THE EU, the US, IRAN, and the ARMS EMBARGO on CHINA

Steppenwolf wrote:

I certainly can't justify Tibet or Xinjiang, but those areas were annexed years ago. It's politically unfeasable for the modern leadership to let those regions go, even if they wanted to; it would only open the door for nationalist hardliners. Imagine if, for instance, Adams decided to give most of the U.S. back to Native Americans. As far as Taiwan is concerned, that's the last potential area for Chinese expansion. It's a problem area, surely, and I agree that there has been considerable saber rattling of late. But that's as far as it's likely to go absent a major political upheaval on the mainland. In any event, we needn't worry about an expansionist-minded China beyond Taiwan.

Well, I haven't spent time in China as you have, but there are quite a number of countries which are -- justifiably, in my view -- nervous about Chinese expansion into their territory:

1. Kyrgyzstan
2. Kazakhstan
3. India ... nice little border of war of those decades ago ... boundaries still under dispute
4. Vietnam ... dispute over Spratly Islands, with energy demand growing in double digits per annum this is likely to remain an issue... national humiliation at the hands of the Vietnamese in war loss in 70s still rankles the Chinese as far as I can tell
5. Mongolia
6. Russia ... though some progress has been made on this, the number of ethnic Chinese entering Siberia may become a pretext for another conflict ... nuclear weapons didn't stop sporadic small scale battles with the Soviet Union
7. Pakistan ... still some disputed territory, religious ties to Xinjiang
8. Turkmenistan
9. Uzbekistan (these last two, of course, have links to Xinjian ethnically, and though it is more difficult to see than the others, the demand for energy is going to make Central Asia a hotspot.)
10. Japan ... if I remember correctly, there are some disputed rocks in the Yellow Sea

China certainly doesn't feel strong enough to impose its will right now on Taiwan or in certain other areas, mostly due, I think, to Russian and American deterrence as well as economic/commercial concerns ... but with a Government as opaque and difficult to predict as the Chinese system, I find it difficult to remain entirely sanguine about the possibility of future aggression from the Middle Kingdom.

0 Replies

Bayinghound:

Forgive me for rudely speculating, but I would guess that you've lived much of your life under the threat of the U.S.S.R (the most tense portions of the Cold War). Don't mistake modern Chinese "communism" as Soviet communism (or Maoist communism). As Deng Xiaoping said "it doesn't matter if it's a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches mice." In other words, the new ideology in China is pragmatism - the so called "Communism with Chinese characteristics" (Jiang Zemin) is another way of saying that consumer culture, privatization, and economics are the way of the future. Chinese communism is alive only in name--Mao is dead.

That said, I think you're focusing too much on the question: what might China be capable of, and what could she theoretically do? The real question is: what is in China's interest? The Vietnam, India, etc. scenarios seem like bad dreams rather than realistic possibilities. Those dreams could become a reality if we irrationally alienate China. In other words, while focusing on the "capability" question, you might make your views on the "interest" question a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even that seems like an unlikely scenario unless we cause a Chinese economic meltdown, which is totally contrary to our present policy.

Now, to address the specifics of your last post, and this is the boring part, so feel free to ignore it:

