FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama's trip to China - how successful do you think it was?





deanhills
How successful do you think was Obama's trip to China? Do you think it is going to have an impact on the relationship between the two countries?
Quote:
Obama held the bulk of his formal talks on Tuesday with President Hu Jintao, after which the leaders of the world's number one and three economies said they had agreed to pool their global clout to attack a number of tough issues.

The pair vowed to push for a climate change deal, called on North Korea to return to multilateral talks on ending its nuclear weapons programme and emphasised the need to resurrect the global economy from the depths of crisis. Related article: China stifles Obama charisma

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091118/wl_afp/chinausdiplomacy_20091118034358
I particularly wonder what they are planning to do with regard to the "global economy", as well as all the debt and interest on debt that is payable by the US to China. Not to mention the neo-colonization of Africa, in which China with its much "deeper pockets" is the leader at the moment.

How much clout does the US really have with China? Interesting photo Think
liljp617
I imagine his message was one of "we can play the game too." And I don't think it will make much difference.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

How much clout does the US really have with China? Interesting photo Think

Quite a lot, but China also has a LOT of clout in the USA... The two economies have grown extremely co-dependent, either one would crash hard without the other's support.

Added to that, The US and China arguably are the two most powerful countries militarily. And they are both well-stocked with nuclear weapons.

It's a touchy situation... It is in the best interest of both sides to avoid conflict, but if conflict did occur, it would be bad.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
It is in the best interest of both sides to avoid conflict, but if conflict did occur, it would be bad.
Are you sure it would only be a one on one war? What about Russia? That is still a very powerful "wild card" country to reckon with, as the United States is never quite sure where they stand with Russia. Russia may appear magically at the side of China (even when they are enemies as well), if need be, and the negotiations are right for them, and ditto Iran. Perhaps the US really needs to become more aggressive economically and counter China's aggressive economic marketing world wide. Not to mention enormous emigration drives. China has a very strong foothold in the Middle East as well. Growing in numbers, usually starting off with undercutting large construction or engineering project prices as well as bringing people to construction that are willing to work for much less than everyone else. There is a race going on, and even when the United States is the more ideal partner in every sense of the word, it seems to be absent where it really counts. Talking "nice" is obviously not near enough. What is that war strategy of Mao Tse Tung's:
Quote:
"The enemy advances; we retreat." "The enemy camps; we harass." "The enemy tires; we attack." "The enemy retreats; we pursue."
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1226.html

Are the US "camping" or "tiring"?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
It is in the best interest of both sides to avoid conflict, but if conflict did occur, it would be bad.
Are you sure it would only be a one on one war? What about Russia? That is still a very powerful "wild card" country to reckon with, as the United States is never quite sure where they stand with Russia.

Russia is powerful, though decaying. However, the US doesn't have the extremely strong economic ties with Russia that it has with China.

In the current situation between China and the USA, any change could cause a disaster, but it would take something huge to make trouble with Russia.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
It is in the best interest of both sides to avoid conflict, but if conflict did occur, it would be bad.
Are you sure it would only be a one on one war? What about Russia? That is still a very powerful "wild card" country to reckon with, as the United States is never quite sure where they stand with Russia.

Russia is powerful, though decaying. However, the US doesn't have the extremely strong economic ties with Russia that it has with China.

In the current situation between China and the USA, any change could cause a disaster, but it would take something huge to make trouble with Russia.
I was thinking more along the lines of "indirect" confrontation rather than one on one between Russia and the US. For example, the support of Russia is critical for the US in getting the UN to level sanctions at Iran for its nuclear activities that are not supervised by the IAEA. If the Russia should enter into an alliance with China, when China and the US are at war with one another that would also capsize the US. That is what I meant with Russia being a "wild card". I can imagine Russia would do that in order to get economic advantages from the US. Or power ones in the Middle East to block the US efforts to get to countries with oil.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
For example, the support of Russia is critical for the US in getting the UN to level sanctions at Iran for its nuclear activities that are not supervised by the IAEA.

