Just How Special Is America Hillary What Ails America

America's Pacific Century

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.

BY HILLARY CLINTON | NOVEMBER 2011

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.

Related

Looking East
America's long relationship with Asia, in photographs

The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans -- the Pacific and the Indian -- that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy. It boasts almost half the world's population. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia.

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over -- and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

Beyond our borders, people are also wondering about America's intentions -- our willingness to remain engaged and to lead. In Asia, they ask whether we are really there to stay, whether we are likely to be distracted again by events elsewhere, whether we can make -- and keep -- credible economic and strategic commitments, and whether we can back those commitments with action. The answer is: We can, and we will.

Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.

Just as Asia is critical to America's future, an engaged America is vital to Asia's future. The region is eager for our leadership and our business -- perhaps more so than at any time in modern history. We are the only power with a network of strong alliances in the region, no territorial ambitions, and a long record of providing for the common good. Along with our allies, we have underwritten regional security for decades -- patrolling Asia's sea lanes and preserving stability -- and that in turn has helped create the conditions for growth. We have helped integrate billions of people across the region into the global economy by spurring economic productivity, social empowerment, and greater people-to-people links. We are a major trade and investment partner, a source of innovation that benefits workers and businesses on both sides of the Pacific, a host to 350,000 Asian students every year, a champion of open markets, and an advocate for universal human rights.

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature -- long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises -- and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

As secretary of state, I broke with tradition and embarked on my first official overseas trip to Asia. In my seven trips since, I have had the privilege to see firsthand the rapid transformations taking place in the region, underscoring how much the future of the United States is intimately intertwined with the future of the Asia-Pacific. A strategic turn to the region fits logically into our overall global effort to secure and sustain America's global leadership. The success of this turn requires maintaining and advancing a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the Asia-Pacific to our national interests; we seek to build upon a strong tradition of engagement by presidents and secretaries of state of both parties across many decades. It also requires smart execution of a coherent regional strategy that accounts for the global implications of our choices.

WHAT DOES THAT regional strategy look like? For starters, it calls for a sustained commitment to what I have called "forward-deployed" diplomacy. That means continuing to dispatch the full range of our diplomatic assets -- including our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets -- to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

By virtue of our unique geography, the United States is both an Atlantic and a Pacific power. We are proud of our European partnerships and all that they deliver. Our challenge now is to build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic. That is the touchstone of our efforts in all these areas.

Our treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific. They have underwritten regional peace and security for more than half a century, shaping the environment for the region's remarkable economic ascent. They leverage our regional presence and enhance our regional leadership at a time of evolving security challenges. 

As successful as these alliances have been, we can't afford simply to sustain them -- we need to update them for a changing world. In this effort, the Obama administration is guided by three core principles. First, we have to maintain political consensus on the core objectives of our alliances. Second, we have to ensure that our alliances are nimble and adaptive so that they can successfully address new challenges and seize new opportunities. Third, we have to guarantee that the defense capabilities and communications infrastructure of our alliances are operationally and materially capable of deterring provocation from the full spectrum of state and nonstate actors.

The alliance with Japan, the cornerstone of peace and stability in the region, demonstrates how the Obama administration is giving these principles life. We share a common vision of a stable regional order with clear rules of the road -- from freedom of navigation to open markets and fair competition. We have agreed to a new arrangement, including a contribution from the Japanese government of more than $5 billion, to ensure the continued enduring presence of American forces in Japan, while expanding joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities to deter and react quickly to regional security challenges, as well as information sharing to address cyberthreats. We have concluded an Open Skies agreement that will enhance access for businesses and people-to-people ties, launched a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific, and been working hand in hand as the two largest donor countries in Afghanistan.

Similarly, our alliance with South Korea has become stronger and more operationally integrated, and we continue to develop our combined capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean provocations. We have agreed on a plan to ensure successful transition of operational control during wartime and anticipate successful passage of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And our alliance has gone global, through our work together in the G-20 and the Nuclear Security Summit and through our common efforts in Haiti and Afghanistan.

We are also expanding our alliance with Australia from a Pacific partnership to an Indo-Pacific one, and indeed a global partnership. From cybersecurity to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia's counsel and commitment have been indispensable. And in Southeast Asia, we are renewing and strengthening our alliances with the Philippines and Thailand, increasing, for example, the number of ship visits to the Philippines and working to ensure the successful training of Filipino counterterrorism forces through our Joint Special Operations Task Force in Mindanao. In Thailand -- our oldest treaty partner in Asia -- we are working to establish a hub of regional humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in the region.

AS WE UPDATE our alliances for new demands, we are also building new partnerships to help solve shared problems. Our outreach to China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries is all part of a broader effort to ensure a more comprehensive approach to American strategy and engagement in the region. We are asking these emerging partners to join us in shaping and participating in a rules-based regional and global order.

One of the most prominent of these emerging partners is, of course, China. Like so many other countries before it, China has prospered as part of the open and rules-based system that the United States helped to build and works to sustain. And today, China represents one of the most challenging and consequential bilateral relationships the United States has ever had to manage. This calls for careful, steady, dynamic stewardship, an approach to China on our part that is grounded in reality, focused on results, and true to our principles and interests.

We all know that fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the Pacific. Some in our country see China's progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China's growth. We reject both those views. The fact is that a thriving America is good for China and a thriving China is good for America. We both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. But you cannot build a relationship on aspirations alone. It is up to both of us to more consistently translate positive words into effective cooperation -- and, crucially, to meet our respective global responsibilities and obligations. These are the things that will determine whether our relationship delivers on its potential in the years to come. We also have to be honest about our differences. We will address them firmly and decisively as we pursue the urgent work we have to do together. And we have to avoid unrealistic expectations. 

Over the last two-and-a-half years, one of my top priorities has been to identify and expand areas of common interest, to work with China to build mutual trust, and to encourage China's active efforts in global problem-solving. This is why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and I launched the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the most intensive and expansive talks ever between our governments, bringing together dozens of agencies from both sides to discuss our most pressing bilateral issues, from security to energy to human rights.

We are also working to increase transparency and reduce the risk of miscalculation or miscues between our militaries. The United States and the international community have watched China's efforts to modernize and expand its military, and we have sought clarity as to its intentions. Both sides would benefit from sustained and substantive military-to-military engagement that increases transparency. So we look to Beijing to overcome its reluctance at times and join us in forging a durable military-to-military dialogue. And we need to work together to strengthen the Strategic Security Dialogue, which brings together military and civilian leaders to discuss sensitive issues like maritime security and cybersecurity.

As we build trust together, we are committed to working with China to address critical regional and global security issues. This is why I have met so frequently -- often in informal settings -- with my Chinese counterparts, State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, for candid discussions about important challenges like North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and developments in the South China Sea.

