The friends you keep show your true nature.

February 17, 2006 @ 9:00 am | Comment

The righteously indignant Islamic nationalist Ahmadinejad seems willing to overlook China’s treatment of his brothers in the faith out in Xinjiang for the sake of an massive influx of investment.

February 17, 2006 @ 9:15 am | Comment

Actually, India’s state oil company is in on the deal as well:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0411-21.htm
“India is also keen to obtain oil and gas from Iran. In January, the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) signed a 30-year deal with the National Iranian Gas Export Corp. for the transfer of as much as 7.5 million tons of LNG to India per year. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, will also entail Indian involvement in the development of Iranian gas fields. Even more noteworthy, Indian and Pakistani officials are discussing the construction of a $3 billion natural gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan ¬ an extraordinary step for two long-term adversaries. If completed, the pipeline would provide both countries with a substantial supply of gas and allow Pakistan to reap $200-$500 million per year in transit fees. “The gas pipeline is a win-win proposition for Iran, India, and Pakistan,” Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz declared in January. ”
Therefore it’s not that China like dictators per se; China is simply doing what India and other democratic nations (cough U.S. cough) do when faced with the dilemma of trying to get oil from other nations without having to incite a coup or pursue regime change.
Put another way, if Ahmedinejad didn’t control 10% of the world’s oil China wouldn’t care so much about him.

Of course, this doesn’t detract from the morality of dealing with a nuke-seeking psycho. But as the U.S. learned when dealing with Pakistan and Saddam during the 1980’s, sometimes you’ve gotta keep your enemies closer than your friends.

Just my $0.02.

February 17, 2006 @ 9:38 am | Comment

India, Russia and China all have alot of interests in Iran. India and China particularly need Iranian oil and gas for their growing economies. That is why they will oppose any EU-US attempt to take Iran to the security council because they fear that without Iranian oil and gas (or resources from other less than savory places and leaders, think Mugabe here). Not that we should be anyone to talk, I mean we’ve never gotten in bed with dictators for the chance to exploit their natural resources, come to think of it, neither have the Europeans (yes, I’m being sarcastic here). In order to deal with Iran, we have to recognize the interests that other big powers have, particularly when it comes to their energy supplies. Having India, China and Russia in Iran isn’t about them sticking it to us, rather it is about them securing their interests and energy supplies, as such, and recognizing that strategy we need to find a way to tailor our strategy to take advantage of their relationship and the potential pressure they can bring on Iran to change certain actions. We cannot isolate Iran (too many of the players mentioned above have an interest in not letting that happen). We cannot invade and occupy it (we made this bargain when we went into Iraq). The strategy we have followed all these years hasn’t worked. As I’ve argued in a recent post there is an internal battle in Iran between the establishment and Ahmedinejad and his new guard. We need to take note of this in crafting our strategy as well. I’ve posted on this in the last few months and put forth a strategy to deal with Iran, while locking in China, India and others into a partnership that complements our interests and goals in the region, mainly our promotion of democratic reform and open markets and their goal of energy security. It is a strategy promoted and spelled out by Thomas Barnett in The Pentagon’s New Map, and expanded through his blog.

February 17, 2006 @ 10:09 am | Comment

“Sinopec would hold a 51 percent stake in the Yadavaran project, according to the Caijing report, while India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corp. would hold 29 percent. The rest of the venture would be divided among Iranian companies and perhaps other outside investors.”

Told you that this is not a case of dictatorship-dictatorship solidarity.

February 17, 2006 @ 11:54 am | Comment

Well, Iran is actually a democracy, but the neocons in Washington don’t like to talk about that.

February 17, 2006 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

Bashing China for developing new oil fields in Iran is a little puzzling. Iran currently produces around 3 to 4 million barrels of oil per day. Who do you think they’re selling it to? Japan and the Europeans mostly. Shouldn’t we condemn them also? 15.9% of all oil going to Japan comes from Iran. I’ve noticed the Western Media has developed a case of amnesia with the fact that Iran is the fourth largest producer of crude oil in the world today and sells it on the global market.

There’s an article at Asia Times that Japan has the development rights to the Azadegan oil field in Iran which is one of the largest in the Middle East with an estimated reserve of 26 billion barrels of oil. They are very desperate to develop that oil field. I guess when Japan or India goes into these pariah countries like Iran or Libya, it’s just business. When China does it, it’s supporting dictators and suppressing human freedoms.

February 17, 2006 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

What about Uzbekistan whose president boils his opponents in vats of boiling oil who enjoys the friendship of the US and UK (the UK ambassador being fired for speaking out about the situation) thanks to its useful military bases?
That’s but one example. Or the fact that the US and UK are friends with a country that executes 10,000 per year, is a totalitarian state etc etc etc?
My only question is that at least people in both countries get damn indignant when they hear about humanrights abuses and suffering in other countries. I mean, think of all those who, as a hobby, hold placards in London supporting the rights of Palestinians. Do any Chinese care about human suffering outside their country? Are they simply ignorant because their government sees best not to let them know such things? If so, China’s censorship is more insiduous than simply trying to maintain state control….

February 17, 2006 @ 5:43 pm | Comment

“President Ahmadinejad, for those who might be living in a cave, has denied the existence of the Holocaust ”

Well, some Japanese officials deny even the basic fact of invasion, let alone all other atrocities. The response from the west is muted and most criticism is reserved for Chinese indignation.

Now, the shoes are in your feet. To put it mildly, your raising this issue is only showing the hypocrisy of the west.

February 17, 2006 @ 6:17 pm | Comment

It’s partly censorship, but also partly having more important things to do, like earning a living, for those who are not in the new middle class.

February 17, 2006 @ 6:18 pm | Comment

Steve, I have condemned the Japanese revisionists many times. Thank God China is innocent of denyting things that actually hapened.

February 17, 2006 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

Keir, to Bush’s credit he finally ended his cozy friendship with Uzbekistan, on human rights grounds.

February 17, 2006 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

HUi MAo wrote:

Well, Iran is actually a democracy, but the neocons in Washington don’t like to talk about that.

Tell me, in which type of democracy do clergy rule over the people and prevent the elected parliament and president from carrying out the agenda they were elected on? Think about how much the mullahs obstructed the reformist Khatami. Even now, with the hardliner Ahmedinejad, upon winning the election Ayatollah Khameini appointed the loser, Rafsanjani as his “supervisor.” Iran is a theocracy, it might be far more democratic than the rest of the Arab world, but at the end it is still a theocracy. The people in Iran want to throw the chains off, that is why we soft kill the regime with connectivity. That is the leap the neo-cons aren’t willing to take.

February 17, 2006 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

What about Uzbekistan whose president boils his opponents in vats of boiling oil who enjoys the friendship of the US and UK

I think the US got kicked out of Uzbekistan for condeming Karimov. In fact, as a result Karimov has sought a closer alliance with China and Russia through the S.C.O.

February 17, 2006 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

I don’t think anyone takes Iran’s “democracy” seriously.

Thanks for pointing out India’s involvement in this. The US has plenty of shady relationships too, China is not alone. (Bush’s love affair with the Saudis is despicable as well and his once-loving friendship with Uzbekistan made me sick.) China does, however, seem to have a way of snuggling up to bad leaders just as the whole world is shunning them. It was the timing of this piece that I found so interesting – the article makes it appear that China did indeed come to Iran’s rescue right at its darkest hour, as Ahmadinejad was becoming increasingly – no word play intended – radioactive.

February 17, 2006 @ 8:47 pm | Comment

“your raising this issue is only showing the hypocrisy of the West.”

Jesus H F—ing Christ, steve, are you another product of Chinese education? Or of any education at all?

Richard is not “the West.” He’s Richard. He raises one issue and then you extrapolate it to condemn “the hypocrisy of the West” (whatever the hell “the West” means – does it include Mexico? South Africa?) – I mean, what the HELL does just ONE post by ONE guy have to do with “the hypocrisy of the west?”

Idiot.

February 17, 2006 @ 10:00 pm | Comment

China did try to get oil from good guy first – a company called ‘Unocal”. We all know what killed that.

The US never took Iran’s “democracy” seriously. Back in 1953, it masterminded the operation Ajax to overthrow the elected government so a dictator can be installed.

February 17, 2006 @ 10:10 pm | Comment

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It makes no sense to place any moral judgment on the behavior of nations in international diplomacy. China as a country needs to secure its oil interests, as simple as that. What do you expect Chinese leaders to do? Let billions of dollars worth of contracts go wasted because the Iranian president is insensitive to Jews? China does not claim itself to be a saint. It is a country that has to look after its interests, just like any other country in this world.

Therefore, I’m as much opposed to condemning China for befriending Iran as condemning the US for invading Iraq. Both countries are just acting in their interests.

It’s not impossible to use moral values to judge the behavior of countries. But then you have to be consistent. I can’t afford to act very nicely if the other guy is being dirty.

