America To Become Pawn In Next Great Game?

[ajtr]

America To Become Pawn In Next Great Game?​

America's standing relative to other major nations is in decline. Some of that decline was unavoidable because China and India have so many people and they are industrializing. Other aspects of the decline are self-inflicted by elites who insist upon an immigration policy which will substantially lower per capita GDP in coming decades. Steve Sailer speculates on whether the US will align with China or India and how Chinese, Indian, and Jewish ethnics in the US will push the US in one or the other direction. My guess is we'll choose a course that is contrary to our best interests. That's been the intensifying pattern in recent decades. The punditocracy will continue to offer really impressive rationalizations for why we should do stupid things abroad and domestically. Such is life in a declining empire.

The American colonies had a smaller GDP than the mother country during the American Revolution, for example, but Ben Franklin talked the French government into bankrupting itself for American independence. (He was quite the charmer.) In WWI, Germany, despite having tens of millions of German farmers and engineers in America, did not charm America, and thus lost. Israel, to cite a more recent example, has done quite well for itself strategically despite a limited GDP and being up against Arabs and their oil money.

So, the obvious card to play in the coming China vs. India global struggle is for influence and control over the fading Anglo-Euro world, especially because Anglos don't like to think about themselves being played.

When looked at from this perspective, India's chances against China in 2100 don't look so awful. Indians are better at learning English, and better at marketing ideas in English than Chinese. (One American marketing consultant in China has said that to Chinese factory owners, "marketing" means shouting "Real cheap! You buy now!")

Let's look at the leading Anglosphere countries and which way they are likely to tip (or be tipped):

Australia: China
Canada: I don't know. It could be close.
Britain: India
America: That's the big question

There are lots of Chinese in America. The Chinese have lots of money and will have even more in the future. Over several generations, the emotional distinctions between China and their neighbors and/or enemies like Vietnam, Korea, and Japan might fade, leaving a unified East Asian v. South Asian division from the perspective of the U.S.

On the other hand, I have a vague sense that the East Asians in America might wind up playing the role of Midwestern German-Americans in early 20th Century America, who were outmaneuvered by Anglophilic Eastern elites.
America's best bet would be to become less involved. But rather like Britain keeps wanting to punch above its level America's elites will try to play the Great Game as pawns (they'll imagine they are more than that of course) in order to have the feeling of exercising power. Plus, we'll have ethnic groups internally pushing us to act in their perceived interests rather than in the real interests of the majority.

Consider US involvement in the Middle East over the last 20 years. Take the money that we've spent on military intervention, foreign aid, and maintaining a navy capable of operating that far afield. That same money would have bought us something close to independence on imported oil if we'd instead channeled the money toward hybrids, electric cars, shifting home heating from oil to ground sink heat pumps, and other efforts to get off of oil.

Steve goes on to speculate on how the Jews will try to win favor with India and China. I do not think the Jews can afford to ally with one of those two countries against the other one. India is closer to Israel but China will be much wealthier. He also looks at a Jewish organization that looks at which long term strategies are best for Jews. What's left of the Anglosphere ought to do the same for themselves even though other ethnic groups would prefer that we didn't.

America's decline will not be rapid enough to avoid becoming a target for intense ethnic group machinations. My dreams of a return to isolationism will remain just that - dreams.

 

[ajtr]

The rise of China and India: Is it good for the Jews?​

My noodling below on global grand strategy for a year 2100 in which China and India contend for world dominance suggested that the Jewish community could play a key role in tipping the advantage toward one or the other. A reader kindly points out that the implications for the global Jewish community of the rise of China and India relative to America is a topic already on the mind of influential Jewish leaders, sensibly enough. From a very interesting article:
"Questions of survival"
By Shmuel Rosner
Haaretz [A leading Israeli newspaper]
June 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - The following disparity tells us more about human nature than about the future of the Jewish world: The executive branch - the heads of the large Jewish organizations, on the whole - are optimistic and believe Judaism has a glowing future, while the intellectuals and thinkers are much more pessimistic and insist on mentioning the pitfalls and obstacles the coming years hold in store. ...

Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents' Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the "thinkers," as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others.

The Institute for Policy Planning of the Jewish People had organized this gathering. It had a somewhat ambitious aim - a strategic debate about the future of the Jewish people. ...


Their conclusions, in brief: The future is unclear. And in greater detail: There are many risks, and it is time to roll up our sleeves. The institute and its heads - Dennis Ross, Prof. Yehezkel Dror, Avi Gil, Avinoam Bar-Yosef - are already doing their homework.