On the economic front, the United States and China need to work together to ensure strong, sustained, and balanced future global growth. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the United States and China worked effectively through the G-20 to help pull the global economy back from the brink. We have to build on that cooperation. U.S. firms want fair opportunities to export to China's growing markets, which can be important sources of jobs here in the United States, as well as assurances that the $50 billion of American capital invested in China will create a strong foundation for new market and investment opportunities that will support global competitiveness. At the same time, Chinese firms want to be able to buy more high-tech products from the United States, make more investments here, and be accorded the same terms of access that market economies enjoy. We can work together on these objectives, but China still needs to take important steps toward reform. In particular, we are working with China to end unfair discrimination against U.S. and other foreign companies or against their innovative technologies, remove preferences for domestic firms, and end measures that disadvantage or appropriate foreign intellectual property. And we look to China to take steps to allow its currency to appreciate more rapidly, both against the dollar and against the currencies of its other major trading partners. Such reforms, we believe, would not only benefit both our countries (indeed, they would support the goals of China's own five-year plan, which calls for more domestic-led growth), but also contribute to global economic balance, predictability, and broader prosperity.

Of course, we have made very clear, publicly and privately, our serious concerns about human rights. And when we see reports of public-interest lawyers, writers, artists, and others who are detained or disappeared, the United States speaks up, both publicly and privately, with our concerns about human rights. We make the case to our Chinese colleagues that a deep respect for international law and a more open political system would provide China with a foundation for far greater stability and growth -- and increase the confidence of China's partners. Without them, China is placing unnecessary limitations on its own development.

At the end of the day, there is no handbook for the evolving U.S.-China relationship. But the stakes are much too high for us to fail. As we proceed, we will continue to embed our relationship with China in a broader regional framework of security alliances, economic networks, and social connections.

Among key emerging powers with which we will work closely are India and Indonesia, two of the most dynamic and significant democratic powers of Asia, and both countries with which the Obama administration has pursued broader, deeper, and more purposeful relationships. The stretch of sea from the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca to the Pacific contains the world's most vibrant trade and energy routes. Together, India and Indonesia already account for almost a quarter of the world's population. They are key drivers of the global economy, important partners for the United States, and increasingly central contributors to peace and security in the region. And their importance is likely to grow in the years ahead.

President Obama told the Indian parliament last year that the relationship between India and America will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century, rooted in common values and interests. There are still obstacles to overcome and questions to answer on both sides, but the United States is making a strategic bet on India's future -- that India's greater role on the world stage will enhance peace and security, that opening India's markets to the world will pave the way to greater regional and global prosperity, that Indian advances in science and technology will improve lives and advance human knowledge everywhere, and that India's vibrant, pluralistic democracy will produce measurable results and improvements for its citizens and inspire others to follow a similar path of openness and tolerance. So the Obama administration has expanded our bilateral partnership; actively supported India's Look East efforts, including through a new trilateral dialogue with India and Japan; and outlined a new vision for a more economically integrated and politically stable South and Central Asia, with India as a linchpin.

We are also forging a new partnership with Indonesia, the world's third-largest democracy, the world's most populous Muslim nation, and a member of the G-20. We have resumed joint training of Indonesian special forces units and signed a number of agreements on health, educational exchanges, science and technology, and defense. And this year, at the invitation of the Indonesian government, President Obama will inaugurate American participation in the East Asia Summit. But there is still some distance to travel -- we have to work together to overcome bureaucratic impediments, lingering historical suspicions, and some gaps in understanding each other's perspectives and interests.

EVEN AS WE strengthen these bilateral relationships, we have emphasized the importance of multilateral cooperation, for we believe that addressing complex transnational challenges of the sort now faced by Asia requires a set of institutions capable of mustering collective action. And a more robust and coherent regional architecture in Asia would reinforce the system of rules and responsibilities, from protecting intellectual property to ensuring freedom of navigation, that form the basis of an effective international order. In multilateral settings, responsible behavior is rewarded with legitimacy and respect, and we can work together to hold accountable those who undermine peace, stability, and prosperity.

So the United States has moved to fully engage the region's multilateral institutions, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, mindful that our work with regional institutions supplements and does not supplant our bilateral ties. There is a demand from the region that America play an active role in the agenda-setting of these institutions -- and it is in our interests as well that they be effective and responsive.

That is why President Obama will participate in the East Asia Summit for the first time in November. To pave the way, the United States has opened a new U.S. Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta and signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN. Our focus on developing a more results-oriented agenda has been instrumental in efforts to address disputes in the South China Sea. In 2010, at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, the United States helped shape a regionwide effort to protect unfettered access to and passage through the South China Sea, and to uphold the key international rules for defining territorial claims in the South China Sea's waters. Given that half the world's merchant tonnage flows through this body of water, this was a consequential undertaking. And over the past year, we have made strides in protecting our vital interests in stability and freedom of navigation and have paved the way for sustained multilateral diplomacy among the many parties with claims in the South China Sea, seeking to ensure disputes are settled peacefully and in accordance with established principles of international law.

We have also worked to strengthen APEC as a serious leaders-level institution focused on advancing economic integration and trade linkages across the Pacific. After last year's bold call by the group for a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific, President Obama will host the 2011 APEC Leaders' Meeting in Hawaii this November. We are committed to cementing APEC as the Asia-Pacific's premier regional economic institution, setting the economic agenda in a way that brings together advanced and emerging economies to promote open trade and investment, as well as to build capacity and enhance regulatory regimes. APEC and its work help expand U.S. exports and create and support high-quality jobs in the United States, while fostering growth throughout the region. APEC also provides a key vehicle to drive a broad agenda to unlock the economic growth potential that women represent. In this regard, the United States is committed to working with our partners on ambitious steps to accelerate the arrival of the Participation Age, where every individual, regardless of gender or other characteristics, is a contributing and valued member of the global marketplace.

In addition to our commitment to these broader multilateral institutions, we have worked hard to create and launch a number of "minilateral" meetings, small groupings of interested states to tackle specific challenges, such as the Lower Mekong Initiative we launched to support education, health, and environmental programs in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands Forum, where we are working to support its members as they confront challenges from climate change to overfishing to freedom of navigation. We are also starting to pursue new trilateral opportunities with countries as diverse as Mongolia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, and South Korea. And we are setting our sights as well on enhancing coordination and engagement among the three giants of the Asia-Pacific: China, India, and the United States.

In all these different ways, we are seeking to shape and participate in a responsive, flexible, and effective regional architecture -- and ensure it connects to a broader global architecture that not only protects international stability and commerce but also advances our values.

OUR EMPHASIS ON the economic work of APEC is in keeping with our broader commitment to elevate economic statecraft as a pillar of American foreign policy. Increasingly, economic progress depends on strong diplomatic ties, and diplomatic progress depends on strong economic ties. And naturally, a focus on promoting American prosperity means a greater focus on trade and economic openness in the Asia-Pacific. The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia. Last year, American exports to the Pacific Rim totaled $320 billion, supporting 850,000 American jobs. So there is much that favors us as we think through this repositioning.

When I talk to my Asian counterparts, one theme consistently stands out: They still want America to be an engaged and creative partner in the region's flourishing trade and financial interactions. And as I talk with business leaders across our own nation, I hear how important it is for the United States to expand our exports and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets.

Last March in APEC meetings in Washington, and again in Hong Kong in July, I laid out four attributes that I believe characterize healthy economic competition: open, free, transparent, and fair. Through our engagement in the Asia-Pacific, we are helping to give shape to these principles and showing the world their value.

We are pursuing new cutting-edge trade deals that raise the standards for fair competition even as they open new markets. For instance, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports within five years and support an estimated 70,000 American jobs. Its tariff reductions alone could increase exports of American goods by more than $10 billion and help South Korea's economy grow by 6 percent. It will level the playing field for U.S. auto companies and workers. So, whether you are an American manufacturer of machinery or a South Korean chemicals exporter, this deal lowers the barriers that keep you from reaching new customers.

We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people's lives -- whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation's fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements -- and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

Achieving balance in our trade relationships requires a two-way commitment. That's the nature of balance -- it can't be unilaterally imposed. So we are working through APEC, the G-20, and our bilateral relationships to advocate for more open markets, fewer restrictions on exports, more transparency, and an overall commitment to fairness. American businesses and workers need to have confidence that they are operating on a level playing field, with predictable rules on everything from intellectual property to indigenous innovation.

ASIA'S REMARKABLE ECONOMIC growth over the past decade and its potential for continued growth in the future depend on the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military, including more than 50,000 American servicemen and servicewomen serving in Japan and South Korea. The challenges of today's rapidly changing region -- from territorial and maritime disputes to new threats to freedom of navigation to the heightened impact of natural disasters -- require that the United States pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture.

We are modernizing our basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia -- and our commitment on this is rock solid -- while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean. For example, the United States will be deploying littoral combat ships to Singapore, and we are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together. And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia to enhance opportunities for more joint training and exercises. We are also looking at how we can increase our operational access in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region and deepen our contacts with allies and partners.

How we translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific oceans into an operational concept is a question that we need to answer if we are to adapt to new challenges in the region. Against this backdrop, a more broadly distributed military presence across the region will provide vital advantages. The United States will be better positioned to support humanitarian missions; equally important, working with more allies and partners will provide a more robust bulwark against threats or efforts to undermine regional peace and stability.

But even more than our military might or the size of our economy, our most potent asset as a nation is the power of our values -- in particular, our steadfast support for democracy and human rights. This speaks to our deepest national character and is at the heart of our foreign policy, including our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific region.

As we deepen our engagement with partners with whom we disagree on these issues, we will continue to urge them to embrace reforms that would improve governance, protect human rights, and advance political freedoms. We have made it clear, for example, to Vietnam that our ambition to develop a strategic partnership requires that it take steps to further protect human rights and advance political freedoms. Or consider Burma, where we are determined to seek accountability for human rights violations. We are closely following developments in Nay Pyi Taw and the increasing interactions between Aung San Suu Kyi and the government leadership. We have underscored to the government that it must release political prisoners, advance political freedoms and human rights, and break from the policies of the past. As for North Korea, the regime in Pyongyang has shown persistent disregard for the rights of its people, and we continue to speak out forcefully against the threats it poses to the region and beyond.

We cannot and do not aspire to impose our system on other countries, but we do believe that certain values are universal -- that people in every nation in the world, including in Asia, cherish them -- and that they are intrinsic to stable, peaceful, and prosperous countries. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Asia to pursue their own rights and aspirations, just as we have seen people do all over the world.

IN THE LAST decade, our foreign policy has transitioned from dealing with the post-Cold War peace dividend to demanding commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.

We know that these new realities require us to innovate, to compete, and to lead in new ways. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership. In a time of scarce resources, there's no question that we need to invest them wisely where they will yield the biggest returns, which is why the Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us.

Other regions remain vitally important, of course. Europe, home to most of our traditional allies, is still a partner of first resort, working alongside the United States on nearly every urgent global challenge, and we are investing in updating the structures of our alliance. The people of the Middle East and North Africa are charting a new path that is already having profound global consequences, and the United States is committed to active and sustained partnerships as the region transforms. Africa holds enormous untapped potential for economic and political development in the years ahead. And our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere are not just our biggest export partners; they are also playing a growing role in global political and economic affairs. Each of these regions demands American engagement and leadership.

And we are prepared to lead. Now, I'm well aware that there are those who question our staying power around the world. We've heard this talk before. At the end of the Vietnam War, there was a thriving industry of global commentators promoting the idea that America was in retreat, and it is a theme that repeats itself every few decades. But whenever the United States has experienced setbacks, we've overcome them through reinvention and innovation. Our capacity to come back stronger is unmatched in modern history. It flows from our model of free democracy and free enterprise, a model that remains the most powerful source of prosperity and progress known to humankind. I hear everywhere I go that the world still looks to the United States for leadership. Our military is by far the strongest, and our economy is by far the largest in the world. Our workers are the most productive. Our universities are renowned the world over. So there should be no doubt that America has the capacity to secure and sustain our global leadership in this century as we did in the last.

As we move forward to set the stage for engagement in the Asia-Pacific over the next 60 years, we are mindful of the bipartisan legacy that has shaped our engagement for the past 60. And we are focused on the steps we have to take at home -- increasing our savings, reforming our financial systems, relying less on borrowing, overcoming partisan division -- to secure and sustain our leadership abroad.

This kind of pivot is not easy, but we have paved the way for it over the past two-and-a-half years, and we are committed to seeing it through as among the most important diplomatic efforts of our time.

 

Hillary Clinton is U.S. secretary of state.

BLAH000

1:13 AM ET

October 11, 2011

Liar

You do not believe in human rights. You have been violating my human rights since the beginning of the Obama administration. You are a liar and a criminal. And you will not get away with it.

http://chroniclesoftheendofhistory.blogspot.com/1977/07/birthday.html

 

ABHISHEK644

6:42 AM ET

November 1, 2011

The article is really

The article is really first-class, enlightening and specific with exact information. I never felt even for a single moment that I am wasting my time over it, good job and keep it up as you have great knowledge on this topic.

Scrabble cheat

 

YOSHIMICHI MORIYAMA

4:42 AM ET

October 11, 2011

Everyting is said

Everyting that ought to be said is said in this. Everything that ought to be made explicit and clear is made so. Unnan City, Japan

 

ANDRAS E KOVACS

12:55 PM ET

October 11, 2011

foreboding rhetorics - new lectures are coming?

"It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases." This is an impressive rhetoric twist. Right at the moment when China's population, four times larger than America's, reaches the point in its economic development that it can emit more greenhouse gases then the quarter sized United States, the latter feels obliged to protect the world from them. I mean I know about America's recent commitment to going green, but it would do a great service to the world by going green first and only then starting to preach (which does not mean it should not pressure China to mind the environment, if it can pressure China, it's just... America... please...). The remark was fairly consistent with Washington's usual practice of subscribing medicine that they themselves would never take, but still, it's inappropriate (and unconscientious) in a new issue area.

 

ANDRAS E KOVACS

4:02 PM ET

October 12, 2011

And this, too:

And this, too: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/a_hummer_in_every_driveway

 

PUBLICUS

7:34 AM ET

October 25, 2011

The Kyoto problem

The Kyoto Accords were bent to the will of the BRIC countries to the exclusive benefit of the BRIC countires. China, India, Brazil, Russia all insisted they be exempted from the carbon emissions and other greenhouse gasses controls and the proposed future "green" targets or the Kyoto Conference would fail. We remember how the Koyto Conference went intermnably on for this reason alone. It was a mistake for the West to bend to this selfish BRIC bent.

The major BRIC argument was the bogus and whining claim that the advanced countries were trying to surpress the developing countries, BRIC and others. The attitude expressed by the Beijing CCP was that the West polluted its way through development during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, so why shouldn't Beijing and other lagging economies be allowed to do the same in the 21st century? There certainly wasn't anything the CCP had to learn from past experience, was there?

Then the CCP Boyz in Beijing found out the people of the People's Republic recoiled at the CCP's freely polluting policies, that the people of the People's Republic objected powerfully to public policy that was vile towards human and all life as the rivers and lakes became poisoned, the land destroyed and the air unbreathable. Because Beijing had to take notice of the people's anger concerning such basics, current projections are for the PRC economy to grow next year by 7% instead of the wild hell bent 11% devil may care rate of recent years.

Seven percent annual GDP growth sounds reasonable to me especially as the CCP in Beijing has to pause to clean its dead air, fouled waters and destroyed lands.

 

MARINE67

1:28 PM ET

October 11, 2011

The US has not only gained

The US has not only gained natural resources in the middle east, but soon will have completed the Turkmenistan-Afghan-Pakistan gas pipe line.bases built along this pipe line route. control of the drug trade in Afghanistan. a $700,000 US Embassy in Iraq. A new massive prision to be built in Afghanistan. bases that now allow the countries of china and Russia to be surrounded. cutting China and Russia off from many resources in the middle eastern countries. the US has troops in 150 countries. Looks like imperialism to me.now, in African countries . How long before the US turns back toward South America for expanding its global expansion?

 

SCDAD07

5:51 PM ET

October 12, 2011

US has not only gained.. What gain?

"The Turkmenistan-Afghan-Pakistan TAPI gas pipeline that the US has sought since 1998 is finally nearing completion. But whether it can operate in the face of sabotage remains to be seen. CIA is reportedly creating an 8,000-man mercenary force to protect the pipeline which runs smack across Pashtun tribal territory."

"The US ... this endless war against the fierce Pashtun people, renowned for making Afghanistan "the Graveyard of Empires. After ten years of military and civil operations costing at least $450 billion, over 1,600 dead and 15,000 seriously wounded soldiers, the US has achieved none of its strategic or political goals. As for Afghanistan, it has suffered untold civilian casualties, villages shattered by US bombing, night raids by death squads, over two million refugees and a 30-year civil war."

"US-run Afghanistan now produces 93% of the world’s most dangerous narcotic, heroin. Under Taliban, drug production virtually ended, according to the UN. Today, the Afghan drug business is booming. The US tries to blame Taliban; but the real culprits are high government officials in Kabul and US-backed non-Pashtun warlords. A senior UN drug official recently asserted that Afghan heroin killed 10,000 people in NATO countries last year."

"The US is building its biggest embassy in the world in Kabul, an $800 million fortress with 1,000 personnel, protected by a small army of mercenary gunmen. ... Another such monster embassy, or "Crusader castle," as bin Laden called it, is a building in Islamabad."

"At a time when 44 million Americans subsist on government food stamps and lack the kind of medical care common to other developed nations, each US soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million per annum. CIA employs 80,000 mercenaries there, cost unknown. The Pentagon spends a staggering $20.2 billion annually air conditioning troop quarters in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The most damning assessment comes from the US-installed Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai: America’s war has been "ineffective, apart from causing civilian casualties."

 

SCDAD07

7:02 PM ET

October 12, 2011

US has not only gained.. cont'd

'middle east' -

"NY times 3/19/10: Last year, Saudi exports to the United States fell to 989,000 barrels a day, the lowest level in 22 years, from 1.5 million barrels a day the previous year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Meanwhile, Saudi sales to China surged above a million barrels a day last year, nearly doubling from the previous year. The kingdom now accounts for a quarter of Chinese oil imports."

"PressTV 8/23/11: According to the latest report by the China Customs Organization, Iran's total crude exports to China rose 46.73 percent from January to July 2011 compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, Fars news agency reported on Monday.

China imported about 16.2 million tons of crude oil from the Islamic Republic in the said time span, making Iran the third largest oil supplier of the Asian country after Saudi Arabia and Angola. Iran is currently providing China with roughly 12 percent of its total annual oil demand."

"Gasandoil.com 11/24/09: Qatar signed long term deals (25 years) with the two Chinese companies for a total of 5 mm tons last year and has since started diverting LNG shipments to China in response to a slump in demand for imported gas in the United States where shale gas production is booming.
"China is the centre today of the new LNG compass," Qatar's oil minister Abdulla al-Attiyah was quoted as saying during the opening ceremony of a QatarGas office in Beijing. production is booming."

 

MANEESH

1:45 PM ET

October 11, 2011

Everyting has been said

The best thing to come from the Middle East has been oil.
The best thing to come from Asia might be better living conditions for half to three fourths of the world's population and more trade opportunities for the US of A. ibn7

 

BARACKOBAMA

1:56 PM ET

October 11, 2011

The Monroe doctrine is not dead yet?

To quote from the article: "Just as Asia is critical to America's future, an engaged America is vital to Asia's future. The region is eager for our leadership and our business -- perhaps more so than at any time in modern history. "

This makes me despair for what passes for political discourse in US foreign policy. I guess that exactly zero lessons have been learnt from the disasters of the Iraq, and Afghanistan wars.

Here is a hint: No, Asian countries are, by and large, *not* eager for US leadership. They have their own fish to fry. It is high time that Monroe was buried, dead, and forgotten, especially in an era when the US is flirting with economic disaster, and having to face strong internal discord.

Regards,
Barry

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:30 PM ET

October 11, 2011

Sharing power with China in America’s pacific century

All the diplomatic talk can NOT varnish the fundamental fact – American power is on the decline with the ascendancy of China and US has to start sharing the center space with China. American monopoly of world domination lasted about 20 to 30 years depending on when did the decline of Soviet Union began in one’s opinion.

Nixon-Kissinger’s embrace of China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 and Reagan’s embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in Afghanistan has backfired royally on US.

Nixon-Kissinger’s embrace of China led to rise of China to challenge US and Reagan’s embrace of Islamic fundamentalists led to 9/11 attacks and resulting US bog-down in Afghanistan. Both of these embraces have come back to haunt US no matter how Hillary Clinton wants to spin them.

It will be entirely up to China as to how much power does it want to share with US in Asia-Pacific to begin with and then in the whole world at large as China becomes ever more powerful.

Second cold war has already started, this time between US and China whether Hillary Clinton wants to admit it or not.

And if US had an upper hand against Soviet Union in the first cold war, then creditor China has an upper hand against debtor US in this second cold war.

 

JOHN MILTON XIV

10:25 PM ET

October 11, 2011

Ms Clinton believes that we

Ms Clinton believes that we are winning the wars in Iraq and AfPak.

Right there, we have all the the symptoms of solipsistic and monadic blindness and autism characteristic of decline, decay and degeneration and which can be readily observed in the failure of our Sec. of State to stare truth in the face.

Hilary unstoppable train-crash Clinton.

 

TC1

6:02 AM ET

October 12, 2011

Strange but interesting

It is a curious document and quite comprehensive in coverage. I don’t recall seeing as clear an enunciation of US foreign policy intent before.

I wonder if much consideration was given to the actual audience that will read it in a forum like this. It’s more like a backgrounder that you’d use within government to support a shorter document that had a list of ‘action’ recommendations for consideration (may be that’s what it started out as).

Struggling with the fact that the US involvement actually may not be an essential ingredient in the region, other than as a customer, is the way it comes across!

ps ‘Seeking to constrain China’s growth’ -- maybe not, but patrolling the South China Sea, invading Afghanistan and attempting to constrain Pakistan could easily be interpreted as the US maintaining an ability to block China’s import/export access routes if required.

 

DODOBIRD

6:48 AM ET

October 12, 2011

Money talk and BS walk.

What has this got to w/ 9.1% unemployment and will help burgeoning 14.5 trillions national debts and soon to become 25 trillions debts in 2020 w/ no way of paying off ever?? You can only suppressed low interest at low 2% so long, before people find better investment opportunity elsewhere, endless printing of cheap dollars by Federal Reserve in driving up cost of all natural resources, except for depressed stocks & housing price, that is why economy tank!!

Middle East got oil, African got minerals. Asia only got teeming 1/3 of humanity, not much else resources. That is why Japan & Korea investment in high tech, and China geared for low cost manufacturing, and Singapore & Hong Kong specialized in international finance.

What any outside power hope to gain in Asia, out of misery of billions of mostly struggling poor ??

Then again, middle East oil & Africa mineral resources for trade and 1 billions muslim PLUS 1 billions Africans consumers market, in exchange for cheap Chinese good, is FAIR TRADE anytime.

Bring on trade war anytime

Money talk and BS walk.

 

MECAD

10:50 AM ET

October 12, 2011

misunderstanding

im chinese and i have several things to say to you guys.
1. why the hostility? US sees itself as the ideal way to go for humanity, and i believe to some extent you are right, technologically, economically, environmentally, democratically. yes, you are right. stop complaining about the wall st, every society has its disadvantage.
most chinese (at least those that i know) share my point of view, we believe that you are the way to go, that we should be more like you in many aspects(though definitely not everything), so why the hostility? we dont intend on invading you or something, so why?
bear in mind plz, our gdp is only half the size of yours, our military spending (though some may argue it is rapidly expanding) is neglectable compared with yours, and yet we have three times more people than you do. why do you guys feel threatened by us?

2. about the south china sea. just imagine one simple senario, if we exchange position, we chinese are talking about keeping our quote dominant position end quote in the mexican gulf, what would you be thinking about? what would you say if we are talking all the time about free navigation in the mexican gulf? one even simpler question: why do you have to be dominant in the region?

its been almost 40 years after kissinger and nixon's adventures, yet the understanding between the two greatest peoples in the world still knows so little about each other. or to be more acurate, we have come to understand, and to some extent admire your way of life, yet you still refuse to even attempt to understand us, let alone building a people to people friendship.

it is surprising to me, especially when every single american that i personally know, is so hospitable and warm. so why the differnece?

 

PUBLICUS

9:49 AM ET

October 14, 2011

Drippy and dippy Chinese innocents

The United States does not claim territorial sovereignty over the Gulf of Mexico (nor over the Caribbean Sea). India does not claim territorial rights over the Indian Ocean. But the grabby CCP of Beijing claim territorial sovereignty over the misnamed South China Sea. Moreover, the PRC sent its army in to occupy Tibet and to take absolute control of the Turkic speaking Mulsims of that area which now is westernmost China, the XinJiang region where Beijing continues to brutally supress uprisings against unwelcome Beijing CCP rule.

The United States and Canada peacefully and agreeable split the North American Great Lakes 50 - 50 between us. Why does China claim absolute territorial sovereignty over an entire sea?

The body of water anyway rightfully should be named the Southeast Asia Sea as only 2800 km of its 130,000 km of shoreline touches China. Almost all of the sea touches Asean countries. It thus deserves the name the Southeast Asia Sea.

Correct the name "South China Sea" to its rightful and accurate name, the "Southeast Asia Sea"

SIGN THIS PETITION

Petitioning:
Presidents and Prime Ministers of 11 Countries of Southeast Asia (+ 16 others)
Canadian Geographic (President)
National Hydrographic Office (India) (President)
Canadian Royal Geographic (President)
Japan Academic Societies Center (President)
European Geographic Society (President)
Korean Geographical Society (President)
Geographical Society (France) (President)
Russian Geographical Society (President)
Royal Geographical Society (UK) (President)
The United Nations Atlas of the Oceans (President and Officers)
National Geographic Society (CEO and President)
Google Inc. (CEO and Executive Chairman)
German Geographic (President)
Australian Geographic (President)
The United Nations (Chairman and President)
Secretary General of ASEAN (Surin Pitsuwan)

Created By
NGUYEN THAI HOC FOUNDATION

About this Petition and Why this is Important

In the sixteenth century, the world had little knowledge about Southeast Asia. Western merchants and sailors of that time called the sea, which is encompassed by the present-day Southeast Asian countries, the “South China Sea” to refer to the enclosed sea basin and its location in relation to the surrounding countries lying to the north of Australia, east of India, and south of China.

Notably, ancient Chinese historical documents called the sea ??? (Giao Ch? D??ng), which means the Sea of Jiaozhi or Jiaozhi Sea. Jiaozhi is an ancient name of Vietnam. Other lesser known names include Champa Sea or Sea of Cham, after the maritime kingdom that flourished between the seventh and sixteenth centuries.

In this modern era, as human civilization evolved towards a multi-faceted global collaboration, the international community since the 20th century has geographically formed a sub-region in Asia to address mankind’s need. This region was officially named Southeast Asia and consists of Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

Southeast Asia represents approximately 600 million people who have, in a joint effort, made unique and original contributions to modern civilization in many aspects, including culture, science, education, economics, politics, etc. In addition to the above, these are facts:

1. The United Nations has officially recognized the region and named it “Southeast Asia”.

2. The countries of Southeast Asia encompass almost the entire South China Sea with a total coastline measuring approximately 130,000 kilometers (81,250 miles) long; whereas the Southern China’s coastline measured about 2,800 kilometers (1,750 miles) in length.

3. Freedom of navigation on the sea is not restricted to a specific country. It is a common heritage of mankind and has actually been used by the international community for centuries as the second most important water channel in the world.

Join the campaign to ask the Presidents and Prime Ministers of 11 countries of Southeast Asia, the President of United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, and the CEOs and Presidents of 12 geographic organizations around the world to change the name “South China Sea” to “Southeast Asia Sea”.

Sign the petition and your action will forever be remembered in the modern history of Southeast Asia.

change.org

 

AMERICAN JEWISH REALIST

11:32 AM ET

October 12, 2011

Excellent, Thorough, Insightful Article ... but

the powerful Israel Lobby will never permit a refocus of American priorities and in particular, HUGE pile of resource$ away from Israeli interests towards greater American interests.

