The United States isn't going to evacuate the region by any
means. The military is switching to a policy based on stand-by troops, drones,
and Special Forces. Obama wants to increase the American footprint in East Asia
in terms of naval power and the Air Force. At this point South Korea and Japan
are the only American satellites in the region. Australia has been salivating
for some time wanting desperately to be a player, to become a more active and
assertive member of the Anglo-American alliance.
Despite an already significant presence, new bases are in
the planning and the United States is trying to re-establish ties with old
satellites like Indonesia and the Philippines. I cannot fathom why these
countries would want anything to do with the United States after the horrible
record of bloodshed in their lands resulting from American Imperial policy. Yet
the South China Sea is critical to their political and economic security and
they are uncomfortable with China's self-assured and somewhat aggressive
posturing. Though the United States has a terrible record in these lands, at
least it's far away and perhaps they think they can play the two sides off
against each other? Hard to say. Maybe it's something far more simple, the love
of money. When empires can't win over allies, or cow them with threats, they
can always find someone to buy.
Taiwan, though estranged compared to the past will also
continue looking to the United States on security matters and the Americans may
use it as a wedge in China relations.
And it may be the supreme irony that Vietnam's historic
antagonism with China may actually drive them into a more friendly relationship
with America in the not too distant future. Few Americans remember that in the
late 1970's Vietnam and China renewed their ancient animosity and the two
'communist' nations actually fought a brief conflict. Few also remember
'communist' Vietnam forced the Khmer Rouge from power. Pol Pot and his forces
returned to the jungle but were backed by the United States in the UN assembly
and also received other aid from freedom loving American tax dollars. This is
not to say the United States admired the genocidal mind of Pol Pot, but they
hated the children of Ho Chi Minh far more.
It's an ugly game and ideology matters little in the end.
It's power, blood, and money most of the time. Power is like a magnet on a
compass. The compass needle is powerless and is quickly drawn away from its
true direction.
Of course the American presence and projection will
exacerbate the situation and instead of relieving tensions and securing the region...it
will increase tensions and create fault lines. This is how the Cold War
started. It wasn't necessary but the American public succumbed to fear and
listened to people who wanted it...people who ironically gained a massive
amount of wealth and power from the forty year exchange. We seem to be headed
down this road once again. Obama did not bring any kind of change at all. He's
proven quite friendly to the establishment even in the way his supposedly
'radical' social changes have been engineered. Somehow the same people always
manage to stay on top.
These matters are all related but returning to how they
affect the situation with Iran...
The Chinese would rather have the United States tied up in
the Middle East than expanding back into East Asia. The Americans have never
left but lost quite a bit of their influence throughout the 1980's and 1990's.
The Mao era was over, the Sino-Soviet split, and Nixon's visit had helped calm
the situation and the Americans were looking to the end of the Soviet Union and
the Middle East...but now East Asia is once more in the sights, it will be the
new theatre for a new paradigm. New but not new. New boss same as the old boss.
If the Middle East crisis created by the Bush regime
continues, this can only help China. America's economic realities will not
allow it to maintain a massive force presence in the Middle East (with the
necessary support bases in Southern Europe), while at the same time it engages
in a massive buildup in the Asia-Pacific. China perhaps wouldn't mind a new
arms race, but they also don't want to see the American economy collapse.
This was par t of the rationale for Globalization. Bind the
nations together through political and economic ties and they can't go to war
against each other anymore. Control can be exercised through political
arrangements, military alliances, and trade agreements delivering massive
wealth and influence to multi-nationals. We're still waiting to see if it's
going to work. One of the tests right now is in Europe. Not a few have noted
that France is keeping itself closely tied to Germany...the powers that be do
not want these countries to start operating separately again. And I can't begin
to describe the resentment toward the Cameron administration for effectively
pulling Britain out of the arrangement and quest for a solution to the crisis.
The Anglo-American alliance also plays a part in Britain's
relations with the Continent, something entirely missed here but very apparent
to the people in France, Germany, and elsewhere. There's a growing resentment
in Britain toward their American cousins. Britain has long been the 'lesser
partner' in the post-War arrangement, but increasingly the United Kingdom seems
to just be taking orders. American politics seem to get as much coverage on the
BBC as their own domestic issues, and frankly the commentary is often more
helpful than the flashy entertainment that passes for news in the United
States.
All these things work together and actually I'm only
touching on part of the picture. There are many more factors I could discuss
and not a few areas completely beyond my grasp...technical aspects concerning
currency and trade, debt, and the particulars of the global petroleum economy.
While some may think I've been horribly sidetracked, others
will see I'm trying to present a panoramic view because in order to understand
any one event or incident, you have to be able to look at the big picture.
Nothing is isolated. There are many factors playing into what may seem simple
or even unrelated to the whole.
I've been disappointed in some of the Conservative coverage
and commentary concerning these events. Why did Russia and China veto the UN
resolution on Syria? Well, because they're evil regimes and they're afraid that
someday the UN might want to pass a resolution against them. So they're
protecting themselves. This was the argument one Christian commentator gave
recently. I was shaking my head. His news from a Christian Worldview is neither
Christian nor able to grasp the way things really work. I have no problem
calling the Russian or Chinese governments evil as long as the same label is
applied to the Pentagon, White House and State Department. This commentator
might be willing to apply the label to the Obama White House, but certainly
would not have done so prior to 2008. He is quite blind in this regard.
Of one thing I'm sure. Russia and China are not worried
about the United Nations coming after them. Christian conservatives have long
been very hostile the United Nations. This particular commentator I mentioned
isn't a Dispensationalist looking for the coming global government under the
Antichrist who will be a UN General Secretary. But, he's still echoing the same
conspiratorial fears of the United Nations and the threat it poses to American
sovereignty. If he really understood the world situation and talked to anyone
outside of American Conservative circles he would soon realize the UN is a
laughing stock, a joke. It's used to dress up actions and give them legitimacy
but it wields no power and all too often the General Secretaries are made to
look foolish, running around the globe practically begging world leaders to
listen to them. They are patronized, patted on the head and sent on their way.
The UN is a tool and one easily set aside when it's not needed. They didn’t
veto the resolution because they were afraid of Ban Ki-moon.
Go to part 4
Go to part 4