One of the papers that was prepared in advance and presented to the participants in the conferences was that written by Dr. Shalom Wald. He chose 14 well-known historians, from Thucydides to Gibbon, Spangler, Toynbee and Kennedy, and examined their theories concerning the circumstances in which civilizations flourish or collapse. Then he tried to examine how these theories can be applied to the context of the Jewish people.


Several of his conclusions provoked disagreement. For example: "Getting all Jews into the same shape and country, even if it is Israel, as recently advocated by an Israeli [writer, A.B. Yehoshua - S.R.] is not the best survival strategy." Some of the Israeli participants did not like that idea. Granting official legitimacy to the Diaspora would be a mistake, Meridor said, according to some of those who participated. That would be the end of Zionism as we know it.


The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future. How should this be done? That will have to be the topic of discussion in the next gatherings already being planned. [Emphasis mine.]


Abraham Foxman of the ADL says he came to the conference full of skepticism but left satisfied at its conclusion. ... It is the first time the heads of Jewish organizations have sat down round the same table and sought ways to cooperate, pushing aside the competition, suspicions and sometimes even latent hostility....


However, on the substance of the agreement to "work together" there are various opinions. Some of the participants believe it was agreed that a mechanism would be set up for "joint work in the future" while others told Haaretz that "not too much came out of it." Nevertheless, they managed to define aims and goals. First and foremost - investing in education for the young generation. The philanthropist Michael Steinhardt put great emphasis on this point, as well as on "lowering the price of Jewish life" in America. This means lowering the price of access to synagogues, Jewish schools, cultural centers and other activities.


Last year the institute held similar strategic conferences, but with slightly different participants. Then, too, in general, agreement was reached on more than a few topics. For example, that it was necessary to draw those on the fringes of Jewish civilization inward. This year, at the opening of the meeting, Bar-Yosef, the institute's director, presented a general report on the situation of the Jewish people. One sentence from that survey can sum up the results of that agreement better than any other - "The Jewish people: worldwide zero growth."


The better-known historians mentioned in Wald's review, particularly the earlier ones, also agreed for the most part that "the Jews will survive as a people and civilization." But there was nevertheless one who dissented - Oswald Spangler. What kept the Jews together as a people, he stated, was "magic consensus" but, he added, this is vanishing with the years. The Jews of the Western world have assimilated into general Western culture and will disappear with it. The Jews will disappear from a historical perspective; that is inevitable, he said.


There were several interesting arguments. One was over whether the Jews of America have to worry about the social welfare of the Jews of Israel. The Americans said yes - "All Jews are responsible for one another." The Israelis said no way; leave the social problems in Israel for us to deal with. Yisrael Maimon, the government representative, proposed a partnership with the Americans in technology, education, "brain investments." But the improvement of the lot of the poor, he said, must be left to the Israeli government.


Prof. Dror also stressed the importance of investing in improving the situation of education in Israel. One of the central aims he presented was "to develop Israel into a learning-knowledge society." Those present discussed the level of the universities in Israel and some of them even proposed the level of at least one of these institutions be raised sufficiently to attract students from abroad in higher numbers.


... The Jewish schools in America are currently undergoing renewed popularity. An almost 30 percent growth in the number of those registering - but those, as Bar-Yosef pointed out, are "mostly those who are already affiliated." The schools have to become a center of attraction for others as well.

 

[SHASH2K2]

Why US-Israel-India Axis is Welcome

Comrade Karat perhaps believes he is being very crafty. He is being in fact too clever by half. To justify his party�s opposition to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal he has spoken of the danger arising from any strategic alliance with the US. He has done this by invoking the cause of the Palestinian people. He said: �The strategic alliances with the US and Israel are interconnected. To support Palestinian cause it is important to disentangle India from this matrix.�

It is a popular line of argument. It is very clever as theory. It is quite stupid in practice. Theoretically what could be better than India unfettered by international alliances, morally strong, strategically weak, independent and totally non-aligned? Alas, in practice nothing could be worse. Pandit Nehru learnt this the hard way. After the humiliation suffered in 1962 at the hands of the Chinese he confessed in a tremulous voice over radio: �We had been living in an artificial world of our own creation�. That�s right. Now Comrade Karat wants us to live in a cuckoo land of his own perception.

