US China rivalry

SYDNEY: We are not entering a new Cold War, despite both Chinese President Xi and US Vice-President Mike Pence finding the term a useful rhetorical tool.

The Americans have decided to compete against China because they think the last two decades of cooperation has failed. The Trump Administration, though, is careful to say that competition does not mean conflict.

Cooperation is where two states work together for the common good. Conflict involves a clash between hostile entities. But competition is not a state between these two alone but instead a contest between two states over a third party or object....

The prize America and China both seek is clear: Global leadership. They don’t want to fight each other. Instead they are quarrelling over who leads the international system. Leadership, however, is something others grant; it cannot be achieved by edict or force....

Th above quote is from an article by Peter Layton titled, 'US China rivalry is about us'.

Peter Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University. This commentary first appeared on Lowy Institute's blog The Interpreter

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/united-states-china-trade-war-rivalry-is-all-about-us-11016724

China and the US are both in pursuit of global leadership. At the start of this game, in 1972, the Americans needed China to fight the Soviet Union. In 1979, the Americans could not see any challenge from poor and technologically backward China. They opened up their tertiary institutions and economy to China in an agreement for free exchange of students and transfer of knowledge and technology. They did not know that the people they thought could only be good enough to be cooks and laundrymen could learn so fast to challenge their dominance in science and technology and now seriously challenging their position as world leader.

Secondly, China's quest for world leadership is totally different from the Americans. China wants to lead the world through infrastructure development, trade and economic development. The American model is through war and instability, through regime change and military intervention and invasion. These two formula are fatally incompatible. Yes the cooperation has failed as China refused to play the American game of war and destruction to dominate and control the world in the G2 formula. China chose the path of peaceful development, peace and stability.

So today we are seeing the Americans getting more aggressive and initiating all kinds of war like behaviour against China and the rest of the world, even to the extend of isolation and America First. The stark fundamental difference in a policy of peaceful development over interference of internal affairs of foreign states and regime change cannot be reconciled and cannot be same bedfellows. War and peace are incompatible. The Americans chose war in all forms, including trade war, as their way to conduct international relations of dominance and global leadership.

But they are lying to the world that they are for peace, peace loving but very nice rogues and warmongers.

Beginning A Piggy End of the Chinese Zodiac Cycle

2 reasons why Singapore does not need stealth fighter aircraft

The idea or belief that we must have the best, most advanced and even most expensive fighter aircraft is like the young punk wanting his latest iphone or sports car. In the context of our defence policy and strategy, I offer two reasons why there is no need for Singapore to buy ridiculous priced F35s for its stealth ability. And to think of getting the F35B version that is heavy like a fat lady is not only funny but a compromise in its speed and ability to carry more weapons.

My reasons for saying this are based on the assumption that our potential enemies would likely be our closest neighbours, ie Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore can't be thinking of going to war with Thailand or the Philippines or other big powers like China or India. China and India are out of question unless Singapore is going to join the Evil American Empire against these big powers in war. Other than Malaysia and Indonesia, the rest of the Asean countries would be too far away and have practically no reason to consider them as a war potential.

Take Malaysia first. Singapore is so close to Malaysia that on taking off it is already inside Malaysia. Even if the aircraft take off from a southerly direction, it takes less than a minute to be inside Malaysia. Even if spotted by radar, the aircraft would be all over Malaysia. The stealth capability is meaningless and irrelevant as far as Malaysia is concerned and when the aircraft is used in an offensive and attacking role. Against Malaysia, Singapore only needs more and many more fighter bomber aircraft rather than F35s meant to shoot down enemy aircraft hundreds of miles away.

When in defensive role, stealth ability is unnecessary and irrelevant. And this is likely to be the fighter aircraft's role if Indonesia is the enemy.  Singapore cannot afford to go to war with the Indonesians. It is too big and diverse and any victory in the air is momentary and would not determine the outcome of  a war with Indonesia.

Against an enemy like Indonesia, Singapore's best and sustainable position is in defence, to keep the Indonesian air force and navy out of our territory, ie a defensive role that does not require stealth feature. What Singapore really needs is air superiority aircraft like the F16s and F15s and having plenty of them.  The price of a F35 could buy maybe 10 F15s.

If Singapore is thinking of replacing 60 F16s with 60 F35s, can Singapore really able to afford such a huge budget just for fighter aircraft alone? The weapons and supporting systems would cost double of the aircraft. Perhaps Singapore should think longer term, and if relations improved with China or Russia while relations with the US falters, there would be many more cheaper and better options than just the F35s to tinker with.

What do you think?

Huat Ah!

Everything is in pink in the Year of the Pig.

The Quailo Afffair

Maduro, the President of Venezuela, was elected last May. The Quailos claimed that the election was not free. So they put up an unknown Quaido, trained by the CIA to conduct regime change and claimed that he is the new President, without any election.

They demanded a new election within 8 days, if not all the American and European Union states would recognised this non elected coup leader as the President. Who is the elected President under democratic means, who is the coup leader that was not elected under democratic election?

So far Asean leaders have not said a word. For recognising this Quaido is recognising a coup de'tat, recognising foreign intervention, and allowing the Quailos to interfere in their internal politics.

All the countries that recognised this American trained Quaido are in a way opening themselves to American interference in their domestic politics, especially the Latin American states. And when their turn comes, they would have no one to turn to. They have to live under the behest of the Quailo's dictate.