Kissinger?) said that America is led by two types of people: the extremely material and the extremely ideal. The former consider nothing but money, the latter nothing but democracy/freedom. They are in hands and appear at different times when different needs arise, both for the benefits of US interest groups. President and Congress of US are only to orchestra them. So you may well hear discordant rhetoric from time to time.

On the nature of state, China is a communist capitalism, and US is a capitalist communism: twins from different mother.

The bottom line is: US is benefiting from current Sino-US “G2” relationship: China buys US treasure to fund US wars and US buys Chinese goods. Why bother to subvert it as long as one can be less greedy?

The only caveat is how each of them learns to adapt to the change of the other and self, emotionally.

 

[below_freezing]

a good reason to not keep it up is because, we are doing 2 things:

selling goods to americans
and borrowing them money to buy from us.

in the end it turns out to be we are paying them to buy from us, and the end result is americans get things for free. that isn't business, that is robbery.

 

[Martian2]

a good reason to not keep it up is because, we are doing 2 things:

selling goods to americans
and [lending] them money to buy from us.

in the end it turns out to be we are paying them to buy from us, and the end result is americans get things for free. that isn't business, that is robbery.

I don't think that's quite true. Americans pay China in U.S. dollars. China chooses to accept the payment or not. While there is a recognized danger that the U.S. may not be able to fully pay back the debt (i.e. default risk), we are not at that point yet.

Currently, China uses the U.S. dollars for international trade. With the payment of U.S. dollars, China buys oil from Saudi Arabia; coal and iron ore from Australia; iron ore and soybeans from Brazil; oil and precious metals from Africa (e.g. Nigeria, Angola, Sudan, etc.); Boeing 747s and MRI medical equipment from the United States.

There is a danger in over-simplifying. It has not been true for the last thirty years and it is not currently correct to claim that the United States is paying in worthless dollars. If the debt becomes unmanageable then there's a default risk. However, the U.S. is only currently at 60 to 80% debt as a percentage of GDP. The U.S. has not yet crossed the psychologically-important 100% debt to GDP ratio.

In contrast, Japan is over 200% debt-to-GDP. However, the Japanese situation is unusual and sustainable because the Japanese public (and not foreigners) hold the majority of that debt.