Why is a US-Israel-India axis desirable? Because in the real world there is a US-Israel-China axis. It has dominated global affairs for the past three decades. This scribe has repeatedly described this trilateral alliance as the real axis of evil. Pakistan was the midwife that gave birth to this axis. US-China collaboration over Pakistan blocked the Soviet advance to the Indian Ocean. A nuclear Pakistan became the impregnable sanctuary for anti-Indian insurgents to bleed India and perpetuate Chinese hegemony in Asia. And a US-China alliance broke the Sino-Soviet alliance to change the world balance of power. At that time it made great strategic sense for America.

All round it was a sweet deal. But with the passage of time it began to sour. For decades it appeared so sweet to the US that it overlooked a continuing five to one trade deficit with China. US big business made quick profits by manufacture in China which offered cheap, virtually slave, labor. Now things have changed. Never mind if eighty per cent of China�s industry is owned by foreign capital. It is located on Chinese soil. On the ground it is at the mercy of iron fisted Chinese dictatorship. And never mind if most Chinese exports to the US were low tech goods. The bulk of the exporting industry was owned by the People�s Liberation Army which used the profits to build and sustain the world�s largest army. After three decades of bleeding India through proxy nations now China can afford to flex its muscles against America. So at last the Americans are getting worried. President Bush in his second term, egged on by US security interests, sought to undo the covert damage wrought on democratic India -- the world�s only billion strong nation apart from China. As China and Pakistan clandestinely spread nuclear weapons and fomented terrorism, India received a thousand cuts. To all this, America turned a blind eye. Now if powerful sections in America and Israel are beginning to chafe over the results of their past misconceived policies, should India continue to sulk or enhance its own national interest?

Has the US decided to dump China? No way! US investment in China is too big. The potential of China�s economy is too great. The US simply wants to redress the balance of power in Asia. It seeks closer ties with India without weakening ties with China. What the Indian government must be very cautious about is the exact opposite of what worries Comrade Karat. The government must remain alert that closer Indo-US ties will not be at the cost of India�s interests to the benefit of China. It is entirely possible that there would be elements in the Chinese leadership reconciled to the emergence of India as an equally close ally of the US as China. But the preponderant view in China up till now is to deny India its legitimate space. An Indo-US-Israel axis could help dampen this hegemonic Chinese view.

And finally, there is the question of Israel. Like Pakistan, Israel is an artificially created nation state. Palestine was partitioned by colonial Britain a few months after the partition of India. It is possible that British Zionists welcomed India�s partition for creating a precedent that facilitated the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. Like Pakistan, Israel�s policies during the last six decades are open to serious criticism. Israel has been too heavy handed with the Palestinians. Pakistan has resorted to insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir. On any objective assessment there was no provocation by India against Pakistan similar to what the wronged Palestinians offered to Israel. Like Pakistan, Israel seems obsessed with acquiring more land to ensure stability. In fact both nations will achieve stability only through friendly relations with immediate neighbors. Perhaps both nations are paranoid because of their test tube births. But both Israel and Pakistan have survived through three generations passionately committed to their nations. To contemplate the destruction of either nation in a fast changing world where national sovereignty is rapidly diminishing would be nothing less than insane.

So, does this mean that India should avoid relations with Israel? No. Does it mean that India should abandon the cause of an independent Palestine state? No. It means that India must bend its efforts to defuse crisis situations both in Israel and in Pakistan through just and principled diplomacy. America has deep emotional ties with Israel. Today if the emerging scenario persuades both nations to change their attitude towards India, it should be welcomed. As far as Comrade Karat�s objections are concerned, he appeared quite mute while China built its strength with Israeli help. For years Israel with US blessing was the biggest arms supplier to China. Only in recent years has the US started to pressure Israel to curtail military supplies to China. Responsible quarters have identified Israel as the crucial source for China�s nuclear breakthrough. Israel�s richest businessman, Shaul Eisenberg, a refugee given sanctuary in Shanghai during World War II, is thought to have been the conduit for passing nuclear know-how to China.

All things considered, if America and Israel change attitude to get closer to India, why should that be opposed? It would strengthen India. It would make China amenable to friendly relations with India on the basis of equality. Those who oppose an Indo-US-Israel strategic relationship are either ignorant of the total picture or are subverted. Comrade Karat can best decide in which category his party should be placed.
http://www.boloji.com/myword/mw120.htm

 

[ejazr]

^^^Well I can understand, why if there is such a thing as a US-Israeli-China axis which I don't think there is, would make sense to Zionists. China is a one party dictatorship. All you have to do is keep the politburo happy and they will keep you happy in turn. No need to worry about elections and public sentiment and democracy.

