Readers’ Responses to Our Question (32)

eastwardly dynamitism irenarch tegumentary photosensitiveness wicker eelspear outspeaker
Shaving Chest Hair
http://www7.qvnpvz.net/5n
Yahoo Message
http://www4.qfoifxz.net/158
Sam Troughton Pictures
http://www6.qvnpvz.net/ey
Learn The Net Home Page
http://www2.uejtaxylj.net/1e7
Film Studies Program Canada
http://www3.uejtaxylj.net/8b
Tropical Fish Distributor
http://www7.uejtaxylj.net/y4
250 Dirt Bikes For Sale
http://www6.uejtaxylj.net/1ev
Martial Art Techniques
http://www6.qfoifxz.net/16x
Alcoholism Family Effects
http://www1.qfoifxz.net/13q
All Of New Pokemon
http://www8.qfoifxz.net/11g

revitalization pierhead treasonous sirenize worktable ignitor abatised khedivate
From Sea to Sea: An Exploration of Canada by Bicycle
http://cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/08/offbeat.taiwan.betel/

Great site!24eb9b6f726d76a446d7b9ad66962b5d

Very interesting & professional site. You done great work. notem6715

Your pictures are great. notem6715

kiwhty lhyrp aelwcfmb tuxcm todwvhlm fptqj nioybmp

kiwhty lhyrp aelwcfmb tuxcm todwvhlm fptqj nioybmp

There are several reasons for why a crisis in the Middle East might affect ChinaÔøΩs rise in the world. First, China clearly depends on a steady supply of oil to fuel its domestic economic development. Any crisis in the Middle East affects the perception of oil markets and potentially disrupts supplies of oil to these markets. If any war in the Middle East were to become a regional conflict that dramatically affects world oil markets, then China would suffer along with all other countries that depend upon the importation of oil for their continued development. This situation would precipitate a short-term energy crisis in China that would depress economic conditions.

However, China has diplomatically positioned itself well in terms of access to world oil markets. In order to secure a measure of stable access to oil markets, China has worked hard to develop strong diplomatic ties with a variety oil rich states in and outside the Middle East, including Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. This diversification offers some insulation from oil shocks, although this does not guarantee full protection from the effect of socio-political instability on oil markets.

Further, in some ways a crisis in the Middle East would actually benefit China. First and foremost, any Mid-East crisis will absorb US attention and resources, diverting US attention from China. The longer any such crisis persists, the more room China has to continue their path of development without direct resistance from the US on issues such as human rights and Taiwan relations.

Another potentially positive effect of a Middle East crisis on ChinaÔøΩs development is related to arms markets. China sells weapons to several states in the Middle East, including Iran and Syria. For example, during the Hussein regime in Iraq, China assisted in the upgrade of Iraqi air defenses after the 1991 Gulf War. Any crisis in the Middle East provides an opportunity for ChinaÔøΩs position within international arms markets to improve, encouraging the further expansion of ChinaÔøΩs defense industries.

Given all of these reasons, overall the crisis in the Middle East provides a real opportunity for China to continue rising far into the future.

Rennypolis

No difference

I do not think that the unstability of middle east will have a direct influence on growing asian economies.

we have seen last ten years of turmoil in middle east and in fact it did not caused any impact on asian giants.

the only difference will be energy sector if oil prices increases then all world economies will suffer and middle east buying power will increase. therefore asian countries who have large labour force employed in middle east will also benefited by increased wages.

the cost of production due to higher energy cost will have impact on G-8 as well as emerging economies in asea. It means european products will be out of reach to middle class who will switch over to cheaper products from china and india.

in my opinion unstable middle east will have more adverse effeect on european economies than asian countries

Barbara,

your poem about Lebanon is super.

THe short answer as many blogers have suggested is Asia can ignore this problem in the short run, but not the long run. China, India and others can ignore the problem but if the oil stops the shoppers in Wal Mart; what will Wal Mart buy from China. A lot less. When terrorism reduces air travel the call centers in India go silent. Like it or not we are in this together. The USA is not doing enough to reduce petro consumption,but US waste may become India's and China's door to economic pain. I hope my country men and women will get on the" use less oil band wagon". Read Tom Friedman's THe Worlod is Flat. It all began in Bretton Woods Vermont. At the end of WWII. A group of central bankers and other international money people set in place a plan where over many decades the world economy would be engaged in trade. THis was not a grand conspiracy. It was a plan to benefit billions of humans all over our planet. THey did not know how or where it would end but as the global market expands some benefit other not so much. In general a connected trading world is better than a world at odds. All religionsand cultures need to promote the best of its beliefs not the worst. Any superiority is temporal. No religion or society will "stay on top".