February 18, 2006 @ 2:32 am | Comment

No, we expect China to condemn the Iranian president because he might start a war that could suck God-knows how many nations in including China!

And if Iran gets the bomb, it will kick-start a new round of nuclear proliferation. First we’ll have Saudi Arabia, then Syria, Egypt and probably South Africa. Japan will probably decide the world is now too unstable to rely on American support, so get its own as might South Korea. So then everyone will have the bomb and China will be surrounded by states that are 1 second away from turning the “Middle Kingdom” into a pile of ash. Remember it only takes one crack-pot to start a nuclear war.

If China is really that comfortable with such a scenario, why doesn’t it just sell nukes on the open market?

February 18, 2006 @ 4:16 am | Comment

“Richard is not “the West.” He’s Richard. He raises one issue and then you extrapolate it to condemn “the hypocrisy of the West” ”

Jesus H F—ing Christ, Ivan, are you just coming from Mars or are you simply stupid?

The outcry agaist Iranian president’s statement is everywhere in western media. Western officials have all condemned his statement.

Retarded.

February 18, 2006 @ 4:28 am | Comment

“we expect China to condemn the Iranian president because he might start a war that could suck God-knows how many nations in including China!”

Yes, we expect US to stop selling weapon to Taiwan and expect the west to condemn Taiwan leade because he might start a war that could suck God-knows how many nations in including US!

February 18, 2006 @ 4:38 am | Comment

@steve
Do you realy think equating Iran to Japan is adequate?

And even if it’s adequate, shouldn’t you then condemm Iran as much as you condemm Japan?

February 18, 2006 @ 4:39 am | Comment

“Do you realy think equating Iran to Japan is adequate?”

Iran did not commit holocaust. Japan did all atrocities. Iran questioned holocaust. Japan actually put class A war criminal in shrine and worshiped by government officials.

Now, you tell me, who should be condemned more?

February 18, 2006 @ 5:00 am | Comment

@steve
Wow, now you are equating Taiwan and Iran.

Quite unorthodox worldview you have there. What comes next?
North Korea and Switzerland? At least they have some mountains in both countries.

February 18, 2006 @ 5:11 am | Comment

Come on steve, Irans president asked for the destruction of a whole country, Israel. I didn’t hear that from the Japanese Primeminister lately.

February 18, 2006 @ 5:14 am | Comment

“Wow, now you are equating Taiwan and Iran.”

No two countries can be totally equated. However, from national interest perspective, Taiwan and Iran are two bargaining chips for China and US.

“Come on steve, Irans president asked for the destruction of a whole country, Israel. I didn’t hear that from the Japanese Primeminister lately.”

Come on Shulan, Japanese foreign minister even denied the class A criminal are actually criminal. I did not hear Iranian president pay respect to Hitler.

February 18, 2006 @ 5:41 am | Comment

Oh steve, you are such a cutie. I would love to go on sharing thoughts with you about international politics but unfortunately there is an important football mach I have to watch.
If we would have met earlier I am sure we would have had a great future. There are so many things we would have enjoyed together. Going to anti-Japanese rallies, having fun smashing Japanese-made cameras or cars, perhaps even opening a resaurant with a handmade sign on the door, saying “No Japanese and dogs allowed”. It’s a shame that all this won’t come true, but I have to say goodbye now. Good luck.
Yours Shulan

February 18, 2006 @ 5:58 am | Comment

steve,

Richard is not “The West.”

If you equate one indivdual with an entire transatlantic civilisation, then you’re either irredeemably stupid or else a vicious fascist who lumps all people into vast categories.

February 18, 2006 @ 6:40 am | Comment

Ivan,

The key issue here is not semantics.

If you can not even see the stark contrast in western media response on Iran and Japan, you’re definitely irredeemably stupid.

February 18, 2006 @ 7:31 am | Comment

Steve, you are way off base. All the Western media have written about The Shrine with a sense of alarm. But it’s not the biggest story in the world. Iran having nuclear capabilities dwarfs it a thousand-fold. If you can ‘t see that, you are irredeemably stupid.

February 18, 2006 @ 7:43 am | Comment

“Steve, you are way off base. All the Western media have written about The Shrine with a sense of alarm. But it’s not the biggest story in the world. Iran having nuclear capabilities dwarfs it a thousand-fold. ”

For China and Chinese, a nuclear Iran is not a big story. A Japan beatifying its invasion and denying past atrocity is very important. If you can ‘t see that, you are irredeemably stupid.

February 18, 2006 @ 7:58 am | Comment

Steve

Japan committed wrongs 60 years in the past. Just because you feel that they have not adequately apologised does not mean that most of the world has moved on. Japan has further to go, but 60 years of peace without expanding its military to offensive/first-strike capabilities is really something. Japan is NO THREAT TO THE WORLD anymore.

On the other hand Iran is seeking nuclear weapons (even France said this), has regularly threatened to wipe out Israel and is ruled by a crackpot that wants to deny the Holocaust in order to continue his anti-Semitic campaign.

Some people love to demonise Japan. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps they’re bitter about the past, envious that they were able to move ahead so quickly, who knows. But as I said Japan is not threat to the world. Iran is. Don’t try and compare the two – it’s childish.

February 18, 2006 @ 8:03 am | Comment

“Just because you feel that they have not adequately apologised does not mean that most of the world has moved on.”

Just because you feel that they have not adequately apologised does not mean that most of the world has NOT moved on.

🙂

February 18, 2006 @ 8:05 am | Comment

It seems that the Chinese see a money making opportunity (a bargain too) and are going for it. Everybody else is doing it. Let’s see who can get the best deal.

February 18, 2006 @ 8:05 am | Comment

Steve, be careful. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Raj, are you really expecting to get anywhere in this argument? Don’t you know by now that the obtuseness of the Japan-haters borders on the psychotic?

February 18, 2006 @ 8:14 am | Comment

” But as I said Japan is not threat to the world. Iran is. Don’t try and compare the two – it’s childish.”

Iran is a threat to you, or to the order desired by the west. It is not a threat to China. Don’t take it for granted that people always share your perspective. — it’s childish.

February 18, 2006 @ 8:18 am | Comment

Wow… It’s amazing how any criticism of China automatically leads to, “well Japan invaded 60 years ago so there!” … And I’m supposed to take those people seriously?
I like how Japan is the scape goat of Asia. No matter how stupid anyone is, they can just say “well Japan sucks” and the original issue is completely avoided and the Japan argument begins.
Face it, China is messed up beyond comprehension. The topic at hand right now is that and that alone… What does that have to do with Japan? You wanna talk about Japan, that’s fine, but at least wait until that’s the topic of discussion.
All we need is a comparison to Hitler and we’ve gone full circle.

February 18, 2006 @ 9:12 am | Comment

Whoops, I didn’t see this before: “I did not hear Iranian president pay respect to Hitler.”

February 18, 2006 @ 9:27 am | Comment

ahem, I feel that maybe I should elect some realism into this thread.

1) “Iran’s slimy new president ” as you so call him was (more or less) democratically elected.

2) Most of his opinions are representitive of the wider Iranian people.

3) In the last 10 years, Iran has sponsered fewer invasions and acts of terrorism than either the US or UK.

4) As a signitory to the Non proliferation agreement, he is LEGALLY INTITLED to enrich Uranium for civilian purposes.

5) He has signed fewer death warrents than GW.

February 18, 2006 @ 9:32 am | Comment

Bush was democratically elected (once at least) and he’s still slimy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

February 18, 2006 @ 9:39 am | Comment

Iran is a threat to you, or to the order desired by the west. It is not a threat to China. Don’t take it for granted that people always share your perspective. — it’s childish.

Right on. That’s the issue here. I don’t care how angry you get at the Iranian president’s speeches, I don’t care how worried you are at the Iran’s nuclear capabilities. They don’t pose a threat to China (Why? Because Hu Jintao does not go around calling Iran as part of the axis of evil), and they don’t have daily anti-China marches. They currently present a great business opportunity and bargaining chip to China from a political persepective. So why not use it?

International politics is a lot more practical than you think. Behind closed doors, a conversation between a Chinese diplomat and an American one over the issue of Iran would not be like:

American: “How can you support a part of an axis of Evil! You are no principles!”
China: “Look who’s talking! Just look at how many countries you have invaded in the past 10 years!”

Instead it goes something like:

American: “Ok, I understand you have this oil deal in Iran. If you don’t openly oppose us at the UN Security Council when we go to war, we’ll make sure your interests are protected.”

China: “Ok, we’ll appear neutral at the UN. But domestically we need to appear pro-Iran, this is just for public consumption.”

American: “That’s fine. Just don’t go overboard.”

China: “We won’t”

American: “Ok , thanks”

February 18, 2006 @ 11:57 am | Comment

Zimbabwe and Iran are just foretastes of what China’s rise will mean on the world stage. They won’t develop ideologically-based patron-client relationships as the Soviets and US did; instead, to further economic and strategic interests, China will sign deals with anyone and everyone — democratic, autocratic, and theocratic alike. It’s good old-fashioned amoral realpolitik.

For those who care about human rights, it basically means the end of using sanctions, UN pressure, or other forms of diplomacy to effectively isolate repressive regimes. If Country X, an exporter of rare metals, becomes an international pariah for, say, killing every male child among its ethnic minorities, then it’ll find a natural defender in the Middle Kingdom. And with the political clout and economic power China will obtain during her rise, Country X will be able to avoid punishment for its actions.

The future’s swell, eh?

February 18, 2006 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

Well, US already made their deal with the Saudis, now it’s China’s turn.

It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.

February 18, 2006 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

steve, as I said, unless China wants every country in the world with nukes, especially angry Muslim nations that might turn on it one day, not to mention neighbours like South Korea and Japan, then Iran IS a threat to China.

richard. Sorry I’ve heard the whinging about Japan long enough. If someone wants to make petty comments then I have a right to refute them. On the other hand if you want to remove them you can delete my rebuttals as well.

February 18, 2006 @ 2:52 pm | Comment

(Gnashing teeth, banging head on wall):

For Christ’s sake, it’s NOT so much about Iran arming other “nations” with nukes, as it’s about nuclear proliferation and nukes in the hands of maverick terrorists floating around Central Asia. It’s bad enough for America to have a nuclear arsenal (America ought to disarm, gradually) but it’s even more potentially destabilising for some nut-job in the mountains of Afghanistan to have access to nukes.

One nuke – just one – going off in Manhattan, and the Chinese can say “88” to their “ten percent economic growth” (or whatever economy they have.) One nuclear explosion, JUST ONE, in ANY major city in the world, will send the entire world into chaos.

February 18, 2006 @ 7:58 pm | Comment

Ivan, this seems so obvious to me, yet CH doesn’t get it. Nuclear explosions do not honor national borders. All you need is one terrorist setting one off in the US, as you say, and China is finished. But CH, broken recordf that he is, keeps insisting there’s no threat.

February 18, 2006 @ 8:15 pm | Comment

Also there’s the law of unintended consequences. Humans are not essentially rational creatures – especially not when dealing with sudden threats to the entire planet, as they would all feel if New York were nuked.

How would the Russians react if Manhattan were suddenly vapourised? Would they pre-emptively nuke Tehran, in a panic about how to defend Moscow? (Russians are paranoid and DEfensive, remember.) If they did, would China freak out and drop its handful of nukes on Russia? (No, more likely they’d use them all on Japan, just because.)

You can’t predict what kind of chain reaction would spread throughout human brains all over the world, if they saw just one major city vapourised. Think of how the world freaked out on 9-11, and then multiply it a few million times of magnitude.

February 18, 2006 @ 9:56 pm | Comment

Maybe Iran needs the bomb to counter those of Israel?

There is really no need to whine about bunch of history revisionists. The act is so uncivilized, as I read here.

February 18, 2006 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

LA

And then Saudi Arabia needs a bomb to counter Iran.
And then Syria needs a bomb to counter Saudia Arabia.
Then Egypt.
Then South Africa.
Then Japan, South Korea, Brazil, etc, etc.

February 19, 2006 @ 7:05 am | Comment

“And then Saudi Arabia needs a bomb to counter Iran.”

A simple question: Which is mostly to threaten nuclear on China, Us or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt … ?

Your argugment is like Zoellick’s, i.e., China is a stakeholder. Bottom line if China is not treated as a stakeholder, do not expect China to behave like a stakeholder. — It’s childish.

February 19, 2006 @ 11:10 am | Comment

Steve,

As I said, unless China wants the whole world to have nukes, it had better stop proliferation now while it’s possible – or at least slow it down. Else “evil-nationalist-racist-about-to-rape&pillageyouagain” Japan is going to be encouraged to get its own stockpile.

And as Ivan rightly pointed out, proliferation means more opportunities for terrorists to get their hands on nukes. Does China have to wait for Uyghur separatists to detonate a nuke in the centre of Beijing before it takes a stand? Even if such a thing never happened, Ivan painted a scarily plausible way we could start a nuclear war.

February 19, 2006 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

What you guys are missing here is that China has probably considered the likely harms of nuclear proliferation and found them to be outweighed by the benefits of more oil.

February 20, 2006 @ 1:08 am | Comment

If so, then they’re mighty dense. But then, they decided rushing into development head first outweighed the risks of polluting 90 percent of their drinking water, so it’s quite possible.

February 20, 2006 @ 6:19 am | Comment