Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

bladerunner said:

The Americans have the nuclear physicist Shahram Amiri who defected over to them. Funny how the Iranians disclosed the existence of their second enrichment site shortly afterwards.

Click to expand...

And it won't be the first time a defector has offered up BS to appease his new masters into granting him asylum and giving him a nice big juicy welcoming gift.

If this scientist had any hard proof, America would have brandished it all over the world's papers already.

AssassinsMace said:

I've heard the oil deal concession for a while because there's been this story going around that some Western diplomat asked China off the record what would it take for them to go along with sanctions. The Chinese diplomat said, "Find us another source for oil." The West wanted to ignore it because they didn't want this as some quid pro quo situation to which is why they from the get-go, just as with Iraq, declared Iran an imminent nuclear threat. They don't want to have to deal with others for everyone to get on the program so they scare everyone into submission. The US has said publicly China is going to have to find another source on their own and tried intimidate China by using the same tactic of labelling China in league with rogue nations by doing business. Then just recently I read a story that Europeans firms are leaving Iran because of impending sanctions making China their major business partner now. Oh so while the West was vilifying China for doing business with Iran for years, Europeans countries were actually doing more business with Iran more than anyone else. I don't know if this has anything to do with it but there was a story a few days ago that China has surpassed the US to be Saudi Arabia's primary customer, a country that was said to be negotiations with China on being an alternate source from Iran.

Click to expand...

Well I think this is another good example of how differently Chinese and westerners think.

When the Chinese said, 'find us another source of oil', they meant find us another 138 billion barrels of proven oil reserves when the west thought it meant cover the disruption your sanctions will cause.

plawolf said:

If this scientist had any hard proof, America would have brandished it all over the world's papers already.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

By the same token he could have told them , they were barking up the wrong tree and saved them from digging themselves a hole if they were.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with that. If this scienist said Iran has no weapons program, would the US say, 'my bad' and drop everything?

i think we all agree iran is getting nuclear, so its not a matter of gather evidence in order for US to have excuse attack them. if the sanction drag too long and china is not on board, US might just attack iran as last resort. then where does china get its oil after US strike. so its best for china to play along while US offer them alternate oil source than regret later when US decide to attack iran. of course US & israel might also has to live with a nuclear Iran, but thats unlikely to happen.

plawolf said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with that. If this scienist said Iran has no weapons program, would the US say, 'my bad' and drop everything?

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly G Bush in his last year in office or thereabouts had backtracked on the Iranian nuclear threat. and now with Obama in office its the complete opposite(The reason why, Ill leave up to you to strategise) If The recent defect of the Iranian scientist had confirmed there wasnt a threat, I would have thought the current administration would have continued with the Bush policy.
Perhaps the current admini, want out of this dispute, but are having difficulty in backing down.

SampanViking said:

No Finn I think they would need to offer something substantive which is theirs to give. All of your examples are already Chinese and not in America gift. To try to use these items as leverage would simply be a threat against Chinese core interests and would illicit a reciprocal response.

If the US wants a solution to Iran, the first thing to put on the table would be its physical presence in Central Asia, then you might have the makings of a deal. It could make a similar offer with its presence in East Asia/Pacific if it wants a solution to North Korea.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying here, and it is true, but it begs the question, what is the point of having leverage? Why support the Dalai Lama if you're not going to use him as a bargaining chip here? I'm not saying that I know what China's response to using those things for negotiation is, I guess I'm just saying that well America has things China wants, you can't just out of hand reject a deal with Taiwan and Tibet in the mix because "those things are China's". Fact of the matter is that the US has some things that China wants, so you have to take them into account.

I agree on the Central Asia/East Asia presence being the real meat of the deal. Central Asia is vital to China's long term strategic interest, and it is not vital to the United States, so it would make sense of the US to agree to allow it to be China's unimpeded sphere of influence in exchange for a deal on Iran which helps the United States out in an area that is much more vital to it's interests, the Middle East. East Asia is also vital to US interests, so it's probably not going to be put on the table in any circumstances.

Also the leadership in Washington is probably too dumb to realize that the US is getting a good deal if it lets China have a free hand in Central Asia in exchange for help on Iran.

Hi Finn

Good Answer and it takes us to the nub of the argument.

I found it highly instructive in my youth reading the Icelandic Saga's, as the society of Viking Iceland's Republic is almost a perfect microcosm for International Relations today.

