The below blog was posted on Sina (a
major web portal in China), and received quite a bit of attention. Despite the fact that this article appeared
as a blog, the writer still takes a rather academic and professional approach
to the situation. While his analysis is
not at all unique to a Chinese perspective, there are few things worth noting:
1.
A Realist Approach – As a country touched by the ‘benevolence’ of
Western imperialism, Chinese have little to no faith in the ‘peacebuilding’ and
‘humanitarian’ missions of the United States, and typically look for the self-serving
motives behind America’s foreign policy
2.
Conscious of the Past – AND the Future – While many Americans
today seem to relegate the Soviet Union to ancient history, Chinese recognize
the way the Soviet Union (and its fall) shaped world politics. The writer is also very conscious of the future,
specifically China’s role in America’s foreign policy and strategic objectives.
Why
is America insisting on striking Syria?
During the Cold War, Syria lay in the
Soviet Union’s sphere of influence.
After the Soviet Union disintegrated, Russia inherited Syria’s
interests, including its military bases.
One might argue that Russia’s present strategic interests in the Middle
East can’t be compared to those of the Soviet Union, that Syria is now Russia’s
last base of power in the Middle East.
If America overthrows the Syrian regime, Russia’s military base in Syria
will cease to exist, and Russian influence will be expelled from the Middle
East. The importance of the Middle East
is not based solely on its strategic resources, but also on its strategic
location. If America can control Syria,
then it will control a continuous strip of land from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean,
strengthening America’s control of the Middle East and establishing a strong
basis for launching coordinated action against Iran in the future. If both Syria and Iran are dominated by
America, then Russia’s interests in the Middle East will collapse completely.
The
‘Pivot to Asia’ is America’s second ten-year strategic adjustment of the 21st
century. Investing the majority of
America’s military power in the Pacific Area, particularly the Western Pacific,
will be America’s long-term strategic goal.
Previously, however, America’s military power was concentrated in two
areas: the first was the Atlantic Region – a result of the Cold War; the second
was the Middle East – a result of oil.
It
is undeniable that America’s decision to shift its strategic focus from the
Atlantic to the Pacific is completely correct, as it recognizes the trends of the
future – future economic and military developments will largely occur in area
of the Asia-Pacific. These developments
will include the rise of China’s influence, a point of particular strategic importance
for America. Over the past two years,
America has firmly implemented its ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy, effectively taking
advantage of the misgivings caused by the rise of China and territorial
disputes between China and its neighbors [Here the author is referring to
territorial disputes between China and its neighboring countries, such as
Vietnam and the Philippines, and is alleging (not at all unjustly) that the US
has taken advantage of the fear caused by China’s rise and used it to turn
these countries against China]. Unfortunately,
America has met with strong pressure to cut back its military budget. Congress has demanded Obama reduce military
spending by a total of 500 billion dollars.
However, America’s strategy has shown to be effective. In the midst of the economic crisis, soaring
national debt, and slow economic growth, America has still managed to realize
its strategic plans in the Western Pacific through the use of its traditional
allies and new partners.
However, changes in the Middle East
may affect that trend. After witnessing
the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the deaths of many children, Western
governments believe the Syrian government may be responsible. Obviously, due to the complex process of
manufacturing and maintaining chemical weapons, and the inability of rebels to
secure these weapons through guerilla tactics, the chances that the government
forces are the ones using the weapons are extremely high. If this is true, it would violate the ‘Red
Line’ that America gave Syria. At present,
America has given Syria a warning about a military strike, America and the UK
have confirmed that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, and President
Obama has confirmed that America will launch a military strike against
Syria. In the past few days, the specter
of war has shocked worldwide capital markets, weakened currencies, caused an
increase in the price of gold and commodities, and bolstered hedging in the markets.
On
the problem of Syria, America’s traditional allies in the Middle East would
like to see Assad’s regime fall. England’s
Financial Times reported: Israel is
worried that if America does not issue a response to Syria’s crossing the Red
Line and using chemical weapons, then America’s stance against Iran’s nuclear
program will lose all credibility.
Currently, America’s economic crisis is getting worse and
worse, demanding much attention as the Obama administration remains unable to
control the situation. Although Obama comfortably
won a second term, America’s economic outlook is hardly optimistic, the “Fiscal
Cliff’ is unacceptable, and the Obama administration has yet to settle on an
appropriate policy to meet the crisis. He
may be using the strike on Syria to take attention away from domestic
problems.
As America’s power weakens, its
ability to maintain leadership must also fade.
The Middle East is the center of the world’s resources. After World War II, America employed all
available means to force oil-producing countries to use the American dollar to
settle trade, allowing America to maintain dominance over the world’s
resources.
War in the Middle East could break out at any time, and the region
will become even more complex.
Original Chinese: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_43a4e6290102e8g5.html?tj=1
No comments:
Post a Comment