Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kissinger: U.S., China Can Form 'New Global Order'
Newsmax.com ^ | April 3, 2007 | Reuters staff

Posted on 04/03/2007 1:33:33 PM PDT by Paul Ross

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 7:29 a.m. EDT

Font size=+3>Kissinger: U.S., China Can Form 'New Global Order'

Newsmax, Reporting Reuters.

China's rise as a global power is inevitable and could lead to conflict unless Beijing and Washington can cooperate to create a new global order, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said on Tuesday.

Kissinger first came to Beijing in 1971, on a secret mission to re-establish Sino-U.S. ties after more than two decades of diplomatic silence.

Since then, economic reforms have turned China into a powerhouse. Beijing is now running a trade surplus with the United States that Washington last year put at $230 billion, and helps keep its rival afloat by buying vast amounts of U.S. debt.

Washington politicians have also sparred with Beijing over issues related to its rapid development from currency controls to military spending and foreign policy in countries like Sudan.

But Kissinger said China's growing political and economic prominence was irreversible, and if the two nations could not cooperate it raised the specter of war.

"When friends and colleagues in the United States talk about the rise of China and the problems it presents to us, I say the rise is inevitable. There is nothing we can do to prevent it, there is nothing we should do to prevent it," Kissinger said.

"When the centre of gravity moves from one region to another, and another country becomes suddenly very powerful, what history teaches you is that conflict is inevitable. What we have to learn is that cooperation is essential," he said in a lecture to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Challenges ranging from nuclear proliferation to increasingly tight energy supplies and environmental degradation needed to be tackled together.

"I look at Sino-American relations as a challenge to build a new international system based on human insight, on cooperative action, to avoid catastrophe," Kissinger said.

"Those of you who are students and who will be shaping the world should not think of the other country as adversaries."

Kissinger insisted the world must avoid exoticizing China. When he first came to Beijing, he said, his prepared speech contained a line about reaching a "mysterious country", prompting a challenge by master diplomat Zhou Enlai, then China's premier.

"Zhou Enlai put up his hand and said 'What is so mysterious about China? There are 900 million of us and it is not mysterious to us.' That was an important lesson," Kissinger said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: china; globalism; globalorder; kissinger; nwo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: bert
Freepers tend to focus on the mainland super communists while ignoring the overseas Chineese who are every ehere and long to deql again with home.

I guess I focus more on the massive military buildup, Chinese Generals who threaten to nuke LA, massive espionage and theft of intellectual property. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

61 posted on 04/03/2007 7:16:22 PM PDT by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Shades of Firefly...

Seriously, the situation with the Chinese is >i the same as it was with the Soviet Union. For one thing, we didn't trade with the Soviets the way we do with the Chinese, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. The Chinese may want Taiwan back but in the long run they're going to do what's in their own best interests and that means avoiding a messy war with their number one cash cow.

62 posted on 04/03/2007 7:48:46 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel ("...Mindless pack of trained Maoist circus seals."-www.iowahwk.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Shades of Firefly...

Seriously, the situation with the Chinese is not the same as it was with the Soviet Union. For one thing, we didn't trade with the Soviets the way we do with the Chinese, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. The Chinese may want Taiwan back but in the long run they're going to do what's in their own best interests and that means avoiding a messy war with their number one cash cow.

63 posted on 04/03/2007 7:50:05 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel ("...Mindless pack of trained Maoist circus seals."-www.iowahwk.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

I’ve never liked or trusted Henry Kissinger. He’s been involved in Us Government much too long. His “New Global Order” is the same as the GHWBush’s New World Order. Who’s he trying to kid. China is no friend of the USA, and never will be.


64 posted on 04/03/2007 7:50:44 PM PDT by Paperdoll ( Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

You are 100% correct.From GHWBush to the Clintons, WE have made China what she is today. GHW Bush was Ambassador to China, and head of the FBI. During Clinton’s years we literally GAVE China our technology - all of it. In return, Bill Clinton accepted huge campaign funds from China. So the Clintons sold America down the river for a few bucks. We have allowed American companies to locate there for worker purposes, taking jobs away from America - once the greatest manufacturing country in the history of the world! We are still being sold down the river by W. as we allow China to trade UNFAIRLY with us.


65 posted on 04/03/2007 8:05:02 PM PDT by Paperdoll ((on the cutting edge ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

Obviously, we have officials entrenched in all levels of government that are behind this “new world order”, “North American Union” Cancer. They are skirting around our constitution to accomplish their goals. The balance of powers has been stripped.


66 posted on 04/03/2007 8:56:37 PM PDT by kactus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

“Or learning how to live with them. They will never be able to beat us militarily and they need us every bit as much as we need them economically. Having a strong economy keeps their government in charge which is what every corrupt regime desires.”