Mere fact that the coverage of the current crisis has the "middle east" label in it, Asians see this as a sign of more economic suffering to come. Oil prices keep going north, based on real and imagined reasons, making oil companies and oil-producing nations awash with so much dough. And the money that these nations receive tend to get invested more into the industry of fear and intimidation than to promoting democracy and economic well-being for everyone.

The current conflict also forced thousands of south and southeast Asians to leave the middle east and to go back home to a place of high unemployment. These people have supported their children's education, health, and other needs through the dollars they earn from their job in Lebanon and Isreal, to name a few. What are they going to do now?

I think Asia can. Sure high oil prices increases inflation (usually physcial oil supplies are not impacted because Gulf countries need the money) and whatever exports to Gulf will go down. I doubt these exports are significant - Gulf countries are not tiger consumer economies that devour goods. With regards to petro-dollars - with high prices (ie more cash) and general uneasiness towards west, Gulf countries will actually invest in booming Asia countries.

Except oil, there is little direct impact of Gulf countries waging pernial jihad on Isreal and the west on Asia economies.

Also, isn't time to split up current Asian continent into two seperate continents - put all islamic ones into a Gulf continent (or something like that). They are really not Asia countries by culture (or what ever makes a continent a continent).

Of course it will affect Asia. The Middle East is IN Asia. What a stupid question.

Pakistan is the training ground for all terrorists.
Saudis are the financiers.
It is their religious duty ( Wahhabism)

So . after 9/11 Saudis were able to divert US attention to Iraq. We have saudi agents in Bush administration .

Chinese are having fun whenever Middle East burns. It has all the good links with Middle east nations and so oil will flow.

Indian relations with middle east was always negative because of Pakistan

India rightly started alliance with US to get hold of nuclear tech.

May be whole world will benefit when we get green energies.
Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Ocean ...

Every Moslem country treads on oil or gas (very largely on oil, save Pakistan) and practically all moslem countries are in Asia. Pakistan and India are populous countries, with high growth rates (GDP, that is!). Where best would we look for energy sources? USA?? Russia?? Its certainly Saudi Arabia and Iran...and a tri-nation gas pipeline is on the engineering and political drawing boards of Iran, India and Pakistan. Uncertainity in the Middle East is not of moslem-making. But the crisis in ME will certainly change the military image of Israel in this part of the world.

No kudo's to the Post for this question.

"Can Asia really prosper if the Mid East remains unstable?"

YES.

I had to spend a considerable amount of time to formulate that answer.

KMK. What you say is not quite correct. China just signed a multi-billion dollar agreement with Iran for oil. Also they have been conducting trade with Iran for quite some time now. If you noticed, China does not want any economic sanctions against Iran. Asia will prosper, specially China. Since the United Sates has steadely de-vested itself from several industries over the years, China is filling that need for us. We buy from them from shoes to computer parts, clothes, tvs, vcr, toys, and on and on and on. Furthermore, the United States have been borrowing money to finance the huge deficits, and guess who is one of the main investor, yes China.

China and North Korea have been selling arms to Iran and other countries in the region. From the purely economic point of view, how are we, the United States, tell this countries not to do that kind of business when we are selling armaments to others? We can protest all we want but they see a big business opportunity in that market. Also Pakistan, a muslim country, has nukes and have been selling nuclear technology to Iran and other countries. Some kind of friend right?

Where's the Hong Kong correspondent? What do the other guys know about the world's hottest economy? What's the take in my city? I have a feeling you tend to lump Asian countries together and assume they are similar with similar reactions. Here, in the financial capitol of the world, we are different/think differently from mainland China, India, Korea, Japan, etc. Not including HK opinion is a mistake. Probably typical. Mike H

majority of comments posted here are not addressing the question that is central to this disscusion. "Can Asia prosper if Middle East remains unstable?".. The answer to this question is Yes! The middle east has been unstable for years and inspite of this instability the Asian nations such as China, SKorea, India, and other south east asian tigers have steadily progressed. The only X-factor that can be a problem is oil supply. Right now majority of the nations that supply most of the oil to the Asian countries are not directly involved in conflict, but that could change at any time. This is all the more reason for the west and the emerging asian economies to form an alliance to find feasible alternatives to oil, to finally and permanently free themselves of the addiction to middle eastern oil.