Most of the above countries have absolutely no link to China, and there is no reason to suspect that China would jeopardize its economic prospects with meaningless aggression (they're not nearly as opaque and unpredictable as, for instance, North Korea). Taiwan is the exception: Taiwan is dominated by Han who, until recently, saw themselves as the true leaders of China, ready to retake the mainland. The vast majority in Taiwan are still ethnically and culturally Chinese (the native Taiwanese are an exception). Excluding Taiwan--which I admit may become an issue--what interest does China have in, for instance, Vietnam? Vietnam was a vassal several hundred years ago, but that's pretty tenuous. Rankled about a military loss? China entered that war not for conquest, but because they feared that the Soviet Union and Vietnam would trap them in a two-front fight (this was during the late seventies, after China fell out with the U.S.S.R. and tried to cozy up to the U.S.). China declared that war a victory (even though it wasn't), and you absolutely never hear about it these days. Frankly, I'm surprised that you've heard of it, which is one reason why I suspect that you're from the Cold War generation. Anyway, the threat of a U.S.S.R./Vietnam invasion has long disappeared. Yes, China and India had a border dispute, but that dispute was under a radically different leadership (and half a century ago)-- neither side has shown any interest in reopening that can of worms. As far as I can tell, some older-generation Indians are still upset about the war, but no in China could care less. Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan? Why? Pakistan? Same deal as India, and there are absolutely no ties between the Uighurs and Pakistan. The same religion? I guess, but does that mean that Luxembourg is a threat to Sweden (both mostly Christian)? Uzbekistan for oil? Why spend enormous resources conquering and controlling Uzbekistan while alienating yourself from you primary source of economic growth (trade and foreign investment) when you can simply buy oil--like virtually every other country? What would China do with the oil once their economy tanked? The same goes for every theoretical conquest: it could only hurt them, even if they won!

In the end, China is dependent on foreign investment and consumerism. Unlike the historical Soviet Union, N. Korea, Iraq, etc., China is the bound by the golden handcuffs of globalization. The best way to deter them is to keep piling on the gold. In my opinion, that's also the best way to promote Chinese liberalization.

0 Replies

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll018.xml

Interesting.

0 Replies

No kidding JW. I would say that's as bi-partisan as it gets here Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So if both Nimh and Walter are opposed to rearming a somewhat-less-than-democratic China, what rationale is EU using to promote that?

Don't know neither, and even more mind-blowing: they didn't ask for my opinion neither.

You shouldn't, however. forget that the EU arms embargo is voluntary and rather porous: it sold 210 million of military equipment to China in 2002, and is proposed to be replaced by a legally binding code of conduct, which it insists will afford greater protection - it is said.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

Bayinghound:

Forgive me for rudely speculating, but I would guess that you've lived much of your life under the threat of the U.S.S.R (the most tense portions of the Cold War).

Sure ... I'm not entirely sure whether I qualify as a member of the cold war generations; it ended when I was in college, so I certainly do remember it.

Steppenwolf wrote:

Don't mistake modern Chinese "communism" as Soviet communism (or Maoist communism). As Deng Xiaoping said "it doesn't matter if it's a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches mice." In other words, the new ideology in China is pragmatism - the so called "Communism with Chinese characteristics" (Jiang Zemin) is another way of saying that consumer culture, privatization, and economics are the way of the future. Chinese communism is alive only in name--Mao is dead.

I didn't mean to imply that modern Chinese communism is the same as China under the Four Horsemen; you are right to say it isn't. But, yet, and however, the government of China is still very opaque ... in the same way as the government of Saudi Arabia is opaque. The pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin is a hopeful sign, but I do not think that that means we ought not to be concerned about where they might go.

Steppenwolf wrote:

The real question is: what is in China's interest? <SNIP> Most of the above countries have absolutely no link to China, and there is no reason to suspect that China would jeopardize its economic prospects with meaningless aggression .... <SNIP> In the end, China is dependent on foreign investment and consumerism. Unlike the historical Soviet Union, N. Korea, Iraq, etc., China is the bound by the golden handcuffs of globalization. The best way to deter them is to keep piling on the gold. In my opinion, that's also the best way to promote Chinese liberalization.

Though I agree that an interests-based analysis of foreign policy is usually the best indicator, I remain sceptical about this argument because it is precisely the same one made about Europe before WWI. To whit: the Europeans will never go to war with one another, because their economies are too intertwined. It is obvious, in retrospect, that WWI was wholly not in the interests of European power--economic, military and soft--but it didn't prevent them from going to war.

Steppenwolf wrote:

<SNIP> what interest does China have in, for instance, Vietnam?

Well, China is a net importer of energy ... its demand is growing the fastest in the world and is set in the next couple of decades to be equal to the entire current production capability of Saudi Arabia. There is a long-standing dispute over the Spratly Islands ... which are thought to have considerable gas and oil deposits. Those Islands sit across a major shipping lane for energy to China and Japan. Could energy security -- that is, economic security -- be a reason for the war, even if not the official "political" pretext? I would answer that question a resounding yes.

Steppenwolf wrote:

Rankled about a military loss? China entered that war not for conquest, but because they feared that the Soviet Union and Vietnam would trap them in a two-front fight (this was during the late seventies, after China fell out with the U.S.S.R. and tried to cozy up to the U.S.). China declared that war a victory (even though it wasn't), and you absolutely never hear about it these days.

You would know more about the current feelings about Vietnam in China than I do, but I am less sanguine about the reasons for the war in the first place.

Steppenwolf wrote:

Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan? Why?

Kyrgyzstan just ceded 1000+ sq kms to China in order to settle a border dispute. A Chinese diplomat to Kyrgyzstan was not long ago assassinated by Uighur sympathizers. Kyrgystan has valuable water resources.

Kazakhstan has Uighur sympathizers and incredible gas and oil reserves.

Turkmenistan has recently signed a deal for a pipeline sending their gas through the Taklaman desert to markets on the East coast of China (!). Turkmenistan's dictatorship is facing growing opposition which is increasingly taking the form of Islamic radicalism, which has ties to the Uighur-China conflict.

Steppenwolf wrote:

Pakistan? Same deal as India, and there are absolutely no ties between the Uighurs and Pakistan. The same religion? I guess, but does that mean that Luxembourg is a threat to Sweden (both mostly Christian)?

Well, from my understanding, there are considerable ties between certain elements of the Uighur resistance and Islamic radicals in the mountains of Pakistan ... a situation similar from the US perspective to the Russian conflict in Chechnya (meaning, that we might be uncomfortable with the actions the Chinese are taking in Xinjiang, but we are willing to live with it in order to further our efforts against those Islamists we see as a potential threat to us.)

--------

I agree with you that China right now appears to be heading towards an integrationalist realist foreign policy. For example, disputes in Central Asia are now being handled by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, talks reopened with India in 2001 regarding their border issues, and the Spratly Islands dispute is in official negotiation. However, China right now is not strong enough to act on its own in the region ... if it were, it might behave differently.

Furthermore, just because the political moderates are in power now, doesn't mean that they will continue to be in the future. What will happen if the Chinese pensions system finally defaults and you have 100s of millions of people made completely destitute? Might that create a situation that a would-be despot might exploit? After all, the Thermidor of the French Revolution was followed by none other than Mssr. Napoleon.

I don't mean to be overly negative, I just think that the concerns about potential aggression are to be taken seriously ... though I think you are right in saying that the Chinese at the moment appear to be moving in a conciliatory integrationist direction and that that ought to be encouraged. Just not sure if increasing their military capacity would be the right kind of encouragement, is all.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kyrgyzstan just ceded 1000+ sq kms to China in order to settle a border dispute. A Chinese diplomat to Kyrgyzstan was not long ago assassinated by Uighur sympathizers. Kyrgystan has valuable water resources.

I never would have thought that was a real name of a place.... Smile

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bayinghound:

On the whole, I think your post is a very sensible analysis, and I certainly agree that a measured and cautious approach is warranted despite my generally positive attitude about U.S./China relations.

bayinghound wrote:

Though I agree that an interests-based analysis of foreign policy is usually the best indicator, I remain sceptical about this argument because it is precisely the same one made about Europe before WWI. To whit: the Europeans will never go to war with one another, because their economies are too intertwined. It is obvious, in retrospect, that WWI was wholly not in the interests of European power--economic, military and soft--but it didn't prevent them from going to war.