An Obama/Hillary Clinton 2012 ticket would be very much welcomed and most likely more in American true interests than our current, looong time priorities, tactics, strategies and vast resources that have resulted in our current disasters. Israel is indeed a key American interest, but far less than the current irrational, non-American squandering away of HUGE time, money, technology, intelligence and many other resources. A more subtle shift towards our vital A-P interests may be possible, and may be even inevitable in the mid2distant future to help regenerate our strength/greatness and mitigate our relatively recent bad behaviours supporting bad Israel behaviours for the wrong rationales, like Iraq and the so-called Peace Process.

 

SCIPIO60

11:47 AM ET

October 12, 2011

America's inheritance is not

America's inheritance is not the Pacific Basin it is the remains of the old British Commonwealth of nations. America's adventure in the Islamic World and the Mongolian world has been a disaster . We can seek to influence and advise other cultures but in the end they listen to their own inner voice and they are not the same as ours. The USA is like a teenager trying to find his place in the world,who more often than not end up with the wrong crowd and suffer the consequences of misplaced loyalty. This article maybe the genuine sentiment of the Obama administration and it may excite Wall Street but it is as toxic as the " Forbidden Fruit " of biblical lore. China like every other nation has no desire to be dominated by America and it will use every strategy to prevent America from doing so even if it involve war . China's power like that of imperial Japan is is limited and determined by geography, if they exceed their lawfull limit they will be destroyed like ever other misguided nation. They like us are not invincible and they like us prosper or fail according to law

 

DODOBIRD

3:00 PM ET

October 12, 2011

SCIPIO60 - America's inheritance

SCIPIO60 -

America's inheritance is not the Pacific Basin it is the remains of the old British Commonwealth

Which is neck of woods you from??
British commonwealth – Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Egypt, Libya, India, Bangledash, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda , etc,

Enjoy your kinship with them all, ha

 

MAZO

7:10 AM ET

October 13, 2011

Look before you leap..

Asia today is a whole different ball game for the USA. unlike the past, where America has dealt with flagging powers and third world rogues, Asia is filled with confident and prospering nations. Some democratic, some not so. The democracies like India, Japan, Korea etc see themselves as no less democratic than the US or Europe and don't want the kind of "hand holding" of the past. Further, most Asian nations, even US allies seek "partnerships" not alliances like the Europeans.

The Future requires a steady, careful and patient US foreign policy with Asia. Cowboy diplomacy and rash gunboat diplomacy is going to get the US thrown out of the region fast. The US will have to play the long game and safeguard its interests. The future also holds many uncertainties and the US would be crazy to take current alliances with Japan, Korea, etc for granted as these nations start to assert themselves.

Perhaps the greatest problem for the US will be seeing the rise of powerful multi-lateral groups that do not include the US and having to negotiate with these groups for US interests. The rise of China will force such groups to be formed by other smaller nations to offset Chinese military and economic dominance.

The greatest asset the US will have is mutual suspicion between the Asians and the strong desire in Asia to not allow the Chinese Communists to dominate.

 

KEYBASHER

9:33 AM ET

October 14, 2011

Don't bet on China just yet.

When a one-party state hosts an Olympics, ten years later that state circles the drain if it isn't already down it. To wit:

1936: Berlin Olympics / Garmisch-Partenkirchen Winter Olympics
1946: Allied Occupation

1980: Moscow Olympics
1990: Collapse of Communism

1984: Sarajevo Winter Olympics
1994: Yugoslav Civil War

2008: Beijing Olympics
2018: ?

Remember, you heard it here first.

 

PUBLICUS

9:33 AM ET

October 22, 2011

Japan & Asean in military agreement

Defense ministers of Japan and all ten Asean countries are in agreement that the buildup of the PRC military by the CCP and its recent agressiveness in East Asia, in the misnamed "South China Sea" especially requires a united and unified response. You are invited to read the most recent development in this regard in the link below.

WSJ.com - Asian Bloc Agrees to Counter China Heft*

 

WORDPRESSER

1:19 PM ET

October 13, 2011

Blue water dominance

Blue water dominance, yes, the US Navy is unstoppable. Their air and submarine power are beyond any other navies ability to defeat. But, when you operate proximate to Taiwan or South Korea, or in the South China Sea, you are in the shadow to Chinese air cover and you fall within range of their ballistic missiles even farther out.
The most likely situations that would bring US and Chinese forces into direct confrontation will happen close enough to China that you have to factor in the Second Artillery and the PLAAF. The PLAN will be operating close to home and under friendly air cover with land based radar and missiles systems coving much of the theater. It won't be a Chinese carrier strike group against a US Navy carrier strike group standing alone in blue water outside land based air cover. China won't go there anyway. It will be a fight very close to the Chinese mainland. In that scenario, you have to factor in land based US air power from Japan and Guam, land based Chinese air power, air defense missiles and ballistic missile strikes from China at both Japan and Guam (and maybe the mainland US), and at US naval forces with DF-21D's if they really do what is claimed for them (I have my doubts). The calculus becomes more complex then. The US could prevail, but it would have to accept a full mobilization and be willing to take significant combat losses to beat the Chinese. It's doable, but no one looks forward to it. They wouldn't roll over Chinese forces they way they rolled over Iranian forces in Operation Praying Mantis. There would be a price to pay.

 

JASONHARRIMAN

3:29 PM ET

October 13, 2011

Partner, Don't Meddle!

"Our challenge now is to build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic."

This is exactly right, but we need to refrain from letting our partnerships become one-sided, with America dominating the conversation to the detriment of her partners, but also working to make sure to partnership works for the U.S. as well. Balance in our policies, as in every aspect of life, will lead to success with the Pacific nations, and may change the future of our dealings with Euro-centric partners.

 

MITTAL

5:58 PM ET

October 13, 2011

WORDPRESSER - Blue water dominance

" They wouldn't roll over Chinese forces they way they rolled over Iranian forces in Operation Praying Mantis. There would be a price to pay. "

Don't worry America India will save you.

Indians all smart techie guru of course, come to America for all high tech jobs at 1/3 wage, sold straw hut in Bombay for one thousand ruppe, one ruppe worth 100 hundred US dollars before dollar tank further, and buy a foreclosed American home. Great Depression II problem solved.

Proud heir of Brisitsh Commonwealth, herby invoked Winstons Churchill " if British Empire would have lasted one thousand years, people would have said this is their finest hour!!!"

only small price to pay for freedom of sea, Englisgmen's natural right since Trafagar. Oh Britania, Britania shall always rule the wave.

