Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
No, Iagree they wouldn't do it over human rights, but they're certainly happy to use human rights as an excuse.

The Cheney neo-clowns have certainly been wanting to start something with China for their own reasons for ages. One only has to remember that in the early months of 2001 Mary Cheney was talking about some form of "inevitable" conflict with China.

So this issue and the Olympics provides an opportunity.

As for the Dalai Lama, I'm not the least surprised by his dubious friendships. I think we accepted sometime ago that our political elites have far more in common with each other than they do with the likes of us, their supposed grass roots. In such circles alleged ideological differences melt away as they find more pressing communities of interest. At the very least the Dalai Lam will see the "enemy of my enemy as my friend".

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 08:23:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with evrything you say Helen except for the conclusion.  I just don't see the USG taking a chance with its largest trading/(corporate profit) partner.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your question makes a presumption that the current USG has a calculating rationality about the best interests of America in its approach to the rest of the world.

This assumption diverges from observation quite markedly.

Tibet isn't the only instance where they are running the risk of annoying China for no obvious reason; their harrasment of Iran threatens a strategic resource partner for China who are beginning to invest heavily there.

I say obvious reason : These people are natural bullies and war-mongerers who like to create instability simply because they see profit in it. I'm not going all Naomi Klein when I say this but there have been numerous instances where their behaviour has had very negative outcomes for the USA, yet they continue. A repeated incompetence is indistiguishable from malice, so you may take your pick regarding motivation.

But Deep Throat was right : Follow the money.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Washington, we should not be surprised how it conducts foreign policy relative to the two most credible threats to the US hegemon: the EU and the PRC.

It is actually notable just how muted and behind the scenes US policy levers currently being deployed actually are. This, to me, indicates the utter weakness of the US' position and it's growing realization of it's weakening position.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US hasn't militarily challenged any country with a strong military since WW2. That won't change now.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 07:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that should be "hasn't attacked." Threatened, sure.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 07:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I thought the reason we invaded Iraq was that they had immediately-threatening weapons of mass destruction that were about to be used on the USA. Doesn't that count as a strong military?
by asdf on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 at 01:00:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your question makes a presumption that the current USG has a calculating rationality about the best interests of America...

Quite the contrary. Just as the invasion of Iraq may have been a ridulously short sighted act, it was not done with the best interests of "America" in mind, unless one considers enrichment of a few to be in "America's" best interests.  I have watched the American Government and corporate elites do their thing for the past 25 years and rarely have I found it to be in America's best interest.  They have been cultivating the Chinese for at least that long in part because they see profit in the relationship.  Should there be profit in making the Chinese unhappy, I guess they might be guilty, but the current situation in Tibet is unlikely to affect China's stability. If one really wants to upset the Chinese, look no further than Taiwan.

I think we have the same idea about the nature of the political crowd in Washington, I just don't see them really trying to get under China's skin unless they somehow see doing so as a relatively risk free out for the current financial mess.  

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 08:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series