Considering the virulent hatred inspired by those countries that HAVE meddled in the Middle East to shape it to their will, it seems hardly surprising that other big energy consumers would find it sensible to stay out of it. Why make enemies you neither need or deserve?

Some earlier posters suggested these countries were staying mute because they were all in cahoots with Saddam, supplying him with weapons and chemicals and I don't know what-all. Well, hello pot - meet kettle. Have a look at this; http://deepblade.net/journal/Holland_JUNE2005.pdf (sorry it's a PDF file). This report details exports of biological materials to Iraq by....(gulp).... the UNITED STATES!!! Say it ain't so!!

Let's see, what've we got here...Ooooo; Bacillus Anthracis, a Class III Pathogen. The Iraqis probably wanted that for killing aphids on Saddam's rosebushes. What's this; Clostridium Botulinum? Say, another Class III Pathogen.

It is well documented that during the Iran/Iraq war, the United States sold weapons to both sides. Where do you think the Iranian Air Force came from? Mmmm...F-14's, F-5's, F-4's...B-707 tankers: well, we've got McDonnell-Douglas, Northrop and Boeing. How many of those companies are Chinese? Indian? Anybody?

Shake your head. If it falls off, kick it.

Japan is not an Asian nation. Being Asian is a state of mind, not a state of geography. Clearly, the system of values in Japan is radically different from the rest of the nations located on the Asian continent.

Japan, along with Australia, is a Western nation. Thailand is fast becoming a Western nation, but South Korea is an Asian nation.

As a Western nation, Japan has a responsibility to promote democracy, human rights, and economic prosperity. The Japanese people should repeal article 9 of their constitution and should re-arm under a directly elected prime minister with the power of veto over proposed legislation (thus ending the current system of selecting prime ministers). Simultaneously, Tokyo should nationalize the Yasukuni Shrine and remove the war criminals enshrined there.

The Japanese people should be given honorary status in NATO. NATO troops, with a sizeable contigent of Japanese troops, should be deployed in peacekeeping and non-peacekeeping aggressive military operations in the Middle East. The United-Nations peacekeepers are clearly ineffectual in dealing with the Islamic thugs. We need the firepower and muster of crack NATO troops. If the Japanese military had contributed 150,000 (and Japan has more than 250,000 soldiers doing almost nothing at the moment) to the American coalition in Iraq, the American coalition could have successfully occupied Iraq and killed off the terrorists. With 100,000 Japanese soldiers, the Iraqi occupation would have become a success — instead of the dire failure that Iraq currently is.

Japan has a global responsibility to the world and specifically to the Middle East.

In 2005 January, the "New York Times" reported that 7 Chinese companies, 1 North-Korean company, and 1 Taiwanese company (yes, 1 Taiwanese company) exported missile technology to Iran. The Times further reported that Washington had slapped sanctions against the 9 companies. The full article from the Times is available at the following WWW link.

http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200501182320.html

I raise this issue because the Iranian Muslims have been shipping tons of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon. As many Western journals have reported, Hezbollah has been firing Iranian missiles at Israel.

In other words, the Taiwanese, the North Koreans, and the Chinese have indirectly helped Hezbollah to kill Israelis.

Do not ever leave out the Taiwanese when you are talking about Asian nations that export weapons technology to terrorist regimes. The Taiwanese conscience is no better than the Chinese or North Korean conscience. Money matters most: more than 1 million Taiwanese have already emigrated to mainland China (reference: "New York Times").

http://www.geocities.com/deskofreporter/taiwan/reality_of_taiwan.html

Jack, WaPost, I wrote an OpEd in answer to the one written by Mr. Hollbrooke today. Since it doesn't have a prayer of being published, becasue I'm not a Washington insider, I think posting it here might prove valuable. It is what one LIBERAL thinks of the world today and how Washington insiders have wrecked it.

