![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frandroidJapan proposes India-China-Japan axis in view of a new multipolar world structure. [from atimes.com, as always delivering top-class analysis]
frandroidfrandroidProfile
frandroid
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Active Entries
Style Credit
- Style: Bittersweet for Crossroads by branchandroot
- Resources: I'm home again
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:47 am (UTC)And any alliance with China in it cannot be challenged by the United States. Can we say, Japan seeking to end its military restrictions?
In fact, Jesus Christ. The two biggest countries in the world, growing tech sectors. Two out of three being democracies, and it's not based on any particular ideology aside from ending U.S. hegemony.
Ladies and gentleman, start learning Mandarin, Hindi, and Japanese.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 08:48 am (UTC)What's wrong with influence? Somebody is always going to have more influence than somebody else.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 11:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 12:01 pm (UTC)I don't see any change to a unipolar world order for quite some time, and if and when such a change comes, I think that China (alone) and a more integrated EU are far more likely to be the source of bi- or multipolarity.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:03 pm (UTC)As for an Asian triangle, there are two takes from my point of view: either China decides to go it alone, or it doesn't. China can emerge as a superpower on its own, but it could be well advised to absorb its neighbours into its umbrella, for fear of having them turned against itself by the U.S., should China start scaring the Americans.
I share your viewpoint on China and India being competitors. The talk about complementarity is interesting but is not well demonstrated when it comes to China and India. (age difference? what? China is still going to have tons of cheap labour and know-how no matter what...)
Maybe India can export all that surplus grain to China. :P
I hope you don't mind long presumptuous sentences
Date: 2004-08-24 02:58 pm (UTC)Again, all 3 of them are heavily dependent on foreign oil. But then so is America. And the economies of China and the US are now sufficiently intertwined that I can't see it being in either of their interests to mess with the other's oil supplies. I find it hard to picture a Chinese sphere of influence in the Persian Gulf anytime soon. And America has bypassed China while getting out central Asian oil, hasn't it? So uhh, yeah, I can't really see where you're going with this as a long-term thing. More details please.
Clashes between the two big military powers (that is, not necessarily military clashes) are closer than you could think.
I have little doubt that they will not see eye-to-eye on any number of issues. But you see many disagreements between the US and the EU, and life goes on. I imagine this could well be a (magnified) version of the same thing.
for fear of having them turned against itself by the U.S.
I would argue that this has already happened, at least to some extent. Sure, there's no imminent war risk today, but Japan and certainly India have been scared of China for decades now. India's last defense minister publicly called China the country's largest threat. There are no American military bases in India, but there is military cooperation now, even if the 'War on terror' and the love/hate relationship with Pakistan mean that said cooperation has been far less prominent after 9/11 than it was while Clinton was around. And I'm pretty sure you know all about American troops in Japan. None of this is remotely close to being able to break China- it could easily go it alone, and you've said as much yourself.
Besides, would Japan or India really want to join a Chinese umbrella? Aren't their interests better served by allying themselves with Washington (if alliances are necessary at all)? Doubly so as it is far away, whereas China has a history of bad blood with them. Neither of them is going to be all that easy to dominate in an alliance either- India's population base will actually exceed China's soon, and for all the talk of its decline and China's rise, Japan's economy is decades ahead of China's.
I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-24 05:12 pm (UTC)America not as much. Most of its oil comes from its own reserves, from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, which are within its immediate sphere of influence. Only 10 or 15% of its oil comes from the Middle East. Granted, Venezuela looks at the U.S. funny right now, but it's not about to start exporting its oil to China just yet.
Japan is signing oil supply contracts with Russia and whoever else is willing to listen. China's consumption is rising dramatically. Plus, we're going to reach peak world oil production in the next 5 years, something that has not happened before. I think that past a certain price, certain countries will think it's worth going to war over oil. Hell, it just happened last year. Next time it might be against a less defenseless opponent...
And America has bypassed China while getting out central Asian oil, hasn't it?
Bypassed China? Did I miss a time when China was ahead in the oil sector? :]
Also, getting out of central-asian oil? I thought that Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan was still sought after. The U.S. are building military bases in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan too, but I haven't been keeping track that much of that region.
I have little doubt that they will not see eye-to-eye on any number of issues. But you see many disagreements between the US and the EU, and life goes on. I imagine this could well be a (magnified) version of the same thing.
Well, the question is, is it only going to be petty disagreements, or will we face a cold war stance?
Heck, even the E.U. is slowly preparing itself for a cold war stance, just in case. If Bush is re-elected, (and especially if he wages war on Iran or Syria) I think you'll see increased military spending in Europe.
I would argue that this has already happened, at least to some extent. Sure, there's no imminent war risk today, but Japan and certainly India have been scared of China for decades now. India's last defense minister publicly called China the country's largest threat. There are no American military bases in India
Well, exactly; if there isn't extensive U.S. support in India, shouldn't India also look at opportunities on the Chinese and Japanese side?