 

[SHASH2K2]

We are talking about INDO ISRAEL AND AMERICA axis . precisely about INDO ISRAEL alliance . moreover we should not bow down to china . we should stand upto them and discard our policy of appeasement . Why should we try to make China happy . Our aim should be happiness of our people.

 

[Yusuf]

2100? Yeah I will be 132 and will be around for sure to see all that happen.

 

[SHASH2K2]

None of great civilizations were built in a year or so It takes years to build a country or economy. May be we will not be able to see India at peak of its glory but definitely Our next generation will be there and will be proud Indian .

 

[Yusuf]

I want to see all that happen before I die. 2040-50 timeline sounds so much better when we talk about Indias rise. i hope to make it to that at least.

 

[SHASH2K2]

I want to see all that happen before I die. 2040-50 timeline sounds so much better when we talk about Indias rise. i hope to make it to that at least.

Hope we can speed up things a little . If it happens around 2040-50 then my son and ur grandson will reap benifits of India Rising . Else it will be their next generation .:emot158:

 

[Phenom]

India and China will definitely rise, but that doesn't necessarily mean US would become a pawn.
Most likely the world would become multi-polar like the early 1900s, when UK, France, Germany, US and Russia were all vying for control. It would be a very long time for US to decline to a level were it would actually be under some other country's influence.

 

[nrj]

Give Obama another term & see what happens to US! LOL....
Not just US but entire Globe will be in mess like never before........

 

[samarsingh]

some random thoughts on the great game.

Phase 1:- keep Russia out of India:- resulted in Afghan Emir's predicament of choosing between Britain and Russia
Later the British did not want us to have direct access to Soviet Union(Tajikistan ) hence the wakhan corridor and later encouraging tribals to invade Kashmir (and we lost POK).
note: - 1948 Senior Army Officials in both India and Pakistan were British..

phase 2:- with the discovery of oil in West Asia (ME) the focus shifted there.
British strategy 1 :- Balfour declaration (1917, note this is long before Hitler's persecution of Jews):-
strategy 2:- Encourage nationalism amongst Arabs to alienate the Turks
now Turks lost their empire after WW1. One of the first troop movements of WW1 was British Indian Army marched in Iraq( the local ruler was getting too close to "axis" Germany).
also Sykes Picot agreement (more info at wikipedia)

In both WW1 and WW2 US stepped in late and was the biggest gainer after WW2.

Phase 3:- The new Great Game
The focus has shifted to Central Asia

new players:- China (Uighyur, Xinjiang problem to weaken them)
possibly India (Kashmir as always, we ought tpo reclaim POK)
are we going to be fence sitters again. the Anglo/Americans may not want too much competition, they like to play the game but cannot tolerate if they are played against.
hence this talk by Dalrymple and co that it wasn't right on our part to have participated in Afghanistan. I think Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan are cruicial to us in this game.

btw I dont think the US would ever be a pawn (at least not yet).
Russia China and India IMO have to be careful of the West as far as this new great game is concerned.
Things surely would get more clear in the coming years. we can't just watch all this anymore , it directly affects us.
Comments on this will be appreciated..
Thanks

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The only ones gaining in this scenario is the Western world while Asia loses, what if this plays out nothing like they want, India could join SCO in the future and all these things will not playout anything like this.

 

[samarsingh]

The only ones gaining in this scenario is the Western world while Asia loses, what if this plays out nothing like they want, India could join SCO in the future and all these things will not playout anything like this.

I am all for SCO, but it would come as a great shock to the west to see Russia/China/India together. they would probably call us as the "New Axis"and would do everything in their power to break this alliance. It is better to have some implicit understanding with Russia and China wrt defence and security of Central Asia

 

[SHASH2K2]

I am all for SCO, but it would come as a great shock to the west to see Russia/China/India together. they would probably call us as the "New Axis"and would do everything in their power to break this alliance. It is better to have some implicit understanding with Russia and China wrt defence and security of Central Asia

Main issuse is not India Joining SCO . Its mistrust between India and China and kind of feeling we have for them. Aggressive postures of China is not helping either . Russia already proposed an Indo China and Russia Alliance but Chinese rejected it . India is not a fool to ally with USA while ignoring neighbor which can be a wise choice for us.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

