Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

pla101prc

Senior Member
Re: 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."

[qimg]http://images.china.cn/attachement/bmp/site1007/20080404/001109b42f9b095ff68802.bmp[/qimg]
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)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"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.""

this is obviously not workin out for the US. but i wouldnt say its a total failure for obama and especially for clinton. if they didnt have something to show for and declare that they are "making progress" in asserting American position, then the political advantage will shift to the hawkish members of the administration. its prolly time for the US to rethink its strategy...but of course if i were a decision maker in China i'd seek to appease some of washington's demand also because i dont want them to rethink their strategy LOL
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
this is obviously not workin out for the US. but i wouldnt say its a total failure for obama and especially for clinton. if they didnt have something to show for and declare that they are "making progress" in asserting American position, then the political advantage will shift to the hawkish members of the administration. its prolly time for the US to rethink its strategy...but of course if i were a decision maker in China i'd seek to appease some of washington's demand also because i dont want them to rethink their strategy LOL
But "appeasing some of washington's demand" will strengthen (or at least, will not weaken) not those that are proposing a re-think!

Actually, Martian's next to last post (#195) in the missile defense thread contains a fine example of this debate, although it's not exactly "within" the administration.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Originally Posted by Martian
"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."


Innocent people?:rofl: The people knew what they were getting when voting, in much the same way the Germans knew when they voted for Hitler and the Nazis.

Meanwhile I support Bronwen Maddox's call to hurt the Iranian oil trade.
 

pla101prc

Senior Member
Innocent people?:rofl: The people knew what they were getting when voting, in much the same way the Germans knew when they voted for Hitler and the Nazis.

Meanwhile I support Bronwen Maddox's call to hurt the Iranian oil trade.

i suggest you lowering your stance a lil...cuz what you are suggesting here is that the American people also had it coming for voting bush in...twice.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
i suggest you lowering your stance a lil...cuz what you are suggesting here is that the American people also had it coming for voting bush in...twice.

If they didnt, they certainly knew after the first term. Besides I suppoort George and his policies 150%
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
i suggest you lowering your stance a lil
Yes. Is bladerunner in flaming mode again?????

Back in 2004, The Economist magazine ran one of their "leader" articles endorsing Kerry against Bush. The reason they gave was, in part, because in their view, Bush's policies towards Iran had contributed to marginalizing the "reform-minded" in Iran (Khatami). Bush had ignored his relative friendliness to the West. I am no fan of The Economist, and I don't care if you agree with their view or not. My point is that the Bush (and neocon) policy towards Iran PREDATED Ahmadinejad; his pronouncements about Israel or anything else certainly were NOT the cause of these policies. Hence, yes, they DID know who they were voting for, but no, the choice DID NOT affect American policy.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Yes. Is bladerunner in flaming mode again?????

:rofl:It may be borderline because of its political nature but since when indirectly questioning a point made by a poster and agreeing with points in an article posted by another, flaming? I was trying to avoid bring China into it by suggesting that :innocence on the part of the people had long gone" However now that I have brought China up....

In light of its actions in the Sudan and Zimbabwee, I take China's concern with the innocent, with a grain of salt. Its merely an attempt to muddy the issue so that she can continue to do what she has all along. nullify the sanctions and..looking after her own interests.

Back in 2004, The Economist magazine ran one of their "leader" articles endorsing Kerry against Bush. The reason they gave was, in part, because in their view, Bush's policies towards Iran had contributed to marginalizing the "reform-minded" in Iran (Khatami). Bush had ignored his relative friendliness to the West. I am no fan of The Economist, and I don't care if you agree with their view or not. My point is that the Bush (and neocon) policy towards Iran PREDATED Ahmadinejad; his pronouncements about Israel or anything else certainly were NOT the cause of these policies. Hence, yes, they DID know who they were voting for, but no, the choice DID NOT affect American policy.

Thirdly,I was well aware that the USA had a antagonistic attitude towards Iran long before Ajad appeared, and whose pronouncement/tauntings etc etc during his first presidency merely reignited/ intensified American antagonism. In that sense, the Iranian people knew what they were getting when they reelected Ajad, for another term and more so , George when he was up for reelection.
 
Last edited:

pla101prc

Senior Member
If they didnt, they certainly knew after the first term. Besides I suppoort George and his policies 150%

dont want to make this a political discussion but if you like dubya's policies so much (in fact would agree that his China policy is one of the few bright spots), then you should be well aware and in full support of the administration's commitment to avoid military conflict with iran...the shift in policy inclination prolly happened sometime after the conviction of scooter libby...afterall cheney and his fellow neocons did shape bush's foreign policies before rice and gates took over.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
dont want to make this a political discussion but if you like dubya's policies so much (in fact would agree that his China policy is one of the few bright spots), then you should be well aware and in full support of the administration's commitment to avoid military conflict with iran...the shift in policy inclination prolly happened sometime after the conviction of scooter libby...afterall cheney and his fellow neocons did shape bush's foreign policies before rice and gates took over.

Yes we should cut the political talk short. However I'm sure you aware of other circumstances apart from libby and cheney.
 
Last edited:

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
Thirdly,I was well aware that the USA had a antagonistic attitude towards Iran long before Ajad appeared, and whose pronouncement/tauntings etc etc during his first presidency merely reignited/ intensified American antagonism. In that sense, the Iranian people knew what they were getting when they reelected Ajad, for another term and more so , George when he was up for reelection.

Just cause their president hates Bush doesn't mean they shouldn't vote for him. As long as the leader serves better/more use for the people and they voted willingly, we have no right to accuse their decisions
 
Top