 

MADHATTER15

1:39 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Hillary Clinton's pipe dreams

I find it very unfortunate that Hillary has become Secty. of state considering her dislike of America, it seems no one in Office is happy with America these days, they can't give it away fast enough. Hillarys Marxist views are insulting and her love of Asia, China in particular, is becoming more and more obvious..Hillary was gushing last moth about South America and the deals they were making with Brazil, how young and vibrant they are and we re just an aging population, I'll tell that to my grandchildren. Brazil is sytill in the drug trade and still a dangerous place, no tif you ar evisiting as Secty. o fstate of course so I guess she didnt' notice, same with Columbia, they ar ehaving trouble letting them come intoo , nothing but drug cartels up there accordin gto the newspapers, it is holding up the N American Union and we can't have that.. Hillary talks a good game, America is not going to be livable in a year or two not even for Hillary, Hillary and people like her, Marxists , Progressives and out and out communists have a problem with leaving America alone, we were fine, we didn't need globalization, the marxists did , how else could they give this country away to the UN and Asia? We have a woman who helped try to get Obama legalized before he ran for President , along with John Conyers and Claire McCaskell , they tried to change the constitutionm and couldn't but Obama ran anyway and won, so did winning make him legal? Not one of them said a word, they never will either, they just sit and watch as our country is cut up into pieces and all of our jobs sent to other countruies and by an illigitimate President and nothing is said, this is who is running our country and we should read what she and her ilk think? she should be tarred and feathered along with Soros and the rest of them and run out of town on a rail, preferably to China since she likes i tso much. bon Voyage.

 

ONEMOREN

3:43 AM ET

October 17, 2011

en

A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature -- long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises -- and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world. http://www.moncler-magic.com

 

STEVELAUDIG

5:44 PM ET

October 18, 2011

A "non pacific" American Pacific Century.

Hilary Clinton gives immodest praise to her own country. Let’s take a look at "America's [First] Pacific Century". First, the invasion of the little democratic Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands and the deposition of the lawful democratically-elected government. The United States government still occupies it. There is no treaty merging sovereignty between the two and the "Republic" was not one created by Hawaiian Islander nationals but bred, born and suckled by the U.S. This war on the Hawaiian Islands was followed 5 years later by war in the Philippines first against Spain on behalf of the Philippines and then against Filipino nationalists seeking independence from Spain who had been promised independence by the United States which either lied to them or broke its promise. At the same time the United States [along with U.K., France, Germany, Russia, etc] invades China [Zh?ngguó] ?? sacking Beijing. In a mere eight years the United States waged three wars on Asian or Pacific countries. Twenty years later the United States assists the same group [U.K, France etc] in invading Russia [a Pacific Asian country] intervening in a civil war and causing much additional misery. The author of this piece writes that “The "return" of the United States will deeply involve the country in the issues concerning Asia's politics, economy and security.” Fifteen years after invading and losing in Russia, the United States funds one side of a civil war in Zh?ngguó causing great additional misery and loss of life. Then, less than ten years later, the United States funds French resistance to Vietnamese independence causing great additional misery and loss of life. Then the United States assumes the role of colonizer and fights [and loses in Vietnam] while “collaterally” demolishing Cambodia such that it has yet to recover. Hmmm. Seeing a pattern? Vietnam thumped the United States. Afghanistan [certainly Asian if not Pacific Asian] thumped the United States. Iran thumped the United States as did Iraq. Asians should ask themselves: Can we risk a “second” United States Pacific Century when the United States’s “First Pacific Century” was anything but “pacific”. The United States [or perhaps the United States government would be a more accurate point,] as anything other than a trading partner, spreads war, waste, and misery wherever it goes and whenever it wants to.

 

MARTIAL

10:43 PM ET

October 19, 2011

An odd analysis for an American Secretary of State.

"The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq"

Countries of Asia: Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain
Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma (Myanmar) Cambodia China Georgia Hong Kong India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan
Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia
Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar
Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Taiwan Tajikistan
Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam

Afghanistan & Iraq are Asian countries.

All high level US officials must care deeply about Asia's most populous nation. China's unruly neighbors, Afghanistan & Pakistan, vex Beijing almost as much as they bother Washington.

Instead of worrying so about a complex continent wherein every other country appears to pose nearly intractable problems, concentrate on a region blessed with mostly well-established democracies, possessed of, pretty much, one religion and two languages (there are many subgroups with other languages of course). Because South Americans are mostly indigent & the continent is at peace, pennies spent there will yield far greater dividends than dollars spent in Africa or Asia. We could even work with Brasil & Central America to render sugar the energy source for our half of the world.

Besides, every South American country fascinates. For example, Uruguay has one of the world's worst bovine perils:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/3252854/Pictures-of-the-day-24-October-2008.html?image=2

 

MASYNEE

7:11 PM ET

October 20, 2011

An emerging power?

Great article. I was interested to see this description of China though: "It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia. "

I assume the term emrging is probably being used in terms of still growing in power because there can be no doubt that China is already a super power, more powerful than the USSR ever was. In terms of populaiton, market, workforce, economic output, exports, military personnel, China dwarfs every other country in the world.

The only lead the US and other Western nations have is in terms of technology - but they're cathing up fast. Take the car industry. Already China is a bigger car market than the US and GM sells more cars in China than they do in the USA. However to be involved in the market there are strict ownership agreements meaning that CHina has some say inproduction and an pecentage of profits.

Also if companies want to cash in on the electrification and greening of the car, they have to share this technology with their Chinese partners. This has been a major stumbling block for GM tryign to introduce the game changing Volt into China without giving away its technological secrets. Other companies haven't been as reluctant.

Imagine giving China access to the latest military technology for helicoptershelicopters, jet fighters, missiles etc.

What about space technology? With the US effectively needing overseas help to launch satellites and NASA technologies, it can't be long before China steps into that breach as well.

China may still be emerging, but from a current giant to an enormous behemoth.

 

PUBLICUS

9:45 AM ET

October 22, 2011

CCP

The CCP in Beijing and its PRC constitute a corrupt and power hungry elite of oligarchs, dictators, tyrants, kleptocrats, autocrats. The CCP-created fenqing youth are China's own KKK. Beijing is a 21st century fascist dictatorship of oppression against its own people, repression, censorship, indoctrination, propaganda. In the age of IT Beijing is the most reactionary force in the world. Beijing prohibits Facebook in China, claiming to its sheeple that, if Beijing lifted its censoring prohibition of Facebook in China, the United States would cause trouble and disruptions in China among its sheeple. Damn right we would, and rightly so.

 

ORWELL

7:52 AM ET

October 23, 2011

Shock Doctrine in China

American and Chinese economic fundamentalists are working together to destabilize the orderly development of Asia and Pacific.

Milton Friedman's theory was adopted by the CCP and socio economic gap are now overtly widened and the ideals of the equality in society were thrown away somewhere and sons and daughters of the party cadres are enjoying luxurious life.

Those two moneymongers will become a cause of threat for the world peace.

It should be stopped. Human rights in Inner Mongolia Tibet and Uighur should be protected.

 

DODOBIRD

10:43 AM ET

October 21, 2011

Not need to emerge, power always on since beginning of time

“ What about space technology? With the US effectively needing overseas help to launch satellites and NASA technologies, it can't be long before China steps into that breach as well.
China may still be emerging, but from a current giant to an enormous behemoth. “
-- MASYNEE

China: Sacred Guardian of universal knowledge, keeper of Eternal flame.

Per Buzz Lightyear space ranger of STAR Command : To Infinity and Beyond.

 

STEVELAUDIG

5:25 AM ET

October 22, 2011

Is it a fair question to ask

how many excess deaths U.S. government has caused during its Pacific Century? Where should one begin? The invasion and occupation of the Hawaiian Islands was bloodless but also lawless, anti-democratic [the Hawaiians had a functioning democracy with elections and a free press and wow! everything] and dishonorable. The Philippines 1898-1908. Again despicable betrayal of the Filippino nationalists who started the war against Spain. Followed by extending the Chinese Civil War in support of that liberal democrat Chiang. Followed by the wars on Vietnam [funding the French and then having a separate, but losing, go] and Cambodia and Afghanistan [Asian if not Pacific but Clinton mentions it] and Iraq twice. One is left wondering at the death toll should the U.S. not been such a peace-seeking or "pacific" power and whether a different type of engagement is now merited. One that involves less weaponry. But that's naive I suppose.

 

STEVELAUDIG

5:25 AM ET

October 22, 2011

Is it a fair question to ask

how many excess deaths U.S. government has caused during its Pacific Century? Where should one begin? The invasion and occupation of the Hawaiian Islands was bloodless but also lawless, anti-democratic [the Hawaiians had a functioning democracy with elections and a free press and wow! everything] and dishonorable. The Philippines 1898-1908. Again despicable betrayal of the Filippino nationalists who started the war against Spain. Followed by extending the Chinese Civil War in support of that liberal democrat Chiang. Followed by the wars on Vietnam [funding the French and then having a separate, but losing, go] and Cambodia and Afghanistan [Asian if not Pacific but Clinton mentions it] and Iraq twice. One is left wondering at the death toll should the U.S. not been such a peace-seeking or "pacific" power and whether a different type of engagement is now merited. One that involves less weaponry. But that's naive I suppose.

 

PUBLICUS

9:57 AM ET

October 22, 2011

Beijing prepares for war

Beijing is certain it can initiate a "clean" nuclear and cyberwar against the United States which also would include targeted biological warfare.

In his infamous 2005 speech, "War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century," PLA Air Force Gen and, until recently, defense minister of the PRC Chi Hotian said:

"The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.

"Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China’s century. As war approaches, I am full of hope for our next generation."

Read the whole ugly and viciously menacing speech at the following link:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-8/31055.html

 

CEKMAGDURLARI

3:28 AM ET

October 23, 2011

Cek Kanunu

it is holding up the N American Union and we can't have that.. Hillary talks a good game, America is not going to be livable in a year or two not even for Hillary, Hillary and people like her, Marxists Karsiliksiz cek, cek yasasi, cek kanunu, cek magdurlari, cek affi, cek cezalari

 

ORWELL

7:45 AM ET

October 23, 2011

Stop TPP ageression

TPP can be a tool of economic invasion by the villains from the Wall Street. It will definitely jeopardize the healthy US-Japan relations into a Master Servant relations. It should be rectified.
TPP proposal should be discarded. American imperial expansion should be moderated together with the cooperation of Japan.

 

YUSEF101

1:51 AM ET

October 25, 2011

mind your own business

Keep your nose out of Taiwan and South China Islands

And america doenst need to worry about anything

worry about the 40 million americans on food stamps and murdering regimes subsidized by the US

"From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home"

You dont need 1000 overseas Military Bases for anything mentioned in that paragraph.

Your work abroad keeps Halliburton and Blackwater prosperous not so much your people .

Singapore does business with over throwing governments
nuclear proliferation threat is exaggerated
Sea lanes are free the British kept them free with a much smaller navy
You want security at home legalize drugs

 

HISTORYSQUARED

10:08 AM ET

October 27, 2011

WWIII Battle Lines Being Drawn

China May Resort to Force in Sea Disputes, Global Times Says

“If these countries don’t want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sounds of cannons,” the unsigned editorial said. “We need to be ready for that, as it may be the only way for the disputes in the sea to be resolved.”

Hillary Clinton argues for an increased military presence in the South Sea

“In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region”

Hillary’s article is powerfully written, but also fanciful. The plan is borrow from China, to increase the US military’s presence to contain China, and inflict the US way of life on them. That’s realistic.

Harvard Professor and economic historian Niall Ferguson has studied how empires decline. In an article entitled “The Sun could set suddenly on superpower as debt bites,” Niall Ferguson pointed to debt unsustainability as the source of the Hapsburg Spanish, Bourbon French, and British Empire sudden falls. Ferguson suggests when interest payments rise above that of defense spending, prior empires have fallen. This could happen to the US within the next decade.

For Hillary’s part, any notions of budgetary constraints are ignored by the Secretary of Defense, arguing that we can’t afford not to expand our presence.

Here’s a better idea idea. Perhaps Europe, India, and the ASEAN countries should pay for their own security, purchasing the goods from US defense companies that the US government can no longer afford.

Life is not always as we wish though. The market is notoriously poor at predicting wars. This is definitely a black swan risk that should be hedged against over the next decade, and beyond.

 

OLSON46

6:39 AM ET

November 6, 2011

Spewing Rhetoric, Maximum American Arrogance & Massive Jingoism

“One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and OTHERWISE -- in the Asia-Pacific region.”
This can clearly mean future US-led wars in the said region.

“We cannot and do not aspire to impose our system on other countries, but we do believe that certain values are universal.”
We have to admire Mrs. Clinton for her immense arrogance and downright jingoism. In a careful analysis on Hillary’s exaggerated confidence and lack of modesty, one can clearly sense the increasing fear, paranoia and uncertainty of America’s imminent political and economic ruin. Let's all hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Much love folks!
Lisa O.

 

DELPIA

5:05 AM ET

November 10, 2011

Wow

Yes I think sO countries, but we do believe that certain values are universal.”
We have to admire Mrs. Clinton for her immense arrogance and downright jingoism. In a careful analysis on Hillary’s exaggerated confidence and lack of modesty, one can clearly sense the increasing fear kindle black friday
black friday kindlekindle 3 black friday

 

LIAMREGLER

10:54 PM ET

November 7, 2011

Politics Is Tearing Us Apart

Being an American citizen I'm extremely dishearten through the abundance of divisive messages originating from Washington, DC and mainstream media. Even though many Americans are sufferingmuscle building tipselected officials appear to put additional time and energy in criticizing one another proposals than picking out solutions.

I'm much more disheartened through the quantity of Americans who subscribe to these divisive ideologies. Individuals are becoming a lot more divided with a political landscape of hand-pickedhow to build muscleproblems that pit one segment from the population against another. The worst part, these specific issues aren't the most critical towards the country in general. Realize that this isn't a panic attack on all elected officials because some work very difficult around the people's behalf.

The media's hands are simply as dirty. Some personalities are earning a large amount of cash to amplifyvisual impact muscle buildingthe divisiveness. Note the amount of news and talk radio implies that walk out their method to polarize any perspective they disagree with.

 

INDAYMANDRAXX

11:15 PM ET

November 8, 2011

that's right

that is so absolutely right. Asia is the future and it is wise for the US to invest on it and this move will surely benefit everyone in the world. castleville cheats cheats for energy