China should move
- Thread starter utelore
- Start date
Kidnapped Chinese workers freed in Ethiopia
By Emmanuel Goujon
Agence France-Presse
Last updated 06:04am (Mla time) 04/30/2007
ADDIS ABABA -- Seven Chinese workers captured in a rebel attack last week on an oil plant in Ethiopia in which 77 people died have been released, Ethiopian officials and the kidnappers said on Sunday.
"We have released the Chinese at 2:00 p.m. (1100 GMT) today to the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross)," said Abderahmane Mahdi, the London-based spokesman for the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF).
"They are safe and well they are now on their way to Jijiga," the provincial capital of Somali State in southeastern Ethiopia and home to the Ogaden rebels, Mahdi said.
One Somali and one Ethiopian captured in Tuesday's dawn raid were also freed, he said.
The ICRC in Addis Ababa confirmed that the workers had been handed over and said it would issue more details later in the day.
An official with the agency said the hostages were in good health and were headed for Jijiga.
A temporary ceasefire was arranged between the ONLF and the Ethiopian army -- with the ICRC acting as mediator -- to facilitate the handover, Mahdi said.
The Ethiopian information ministry confirmed their release and again accused arch-foe Eritrea, with whom they have a long-running border dispute, of being behind the raid.
"The release of the kidnapped came through the joint efforts made by Ethiopian Somali elders and the ICRC. Released hours ago, the released hostages have now arrived at the town of Degehabur," it said in a statement.
"ONLF perpetrated the horrendous act of terrorism in a plot orchestrated by the government in Asmara."
The attack, which left 68 Ethiopian workers and nine Chinese dead, was the first on an oil site since the ONLF issued a threat to foreign companies operating in the region a year ago.
On Friday, a senior government official said the Ethiopian army had surrounded three sites suspected to be ONLF operating grounds, but the group warned that any heavy-handed attempt to free the oil workers would endanger their lives.
"There was no military operation. No Ethiopian movement so far," Mahdi said.
Earlier in the week, the ONLF said that they wanted to hand over the Chinese hostages as soon as possible without any demands and that the attack on the plant was not targeting China.
But it called on Peking to stop cooperating with Addis Ababa on oil exploration until it gains legitimate self-government in Ogaden.
The ONLF wants independence for ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia's eastern Ogaden region, which is part of the Somali region.
Sinopec, the parent company of Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau, operator of the Ogaden oil venture, said Thursday it had no plans to pull out of the resource-rich region despite the attack.
Predominantly barren, the Ogaden has long been extremely poor, but in recent years the discovery of gas and oil has brought both hopes of wealth, and new causes of conflict.
Copyright 2007 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
By Emmanuel Goujon
Agence France-Presse
Last updated 06:04am (Mla time) 04/30/2007
ADDIS ABABA -- Seven Chinese workers captured in a rebel attack last week on an oil plant in Ethiopia in which 77 people died have been released, Ethiopian officials and the kidnappers said on Sunday.
"We have released the Chinese at 2:00 p.m. (1100 GMT) today to the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross)," said Abderahmane Mahdi, the London-based spokesman for the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF).
"They are safe and well they are now on their way to Jijiga," the provincial capital of Somali State in southeastern Ethiopia and home to the Ogaden rebels, Mahdi said.
One Somali and one Ethiopian captured in Tuesday's dawn raid were also freed, he said.
The ICRC in Addis Ababa confirmed that the workers had been handed over and said it would issue more details later in the day.
An official with the agency said the hostages were in good health and were headed for Jijiga.
A temporary ceasefire was arranged between the ONLF and the Ethiopian army -- with the ICRC acting as mediator -- to facilitate the handover, Mahdi said.
The Ethiopian information ministry confirmed their release and again accused arch-foe Eritrea, with whom they have a long-running border dispute, of being behind the raid.
"The release of the kidnapped came through the joint efforts made by Ethiopian Somali elders and the ICRC. Released hours ago, the released hostages have now arrived at the town of Degehabur," it said in a statement.
"ONLF perpetrated the horrendous act of terrorism in a plot orchestrated by the government in Asmara."
The attack, which left 68 Ethiopian workers and nine Chinese dead, was the first on an oil site since the ONLF issued a threat to foreign companies operating in the region a year ago.
On Friday, a senior government official said the Ethiopian army had surrounded three sites suspected to be ONLF operating grounds, but the group warned that any heavy-handed attempt to free the oil workers would endanger their lives.
"There was no military operation. No Ethiopian movement so far," Mahdi said.
Earlier in the week, the ONLF said that they wanted to hand over the Chinese hostages as soon as possible without any demands and that the attack on the plant was not targeting China.
But it called on Peking to stop cooperating with Addis Ababa on oil exploration until it gains legitimate self-government in Ogaden.
The ONLF wants independence for ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia's eastern Ogaden region, which is part of the Somali region.
Sinopec, the parent company of Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau, operator of the Ogaden oil venture, said Thursday it had no plans to pull out of the resource-rich region despite the attack.
Predominantly barren, the Ogaden has long been extremely poor, but in recent years the discovery of gas and oil has brought both hopes of wealth, and new causes of conflict.
Copyright 2007 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
The chinese should not move dat is my arguement because it cost the chinese heaps interm of relationship with the arab, the african and the potential cost of billions for small amount of losts like 6 chinese.
the cost of going to war for 6 lives can not compare to the amount of lost it could incure on itself.
when the chinese going to war in the arab world of sphere of influence they loose losting their image as american allie. dat would cost the chinese billions in trades. when the chinese extending her arms all the way to africa, it would damage her image of as aggresive rising power.
i think the best way is to boost more inventment into all area of africa, so their image is better recieve in africa. who know's the real attacker of dat chinese assets were, since these guerillas are guns for hire anyway. can't this be an cia works??
could this be a chinese work to make itself victims??
could this be the work of who??
the best way is to use the american power in the area to keep everyone in line. rather than the chinese herself doing the killing.
the cost of going to war for 6 lives can not compare to the amount of lost it could incure on itself.
when the chinese going to war in the arab world of sphere of influence they loose losting their image as american allie. dat would cost the chinese billions in trades. when the chinese extending her arms all the way to africa, it would damage her image of as aggresive rising power.
i think the best way is to boost more inventment into all area of africa, so their image is better recieve in africa. who know's the real attacker of dat chinese assets were, since these guerillas are guns for hire anyway. can't this be an cia works??
could this be a chinese work to make itself victims??
could this be the work of who??
the best way is to use the american power in the area to keep everyone in line. rather than the chinese herself doing the killing.
goldenpanda
Banned Idiot
China could do all of this if it tried. Problem is it won't.
Ideologically it's always concerned with the sensitivities of local government, and doesn't have the attitude to behave in such great power fashion. Chinese will think how much they'd dislike foreign troops rampaging on their soil, and would not want to do it to someone else.
The military would have been bursting to go there, with foreign ministry types yanking them back. Then it ends in central committee and non-aggression always wins. Same deal back in 1998 in Indonesia.
Btw there were more than 100 Ethiopian soldiers guarding, they got overwhelmed.
edit: mixed up sudan with ethiopia
Last edited:
goldenpanda
Banned Idiot
Well this is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Dude, we could send over a regiment of type 56 wielding militia, inside of tug boats, and that would look better than doing NOTHING. It's about projecting the image of strength--when will Chinese learn to do that?
The trick is how to manage aggression, and USA is excellent at doing that. To the extent that it's imperfect and offends people, they're paying for it with terrorism I suppose.
China needs a diplomatic style that says, we have to go in to solve our security problem. When we're done we'll leave your country nice and clean and shower gifts on you and be friends forever. Do you think that's possible to say?
Last edited by a moderator:
goldenpanda
Banned Idiot
ok szbd, just be weak forever then.
bigstick61
Junior Member
I think that under the circumstances, at most the PRC should send a special forces unit to work in conjunction with Ethiopian forces, with the permission of the Ethiopians, of course. Ethipoia is a pretty capable country, and that is why it is the only country in Africa which was never colonized. It has been able to use force to maintain its independence.
However, such an approach will not always be appropriate. When a country's citizens and their property are threatened, killed, etc. because the government in the host country is incapable or unwilling to protect the life, liberty, and property of the said country's citizens, it is the country's responsibility and prerogative to intervene. The United States has this as its policy, and since the early 1800s has done so scores of times.
To this end, the PLAN would probably be the most useful tool. A good practice would be for a select group of each warship's sailors to be trained as unit to serve as a naval landing party, and thus be trained in small-unit tactics, coordination with other similar or larger units, the use of small arms and equipment used on the ground, hand-to-hand combat, marksmanship, and such. Such was USN policy until the 1970s. Another policy, which is good, but was discontinued by the USN in the early part of the 20th century except on gun cruisers, battleships, and carriers, and which could be used in conjunction eith the above one, is to have each ship have a Marine Detachment which varies according to the ship's type. The PLAN could land such forces to preserve order, rescue citizens, evacuate, conduct punitive strikes and expeditions, and such, possibly in conjunction with special forces, naval or military, with the warships providing limited aerial support, and providing naval gunfire support and logistics to the landed forces. In practice, it has proven to be a sound policy, especially when you don't have amphibious groups patrolling the seas which could be used in lieu of such forces.
However, such an approach will not always be appropriate. When a country's citizens and their property are threatened, killed, etc. because the government in the host country is incapable or unwilling to protect the life, liberty, and property of the said country's citizens, it is the country's responsibility and prerogative to intervene. The United States has this as its policy, and since the early 1800s has done so scores of times.
To this end, the PLAN would probably be the most useful tool. A good practice would be for a select group of each warship's sailors to be trained as unit to serve as a naval landing party, and thus be trained in small-unit tactics, coordination with other similar or larger units, the use of small arms and equipment used on the ground, hand-to-hand combat, marksmanship, and such. Such was USN policy until the 1970s. Another policy, which is good, but was discontinued by the USN in the early part of the 20th century except on gun cruisers, battleships, and carriers, and which could be used in conjunction eith the above one, is to have each ship have a Marine Detachment which varies according to the ship's type. The PLAN could land such forces to preserve order, rescue citizens, evacuate, conduct punitive strikes and expeditions, and such, possibly in conjunction with special forces, naval or military, with the warships providing limited aerial support, and providing naval gunfire support and logistics to the landed forces. In practice, it has proven to be a sound policy, especially when you don't have amphibious groups patrolling the seas which could be used in lieu of such forces.
szbd
Junior Member
You do not need to deploy your force to show you are strong. Showing you are strong may not be a good thing at all. The key is to protect your interest. You don't need to deploy a division and a fleet to protect your facilities in an african country and that may not be efficient as well.