Besides, would Japan or India really want to join a Chinese umbrella? Aren't their interests better served by allying themselves with Washington (if alliances are necessary at all)? Doubly so as it is far away, whereas China has a history of bad blood with them. Neither of them is going to be all that easy to dominate in an alliance either- India's population base will actually exceed China's soon, and for all the talk of its decline and China's rise, Japan's economy is decades ahead of China's.
A few points:
- India and Japan are rather aligned with the United States, but with China's emergence as a big power, it might be harder to play only with the United States without repercussions.
- China and Japan are rapidly integrating their economies. China bypassed the U.S. as the largest exporter to Japan, and vice-versa.
- Japan's economy is well ahead of China and India's, but it's not growing very much, and its population is *much* older, and not growing. India and China are the fast-growing economies in the equation.
So what's India to do? Stare jealously at the Japan-China axis and keep muttering under its breath? It's not a couple million outsourced telemarketing and programming jobs from the U.S. and the E.U that are going to make India a powerhouse...
As for alliances being necessary, I think that goes without saying in today's world. And even in yesterday's world, did India really profit from its non-aligned status?
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 02:57 am (UTC)I'm not entirely sure that it makes a huge difference, in the long-term, that America's oil comes from its sphere of influence. Let us say that oil could no longer flow out of the Middle East. Europe and Japan are still going to want some. So, they will look around to see where they can get it. And if that source is, say, Venezuela, they will buy it from there. America can try and buy the same oil, but market forces mean that it will still have to pay the same high prices that Europeans do. Besides, America's consumption is still a lot greater in absolute terms than India's is.
certain countries will think it's worth going to war over oil. Hell, it just happened last year. Next time it might be against a less defenseless opponent...
You go to war when your interests are threatened. And oil is a vital interest for all of these countries. But America's not going to fight anyone over events in Sudan; it would require a far greater provocation. To fight a power like China would require a very big clash of interests indeed. Could such a thing happen? Very possibly. But in my manifest ignorance, I cannot see what this clash would occur over, at least, in the immediate future. China has tried to improve its relations with its neighbors.
Bypassed China? Did I miss a time when China was ahead in the oil sector?
I meant to say that the American pipeline plans that I'm aware of have routes that do not pass through China.
Heck, even the E.U. is slowly preparing itself for a cold war stance, just in case.
Aren't more E.U. members pro- than anti-American? I'd like to see the reasoning behind this statement, and evidence of any major non-economic competition that you can point to. Military spending in Europe is still only a fraction of military spending in America. Major European leaders go out of their way to talk about how they do not see themselves as a counterweight to America.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 06:46 am (UTC)You go to war when your interests are threatened. And oil is a vital interest for all of these countries. But America's not going to fight anyone over events in Sudan; it would require a far greater provocation. To fight a power like China would require a very big clash of interests indeed. Could such a thing happen? Very possibly. But in my manifest ignorance, I cannot see what this clash would occur over, at least, in the immediate future. China has tried to improve its relations with its neighbors.
You are thinking in current terms, where the supply matches the world demand for oil. What if supply is 10% lower? I mean heck, the barrel price has doubled in the last two years because of fluctuations in Iraq's supply. Iraq may have something like 10% of the world's reserves, but its production was much under that percentage of the world production in recent years, I believe. When oil reaches $80 a barrel and creates a recession in the United States (and most everywhere, but particularly there since it is particularly lacking foresight regarding oil alternatives), I think that you will see a movement there to secure some oil supply. You'll see another Bush-like nitwit going "God did not put oil where americans live, so let's take God's business in our hands and git there!"
Aren't more E.U. members pro- than anti-American? I'd like to see the reasoning behind this statement, and evidence of any major non-economic competition that you can point to. Military spending in Europe is still only a fraction of military spending in America. Major European leaders go out of their way to talk about how they do not see themselves as a counterweight to America.
No, the E.U. isn't anti-american. However you see the E.U. do things like launch its own GPS system, start its own Echelon operation, to make itself more independent from the United States. The E.U. also wants to make up its own rapid-reaction force, mainly to be able to intervene directly in conflicts on its own soil (and elsewhere) without being subordinated to American-dominated NATO. The current war in Iraq, but especially the ideology of Empire that the U.S. seems to espouse right now scares the shit out of Europe. They were the colonizers up to recently; they know and they remember what it was about.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 12:15 pm (UTC)Not quite as simple as that. To quote from the Asia Times article you posted a link to on your own journal:
start its own Echelon operation
What?! I need to pay more attention to what's going on!
The E.U. also wants to make up its own rapid-reaction force, mainly to be able to intervene directly in conflicts on its own soil
So far, there is a distinct lack of political will to intervene anywhere militarily. I haven't once come across anyone talking about relinquishing national-level control over military forces. These things will take decades.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 09:56 pm (UTC)What?! I need to pay more attention to what's going on![/i]
Well I looked around and it's not happening as of now, but the EU parliament had an inquiry on Echelon and some elements of the parliament were pushing for the creation of a european version. Catching up on it now a few years later, I see that nothing happened out of it, however it was part of the conclusions of the inquiry that Europe should strengthen its intelligence in a way to compete with the U.S.