I am all for SCO, but it would come as a great shock to the west to see Russia/China/India together. they would probably call us as the "New Axis"and would do everything in their power to break this alliance. It is better to have some implicit understanding with Russia and China wrt defence and security of Central Asia

They already tried this and failed when Nixon opened up China this was the intention to form an alliance against Russia ,and it has backfired , China gained economically USA and Europe collapsed and China and Russia formed SCO. Anyway any alliance of the big three would not be challenged so easily even by the west. All three are individually targetted by the west thru proxy states or separatist movements so this could easily be highly possible.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Main issuse is not India Joining SCO . Its mistrust between India and China and kind of feeling we have for them. Aggressive postures of China is not helping either . Russia already proposed an Indo China and Russia Alliance but Chinese rejected it . India is not a fool to ally with USA while ignoring neighbor which can be a wise choice for us.

Disputes with China can be resolved by both sides if it reaches a point of national security for both.

 

[civfanatic]

Disputes with China can be resolved by both sides if it reaches a point of national security for both.

Both India and China face considerable threats from Islamic militarism. In this field there is plenty of opportunity for Sino-Indian cooperation, and might be able to bring our nations together.

China just needs to forget about Pakistan and be willing to negotiate with India.

 

[SHASH2K2]

Both India and China face considerable threats from Islamic militarism. In this field there is plenty of opportunity for Sino-Indian cooperation, and might be able to bring our nations together.

China just needs to forget about Pakistan and be willing to negotiate with India.

Million dollars questions is that who will give them this great Idea that its better for them to have friendly relationship with India . If they have peace with India they can easily concentrate on USA or other Rivals . Its a win win situation for both . Main reason for rapid weaponization is China . They are trying to contain India which is having adverse impact for their own security as India is getting stronger .

 

[thakur_ritesh]

some random thoughts on the great game.

Phase 1:- keep Russia out of India:- resulted in Afghan Emir's predicament of choosing between Britain and Russia
Later the British did not want us to have direct access to Soviet Union(Tajikistan ) hence the wakhan corridor and later encouraging tribals to invade Kashmir (and we lost POK).
note: - 1948 Senior Army Officials in both India and Pakistan were British..

phase 2:- with the discovery of oil in West Asia (ME) the focus shifted there.
British strategy 1 :- Balfour declaration (1917, note this is long before Hitler's persecution of Jews):-
strategy 2:- Encourage nationalism amongst Arabs to alienate the Turks
now Turks lost their empire after WW1. One of the first troop movements of WW1 was British Indian Army marched in Iraq( the local ruler was getting too close to "axis" Germany).
also Sykes Picot agreement (more info at wikipedia)

In both WW1 and WW2 US stepped in late and was the biggest gainer after WW2.

Phase 3:- The new Great Game
The focus has shifted to Central Asia

new players:- China (Uighyur, Xinjiang problem to weaken them)
possibly India (Kashmir as always, we ought tpo reclaim POK)
are we going to be fence sitters again. the Anglo/Americans may not want too much competition, they like to play the game but cannot tolerate if they are played against.
hence this talk by Dalrymple and co that it wasn't right on our part to have participated in Afghanistan. I think Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan are cruicial to us in this game.

btw I dont think the US would ever be a pawn (at least not yet).
Russia China and India IMO have to be careful of the West as far as this new great game is concerned.
Things surely would get more clear in the coming years. we can't just watch all this anymore , it directly affects us.
Comments on this will be appreciated..
Thanks

for now have excellent working relationship with the US, the EU, and their bit** israel. these are the power centers of today and quite literally the movers and shakers, through them uplift our profile internationally and force our way at the world stage, get access to exclusive world bodies, technology, ideally take over their companies in the most friendly way possible, make a huge impact in their economy and through that on their policy making and slowly and steady enter the lives of their populace and make india a buzz word in their daily day today affairs.

in the mean time keep the russians pampered as has been done and as is being done, make sure they dont get lost. work out our differences with the chinese, we have enough time on our hands, we can take a few more decades to settle this out.

let the chinese move their way up by playing around with the rouges and we do it with not so rouge states mentioned above and let the two countries reach a point from where we could quite literally take over the show and then play around with them as per our whims and fancies but during this time period we make sure we dont end up committing some stupidity with them and they be made to realize the same.

at the end of the day align with the chinese when we have reached where we intend to and the asian century would have truly arrived with rest of the world working for our interests with the world order having completely changed, in fact it would have come full circle where it really belonged all this time!