The article on 'U.S.-China Summit' by David Watts (December 2009) is fairly accurate in its assessment of the relationship between the two important powers. It is a relationship based more on bonds (money) than trust. How can two competing countries be friends? Yes, they can have an understanding and acceptance of each other but the trust deficit will always be there.

There is no denying that China has progressed in leaps and bounds, but China is a single-party, totalitarian state and the U.S. is an inveterate democracy. In a democracy it is the people who decide on issues and not the government alone. Tomorrow if the Chinese use brute force to suppress the Tibetans, the Americans will protest and Washington will have to factor in the protests in their China policy. American business apart, it is highly unlikely that American public views the Chinese system very kindly. America's is a free society; China's is a controlled society.

The understanding that President Barack Obama and the Chinese leadership reached to develop a regime of 'strategic bilateral trust' is, as the writer himself has noted, ‘a gloriously vague term which may be invoked by Beijing at any moment when they believe the Americans are becoming too intrusive in their area of influence.’

Unlike the Bush family, which sought American dominance over the world, Obama is trying to 'win friends and influence people'. That accounts for his Noble Prize for Peace, premature as it may seem. If in the process he can win the Chinese over and influence the Communist Party to open up and allow democratic dissent, he would have done the world and the Chinese themselves a big favour.

Arthur Wheaton
Northampton

Tough war

The article '8 years after Bonn' by Vishal Chandra (December 2009) makes ample sense. But the problem is how? Bonn was in the aftermath of 9/11 when American wounds were raw and George Bush was able to put together a viable coalition of very willing partners. With the U.S. bombing the Tora Bora mountains and the Northern Alliance marching in from the north, it was only a matter of time when the Taliban were dislodged from Kabul and Kandahar.
Things are not the same today. Opening up a second war front in Iraq was a wrong move and saw the coalition of the willing wither away. Iraq was George Bush's personal war to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson, in which he succeeded. With Iraq, the Afghan momentum was lost. Driven from power, Taliban found refuge in neighbouring Pakistan from where it was easy to launch guerrilla warfare against foreign forces on an unfamiliar terrain.

What the U.S.-led Nato forces are up against today is a very tough task. Taliban is in hiding and attacking foreign forces guerrilla-style or they are bombing at will, killing innocent Afghans to show occupation in poor light. Taliban has the military support of Pakistan. Islamabad's war is with the Pakistani Taliban, not Afghan Taliban. The latter are Pakistan's trump card for Afghanistan when foreign forces tire out and, on one pretext or the other, vacate occupation.

George Bush had said post-9/11 that ‘we will smoke them (the enemy) out of their holes.’ He was able to dislodge Al Qaeda-Taliban combine but not smoke them out of their holes. This is what Obama administration will need to do. This, plus make Pakistan military's support to Taliban come at a very high price. Also, drones are playing an effective role. It makes sense to increase their use.

Ted Burner
Toronto

. top