Iang,

First off, yes China is trying to protect it's supplies of energy and raw materials in whatever way it can to ensure it's continued economic growth.

This is however not new the US has done the same for the last century and the British the century or so before that.

So I would say that, that behaviour is to be expected.

It is also well known that the US Hawks want war, with whom is not realy important, China just happens to be the current excuse.

The US Hawks have tried to get North Korea to bite for the last 30 or 40 years. And whatever else people might say about him their "leader" and those around him have shown sense and not bitten. In fact arguably North Korea has played the Hawks at their own game and come out the better for it.

Oh and appart from US - China relations, I seriously would expect an easing of North South relationships between the two Korea's, the South want's the North's manpower and the North want's a share of the South's economic wealth.

What will however stop it is the US saber ratteling with China.

China and the US are currently locked together in an economic dance. However the US has woken up to late to realise that they are not leading the dance anymore. China is, and it thinks it's partner has very bad manners in stepping all over it's toes.

People in the US think that relationships with China have been OK untill very recently. Well if you go back and look they have been getting slowly worse since a couple of years into the Bush administration.

People forget that the Chinese could if they wished bring the world economy down and in the process drown the US in debt it has no hope of clearing in the next hundred years. Unlike the US, China would not be that disadvantaged as it is developing other world markets away from the US.

This is partly because the Chinese think long term and realise that being tied to the ailing US is not good. But mainly because the Chinese are getting mightily sick of the US Hawks.

So much so that atleast two senior Chinese military personel have stated they belive a cold war with the US is inevitable in about 10 years.

Less than oddly this 10 years is also the estimate of about how long it will take China to divest it's self of US Treasury notes etc without a significant loss.

For some reason I have never understood the US apears to cherish it's Hawks even though it is abundently clear to most non US people they are incredibaly bad for the US in general and often the world as well.

The US in order to stay the world leader played a dangerous game of taking on debt to keep the USD the world trading currency. However it has reached a point where there is little confidence in USD and it is a toss up as to which other currency will push the Bald Eagle of it's perch.

I have made the comment before that energy is equivalent to money. And that the world currently consumes more energy than is turned into usable biomass from the sun.

Thus there will be an energy crisis within the next few years. Because alternative energy sources have not been developed.

One reason there is so much interest in nuclear capability is energy. Many feel that the US is deliberatly talking up nuke weapons to stop countries developing their own energy independence away from the US. That is the US is using FUD to maintain it's position in the world.

But we are late off of the blocks even with nuclear energy so as I've said before keep an eye on the South Pole and it's large supply of so far untaped resources.

There is currently a treaty in place to protect the South Pole from having it's abudant mineral and energy resources exploited, but it is little more than a piece of paper fluttering in the vortex of change.

As has been seen in the past few days South America is grandstanding about the UK starting to drill for oil around the Falkland Islands.

The real question is not what the grandstanding means but what will happen next.

That is what will happen to the traditional energy power bases if the South Pole treaty does get torn up?

If traditional treaty measures are used then the gas oil and coal reserves will get divided up by those countries with coast line facing the resources (downgraded by distance). (It has probably crossed a few peoples minds as to why China is trying to get influance in Southern Africa and South America)

The question then becomes what's in it for the US and the answer is not a great deal. The UK is less than impressed by the US intervention during the Falklands war (basicaly the US wanted the UK to ceed all rights to Argentina which was at the time regarded as being within the US sphere of influance as was Pinocette's Chilie).

Thus the US could easily be playing third fiddle to the UK and southern hemisphere countries with regards to access to the South Poles resources. Will we see another Iraq style war?

Then there are people talking about China "Should step up to the plate" and become a world power" and therby assume the "responsability that entails" Much as Kippling exhorted the US to do (Play the White Man's Game).

But they forget to ask, "Why on earth should they?"

Britain had an empire that brought it initial economic success but laterly brought the UK to it's knees, rather than becoming a market for it's manufacturing output it became a burden the UK could not support.

Russia likewise had vasal states that should have been a captive market but they in turn brought it down.

The US tried to get the world market without having an empire but took on the world debt in the process to make the USD the world trading currancy and that is in the process of bringing the US down.

Empires rise and fall however so far the Chinese have proved most adept at maintaining one in terms of longevity.
So why on earth would China wish to make the same historic mistakes as other Empires?

If you want to guess how China is going to behave, have a look at US History and it's economic development in the late 1800's through to the early 1960's with IP theft etc, etc, etc.

Just don't expect the Chinese to make the same mistakes however, they tend to learn others lessons well...

The psychology behind American behavior isn't difficult to discern. It's the basic "in-group out-group dynamic". Americans are so diverse they no longer have anything in common except a common enemy. If they weren't fighting someone else they would fight each other. The Neocons or Hawks are actually the centripetal force in American life.

America is no different than Rome. Empires come and empires go and they are either destroyed from without or decay from within. I don't agree with the hawks mostly because I think in the long run the world will be a much better place if centrifugal forces in American life take their natural course. Naturally the people at the top don't feel that way and they want to hang onto their positions of power as long as possible. Since I am not one of them and won't be one of them and have no children, what do I care.

The odd think about this whole situation is that China is in exactly the same boat (as was Russia in the first Cold War). I think they think they can dodge the bullet by, in effect, replicating the British model of empire (at least in an economic sense) but it's doomed to failure after all.

As an American my own opinion is that the USA can't exist in its present form unless there is another significant period of internal bloodletting. But I doubt that will happen. America is a "warrior nation" but not even warriors can fight all the time.

I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying I agree with you. Time is not on the side of the Neocons. They had their chance, they lost, and their fate is sealed...propaganda exercise aside.

Just to comment on this mini-liner in Clive's mega-comment:

> For some reason I have never understood the
> US appears to cherish it's Hawks even though
> it is abundantly clear to most non US people
> they are incredibly bad for the US in general
> and often the world as well.

Foreign Policy has an interesting article on this: _Why Hawks Win_. The short story is that all of our psychological biases are aligned with the way the hawks act.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/12/27/why_hawks_win

@ Foreign Policy...,

Thanks for that.

To paraphrase...

The reason is the proto typical Alpha male response to a chalenge...

Basicaly when chalenged defalt to brut mateing behaviour, give the chalenger a smack untill it goes away or you are forced to run away.

The assumption being there is only one prize...

Thus life is always win:lose never draw (equitable solution of share the prize) or win:win (use the prize to float all boats higher).

God is that ever a sad way to conduct life.

And a thoroughly lousey reason to go to war...

So is the following also a part of this grand scheme?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/07/shadow_network_busted

Once again shadowy group steals military, diplomatic secrets, Dalai Lama's mails and is traced back to the Sichuan province...

Apologies, but it does read more like the latest Dan Brown novel plot...

Who are the "researchers from the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto and the SecDev Group" anyway?

Cyberwar Cassandras Get $400 Million in Conflict Cash...