The US is deeply in debt to China (China is the second largest holder of US treasury bonds, next only to Japan, which is beholden to the US in other ways). China does this partly to prop up the dollar (making its exports cheaper and the balance of trade favorable). So, the US will never dare sanctions either. Both parties very much depend on each other.

The debt which the world owes to our motherland is immense. Civilizations have arisen in other parts of the world. In ancient and modern times, wonderful ideas have been carried forward from one race to an other…. But mark you, my friends, it has been always with the blast of war trumpets and with the march of embattled cohorts. Each idea had to be soaked,in a deluge of blood…. Each word of power had to be followed by the groans of millions, by the wails of orphans, by the tears, of widows. This, in the main, other nations have taught, but India for thousands of years peacefully existed. Here activity prevailed when even Greece did not exist….Even earlier, when history has no record, and tradition dares not peer into the gloom of that intense past, even from then until now, ideas after ideas have marched out from her, but every word has been spoken with a blessing behind it and peace before it. We, of all nations in the world, have never been a conquering race, and that blessing is on our head, and therefore we live….

Political greatness or military power is never the mission of our race; it never was and, mark my words, it never will be. But there has been the other mission given to us, which is to conserve, to preserve, to accumulate as it were into a dynamo, all the spiritual energy of the race, and that concentrated energy is to pour forth in a deluge on the world whenever circumstances are propitious. Let the Persian or the Greek, the Roman, the Arab, or the Englishman march his battalions, conquer the world, and link the different nations together, and the philosophy and spirituality of India is ever ready to flow along the new-made channels into the veins of the nations of the world. The Hindu’s calm brain must pour out its own quota to give to the sum total of human progress. India’s gift to world is the light spiritual (Lectures from Colombo to Almora, 3-7.)

• Swami Vivekananda [Link]

A stream of insults doth not a well-reasoned argument make. Please cite something if you’re gonna diss so harshly.

It already has started. There was an excellent mutli-part series on PBS about China, it’s development, and conflicts.

Chinese population of today, with the economic benefits, it turning into a society with more diversity (economic), thereby creating more social classes. When competing social classes don’t have an avenue to argue those frustrations out (a democratic setup), groups feeling the disadvantage will find other ways.

China’s military has been it’s protection for years. Hell, they beat back UN forces in Korea once communists were routed to the border. Back then, it was sheer attrition and manpower. The US military was built around attrition and manpower, too, hence the UN/China/NK eventually compromised. Since then, the US (particularly after Vietnam) changed from an attrition warfare doctrine to maneuver warfare (Soviets were attrition all the way).

India, just like China and the Soviets, is heavily reliant upon attrition warfare doctrine. It has the manpower to back it up. The navy is expanding. But those who see ‘militarization’ as a negative thing, I’d like to offer up another opinion. Militaration with a Democratic/representative republic setup has more pros than cons. The world isn’t going to get all peaceful anytime soon and those who are power hungry will exert their influence one way or the other. Democratic setups have internal check/balances that, while frustrating at times (read: slow), in the long run addresses problems far better, even with a military backing it up.

Economic and military expansion are natural partners to a degree. Diverse economies democratic economies NEED a strong, professional, and volunteer military as a security blanket. Just the nature of what the ground realities are.

Of course, the US has a huge incentive in this scenario. But any country with a strong military has much stronger position at the bargaining table than a country with simply a strong economy. For example, in the global scheme, Japan and China both have very strong economic positions, but China is still given more deference in the international community. My argument is simply that this deference is granted to them because of their military power, and not just because they have a strong economy.

But wouldn’t Chinese attempts to exert military force on India fall under this situation as well? If China is ever bold enough to try and threaten India again it will be declaring itself as a new global military power, something the US has every incentive to stop.

Not at all. I’m just saying that China is at an advantage because it has strong military.

Is the implication that non-collectivist social policies would prevent India from building a strong military? How did the U.S. get its strong military despite the fact it hasn’t largely relied on collectivist social policies? Also, it may be the case that growth in Chinese military power will provide a good incentive for India to build its own military out of self-interest.

However, I think the key point that M. Friedman is making that the collectivist social policies of China, being incompatible with social liberty, will ultimately create a conflict that the Chinese government must address. Will the Chinese people, having enjoyed economic freedom, begin to demand more and more political and social freedom? If so, how will the Chinese government address the problem without widespread unrest or violence?

Folks in India are free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that she is gunning to become a global power, and not just a regional one. Offhand, I can’t think of any global super powers that have resisted the seductions of the military industrial complex. It’s simply the quickest and most effective way of exerting influence. Look at Pakistan and North Korea for example. The second they developed nuclear weapons, they had to be taken seriously on the global stage. From a pure economic standpoint, they have very little power. It’s all about getting invited to the cool kids’ table, and a nuke is the quikest way to do that.

I don’t know much about the Chavez/China relationship, but I do know that the Chinese are doing a large percentage of the oil development in Venezuala.