Richard Holbrooke writes a guest editorial for the Post today (ìThe Guns Of Augustî), warning that deft diplomacy is required or we risk the various crisis dragging us all into a global conflict. The commentary is so rich with errors and the sort of reasoning that brought us to this end that it defies an easy analysis, but I shall try.

The global conflict is already here. Through a series of foreign policy moves so inept they cross the line of criminality, the Bush Administration has managed to cause cooperation between Al Qaida and Iran, largely Sunni Hamas and Shia Hizbulla.

Turkeyís demanded control of the oil fields in North Iraq as a condition of allowing U.S. access to Turkish airspace and supply bases for our invasion of Iraq. We, rightfully, turned them down. Since our invasion of Iraq, Turkey has been infiltrating Turkomen and irregular troops, and concocting instances of Kurdish intimidation of these ìminoritiesî as a pretext for further involvement. They have coupled this with Turkish Kurds defending themselves against the Turkish troops machine gunning and poison gas attacks and forcibly removing whole villages, calling these acts of self defense ìterrorismî and are now threatening to invade the Kurdish enclave. Of course, all of this is simply so much diplomatic smoke - what Turkey means to do is take, by force, the oil fields they were earlier denied.

The Shiites of Iraq, especially the private army of Al Sadr and Iran are not ignorant of all of this and have sent armies into this area. A major clash between Turkey and Iran is a sure result of all of this. And, through a series of missteps, the Bush White House and a spineless Congress has rendered the ìno fly zoneî cover we provided our Kurdish allies, worthless. The result will be the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people rendered defenseless by our diplomatic ineptitude and an end to any country contemplating any sort of alliance with the U.S.

Mr. Holbrooke claims that they only beneficiaries of the looming crisis are Iran, Hizbulla, and Al Sadr. Wrong again! The Russianís have been realizing a minor economic boom through weapons sales to Iran, Hamas and Hizbulla, Syria, and the various well heeled ìinsurgentî groups all over the Middle East. China and India, North Korea have all realized economic benefits from the sale of their weapons and technologyÖ.much of it stole from the U.S. via the U.S. tax payer subsidized H1-B and L series visa programs where hundreds of thousands of low wage foreign engineers replace U.S. engineers, through outsourcing our most sensitive technologies to Chinese and Indian and Vietnamese subsidiaries, through outright U.S. corporate treason using returning foreign guest workers as ìmulesî to ferry equipment and materials and technologies.

Too, from the perspective of China, keeping the United States pinned down in a war of attrition in the Middle East saps our strength and keeps us so preoccupied that we cannot interfere with her run to super power status and dominance of Asia.

Beyond those countries, France, Germany, and many European countries are rushing to sell whatever they can, including weapons, to anyone in the region with the money to pay. All of Iraq and Lebanonís neighbors are poising themselves to pick over the remains of those countries as the degenerate into civil wars. The jockeying for position has already begun with our ìalliesî like Saudi Arabia and Jordan funding much of the Sunni ìinsurgenciesî to guarantee a place to pick over the road kill that were countries.

The current war between Hizbulla and Israel, of course, is what generated Mr. Hollbrookeís attention. For the entire 59 year history of modern Israel, her Arab neighbors have used every opportunity to attack that country. It can be likened to an infection that was haphazardly treated and has, as a consequence, developed immunity to every antibiotic or medication we now have available and now is raging and threatens to kill the patient and spread beyond. The many ceasefires between Israel and her Arab neighbors were mistaken for peace by diplomats and Western political leaders. Those ceasefires allowed the infection of hatred to fester and gain strength until, today, it will defeat every effort to contain.

It might be instructive to step back and ask about the cause of this. It is actually quite simple, in the history and belief of Islam, territory once conquered is not to be surrendered. This is a foundation of Islamic faith. It is the reason we hear cries from Islamic leaders to retake Spain, Sicily, and other parts of Europe. They were once a part of the great Islamic state and, a foundation belief of Islam, they cannot be surrendered.

So, Israel, especially Israel because it is the site of many Islamic holy places, but also due to a famous incident, must be destroyed and that blood soaked land returned as a part of the Islamic state.

The famous incident is the Battle of Hunain. What led to that famous battle was a simple expulsion and slaughter of the Jews of Medina by Muhammad and his troops. A Jew had loaned Muhammad money to pay a ìblood priceî for the killing of a resident of that city. Through a series of misunderstandings and double dealings, characterized in Islamic tradition as Jewish attempts at assassination, the Jewish residents were rounded up and every male over the age of five was beheaded. The women were raped, taken as ìtemporary wivesî, and later sold into slavery. A small group of Jews had managed to flee to the city of Hunain where they took refuge. They were tracked down by an army of Muhammad and his followers and slaughtered.

It is no mistake that the long range Iranian missile being used by Hizbulla bears the name Hunain. Israel is well aware of thisÖand what would be in store for them if her Arab neighbors ever actually succeeded in overrunning Israel. (Interesting that the Western press, while at first using the name ìHunainî, rapidly changed it to ìZelzalî, when the meaning of the term ìHanainî was pointed out. Interesting, too, is the fact that the name ìHunainî is still and exclusively used by every Arabic media outet.)

Sorry to say, we are in the beginning stages of a global conflict. It is not solely about terror. It is about resurgent national interests, fundamentalist religious beliefs, and simple outright greed. Incompetent diplomatic efforts, going all the way back to Mr. Hollbrooksís watch, have led us to this end. God help us all, but it is going to require vision and efforts that are, I think, are frankly beyond humanity, especially the narrow clods passing for leaders and diplomats in this country, to avoid the annihilation of millions of people and the end of Western civilization.

I think the danger to India is greater than to China, Japan, etc. Right now it seems the instability affects the West more than the East—is directed toward the West, but India is obviously feeling it. But even if the instability were directed solely to the East I believe that even though India would suffer, China, Japan, etc. would handle the situation better than the West. I say this because I doubt the insidious method of the enemy in the Middle East (terrorism/guerrilla warfare, exploitation of the media, etc) would affect Asians as adversely as Western democracies. Asians would have no qualms about rooting out the enemy at the price of innocents. They would not buy the enemy hiding behind women, children, etc. I believe the Asians would recognize that the enemy in the Middle East is being extraordinarily inventive and essentially gambling it will win by a fluid insertion of itself into the affected society which cannot be combatted by the affected society except at the price of innocents on both sides—and quite possibly only by a regression to martial law within society (the possibility of tyranny). Asians quite simply are tougher than Westerners and right now are profiting by the debacle of the West. If the instability in the Middle East were to swing eastward with a vengeance I believe Asians would cut it short to the extreme chagrin of Muslims everywhere. Muslims should not mistake the East for the West. And the West should remember that there is an East, that the East exists as not only a potential rival but a world to emulate in certain respects. What would it really mean for East and West to meet on this problem?

I think its particularly ammusing that our own involvement with China over the last decade has been so freeflowing, without using the leverage that it gave us to persue greater liberalization. We are feeding the growth of their economy, giving rise to a term to describe a totalitarian state that has "free" markets — the China model.
In the United States, 150 years were required to rub out the exploitation of the men, women, and children who worked in our factories and fields. There were incentives to make changes though, they had to deal with the power of a population that believed in its own rights, had a free press, and eventually had the power to collectively bargain, as well as boycot.
As long as there is large scale outside investment in China, which the position we put them in with our financial backing largely assures, they will have no impetus to change their human rights model.
That leaves us with a totalitarian state as the main power broker in Asia, simultaneously encouraging North Korea and threatening Japan, Taiwan, and India.
Whether or not they are driven to get involved in the events of the day is questionable. If they do choose to become involved, we are responsible for putting them in the impenetrable tower of Walmart bigboxes, taller than the great wall is long. From that vantage, they can see how to make their next move a smart one for China, and we won't be able to respond, one way or the other.

Oh Lebanon

Oh Lebanon,
Your glorious cities,
And beautiful lands,
So recently disfiguered.
Rebuilt and reborn.
Alas, now forsaken.
Protected by strangers-
Bombed by a neighbor.

Where is the justice?
What price shall you pay?
Your people live-dying
By night, and by day.
Those children in Cana-
What sin did they make?
Hunched together, frightened-
Bombs blew them away.

And so, we sit watching
Day, after day.
So many great countries,
Yet no one says ìNayî.

Alas, yet forsaken.
Help Lebanon today.
Where innocent are dying-
Say not ìdelayî.

Oh Lebanon-
Where is your justice?
Has the world turned away?

May God grant you Mercy
Oh, Lebanon we Pray.
At what cost a peace,
With nowhere to stay?

Written by:
Barbara Crandall
August 2006

MikeB is on to something. Could you please let us know what is it that you are smokin? must be some poor soul enraged at outsourcing. Please re-direct your anger at Corporate America instead of those poor injuns ! Looks like you want the Duke back to kill some injuns!

I can't figure out why you are even asking this question. "Asia", at least China, India, and North Korea find this whole mess to their *advantage*. China provided much of the weapons used by Iran and their clients Hizbolla and Hamas. Prior to this, during the Saddam era in Iraq, Chinese technician installed the optical fiber network used by his military. India has been supplying technology and materials for Iran's chemical and biological and nuclear programs. North Korea has been supplying missiles and the know-how to make and modify them. China and India have been taking advantage of our guest worker and corporate outsourcing binge and have been engaged in the wholesale theft of our most sensative military technologies. I mean, that underwater missile tested by Iran? It was American and the plans, even a circuit board for the guidance system, were reportedly stole by an Indian engineer. Chinese engineers have been caught with plans and parts for our next generation shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles. There were over 2,000 reported cases of espionage from workers from these two countries alone last year. Worse, still, Amercian corporations have been using some of these workers as "mules" to ferry out forbidden-for-export equipment.

So, this is really a very silly question...and a rather strange one, too. This government has been taxpayer subsidizing the theft of our national treasures, taxpayer subsidizing treason by U.S. corporations and investors.

Of course they can.

True, it's important that we not underestimate the degree to which China and India are starving for energy. Rolling brownouts are the norm in major Indian cities like New Delhi for most of the year. The populations of these countries are still growing - especially India's - and within each population, more and more people have access to energy-burning consumer goods.

But it's also true that there is a global market for energy, and that instability in one oil-producing country is often offset by increased in production from others. The world enegy markets - while highly inelastic - are still markets, and that means that price increases and the constraints they put on growing economies are NOT limitless.

Ultimately, I think the sad fact is that the world and its markets are not dependent of the Middle East for anything except oil. It's our ONLY connection, and that is itself pathetic. No one invests there, they export nothing close to finisged product (unless you count suicide bombers) and they can't afford to imoprt anything. What happens in today's Middle East matters very little to global or Asian markets in strict economic terms. This is truly a failed region. Increased costs of shipping and other energy-related inputs have been absorbed by gloabl consumers pretty well.

The growth and prosperity in Asia is a result of western and other foreign countries investment in that region. It is the global economics/trade that is going to influence the growth of individual countries in that region. You need every customer to buy your product. The same way each country needs other countries cooperation and support in order to be successful in the global competition. From this perspective unrest in any part of the world is going to have a negative impact on the growth of developing countries. So, an unstable Middle East will have a negative impact on Asia.

The short answwer is yes.

A stable Middle East is better for Asian countries and their export markets; some some countries like the Philippines it is a source of remittances from workers in the Gulf States. But the only thing the largest Asian economies really need from the Middle East is oil, and the principle areas of instability in the Middle East either have no oil (the area around Israel) or became an exclusive American responsibility as of 2003 (Iraq).

From the standpoint of China or India there is little reason to seek deeper involvement in either situation. The reasons are well known; "instability" is not a causeless phenomenon that goodwill and common sense can make disappear, but a result of people with deep grievances against one another who seek partisans for their side, not mediators. Deeper involvement by Asian countries would only make them targets for someone's resentment. Why would they risk that?

[I note one significant exception: China is apparently investing heavily in Sudan, the government of which has been prosecuting a genocidal war against civilians in Darfur for over three years now. This investment is said to be concentrated in the oil sector, which makes sense; the population of Darfur has no means of striking the government's supporters and no important foreign allies, which means China's support for the Khartoum government risks nothing.]

South Korea and Japan by contrast are heavily reliant on the United States; conducting a policy independent of Washington in an area so remote does not make sense for them either. They, too, need only one thing from the Middle East: oil. Instability in Saudi Arabia would for that reason, and that reason only, be a major concern to everyone; a successful Iranian nuclear program would likewise compel the closest attention. Anything short of that, though, is unlikely to induce Asian powers to depart from their present course. For them — and this is only an observation, not a criticism — Mideast stability is someone else's problem.