Tough sanctions are hard to get, because of the UN members who, frankly, are on Iran's side.
Should they succeed in getting sanctions passed, it is very likely that they will be poorly enforced and not very effective. As it stands now, the UN is a fairly useless organization, therefore, Russia's power within that organization is more or less meaningless.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Tough sanctions are hard to get, because of the UN members who, frankly, are on Iran's side.
Should they succeed in getting sanctions passed, it is very likely that they will be poorly enforced and not very effective. As it stands now, the UN is a fairly useless organization, therefore, Russia's power within that organization is more or less meaningless.
I have to agree with you on this one, as of course Iran has oil and oil "talks"! However, there are so many Iranians living abroad and in the United States who are fearful of what the current regime in Iran is doing. As well as Israel who has grave concerns about what Iran is up to. For their sake I hope they can find a way to stop Iran from its massive build-up of armaments and nuclear capability. Perhaps another reason for lack of support in the UN may be what had happened with Iraq. People would like to see the penny drop first in terms of real proof of a military nuclear threat from Iran, before they act in any way.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps another reason for lack of support in the UN may be what had happened with Iraq.

The same thing happened with Iraq.

1- Sanctions are suggested against Iraq for being uncooperative with weapons inspectors
2- Iraq provides oil to Russia, China, and France, among others.
3- These powerful members of the UN oppose the sanctions
4- Sanctions don't get passed, or are not enforced
5- USA sees that the UN sanction/inspect process isn't working
6- USA invades, along with anybody else who's willing to


How it should have happened:

1- Sanctions are suggested against Iraq for being uncooperative with weapons inspectors
2- The sanctions pass, and are strictly enforced
3- Iraq becomes more cooperative in order to ease the tough sanctions
4- It becomes apparent that Iraq has no WMD

And now, we're heading towards step #1 again, now with Iran. Sadly, it will probably follow the first sequence there, not the second.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps another reason for lack of support in the UN may be what had happened with Iraq.

The same thing happened with Iraq.

1- Sanctions are suggested against Iraq for being uncooperative with weapons inspectors
2- Iraq provides oil to Russia, China, and France, among others.
3- These powerful members of the UN oppose the sanctions
4- Sanctions don't get passed, or are not enforced
5- USA sees that the UN sanction/inspect process isn't working
6- USA invades, along with anybody else who's willing to
With application to Iran, I just can't see the US invading Iran on the basis of nuclear armaments transgressions. What I can see is Iran making war on Iraq, which I am almost certain is in the cards sooner or later, as Iran has lots of scores to settle with Iraq, and then the US engaging Iran, perhaps with the assistance of other countries, in Iraq or another country that Iran chooses to engage militarily in such as possibly India or Pakistan. Such as what happened with Iraq in Kuwait for example.
atul2242
Stability in the world is also dependent on economic power. Countries having deep pockets and high consumption levels need to control other countries for their resources. Look at what happened in Indonesia and the role the world bank played in it. Conflict between China and the US may not happen because of economic interdependence. Think
But if it does happen then it may just be curtains......
ocalhoun
atul2242 wrote:
Conflict between China and the US may not happen because of economic interdependence. Think

Then again, it could happen because of that economic interdependence. If one deals a crippling economic blow to the other, they may get desperate enough to try anything.
lagoon
Shouldn't he be sweet-talking the Saudis? They own about a fifth of the US economy. It would be devastating if they suddenly decided to leave. The Chinese, by comparison, aren't as important.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
Shouldn't he be sweet-talking the Saudis? They own about a fifth of the US economy. It would be devastating if they suddenly decided to leave. The Chinese, by comparison, aren't as important.
Well the Chinese owns a great percentage of the US debt (23%), so obviously China is important. China is also important because it has the third largest economy in the world after the US and Japan. But yes, Saudi Arabia is also important especially seen from an oil perspective. I'm almost certain the US is paying the Saudi's lots of attention, but possibly maybe we just don't get to hear it as much in the media as we hear about China:
Quote:
As of 2005, Saudi Arabia has 25% of the worlds proven oil reserves and has the worlds fourth-largest natural gas reserves. Approximately 13% of U.S. oil is imported from Saudi Arabia.

Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, said of Saudi Arabia,

One of the major things the Saudis have historically done, in part out of friendship with the United States, is to insist that oil continues to be priced in dollars. Therefore, the US Treasury can print money and buy oil, which is an advantage no other country has. With the emergence of other currencies and with strains in the relationship, I wonder whether there will not again be, as there have been in the past, people in Saudi Arabia who raise the question of why they should be so kind to the United States."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics
Related topics
Talking about China
China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020
China Approves Property Law
ABC: Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God!
School Trip
Saddleback Forum - McCain and Obama
Go Sarah, Go
1988: Obama helped stranded traveler in Miami
Obama and Mc Cain in China
2009 Predictions
President Obama Calls for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Climate deal does not satisfy all ....
Beijing tries to push beyond 'Made in China' status to find
Gadhafi vs. Obama doctrine
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.