Fairthought said:
Kissinger's ariticle was far from insightful.
It basically says, if you can't destroy China as a functional entity, you're best strategy is a peaceful road pursuing mutual economic benefits. You don't need a genius to tell you that.
nowhere did he state "since we can't destroy China, let's do business with them"--Your statement implies Kissinger would favor China's destruction if it were at all feasible--I did not find anything in his article remotely supporting that.
His claim that there are few asian countries willing to ally with America in any cold war against China is simply false. Easily manipulated followers are: Japan, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea. Even India would be interested. And of course, Western Europe, which is not an asian country but is nonetheless a significant trading block.
Mr_C already made the point. Even if all those countries you do name were to side with the US in a confrontation over China (never happen) they are still just a
few countries in Asia (albeit powerful), but there are dozens more that would have nothing to do with it, or in fact side with China.
The current European military technology sales embargo against China is an example of US followers assisting America in an escalating cold war with China. Its continued existence is due solely to US pressure.
could very well be as you say, yet there are still some in Europe firmly against the sale of military hardware to China based purely on their own convictions and not those stipulated to them by Washington.
If the article seems rosy and peacenik, it is only because Kissinger is speaking as the head of a consulting company that profits off of investments in China. This is something Kissinger freely admits in his own article, but it bears repeating.
Keeping this self-interest in mind, one understands why Kissinger chose not to discuss the strategy of 'destroying China as a functional entity.'
Just my opinion, but I think Kissinger's article has far more to do with his convictions and personal analysis of China than his personal financial interests.
Let us also keep in mind that Kissinger was National Security Advisor during Nixon's administration and was instrumental in the normalization between the US and China achieved in 1972. So, he may very well have personal self-interest at mind since he personally helped the two countries in this matter--he doesn't want to see his hard work from those times shattered by ignorance.
But there are American strategists who are advocating just that agenda. You will see them in the PNAC (Project for the New American Century -see Cheney), and you will find Hawkish Pentagon Pundits, like Robert Kaplan, who have the ear of Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
Yes, and in his article Kissinger warns against "a hectoring tone" among other things on the side of the US. In my opinion, although Kissinger has tact and would not state so directly, he means just the sort of things that the Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, etc. sometimes blow out their holes.
btw, Kissinger is also part of the extremely powerful Carlyle group, the largest private equity firm in the world, that uses ex-presidents (and other illustrious names) to leverage inside deals with world governments for huge profits. In just 14 years, the group has grown to $30 billion for an average 34% nominal return.
That's outstanding performance, too bad I can't invest in Carlyle stock!