The lesson that is taught over and over again, is that your rights in law and natural justice are nothing if you lack the ability to enforce those rights over your opponents.

For Leverage to be effective, it has to work and have little or no comeback to you. While Tibet, Taiwan etc may have been effective leverage in the past, those days are gone. The best that can be done with them is to generate mischief against an opponent that has the ability to generate its own mischief against you. This is clearly a non option as it damages your own core interest without delivering any concrete results.

Once you reach this point, you have to reassess the nature of your bi-lateral relations and adjust them accordingly and present deals of substance and which will be accepted and respected.

My precious post was really about illustrating this point and was deliberately written in a blunt manner to help "give a shake" to those who do not yet appreciate the consequences of the rebalancing of global power.

Your closing paragraphs also touch on the same point, that the an appreciation of the nature of change is still permeating its way into the consciousness of the Washington establishment and they are still intent to test the evidence to see if it is robust.

We may have some way to travel, but I do believe that the end is in sight.

"Sanctions on Iran have failed. The US must target its oil"

To my knowledge, any U.S.-proposed U.N. sanction that affects China's investment or involvement in the Iranian oil sector is a non-starter (e.g. China, as a permanent veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, will veto the proposal). China believes it would be extremely unfair to deprive Iran of its major hard-currency earner, important civilian high-paying jobs, and starve the Iranian population.



"From Times Online
May 3, 2010
Sanctions on Iran have failed. The US must target its oil
No country has yet tried to hit at the heart of the Iranian economy

Bronwen Maddox

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walks up to the podium today in New York to deliver another blast of venom, the only proper response is for the US to hit Iran’s economy with much tougher sanctions than anyone has yet tried. That means targeting its oil industry, not just its leaders and its banks.

Otherwise, Iran’s President will deliver real injury, not just insult, to this crucial conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He has taken Iran to the brink of having nuclear weapons, and if it does soon get them (despite protestations that it only wants nuclear power), that will trigger a Middle East arms race."

China's official stance on Iran sanctions

"China has said new sanctions against Iran, to be discussed by the U.N. Security Council, must not hurt 'normal trade'." "The sanctions are not for punishing innocent people and should not harm normal trade."


Dapeng Sun, China's first self-built liquefied natural gas carrier, is delivered to its owner in Shanghai. The vessel, which cost US$160 million to build, has a capacity of 147,000 cubic meters, or about 70,000 tons, of LNG. Built by Shanghai-based Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding (Group) Co, the ship will sail on the Australia-Guangdong route to load the clean fuel to south China. (Note: Photo is from Shanghai Daily April 4, 2008)



"Iran orders six Chinese LNG tankers
May 30, 2010 at 15:20

TEHRAN - Iran has ordered six tankers from China to transport the liquefied natural gas (LNG) it hopes to export from its giant gas reserves, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Sunday.

The order -- worth $200 million to 220 million per ship -- is a sign that China's economic relations with Iran remain fairly good despite Beijing backing a new draft of U.N. sanctions meant to pressure Tehran over its uranium enrichment.

Mohammad Souri, managing director of the National Iranian Tanker Co., said Iran usually bought South Korean ships but had judged the Chinese offer better value for money.

In another sign of cordial relations, a Tehran city council official said on Sunday that China has granted Iran a 1-billion euro ($1.23 billion) loan for infrastructure investment such as roads, Fars reported.

Unlike Qatar, its neighbour across the Gulf with which it shares the vast South Pars gas field, Iran does not yet produce LNG. The development of Iran's gas industry has been hampered by years of sanctions which have deterred foreign investors.

In a sign of China's growing importance in the OPEC member's energy industry, last year the China National Petroleum Corporation clinched a $4.7 billion deal to develop phase 11 of South Pars, replacing France's Total.

It is also in talks about developing Iran's LNG industry.

As China's economy has boomed in recent years, it has used its financial clout, in the form of loans or investments, to strengthen ties with mineral-rich countries around the world, including Iran, its third-largest crude oil supplier.

China has said new sanctions against Iran, to be discussed by the U.N. Security Council, must not hurt "normal trade".

"The purpose of sanctions is to bring the Iranian side to the negotiating table," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said shortly after Beijing gave its backing to a draft which the United States and Europe had been pushing for for months.

"The sanctions are not for punishing innocent people and should not harm normal trade.""