****
They can’t beat us militarily unless several major natural disasters wipe out the entire West Coast of the US. Just for grins, here’s one possible scenario: Several earthquakes of 8.5 to 9.0 magnitude quaking for ten minutes non-stop along the entire US Pacific coastline. Add to this all of the now-dormant volcanoes on the western US, i.e. Mt. Shasta, Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier, all blowing their tops (toss in Yellowstone, too).

The Chinese could possibly offer “humanitarian assistance” to the beleaguered US government which will gladly receive it. Such humanitarian relief could involve millions of compassionate Chinese entering the southwest US legally via Mexico and then disseminating throughout the country to establish “Chinese compassionate aid stations” to help the stricken American populace.


67 posted on 04/03/2007 9:12:27 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Porterville

Unfortunately, George Bush will never get credit (until historians long after we are dead write about it) for his skillful manouvering with India.

As Mark Steyn once wrote, “China will be old before it is rich.” Their one-child policy means that within half a century their demographics will resemble Japans.

India is the future of Asia. And we are on the right side of that.


68 posted on 04/03/2007 9:17:44 PM PDT by Philistone (Your existence as a non-believer offends the Prophet(MPBUH).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Doubtful. They would not be able to get through the wave of Mexicans trying to head back south.


69 posted on 04/03/2007 9:20:30 PM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

“Doubtful. They would not be able to get through the wave of Mexicans trying to head back south.”

LOL


70 posted on 04/03/2007 9:21:28 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Modern America is Europe’s way of trading with China by moving Europe one continent to the west since the Bedouins have pretty much cut off the overland trade routes to the east

Umm...you do know this is the 21st century, right? And the overland trade route problem was solved in the days of Vasco de Gama?

71 posted on 04/04/2007 12:10:10 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
we didn't trade with the Soviets the way we do with the Chinese, to the tune of billions of dollars a year

Huge grain deals kept the Soviets from starving. Selling wheat to the USSR was a mainstay of American agriculture through much of the Cold War years. They didn't produce anything worth buying though, so we didn't have the same trade profile as we have now with China.

72 posted on 04/04/2007 12:16:28 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: Philistone

India is the future of Asia. And we are on the right side of that.

You’re right about India being important in the future. We need to cultivate a strong relationship with India for our own good.


74 posted on 04/04/2007 4:41:12 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Duncan Hunter '08 Pro family, pro life, pro second Amendment, not a control freak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

They didn’t produce anything worth buying though, so we didn’t have the same trade profile as we have now with China.

It also explains the difference in results between the two countries. We can’t defend ourselves against China while building her into a superpower.


75 posted on 04/04/2007 4:44:01 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Duncan Hunter '08 Pro family, pro life, pro second Amendment, not a control freak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
>The Trilaterals are using our posts to send secret messages!
>>No...just me committing a typo

So, you're denying
you're a pawn of the global
sharks and oligarchs . . .

Next thing, I suppose,
you'll want us to believe you're
not Brittany Murphy!

76 posted on 04/04/2007 7:59:44 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Porterville

“I believe an US-Asian nexus(be it India or Chinese) will be necessary to control the savages of europe.”

I think you may be right...a common enemy may be what actually keeps the peace between the China and the US...


77 posted on 04/04/2007 8:02:32 AM PDT by never4get
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Also to be resolved is Norway’s interdiction of traderoutes to the yet-to-be-discovered New World, which reduced trade with the yet-to-be-discovered British North America until the foxy Queen Elizabeth allowed England to develop an actual Navy.


78 posted on 04/04/2007 8:14:13 AM PDT by RightWhale (3 May '07 3:14 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Who is talking about going “isolationism”? Not my candidate.


79 posted on 04/04/2007 9:34:19 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
I believe an US-Asian nexus(be it India or Chinese) will be necessary to control the savages of europe.

Your hopes for 'tomorrows' alliances have one big stumbling-block...the facts of today: Those "allies" regard us as an enemy or pigeon to be fleeced.

Both India and China are stealing our industries, technologies and military secrets right and left.

China openly classifies us the "main enemy" and their people only regard us as the enablers of their ascendancy. So of course SOME of their people jolly well "like" Americans. But that is fleeting and ephemeral. Once we get in their way...that will all be over.

India is more complicated, being reflexively Third World in its popular outlook. Hence, any deals are likely worth very little. Note, the complete lack of any real benefits as a counterbalance to China...or the Jihadists, despite W's heavy committments to India. We are getting essentially nothing for very concrete transfusions...

They just don't have the pull that China can swing...the Chi-Comms being totally "on page" as the tyranny it is...able to meticulously follow a script...no matter how complicated. Pretending to be temporarily benign. Child's play for professional liars.

80 posted on 04/04/2007 9:39:34 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson