Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics,
Hillary Clinton just made a very memorable statement.
I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price
So — exactly what price must Russia and China pay? Should the United States stop buying the debt they issue to support bloated welfare states and fiscal irresponsibility? Should the United States stop exporting consumer goods that fill their stores, and keep their people fat and happy? No — I do not think it is Russia and China who would “pay” in the case of increased mutual antagonism. I think the United States will pay the greater price.
In any case, Russia denies the premise of her argument.
Russia rejects in the strongest possible terms allegations that it supports President Assad in the Syrian conflict. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Moscow and Beijing must ‘pay a price’ for backing Assad.
While I think Russia and China are the thing standing between Syria and another Iraq-style ‘democratisation”, I do not necessarily think Russia and China are doing the wrong thing. While the Assad regime is certainly inhumane and brutal, the rebels that Clinton seems so urgent to support seem little better — at least judging by their attempt to get British journalists killed in the name of propaganda, and their well-known affiliation with global jihadism.
Can we honestly say that committing guns, blood and money to deposing Assad will guarantee peace and stability? Can we honestly say that the next regime might not be worse? I do not believe we can — especially considering that almost every nation involved in the “Arab Spring” has since elected Islamists to power.
Even with the support of the Arab league, is getting entangled into another messy and open-ended conflict in Russia and China’s backyard really a good idea? Some voices in China are already rumbling that they would be willing to go to war to prevent an American takeover of Iran.
If avoiding nuclear proliferation is our goal, intervention is certainly a bad idea. Qaddafi’s deposition — in stark contrast to nuclear-armed North Korea — was a signpost to rogue regimes that the only way to ensure their survival is to pursue nuclear armaments.
The real question though, is what Hillary Clinton thinks she can achieve through throwing unveiled threats around and destabilising the fragile global system? Is she so fervently committed to expensive and bloody foreign interventionism that she is willing to risk creating a global diplomatic and political crisis in order to get what she wants? How far will she go to force the American agenda? Regional war? Global trade war? World war?
My guess is that her threats are completely hollow.