This is a solid observation, and I wouldn't be so naive to believe that countries or people always abide by their self interests. But was Europe that economically integrated before WWI. It was my understanding that they were quite politically integrated

bayinghound wrote:

Well, China is a net importer of energy ... its demand is growing the fastest in the world and is set in the next couple of decades to be equal to the entire current production capability of Saudi Arabia. There is a long-standing dispute over the Spratly Islands ... which are thought to have considerable gas and oil deposits. Those Islands sit across a major shipping lane for energy to China and Japan. Could energy security -- that is, economic security -- be a reason for the war, even if not the official "political" pretext? I would answer that question a resounding yes.

That China will continue to be a net importer of energy (to an even greater extent in the future than now) is undeniable. This certainly isn't unique to China. They share this attribute with the entirety of the industrialized world, all of which obtain energy through trade rather than war (not counting oil conspiracy theories about the U.S. and Iraq). Is this a good predictor of aggression? No developed country is self-sufficient with respect to raw goods.

bayinghound wrote:

Kyrgyzstan just ceded 1000+ sq kms to China in order to settle a border dispute. A Chinese diplomat to Kyrgyzstan was not long ago assassinated by Uighur sympathizers. Kyrgystan has valuable water resources.

Kazakhstan has Uighur sympathizers and incredible gas and oil reserves.

Turkmenistan has recently signed a deal for a pipeline sending their gas through the Taklaman desert to markets on the East coast of China (!). Turkmenistan's dictatorship is facing growing opposition which is increasingly taking the form of Islamic radicalism, which has ties to the Uighur-China conflict.

I'll admit that this is all news to me, particularly with respect to the 1000 sq kms cession. However, I wonder whether ties to Islamic radicalism make this area a more likely target for China, which would prefer to distance herself from Islamic fundamentalists rather than invite their integration or further opposition. If China starts facing more organized pressure from Islamic radicals, will this make them more or less threatening to the U.S.? We certainly don't expect them to bow to Islamic radicals, and if they more actively oppose that group, they might prove an ally with respect to some U.S. policy goals.

I'm very glad that you brought all of this up, bayinghound. I quite enjoy this conversation, particularly as it concerns current events of which I was previously ignorant. Ultimately, I remain convinced that integration is our best policy, and I don't mind making some sacrifices towards that goal. I also agree that this doesn't require us to give China a carte blanche, but a conciliatory move by the EU (even if it's tainted by some level of greed) doesn't overly concern me.

0 Replies

As a random aside, bayinghound, I found your editing excellent. You often provided more succinct statements of my position than I made in my own post. If other readers are interested, I think that this is a good summary of my position:

Quote:

The real question is: what is in China's interest? <SNIP> Most of the above countries have absolutely no link to China, and there is no reason to suspect that China would jeopardize its economic prospects with meaningless aggression .... <SNIP> In the end, China is dependent on foreign investment and consumerism. Unlike the historical Soviet Union, N. Korea, Iraq, etc., China is the bound by the golden handcuffs of globalization. The best way to deter them is to keep piling on the gold. In my opinion, that's also the best way to promote Chinese liberalization.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Dunno. Money, probably.

Only for that.
Dont forget "Old Europe" is in a contest with America.It is inconceivable that they (particularly France) will give up such a huge market.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

But was Europe that economically integrated before WWI. It was my understanding that they were quite politically integrated

It's a good question and I am unsure of the relative integratedness vis-a-vis pre-WWI Europe and China and the world today. I did read ... but this was in the 90s and it may well be incorrect now ... that the amount of trans-Atlantic transactions due to the trans-Atlantic cable was higher relative to GDPs pre-WWI than it was when I read the article.

Steppenwolf wrote:

That China will continue to be a net importer of energy (to an even greater extent in the future than now) is undeniable. This certainly isn't unique to China. They share this attribute with the entirety of the industrialized world, all of which obtain energy through trade rather than war (not counting oil conspiracy theories about the U.S. and Iraq). Is this a good predictor of aggression? No developed country is self-sufficient with respect to raw goods.

Well, certain peripheral industrialized nations aren't importers (Russia, Norway) but that's merely a quibble ... I think you are right that being a net importer itself shouldn't present a major concern. I understand, furthermore, that China is en route to becoming a major net importer of grain, American wheat as well ... a good integrationalist reason not to get into a tussle with us.

On the other hand, China is newly an importer as is India ... I believe they both entered the ranks of importers in the late 90s. Their economies are growing like gangbusters and new reserves aren't being established quickly enough to meet growth in world-wide demand. I believe that economic security in the form of energy security is absolutely a critical source of potential armed conflict. I believe that the US did have energy security as a bottom-line concern when deciding to topple Saddam. (I also believe that this is justified, however, though I am very unhappy with the way the war/post-war administration has been prosecuted.) I believe that historically critical resources have been the source of armed conflict ... from salt to oil and gas. Japan's critical need for energy, for example, was one of the precipitating causes of WWII, in my view.

Steppenwolf wrote:

If China starts facing more organized pressure from Islamic radicals, will this make them more or less threatening to the U.S.? We certainly don't expect them to bow to Islamic radicals, and if they more actively oppose that group, they might prove an ally with respect to some U.S. policy goals.

Right now you are spot on ... the conflict with the Uighurs and the UMI is putting the United States and China on the same side of the radical Islam issue. (Just as it is for us and Russia.) What worries me is that a combination of political conflict with Islamist groups, ethnic Han immigration, and an ever-increasing demand for oil will present certain elements in the Chinese leadership with a very political good reasons and pretexts for expansion in Central Asia. If, for example, Turkmenistan were to collapse a la Tajikistan due to conflicts with Islamic radicals and China were in a position to act without fear of a real military challenge from the US or Russia, then we might see the option of China deciding to fill the vacuum happen.

Steppenwolf wrote:

I quite enjoy this conversation

I am as well. You make strong points.

Steppenwolf wrote:

Ultimately, I remain convinced that integration is our best policy, and I don't mind making some sacrifices towards that goal.

And you're hardly alone ... I sometimes feel like I'm the only China-pessimist out there. In any case, it's quite clearly the policy of both the US and the EU.

0 Replies

I oppose the lift, though I am a CHinese.

I am aware that PLA is not people's army (well it once was) It theoretically belongs to the ruling party. FOr I am not a party member and also is under the rule of it, I oppose the lift.

0 Replies

Bayinghound:

I decided to do some perfunctory research on factual questions underlying our conversation. I examined (1) historical trade data and data on foreign direct investment, and (2) Chinese energy needs. In some respects, these are tangential questions, as both of our opinions are principally rooted in subjective views about Chinese politics. However, facts add color to our dispute. Moreover, as I conclude, several concerns not directly emphasized in this thread weigh against lifting the arms embargo against China (this is a shift in my position). I continue to argue that China will not attempt military expansion, but I believe that there is a significant risk that China will sell (or continue to sell) weapons to dangerous nations in order to fulfill her energy needs. This conclusion was obviously influenced by your argument on China's growing energy needs.

I. Trade and Foreign Investment

How effectively can we insure international cooperation from China through trade, investment, and economic growth? I argued previously that growing economic integration provides a barrier against Chinese military aggression. Historical data on economic integration are quite surprising: economic integration as a function of trade and foreign investment is only marginally greater than 1913 levels. Nonetheless, China remains uniquely dependent on foreign investment.

A Surprising Historical Trend in Trade

The data I found on relative world trade levels (as a percentage of GDP) between the late 19th century and the present was surprising, to say the least. Your characterization of pre-WWI Europe was correct. The years prior to WWI represented a peak in trade as % of GDP. This level of trade did not resume until quite recently. Even now, trade levels are only marginally higher than in the early 20th century. Source: Paul Bairoch, The Constituent Economic Principles of Globalization in Historical Perspective, 15 Int'l Soc. 197 (2000) (I have not found this paper in a publicly available form). Unfortunately, I am unable to link to this source.

A Similar Trend in Foreign Direct Investment

Of course, trade as a percentage of GDP is only one measure of economic integration. A similarly important metric is foreign direct investment. Mirroring trade data, the economic liberalization of the late 19th century and early twentieth century promoted a level of integration that we didn't see again until fairly recently. (Note that this data ends in 1996). Source: Bairoch (see above)

The Most Recent TrendsWhat about China?

Returning to the specific question at issue, China benefits from an unprecedented amount of foreign direct investment even if current worldwide levels are only about 160% of WWI levels. More than trade, this may be the single greatest constraint on Chinese aggression. China estimates that foreign investment has contributed an average of 2.7% per annum to her economic growth for the last two decades. See http://www.china.org.cn/english/GS-e/16884.htm. That number is quite high, but only tells half the story. Foreign direct investment has been increasing nearly exponentially in China, so the 2.7% figure is a somewhat deflated estimate of recent years. See http://english.people.com.cn/200401/14/eng20040114_132611.shtml. China is now the number one recipient of foreign direct investment, significantly surpassing the U.S. http://www.atkearney.com/shared_res/pdf/FDICI_Sept_2003_S.pdf. The result of this influx in foreign capital is that China is uniquely dependent on foreign cash for continued economic growth. This may not always be the case if China's economy cools down -- we should all hope that it cools down, less we see a crash or major inflation.

II. Rising Energy Needs
China is currently either the second or third largest consumer of oil. See http://www.iags.org/la020204.htm. Although I have changed my final conclusion on the embargo, I continue to hold that China will not attack her neighbors to fulfill her energy needs. In fact, China cannot obtain nearly the oil she needs from regional sources. China already obtains about 60% of her oil from the Middle East (id.), and China's direct central Asian neighbors would be completely inadequate at fulfilling her oil needs. For instance, Kyrgyzstan has comparatively small oil reserves, and the cost of obtaining that oil is very expensive. See http://www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php?articleid=11. Kazakhstan provides a more attractive target, but its largest oil fields are directly adjacent to the Caspian Sea, requiring China to conquer the entire nation (under the watchful eye of the world, and particularly Russia). See http://www.uskba.net/about_energy.htm. An attack on Turkmenistan would require the conquest of several countries. Finally, the oil needs of China are simply too great to be fulfilled by Caspian oil alone, even if Russia allowed her to conquer the region, which is an impossible proposition anyway.

The real threat is not conquest, but Chinese cooperation with rogue Middle Eastern nations. Would China sell arms for oil? That energy solution would not require any sort of potentially destabilizing conquest. Moreover, China has already shown the propensity to deal favorably with the likes of, for instance, Libya. See http://www.iags.org/la020204.htm. Ultimately, I do not think that China can afford to jeopardize her prospects at foreign investment through overt military action. Unfortunately, covert arms sales might be a different story. I am therefore willing to reverse my conclusion: the EU's lifting of their arms embargo probably does more harm than good.

0 Replies

JB, if you can write freely, WHY do you oppose the lifting the ban?

0 Replies

That's a lot of data to go through, Steppenwolf, thanks for passing it on. (I wish I could get a copy of Bairoch's paper ... are you by any chance a graduate student?)

Just to be clear on the point of the military expansion option for China--I do not think it is a possibility now, however I think that in the future, given a Chinese military on par with ours, just the number of pretexts for action combined with an especially opaque autocracy and an energy crisis bodes ill.

Integration, of course, is a two-way street. If China and America's economies are broadly intertwined, then if China decides to pick on a third party whose political economy is not particularly crucial to the US, like, say, Vietnam or Kazakhstan, then it will hurt us more to try and stop any action or match any action with our own action than it would to sit idly by.

Apparently Jared Diamond thinks that China may well be on the road to ecocide, as per his new book "Collapse", which I just picked up. As far as I'm concerned, it just makes it all the more hazardous, but then, as I've indicated, I'm a China-pessimist.

You think ^JB^ will give us more on his thoughts?

0 Replies

I'm sure hoping so, but I think it might be dangerous for him here. I had to look up 'ecocide' and now have learned a new word. Smile

0 Replies

Evidently sometime before yesterday Japan indicated that they were willing to recognize Taiwan as "an issue of security concern." I'm not entirely clear if that means they intend to officially recognize Taiwan as a nation or not, but it does seem like a powerful message to be sending.

Here's the text from which I get this (sorry if it was in all the papers and I just didn't notice):

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, apologies for an out of the area question. But there is word from Tokyo -- and, of course, the Japanese will be here to see you and Secretary Rumsfeld tomorrow --that they are prepared to recognize Taiwan as an issue of security concern, a rather, obviously, bold step. Is this something you welcome? And what is the import of this, do you think?

SECRETARY RICE: We and the Japanese, of course, enjoy very deep and broad relations in an alliance to try and help bring and maintain peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region. Japan also, of course, has more recently taken on broader roles in their humanitarian efforts in Iraq and also in the cooperation that we enjoyed with the tsunami. So, in fact, this is already a broad and deep relationship that addresses most of the issues of concern.

Of course, the Cross-Straits issue is an issue of concern in the Asia Pacific. The policy of the United States is very clear. We have a One China policy we recognize on the basis of three communiqués. We also have responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act. And we have cautioned all parties that there should be no attempt to change the status quo unilaterally; that means no attempt by China to change the status quo unilaterally, no attempt by Taiwan to change the status quo unilaterally, and our efforts to maintain stability in the region count very much on American adherence and that of our allies, which Japan is certainly an ally, that the Cross-Straits problem would be resolved peacefully.

But we look very much forward, Secretary Rumsfeld and I do, tomorrow, to discussions with the Japanese, my counterpart and his counterpart, about how we continue to promote peace and security in this region.

0 Replies

Interesting. Secretary Rice, so much maligned as being 'unqualified' for her current post, seems to have an enmormous depth and breadth of knowledge on the international field. If she isn't brilliant, she must be the world's best bluffer.

I've been reading and thinking about what all of you are saying on this thread and it all boils down to one issue for me. The Chinese government may be opportunistic and even at times wise, but it is still totalitarian and Communistic which historically makes it dangerous to its neighbors. I am uncomfortable with increasing its capability to be more dangerous I guess.

0 Replies

I ran across this article today. Here, as has been previously suggested on this thread, it would appear that China is much more interested in economic aggression than in military aggression. Could it be assumed that increased economic strength/influence and/or tyranny could be a prelude to possible military solutions to border disputes? Or would it be more likely to be in lieu of a military solution?

China targets Caribbean trade
Saturday, February 19, 2005 Posted: 0805 GMT (1605 HKT)

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- China is waging an aggressive campaign of seduction in the Caribbean, wooing countries away from relationships with rival Taiwan, opening markets for its expanding economy, promising to send tourists, and shipping police to Haiti in the first communist deployment in the Western Hemisphere.

And the United States, China's Cold War enemy, is benignly watching the Asian economic superpower move into its backyard.

For decades China and Taiwan used dollar diplomacy to win over small Caribbean nations where small projects building roads, bridges, wells and fisheries go a long way.

But Beijing's growing economic clout is tipping the scales in the region.

Caribbean trade with China reached $2 billion last year, a 42.5 percent increase from 2003, the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported.

The United States has applauded China's economic offensive, seeing it as a herald of political reform.

"China's intensified interest in the Western Hemisphere does not imply a lack of focus by the United States," Roger Noriega, the U.S. assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, said in a recent letter to the editor of New Jersey's Newark Star Ledger.

"The United States has long stood for expansion of global trade and consolidating democracy."

This year, two Caribbean countries -- Dominica and Grenada -- switched allegiance to China, abandoning Taiwan, which China calls "a renegade province."

