【中文标题】中国想要巴基斯坦港口？随它去吧。
【原文标题】Let China have it
【登载媒体】外交政策
【原文作者】Clyde Prestowitz
【原文链接】http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/25/let_china_have_it
巴基斯坦最近宣布，它已经要求中国接管瓜达尔港口的运作，并将其改建为一个海军基地。那些影响力非凡的西方评论家们纷纷警告北京，让其收敛中国境外实力的过分扩张。例如，《金融时报》昨天一篇不知所云的评论员文章把瓜达尔行动称为“危险的举措”，呼吁“小心控制”中国不断增长的超级势力。实际上，世界银行主席Robert Zoellick敦促世界各国要想办法让中国成为全球体系中的一个“负责任的风险共担者”。
为什么？中国管理一个巴基斯坦港口，或者建设一个海军基地为什么就危险了呢？对谁危险？中国在瓜达尔能关闭巴拿马运河吗？“负责任的风险共担者”是什么意思？谁来定义“负责任”？为什么中国就必须要在西方国家主导的体制下成为一个风险共担者，而不是建立自己的国际秩序？
搁我说啊，就让中国去运作瓜达尔好了，把这个港口打上丝带和蝴蝶结，拱手送给中国。这或许会让印度坐立不安，但是别忘了，印度人刚刚从欧洲人那里采购了一批空军力量，而不是向美国人采购。或许欧洲更有本事在他们需要的时候给予帮助。
我不是开玩笑，我们美国人长久以来就习惯逆向思维和颠倒思维。我们的首要任务是以提供全球公众利益为目的来延伸我们的地理政治影响力，所采取的方式是维护海上的相对自由和安全，以保证单一民族国家的国际秩序稳定、平和。为了实现这个目的，我们在全球建立了800多个军事基地，在亚洲、欧洲、非洲和拉丁美洲卷入了无休止的纷争和武装冲突。我们为世界提供的这种服务往往是不请自来，每年要消耗我们1万亿美元，而我们还在想办法提高债务限额、降低联邦政府赤字。
与此同时，我们的伙伴们，比如德国、中国、印度、日本、巴西和其它一些国家，则一心一意地在努力成为或继续保持经济发展的领先地位。这些国家没有遍布全球的舰队、基地和武装力量来帮助他们实现全球安全战略，但他们有的是经济安全和发展战略，他们的目标是最大程度上吸引投资和技术，同时最大程度地向美国和其它国家出口。
他们的策略似乎比我们的要好。当我们在经历经济缓慢复苏、高失业率、崩溃的基础设施和不断缩水的医疗养老福利时，他们都在快速成长，大幅度地改善国家基础设施条件和人民的生活水平。
我说，让我们也跟他们学吧。我们最好的盟友英国即将让最后一艘航空母舰退役，我们还真的需要11艘航空母舰吗？国防部长罗伯特盖茨曾经警告过分削减国防开支带来的危害，但或许真正的危险恰恰与此相反——小幅削减或者不削减国防开支。当我们的领导人把所有时间都花费在思考舰队部署、无人机攻击、海豹突击队、北朝鲜导弹和网络战争时，我们全球伙伴的领导人都在琢磨怎样说服那些全球顶尖企业，把他们的生产、研发和先进的网络转移到自己国家中。
或许我们应当拥抱一个新的国际秩序，让中国来防卫从波斯湾到亚洲的海岸线，让欧洲在地中海巡逻，同时处理非洲和中东的问题，让巴西成为拉丁美洲的霸主。还有北朝鲜的局势，我有时候不明白为什么这会是美国的问题。我是说，与北朝鲜接壤的是中国、韩国和俄罗斯，日本也只有一海之隔。这些都是世界上最强大、最富裕、最有实力的国家，为什么就不能让他们处理北朝鲜的问题呢？
难道仅仅是因为我们在韩国和日本有10万驻军吗？因为我们的第七舰队在日本停靠吗？那么这样如何，让我们把军队调回本土，让舰队停靠在美国境内的关岛。
在这个新的国际秩序中，美国领导人的工作就是原样照搬德国、中国、韩国和巴西领导人今天所做的事情。投资本土教育和基础设施建设、留住工人、让投资美国成为永恒的旋律，为亚洲、欧洲和拉丁美洲公司提供优厚的金融环境，让他们把生产和研发等高附加值产业转移到美国。
简言之，这将兑现美国的诺言。
评论：
SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC：
忘掉多边主义吧，地缘政治才是正道。
美国自然准备为此付出代价。
最近的一个例子：星期天，国防部长提醒我们，美国长期保持优于对手的武装力量是必要的。而今天，国会为以色列总理强调美以关系和维持世界和平、民主的共同利益而欢呼。仅在联合国投票反对批评的声音是远远不够的。
MARTY MARTEL：
噢真的吗？Clyde的共和党朋友赞同他的论调吗？
如果能让Clyde Prestowitz的共和党朋友评论一下他给巴基斯坦这个“问题儿童”开的药方，那会很有趣。就是他的这些朋友谴责民主党执行里根挚爱的“国家防御”政策过于软弱！John McCain和Mitch McConnell参议员为什么不提议举办一个庆祝活动呢——“欢迎中国人接管巴基斯坦瓜达尔港”？Prestowitz的共和党朋友们会提出一个解决方案吗，授权把美国航空母舰的数量从11艘削减为5艘？
把国防预算转头到美国人身上，不像Prestowitz先生所说的那样可以带来更多的就业岗位。得益于遍布沃尔玛、Sears、Home Depot和Macy中的廉价中国商品，美国商业获益匪浅。如果美国商品想和中国的商品一样有竞争力，那么美国人的工资、生活标准，甚至汇率都要降低到中国人的水平。Prestowitz是打算给美国开这剂猛药吗？
与此相反，他的民主党同僚们之所以获得白宫多数席位，是因为在去年11月份大选中，他们向选民许诺在减税的同时还可以获得其它实惠。
ALEXBC：
“如果美国商品想和中国的商品一样有竞争力，那么美国人的工资、生活标准，甚至汇率都要降低到中国人的水平。Prestowitz是打算给美国开这剂猛药吗？”
这么说是错误的，也是过于简单的，过分夸大了中国的“优势”。还有很多的产品和服务要比所谓的低工资更有优势：http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/made-america-comeback-125318772.html，http://www.businessinsider.com/global-sticks-china-canada-2011-5
例如，不断升高的油价就是起于中国，止于西方的这条长长供应链的最大敌人。本地化生产会更加有利可图，因为运费可以抵消高昂的劳动力成本。
中国还在遭受劳动力规模缩减的影响，同样，还有过盛的生产能力是基于目前的生产模式可以永久持续下去的假设。著名的看空中国人士Jim Chanos说他还不够凶悍：http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/chanos-says-hedge-fund-may-not-be-bearish-enough-on-chinese-real-estate.html
UMESHGEETA：
同意，如果有民主党人感这么说，Clyde的大老党（译者注：共和党的别称）兄弟们肯定会活剥他们的皮。
大老党想要“把香蕉共和党带入美国”。尽管Tim Palwenty没有动国防经费的一分钱，Paul Ryan也极为有效地让这个国家沦为第三世界国家。坦率地说，就是这些大老党家伙们想要推翻奥巴马的健康政策和Frank-Dodd，但又给不出任何替代方案，只能继续煽动民主党的人心。他们当然可以一边向奥巴马挥鞭子，一边高喊“拔掉奶奶的插头”（译者注：指抨击奥巴马的养老政策不顾老年人死活）。
这就是共和党的所作所为。Clyde想让我们相信他们将抛弃无用的“美国例外论”，他难道没有听见Bibi在议会中劝说美国在中东采取新的种族隔离制度时，两党代表给予的敷衍掌声吗？
我们都知道S. Afrikners最后悲惨的结局。奥巴马当然不是纳尔逊曼德拉，但是必须要有一个严肃谨慎的美国人来收拾美国试图管理整个世界之后留下的残局。但这个工作是长期性的。
我们从南非种族隔离制度和苏联问题上什么也没有学到，就是因为像Paul Ryan、Gringrich、Paul Rand和Sarah Palin这样的人存在，我们才会一直待在垃圾箱里。
DR. KUCHBHI：
真是伟大的论调，我们不如说：让北朝鲜吞并韩国吧；让巴基斯坦人占领阿富汗吧；让哈马斯占领以色列吧；让哲塔斯（译者注：Los Zetas是墨西哥最为猖狂的贩毒集团“海湾卡特尔”（Gulf Cartel）集团中的军事力量）统治墨西哥和得克萨斯吧。
不知道你有没有听说，阿伯塔巴德袭击行动中，我们有3艘航母停靠在巴基斯坦。你觉得如果中国人占领瓜达尔，我们能击毙本拉登吗？
你到底是白痴还是自大狂？
ANKIT.AGRAWAL88：
真是鼠目寸光的Clyde。
你对于印度拒绝购买美国二等飞机感到不屑？如果美国对与印度之间的伙伴关系如此真诚，那么它应该提供最好的产品——F-35。你的飞机在各方面性能都要超越欧洲的飞机，我们没理由买你的二等货。如果你所倡导的政策是针对美国因忽略印度对瓜达尔的关注而遭受的报复，那么我觉得你更应该同意在未来不向对方提供飞机的零部件，这样我们可以在可能出现的争端中占有优势。谢谢，我们不希望出现以上任何一种情形。你或许还不知道，瓜达尔对你我都具有相当重要的意义。听说过霍尔木兹海峡吗？让中国在这些海岸线上巡逻？你疯了吗？你真该好好读读Robert Kaplan的书《季风：印度洋与美国未来的力量》。
ANKIT.AGRAWAL88：
再说一句。Clyde先生，你在贸易方面的资历令人刮目相看，但你似乎并不是一个外交政策专家。还是老老实实做你的老本行吧。
SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC：
美国需要为地缘政治付出高昂的代价。尽管你认为阿富汗向西方国家亏欠的巨额债务，但它依然向上海合作组织申请观察员的身份。印度和巴基斯坦也申请将目前的观察员身份提升为正式成员。
除了印度采购飞机的事件之外，今天早晨巴基斯坦要求美国撤军，这也是对近期事件的回应。
S KUMAR：
愚蠢透顶的文章！我真不感相信，外交政策竟然会发表这样一篇文章，似乎是被抢走玩具的小孩在大声哭喊。
首先，作者竟然认为是由于美国的存在，印度在巴基斯坦和中国之间才有安全感！！这太扯了。从1947年到2000年，美国在哪里？我觉得印度在没有美国的支持下，把自己国家管理得很好。或许不同方面此消彼长，但总的来看，印度不需要美国。
其次，美国在世界各个角落无所不在并不是为整个地球的福祉考虑，而是为保证其自身的利益。
至于不采购美国战斗机的事情，我觉得你像个失恋的家伙。双方形成强有力的伙伴关系需要多年的培养，貌似高山一样的伙伴关系其实只不过是一个小土丘。这种关系让印度拒绝美国战斗机的行为看起来就像印度是美国的情妇，随时随地为美国的利益考虑。
MCGANNONMA：
文章内容离题了。遗憾的是，就像其它很多文章一样，作者只不过在利用近期的热门事件来吸引眼球，然后谈他/她自己的话题。如果文章能深入剖析把瓜达尔港口交给中国人的可能性，那么还真算得上是一篇有意义的文章。然而他令人遗憾地把话题转到毫无事实根据的军费预算和海外军队部署方面。
唉，我想这就是新闻业的归属吧。
“我们为世界提供的这种服务往往是不请自来，每年要消耗我们1万亿美元，而我们还在想办法提高债务限额、降低联邦政府赤字。”
我们用这1万亿美元到底干什么了？国防？海外援助？为什么不从公开预算表格中拿取一些实际的数字，而要故意夸大其词来吸引注意呢？
“与此同时，我们的伙伴们，比如德国、中国、印度、日本、巴西和其它一些国家，则一心一意地在努力成为或继续保持经济发展的领先地位。”
这也是错误的。很明显你不大关注中国的军事发展现状，他们在地区和国际上都有越来越多的话语权，他们希望参加世界的维和行动，并且在为实力的延伸准备航空母舰等资源。
日本根据二战之后的协定，仅保留了自卫队，因此美国才会在那里驻军。
我还可以举出更多的例子，但很明显，文章作者并没有想到这些。
SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC：
国际秩序？让投资者对美国产生兴趣？让国家纷纷投资本土？
今天的外交政策上有一篇对Francis Fukuyama的采访文章，他落入了一个圈套，不得不对一些全球秩序的基本问题发表意见。联合国以及国际货币基金组织的行事原则是什么？
Fukuyama和以前比起来，在支持民主制度方面变得越来越讲条件。东方民主太少，而西方民主太多。
联合国应当鼓励“一个高质量的独裁政府，还是一个有大量的相互制约条款、陷入僵局、动弹不得的民主政府呢？长远来看，倾向于一个相互制约的政治体系是一个明显的选择，因为它可以适应环境的变化。”实际上，阿拉伯春天或许就是独裁统治不可避免的结果。
JACK IDDYLIA：
冷战期间，印度选择成为苏联的傀儡，很明显他们做了一个错误的决定，也因此付出了代价。美国政客主动与印度接触，希望达成战略合伙伙伴关系，他们把出售战斗机看作是正确的一步。奥巴马访问了印度，他算是唯一一个赞成印度在安理会占据一个常设席位的领导人，就像是有人抽了我们一个耳光。你这个傻瓜难道不知道吗？我们痛恨巴基斯坦。实话说，我连印度也不喜欢，我最想看到的是这两个废物互殴。我们也希望与印度合作，但是印度作为苏联爪牙的同时，还在大声向我们索要给巴基斯坦的那些援助。在本拉登袭击事件中，印度已经开始诉求进入国际社会了。
KHALID MUFTI：
印度太大了，并非单一民族，具有极为重要的战略意义。现在，它又是一个极大的市场，大到任何人都无法把它当成是配角和玩偶。印度从来就不是苏联的傀儡，甚至印度有可能利用了苏联，影响后者在联合国处理克什米尔问题上投了否决票。
印度与苏联之间达成了许多重要的协议，但绝不是傀儡与主子之间的关系。
原文：
In response to Pakistan's recent announcement that it has asked China to take over the operation of its Gwadar port and turn it into a naval base, influential western commentators have warned Beijing against overly robust extension of power beyond China's borders. For example, in a muddled editorial yesterday, the Financial Times called the Gwadar move "a dangerous ploy" and called for China's rise to superpower status "to be managed with care." Indeed, a la World Bank President Robert Zoellick it urged that the world make China a "responsible stakeholder" in the global system.
Why? Why is it dangerous if China manages a Pakistani port or builds a naval base there? To whom is it dangerous? Is China going to close the Panama Canal from Gwadar? What is a "responsible stakeholder"? Who defines the meaning of "responsible"? Why should China become a stakeholder in the current western oriented system rather than constructing its own system?
I say, let China have Gwadar. Put ribbons on it and give it to the Chinese. That might send a frisson through India, but, hey, the Indians just outfitted their air force with new European rather than American fighters. Maybe the EU can comfort India in any time of need.
I'm serious. We Americans have for too long been thinking backwards or upside down. Our top priority has been to extend our geo-political influence in order to provide global public goods in the form of relative freedom and safety of the seas along with the stability and relative calm of the international system of nation states. To this end, we have established over 800 U.S. military bases and missions around the globe and have involved ourselves in endless disputes and armed actions in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. We provide this often unrequested and unwanted service to the rest of the world to the tune of over $1 trillion annually even as we struggle to raise debt limits and reduce federal deficits.
Meanwhile, our global partners like Germany, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and many others are focusing single mindedly on becoming or staying rich through economic development. These countries don't have global security strategies with fleets, bases, and armies around the world. But they do have economic security and development strategies aimed at attracting maximum investment and technology transfer to their shores while maximizing their exports to America and elsewhere.
Their strategy seems to be better than ours. While we experience slow economic recovery, high unemployment, disintegrating infrastructure, and eroding health and pension benefits, they are all growing rapidly and dramatically improving their infrastructures and the standard of living of their citizens.
I say let's be like them. Our great ally Great Britain is about to retire its last aircraft carrier. Do we really need 11? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been warning of the danger of making too deep cuts in defense expenditure. But maybe the real danger is the opposite - making shallow or no cuts. While our top officials spend all their time thinking about fleet deployment, drone strikes, SEAL attacks, North Korean missiles, and cyber warfare, the leaders of our global partners spend all their time thinking about how to persuade global companies to put production and R&D and advanced networks within their borders.
Maybe we should welcome a new system in which China guards the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to Asia, and in which the EU patrols the Mediterranean and handles security in Africa and the Middle East. And maybe Brazil becomes the hegemon of Latin America. Or take the North Korean situation. I sometimes wonder why this is an American problem. I mean, North Korea is bordered by China, South Korea, and Russia, and Japan is just over the horizon. These are some of the biggest, richest, most powerful countries in the world. Why can't we let them handle North Korea.
Okay, it's largely because we have 100,000 troops in South Korea and Japan and the Seventh fleet home ported in Japan. So let's take them out. Let's bring the troops home and homeport the fleet in Guam which is part of the United States.
In this new world order, the job of the leaders of the United States would be to imitate what German, Chinese, South Korean, and Brazilian leaders do today. It would be to invest in education and infrastructure at home, to retrain workers, to make Invest in America their constant theme song, to offer attractive financial incentives to Asian and European and Latin American companies to move their production and R&D and high value added product development to America.
In short, it would be to fulfill the American Promise.
SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC
Forget multilateralism - geopolitics remains the way forward
The US is willing to pay the price.
Only a couple of recent examples. On Sunday the defense secretary reminded us of the long-term requirement for the United States to sustain an armed force superior to any adversary. And today Congress cheered the Israeli PM to the rafters for stressing strong US-Israeli ties and their joint interests in promoting peace and democracy; vetoing world criticism at the United Nations is not enough.
MARTY MARTEL
Oh, really? Will Clyde’s Republican friends agree with him?
It would be interesting to get comments from Clyde Prestowitz’s Republican friends about Clyde’s prescription to solve the ‘problem child’ called Pakistan.
These are same friends who have accused Democrats of being soft on Reagan’s dear ‘national defense’! Why doesn’t Senator John McCain or Mitch McConnell propose a resolution to the effect ’welcoming Chinese takeover of Pakistani port of Gwadar‘?
Would Prestowitz’s Republican friends in U. S. Senate introduce a resolution authorizing the reduction from 11 to say 5, the number of aircraft carriers in U. S. fleet?
However investing in America in lieu of U. S. military will NOT bring jobs back as Mr. Prestowitz has to know.
U. S. businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Sears, Home Depot or Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove.
For America to become competitive against Chinese goods, U. S. wages, living standards and even currency have to crash to the same levels as those in China. Is Mr. Prestowitz ready to recommend such drastic medicine?
On the contrary, his Congressional Republican friends got their majority in House by promising American voters during last November elections that they can have benefits as well as tax cuts at the same time!
ALEXBC
"For America to become competitive against Chinese goods, U. S. wages, living standards and even currency have to crash to the same levels as those in China. Is Mr. Prestowitz ready to recommend such drastic medicine?"
This is wrongheaded, simplistic thinking that typically overplays China's "advantages." There's more to the production of goods and services than the alleged competitive advantage of low wages:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/made-america-comeback-125318772.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/global-sticks-china-canada-2011-5
Rising oil prices, for example, are a mortal enemy to long supply lines that begin in China and end in the West; producing locally will become far more attractive, as the reduced fuel/shipping costs will offset the higher wages paid.
China is also squeezed by a shrinking work force, as well as massive overcapacity which assumes the current manufacturing model will persist perpetually. Noted China bear Jim Chanos says he's not bearish enough!:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/chanos-says-hedge-fund-may-not-be-bearish-enough-on-chinese-real-estate.html
UMESHGEETA
Agreed
Yes indeed Clyde's GOP friends will 'fry alive' any Democrat who would dare to say all this.
GOP wants to bring 'banana Republic in USA'. Paul Ryan is effectively for making this country less than a 3rd world country while Tim Palwenty not touching any of the defense spending. Seriously these are the GOP guys who want to repeal ObamaCare and Frank-Dodd while not offering any alternative but calling Democrats demagogic whereas it was all right to give shellacking to Obama by saying 'pulling the plug on Grand Ma'.
And these are the Republicans Clyde want us to believe that they would throw this useless 'American Exceptionalism'. Did he not hear the slavish bi-partisan applaud to Bibi when he was exhorting for new Apartheid in Middle East on back of America in the very Congress?
We all know what happened to S. Afrikners? It doomed in the end. Obama is not Nelson Mandela, but then there will be one such serious American to collect all the pieces after America has lost all these marbles in the game of policing the world. But that will be for the longer term.
Meanwhile neither do we learn from South African Apartheid nor from Soviet Union. We will be in the dustbin because of likes of Paul Ryan, Gringrich, Paul Rand and Sarah Palin.
DR. KUCHBHI
Great attitude, Clyde
While we're at it:
Let the North Koreans have South Korea.
Let the Pakis have Afghanistan.
Let Hamas have Israel.
Let the Zetas have Mexico and then Texas.
Not sure you've been reading the papers about the fact that during the Abbotabad raid, we had 3 Aircraft Carriers parked off of Pakistan.
Do you think you'd be able to do that with the Chinese running Gwadar?
Are you more ignorant or more arrogant?
ANKIT.AGRAWAL88
Very Shortsighted Clyde
You feel slighted at India rejecting 2nd grade aircraft from the US? If the US is so keen and sincere towards a strategic partnership with India it should have fielded its best - the F-35. Your aircraft were outperformed on all technical parameters by European ones. No reason for us then to buy your inferior stuff. If the policy you advocate is a tit-for-tat one of the US exacting revenge by ignoring Indian concerns over Gwadar, I should imagine that you would even support not supplying spare parts for your aircraft in future as a bargaining chip over a future dispute. Thank you, we wish to have none of that. And in case you didn't know, Gwadar is of as much interest to you as to us Mr. Clyde. The Straight of Hormuz rings a bell? Ask China to patrol those sea-lanes, seriously?? You would be well-advised to read Robert Kaplan's "Monsoon: the Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power".
ANKIT.AGRAWAL88
Addition to the above comment
One last thing Mr.Clyde. Impressive as your credentials as an expert on trade may be, you certainly don't seem to be an expert at foreign policy. You would be well-advised to stick to your domain of expertise in future.
SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC
Geopolitics is expensive for US
Afghanistan has applied to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation for observer status despite the debt you might think it owes to the West. India and Pakistan have applied to upgrade their status from observers to full membership.
In addition to the aircraft for India problem, this morning Pakistan asked the US to pull some troops out of their country - in response to recent events.
S KUMAR
Stupid Article !!
I am surprised that FP has published an article which seems like a rant of a kid from whom something has been snatched.
To begin with, the author thinks that India feels safe from Pakistan & China because of US !! Nothing could be further from the truth. Where was the US from 1947 till the 2000s ? I think India did a pretty good job of managing itself without US support. There were ups and downs, but on the whole, India doesn't need US as such.
Secondly, the US doesn't maintain it's presence throughout the world because it is concerned for the betterment of the world. It does so for it's own sake, to secure its interests.
And, as far as the rejection of American fighters is concerned, I think you sound like a jilted lover. It takes years for nations to build a strong partnership. Just creating a mountain out a mole-hill about India rejected American fighters makes it sound as if India is America's concubine, there to serve it's interests.
MCGANNONMA
Article is disjointed as does not stick to the them of the title
Sadly, like many articles, the author is simply uses a recent event to create an article to talk about his/her real agenda.
Had the article been entirely about the possibility of a handover of operations of the Gwadar port to the Chinese, then perhaps it would have been useful.
Unfortunetly he had to go off on a tangent with no real facts about spending and our foreign military operations.
Sigh
I guess this is the end of real journalism.
"We provide this often unrequested and unwanted service to the rest of the world to the tune of over $1 trillion annually even as we struggle to raise debt limits and reduce federal deficits. " What eaxctly is the U.S. spending $1 trillion on annually? Defense? Foreign Aide? How about taking actually numbers from the published budget rather than an over estimation simply to generate interest.
"Meanwhile, our global partners like Germany, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and many others are focusing single mindedly on becoming or staying rich through economic development."
This is incorrect as well, clearly you donot follow chinese military developments, there are certainly intserting themselves regionally and internationally and want to particpate in world peacekeeping operations, field and aircraft carrier for power projection, etc
Japan per WWII treaties still operates only a self defense force, hence the continued U.S. military precense there.
I could go on. but clearly the article was not well thought out
SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC
Global rules?
Make America more attractive to inward investors, and encourage nationals to invest at home?
An interview with Francis Fukuyama appears in the FT today. He was coaxed into giving a view on a fundamental matter, the rules of the global game. What should be the philosophy at the UN system, including the International Monetary Fund.
Fukuyama's support for democracy is now much more conditional than before; the world is caught between too little democracy in the east and too much in the west.
Should the UN promote "high quality authoritarian governance or a deadlocked, paralysed, democratic one, with lots of checks and balances? Over the long run, it will be easier to sustain a system with checks and balances, precisely because the checks and balances permit adaptation." In fact the Arab Spring may be the inevitable consequence of authoritarian rule.
JACK IDDYLIA
India chose to be a Soviet puppet during the Cold war. Obviously they chose the wrong side. They paid the price. US politicians have went out of their way to form a strategic alliance with India and they viewed the fighter jet purchase as a step in the right direction. After sazkove kancelare Obama went to India and became the only permanent member to endorse India for a permanent seat on the security council it felt like a slap in the face. In case you idiots missed it. We hate Pakistan. Tell you the truth I don't care for India either. I wish they would just beat the crap out of each other. We want to work with India, but India is too busy crying about support we gave for Pakistan while they were the Soviet Unions pawn. India is already begging to get access to intel from the Bin laden raid.
KHALID MUFTI
India is too large...
...too diverse and too important strategically, and now it is also too large a market, to be anybody's stooge or puppet. India was never the Soviet Union's puppet. In fact it can be argued that India used the Soviet Union, as in getting the latter to repeatedly veto UN resolutions on Kashmir.
India had major agreements, treaties and pacts with the Soviet Union, but that's not the same as being a puppet. |
狗仔卡
楼主
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-6-9 16:46
辛苦……
