Cicerone,
In matters of law and justice it is people who count.
Asherman and george, The only country that george listed that will have any impact in our lives will be China. India and Indonesia for all its population still has too many problems to overcome before they become world players. c.i.
Cicero,
I don't agree that India, Indonesia, and Southwest Asia will not be vitally important in foriegn affairs over the foreseeable future. I believe that events and the political dynamics of the region will play a decisive role in world history over the next 25-50 years. India in particular has great potential for causing major problems. There are socio-economic problems related to its large population and declining resources. Drought and famine could tip the scales there in a very short time. Ethnic and religious differences on the sub-continent are almost as dangerous as those surrounding the Israeli question.
Of course, China is the big magella because of its population. China just does not have the resources to support its population much beyond the subsistence level. Yes, some Chinese who are well connected with the PLA or the Party have done well, but most Chinese are on the knife edge. Famine and flood are historical realities in China, and the country is overdue for a major catastrophe. The Chinese infrastructure is fragile, and the government will have great difficulty if disaster strikes. I'm very concerned that a killer virus similar to the the Spanish Lady will come out of Southeastern China. Faced with devastation, will the PLA manned by millions of heavily armed and sexually-frustrated young men spill over into the rice bowl?
Population trumps money, though money represents resources and it is the relationship of population to resources that is key here.
Cicerone,
What does that have to do with the issues (such as they are) behind Kyoto, the ICC, The Law of the Sea, and Chemical/Biological Weapon Inspection treaties?
Asherman, India has many internal deficits, plus their problems with Pakistan, that will absorb their energies for the next 25 to 50 years. Indonesia has also proven that their internal problems must be resolved before it implodes. Recent problems are only symptoms of deeper problems in their country. China, for all its problems have been able to increase their GDP in a economically depressed world. As long as peoples lives in China continue to show improvement, their impact in the world will be staggering. It's also true that the majority in China still live on subsistence level, but that's been true of China for many millennia. Many in China have hope, whereas the people in India and Indonesia do not. When I visited China for the first time about ten years ago, our tour guide, a history teacher in Beijing, informed us that we should revisit China in five years, because we will not recognize it. I did not visit China again until ten years later, but the changes were dramatic. The skyline in Beijing was completely changed with new skyscrapers, a new international airport, and no trash in the streets. On the other hand, India and Indonesia have shown very little change during that same period. I doubt very much they will advance in their politics, economy, or world impact any time soon. c.i.
george, It's not people that count where it concerns law and justice. It has to do with the leadership of the country. c.i.
Cicero,
It is those problems within Indian and other southern Asian countries that makes them so volitile. India has a large, educated and skilled workforce, but the internal problems associated with its population, ethnic/religious divisions, and marginal ability to provide food are dangerous elements.
China has constructed some nice buildings, but that isn't going to make the country more stable. Do you really believe that most Chinese have a reasonable hope of a good life in the next ten years? The people of China are little different from those in other struggling third-world countries. Their hope is to endure.
More Chinese are beginning to see improvements. Not only by the new skyscrapers, but by the numbers of Chinese showing significant improvement in the lifestyle. With any population, whether it's China or the US, we are going to have poverty. Most people accept this realization. No economy is expected to make everybody middle class, but those people with enough gumption and entrepreneur spirit will help drive their economy. China also has free education for their children, a huge advantage in developing their economy. I never said India did not have the potential, but they've had that potential for decades without much success. Finally, these are only my opinions based on my readings and what I have seen in my travels. Not conclusive at all. c.i.
India, not unlike Pakistan is saddled with a theocracy, a burden for any developing nation.
Cicero,
Can China evolve into a stable nation able to supply its citizens with the necessities of life? We all hope so, but I think you are overly optimistic. My academic Chinese studies were focused more on Classical China (5th century Buddho-Taoism) than on the current political environment. However, I had half a dozen courses focusing on China in the 20th century. Since grad school, I've tried to keep pace, but admittedly I am not as up-to-date as I once was. Never the less, I'm not optimistic about where trends inside the PRC are leading The structure is brittle and slow to change in a world where revolutionary changes are expected on the half hour.
I guess I am overly optimistic for China. If they can overcome the present regime in a decade or two, things should be more possitive for more of its citizens. Capitalism is a good stepping stone to more democratization of their politics, because international trade will require and impose it. They are hungry for foreign currency, and I doubt the current regime is ready to shoot itself in the foot to stop the progress. c.i.
debacle
Thank you kindly for the Clinton/Fallows piece. The final part was a revelation, I had not known that Bush had been constrained by a previous agreement with co-operating Arab states.
Quote:A CNN online poll shows that 82 percent think going to war with Iraq will provoke another attack on the U.S., as opposed to 13 percent who think it will prevent one.
from today's Dowd column in NYT.
And for the latest and greatest on why we should trust our governments to tell us true things...
Quote:Late last Tuesday night, a three-page email started circulating among a select group of friends concerned about the impact of sanctions on Iraq.
Full of academic outrage, it explained how the so-called 'secret spy dossier' published last week by the Government as a crucial plank in the argument for why the West should go to war was largely cribbed from an American postgraduate's doctoral thesis - grammatical mistakes and all - based on evidence 12 years out of date.
And, to cap it all, the finished document appeared to have been cobbled together not by Middle East experts, but by the secretary of Alastair Campbell, the Government's chief spin doctor, and some gofers.
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,891940,00.html
One of the major questions to this whole debacle is what happens when the UN inspectors finds Iraq's WMD's? Is there going to be some form of penalty for Saddam and his coherts? If so, what? c.i.
C.I.
Maybe they should use their helicopters to get the hell out of the way ASAP.
In a case like that, c.i., I suppose it's back to the old United Nations to see if we can get some kind of resolution ordering them to destroy them - again.
the department of redundancy department?
That was kind of repititious, too.
It's a good question, actually. Would the Iraqi minders rather explain the odd missing inspector, or have a factual report be submitted.
and the wheel, it goes round and round
I really feel a bit more optimistic when I hear the American administration apoplectic, calling the French Germans Belgians etc shameful, disgraceful, diversionary etc. Rumsfeld should tour more European cities and put the block on American policy wherever he goes. Go get em Rummy!