Though democratic Taiwan is self-governing, communist Beijing insists the island is part of China. The two sides split amid civil war in 1949 and Beijing has since refused to have ties with any government that recognizes Taiwan.

"Democratic, market-oriented Taiwan is a thorn in its side," said Steve Johnson, senior policy analyst at the conservative Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation.

Two weeks before Dominica changed sides, Taiwan gave it $9 million. China promised Dominica $112 million over the next six years.

"China is not only increasing its influence in the Caribbean, the region is opening up to China, realizing that Taiwan's money diplomacy is not working anymore," said Guyana's Foreign Minister Clement Rohee.

The Bahamas was one of the first in the region to abandon Taiwan, in 1997. The move came as Hutchisom Whampoa, a Beijing-allied Hong Kong company, opened a $114 million container port in Freeport and bought three hotel resorts in Nassau.

Since then, China has earmarked more than $1 billion for projects ranging from maritime transport to a sports complex.

Grenada's Prime Minister Keith Mitchell said he expects future Chinese aid will be significant.

Tourist trade
Early this month, Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong visited Jamaica for a three-day China-Caribbean economic and trade forum attended by hundreds of Chinese and Caribbean government officials and business executives.

Robert Stephens, chairman of Jamaica's Fair Trade Commission and senior vice president of the Jamaican Port Authority, looks forward to future deals.

"The Chinese would distribute goods throughout the Caribbean. Any increase in business would benefit Jamaica as a logistic distribution hub," he said.

By the end of the forum, China added Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, and St. Lucia to its approved travel destinations, promising the region a bigger piece of the fast-growing Chinese tourist market.

Caribbean governments had sought the approved status to boost a tourism industry hard hit by the September 11 terror attacks in the United States.

"Basically, it's the tourist trade that interests China," Johnson said. "I think they will try to invest in their own hotels and in maritime activities" while "consolidating their access to energy" in oil-producing Trinidad.

Qinghong this month led a delegation of 120 to Trinidad and visited its Pitch Lake, which produces asphalt used to pave many Chinese highways and the runways at Beijing International Airport.

China, already the leading importer of Trinidadian asphalt, is a good prospect for even more business as Beijing develops infrastructure for the 2008 Olympic Games and World Expo 2010, a Chinese government statement said.

Once mortal enemies
In the Caribbean, only five countries still maintain relations with Taiwan -- the Dominican Republic, Haiti, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

But China has commercial missions in the Dominican Republic and in Haiti, where in October China dispatched 95 police officers to join a U.N. peacekeeping force. It is Beijing's first contribution to a U.N. mission in the Western Hemisphere.

The United States and China once were mortal enemies.

When China became communist in 1949, the United States supported Taiwan, the island where the former Chinese government had taken refuge. U.S. troops fought Chinese soldiers during the 1950-53 Korean War.

But in 1971 the United Nations gave Beijing the China seat and Taiwan was expelled. In 1979, the United States recognized China's legitimacy. In 2001, China entered the World Trade Organization and foreign investment in China shot to $153.5 billion last year, up 33 percent from 2003.

Last year, China's share of global output was 13 percent ---- more than that of Canada and almost twice that of Japan.

U.S. exports to China have grown more rapidly than to any other country with cumulative investment there reaching $35 billion, according to the State Department. Among leading U.S. businesses there, Wal-Mart sales in China totaled $707 million in 2003.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/02/19/china.caribbean/index.html

Photo is of China's vice-president Zen Qinghong at the China-Caribbean trade forum:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/BUSINESS/02/19/china.caribbean/vert.chinatrade.ap.jpg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sure hoping so, but I think it might be dangerous for him here. I had to look up 'ecocide' and now have learned a new word.

Yes, it is interesting Very Happy

Now if you ask me whether I support the lift or not, I won't support.
But if the government look objectively at the event and punish the person who commited wrongdoings and promise not to create such bloodshed upon the people again, I will support it.

0 Replies

THE EU, the US, IRAN, and the ARMS EMBARGO on CHINA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know