Mexico, China, and India: involvement and geopolitical clout

May 19, 2007 at 12:18 pm (Cold War II, India, Pakistan, South Asia, The United States)

Going along my “use Mexico rather than China” line, using Mexico would be strategically beneficial for The United States. The less we depend on China, the more China will need us and our good will towards them. By swaying the balance in our favor, we will be able to negotiate better deals with China in addition to being able to force the Chinese government to make necessary civil rights reforms. Right now, because we need China as bad as China needs us, we ignore the Chinese government’s atrocities.

Another aspect is geopolitical. (Here I hope Geoff will help me out.) China, without a doubt, has as its foreign policy the disruption of and harm to our national interests, especially with regard to our international influence or clout and our alliances (of whatever nature they may be). China can act with impunity because our economy and corporations need the resources we have been using there. Challenging China on even a diplomatic level can affect our businesses. And so being tied thusly to China puts us at a disadvantage; it harms our interests in the long term; it fuels the impunity of a committed opponent.

We also need to consider how long China will remain this wonderful haven of cheap labor and lax policies. Ostensibly, such policies ho against socialist teaching, policy, and theory, which serve to empower the working class rather than let it be taken advantage of. This trajectory can continue only for so long: at some point China will have to choose the capitalist way or the socialist way, and either choice will affect our ability to do business there. Considering the increase in corruption, the growing divide between and rich and the poor, and the suggestion by some that China is investing its wealth in areas that profit the rich and that may bust in any case, we have on our hands a timebomb. Are we willing to stake so much in a state whose conditions we have such little control over? If we are afraid of moving out of China because it will affect business, we should realize we may have to leave sooner or later so might as well do it on our terms and on our own timetable.

Turning to India: it probably makes far more sense to invest our money and business in India than in China. For one thing, India is on our side when it comes to the Moscow-Beijing Axis. The more we make India dependant on us, the more likely India will be willing to counter China’s influence in the region. India’s increasing influence will mean America’s increasing influence and a corresponding decrease in China’s influence. (We also have to take into consideration Pakistan, which seems to suffer from multiple personality disorder: it coöperates with us against terrorists while supporting terrorists; it seeks American business involvement and investment while being anti-American; it wants American geopolitical attention and alliance while developing ties with our new cold war enemies, Russia and China. Developing India’s relationship with us will cause Pakistan to seek to better its relationship with us; it might also drive Pakistan further into China’s arms: either way, we will be better equipped to deal with Pakistan and China if India is empowered and befriended.)

But I do not see how we can manufacture in India as we do in China. I still believe it will be in our economic and commercial interest — or should be — to use Mexico’s resources for manufacturing and for whatever needs we may have. Geopolitically, this will wean us off of China and it will strengthen our Latin American ties. If Latin American countries see how American involvement can be good, if not very good, then perhaps their strident leftism will mellow and not only will be able to enjoy better diplomatic and political ties with the rest of Latin America but may even be able to expand our economic/commercial empire more south, whatever works to our advantage.

It seems quite clear to me that China is a looming threat while Mexico is an unused but rich resource; and Mexico will be a much better political and business partner than China can ever be. (We can, for on thing, quite easily invade Mexico while we cannot invade China. Incentive.) Developing our business and commercial involvement in Mexico will solve many of Mexico’s woes while contributing to a number of our national interests. Sound policy would be to take the effort and develop our relationship and involvement with and in India and Mexico to improve American interests on a number of fronts.



  1. Purple Avenger said,

    As a practical and moral matter, I believe Haiti should be our focus for a cheap goods supplier. The Haitians need the business more than any other country in the Americas does.

  2. Rodolfo said,

    This article, at best, looks like something written by a high-schooler. To begin with, there exists no “Russia-China” axis. The PRC does not engage in triangle aliances as they once did in the past. In fact, both the PRC and Russia are somewhat suspicious of each other. Assuming “india is on our side in the russia-china axis” is also incorrect. India and Russia have an excellent relationship, and in fact, they both have a strategic relationship against the Chinese. Asia is a complex web of alliances and rivalries and an aliance with one can set off alliances with others. India and Pakistan for one are rivals, and the Chinese have supported Pakistan against India. India, on the other hand, have cozey relationships with the Russians to offset China. China, especially during the Regan and Bush years, worked together with the US against the former USSR.

    As for “invading Mexico,” that is also a rediculous idea. Could you imagine the influx of Mexican refugees into the United States if such a conflict were to be considered? What about the billion dollar a day trade flow that takes place? Such a conflict would disrupt those business linkages. disrupting Mexico could be a god-send for drug trafficking and other illegal activities that flourish under chaos.

    One more thing, the fact that you belive in the LDS movement goes to show your lack of understanding of not only world history, but of Latin American history. There is no proof whatsoever that the Nephites, Jaredites, or Lamenites ever existed in Pre-Columbian America. FARMS at BYU have spent thousands (or perhaps millions of dollars) over the years trying to “prove” the existence of these cilivizations and yet to show one ounce of proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: