Actually the PRC have a stated aim of replacing the US$ with the Renminbi - Yuan as a global trading currency in the next 25 - 30 years. They realise that in order to do that they have to "float the currency" and that at present there banking and finance systems are not able to handle a floating currency. They are gradually changing the banking and finance systems to bring them into line with a floating currency.
Those are neither sufficient nor necessary factors. You need an ideological basis for the network of global alliances, and influence, that could allow for a Cold War. Again Turkey simply isn't large enough economically, militarily, demographically, or even geographically to serve as the center piece for something like that. Unless you are suggesting that they will rebuild the Ottoman Empire, and from there go on to taking over parts of Africa, Central Asia, and South Eastern Europe....
I disagree. Please read the definition of a Cold War;
I don't want to speak for Feanor but for me Cold War was between USA and USSR, period. There is just too much history/connotation there to just use "cold war" in other situations also I don't think "cold war" is appropriate for what we are facing today.
Well then you're clearly making up your own criteria. That's fine but I just showed you the literal definition. The Turkish issue is a long term problem. More interesting is that it seems you do not appreciate the challenge posed by Iran. You've got to understand that Iran is militarily incapable of stopping the USA. However politically and economically Iran carries enough weight that the US can't use overt military force outside of the most dire circumstances. Thusly the US/Allies and Iran wage economic and proxy war, careful to avoid open war. This defines a Cold War.
Ok did you not bother reading my post? Re-read what I wrote in regards to the definition. It's arbitrary at best, and is a description rather then a definition. I proposed an alternative definition, one that better captures the essential factors that made a period of tensions a cold war.
I am going to jump in on Nico and Feanors side. After much thought I agree with their definition. There was only truly one Cold War and it was the USA & the West Vs the USSR & the Warsaw Pact. The definition you seem to be holding a firm grasp of is only one of probably many. Myself if I was going to quote a definition I would probably use a more authorative source than a free web dictionary. Methinks that you're being a little inflexible regarding the definition. It is not holy writ. I cannot understand your reasoning for picking on Turkey. What have they done to offend you? Australia and my country have fought a war against Turkey and they were no push overs. In one campaign alone my country suffered 88% casualties and I think the Australian casualty rate would have been about the same. That is why ANZAC means a lot to us. Japan, well aren't they going through enough trouble at the moment with out any more being added? Iran - well personally I think the US should build a bridge and get over it. It was 30 years ago. Is it because of oil, just like Iraq?
Granted, Turkey will be a major player in the region and will exert major influence in the Middle East [even though it traditional has not had very good relations with the Arabs on account of its Ottoman past] and in the Causus region, which is in its backyard, but a global power that can challenge other powers?The reasons given by DA as to why Turkey in the future might be a 'problem', can also apply to a few other countries, with bigger economies and more resources.
Personally I don't see Iran as a danger to anyone. Despite its rhetoric Iran has no intention of striking at Israel, which anyhow would lead to national suicide. Iran's main priority is regime survival and protecting it's national interests. There has been so much talk in the mainstream press and by neo-con, right wing groups, as well as By Israel, regarding the threat posed by a nuclear Iran and about the danger that Iran might one day target the West with long range missiles, unfortunatly no one has asked the most obvious question - if unprovoked and un-attacked, why on earth would Iran resort to such measures?? The west's so called friends and ally's, the Gulf states, are spending billions on arms and are much less democratic than Iran, they all conspired and pumped millions into ensuring an Iraqi victory over Iran in the 1980's - yet why are they not seen as a threat to Iran?
I would dispute the comment about the Caucus. While Turkey has made significant inroads there, it remains largely a Russian backyard. 2008 was a clear demonstration.
Fair enough, my mistake, Russia remains the biggest player in the Caucasus region. I would revise my statement to say the the Caucasus is an area of great importance for Turkey as you pointed out, and that Turkey in the future will beyond doubt try to exert more influence there, as will Iran.
Chechnya is in Russia itself, so I'll assume you mean the rest of Russia. I don't know for a fact (try google
) but I suspect that the rest of Russia will have the largest numbers of Chechens outside of Chechnya. At least if Moscow is any indication. Rapid urbanisation, rising populations, dwindling food and water resources are problems faced by many countries at the moment and the problem is set to get worse. And that is exactly why over the past few years it has been rapidly investing in parts of Africa, where its influence is at an all time high. A major advantage of dealing with China, for many countries, is that Chinese aid and diplomatic relationships don't come with any moral or humanitarian baggage attached, like those from the West. In China's case, it has a huge need for oil to meet its national needs - oil that has to be imported through chokepoints, that can be disrupted, in areas that are controled by countries aligned with the U.S. And that is largely why it is building a deep water port in Pakistan and has major influence in places like Myanmmar.
Not sure I agree with your analysis here Tom.
I live in China and it's already becoming a "powder keg". There are bombs going off sometimes, attacks on police stations, riots, property destruction, abuse of power and position, political corruption, dissatisfaction at the basic social level over the wealth gap, gender inequality, marriage laws, education policy, job opportunities for graduates, lack of marriageable women for young men, especially poorer ones, pollution, overcrowding and so on....and these are the ones I can think of immediately. It'll be these things which destroy China, and it'll happen from within, not without. China is a powder keg of many languages and 56 differnt ethnicities, all dominated by the Han majority and ruled, absolutely, by the communist Party and it's 80 million members, none of whom are elected by the people they rule..and, police brutality can be added, i witnessed such things last night and a police shooting which, to me, was completely unjustified!