"The ECHELON report claims that that EU should have established its own European intelligence service to respond to the superiority of the American secret services. A closer link in the exchange of information has been established with EUROPOL and ENFOPOL, but each Member State still seems to want to maintain the freedom to spy at will, also on the other EU countries, while the possibilities for surveillance of individual citizens have increased." [source]
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 03:42 am (UTC)Well, I shall heed your call to the grammar Nazis on Tabnet, and tell you the word you were probably looking for was 'surpassed'.
So what's India to do? Stare jealously at the Japan-China axis and keep muttering under its breath?
Such an axis must first be created.
Not all of the 47,000 American troops in Japan are going home. Where does Japan buy its military hardware from? Do the Japanese trust Chinese pressure alone to stave off North Korean aggression? They wanted to come under an American missile shield.
America is the largest source of Indian imports and most important destination for Indian exports. China accounts for under 5% of both(Statistics from Nationmaster.com, they date to 2002).
It's not a couple million outsourced telemarketing and programming jobs from the U.S. and the E.U that are going to make India a powerhouse...
Trading with China in raw materials and pencil erasers isn't going to do it either. Look at where foreign direct investment in India is coming from.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 07:45 am (UTC)It's already on its way on the economic level.
Japan is not going to let go of its military cooperation with the United States, but that doesn't prevent other alliances, military or not, from building up.
America is the largest source of Indian imports
...and Belgium is second, according to the CIA worldfact book. What the hell? :]
Indian imports: US 6.9%, Belgium 6.4%, China 4.5% (2002)
I tried to find some figures on FDI, but I couldn't find any, and it seems that India has an unorthodox way of calculating FDI anyway. Hmmm. I don't doubt that the U.S. invests a lot in India though, in big part by NRIs I suppose.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-25 12:07 pm (UTC)Trivia question: how many large countries can you think of that simultanously had close ties with both the USSR and America during the Cold War?
Belgium is second, according to the CIA worldfact book. What the hell?
The diamond industry is centered in Antwerp. Indian has some skilled labor in this field.
I don't doubt that the U.S. invests a lot in India though, in big part by NRIs I suppose.
The last time I looked at a break-down of Indian FDI, NRIs were counted separately from other foreign investors. They were somewhere between 3rd and 5th in the list.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-26 09:21 am (UTC)Trivia question: how many large countries can you think of that simultanously had close ties with both the USSR and America during the Cold War?
None that I can think of, but in spite of being the most U.S.-linked of the three, it is Japan that is proposing this new Axis.
The diamond industry is centered in Antwerp. Indian has some skilled labor in this field.
So how does that work? deBeers or whoever extract diamonds from Africa/wherever, send them to Belgium, and then resell them to India, which cuts them, and then sells them domestically? or re-exports them?
"We shall probably never know when the first diamonds were discovered, but we do know that, from ancient times until the eighteenth century, all the world's diamonds came from India."
Wow.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-26 01:28 pm (UTC)Another source states that "diamond trade represents 8 per cent of the total export of Belgium." No small amount for a first-world country.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-28 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-29 09:45 am (UTC)Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-27 01:20 am (UTC)The article says the ambassador proposed it, but doesn't give much detail. Was it an off-the-cuff remark? Or was it authorized from higher up? Who in the 3 countries' ruling structures is taking all of this seriously?
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-28 09:01 pm (UTC)Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-26 12:52 am (UTC)Hmph. I italicized my entire reply by mistake, deleted the message to repost it properly, and then lost it altogether. In case you didn't get it by email, how likely is anyone (Bush, Kerry, 2008 winner) to go into Iran, Syria or any other country without a serious provocation, seeing as Iraq is in a mess, and U.S. troops are allegedly very badly overstretched?
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-26 09:11 am (UTC)The redeployment announced by Bush will free up some troops, and it's possible to provoke a provocation. Look at Clinton in 1998. Of course if Kerry is elected, he's not gonna go anywhere in a massive way.
I think the U.S. be out of Iraq by 2008 for sure, whether the situation has stabilized or not. No one will want to run the 2008 election with over 100,000 troops in Iraq. That's a losing proposition.
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-26 01:33 pm (UTC)No one will want to run the 2008 election with over 100,000 troops in Iraq. That's a losing proposition.
This assumes that Kerry will (a) win, and (b) run for re-election in 2008. By no means improbable, but still far from certain.
I think the U.S. be out of Iraq by 2008 for sure
You don't give credence, then to rumors about plans for permanent U.S. military bases there?
Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-28 08:59 pm (UTC)Re: I love long-winded sentences!
Date: 2004-08-29 09:54 am (UTC)I haven't actually come across about this in the news after the invasion, and Iraq has been attending OPEC meetings so far, hasn't it? On the other hand, if there's anything to peak oil, OPEC shall fade into irrelevance as everyone produces what they can.