Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
I'd like to get back to the first question asked on this thread.

I assume that one day China will demand UN sanctions for its own purposes. If they were passed, how would you guys feel if other countries ignored them?

for me, usually no feelings . every country has their own agenda. and of course, considering how international relations are played, i won't be surprised if the western nations might decide to veto some stuff, esp. if it's in their own interests, or just to piss china off. never count on others but yourself
 

Mr T

Senior Member
for me, usually no feelings . every country has their own agenda. and of course, considering how international relations are played, i won't be surprised if the western nations might decide to veto some stuff, esp. if it's in their own interests, or just to piss china off. never count on others but yourself

I was talking specifically about countries ignoring sanctions that had been passed, not objecting to them before/during the voting process. Your attitude seems to be that the UN and/or UN Security Council is a bit of a pointless institution. Or that it should just be a talking shop?
 

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
I was talking specifically about countries ignoring sanctions that had been passed, not objecting to them before/during the voting process. Your attitude seems to be that the UN and/or UN Security Council is a bit of a pointless institution. Or that it should just be a talking shop?

oh
yea well..UN, like its dad League of Nation, was made to be meant for the good of nations. everyone sit down and discuss things and behave responsibly. but time has proven it's not the case. for example, the Iraq war. so as much as UN can be useful in some areas, in other cases, not that helpful if some nations decide to ignore it.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
China has negotiated and signed up to the latest round of sanctions and so yes they must observe them. The sanctions are a legal document and like all legal documents, different people may interpret them in different ways.

China must have its senior lawyers interpret the document and implement its measures based on that advice.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
China has negotiated and signed up to the latest round of sanctions and so yes they must observe them. The sanctions are a legal document and like all legal documents, different people may interpret them in different ways.

China must have its senior lawyers interpret the document and implement its measures based on that advice.

I would expect the document to be written in such a manner, using hot shot law crafters that ambiguity is nonexistant.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
I would expect the document to be written in such a manner, using hot shot law crafters that ambiguity is nonexistant.

Ha, it was crafted by hotshot lawyers alright, but they most likely kept ambiguity in on purpose, that's the only way it could get passed. These sanctions don't really mean a whole lot other than some minor difficulties for Iran (that the ambiguity makes it possible to get around) and a minor political win for Obama.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
oh
yea well..UN, like its dad League of Nation, was made to be meant for the good of nations. everyone sit down and discuss things and behave responsibly. but time has proven it's not the case. for example, the Iraq war. so as much as UN can be useful in some areas, in other cases, not that helpful if some nations decide to ignore it.

Sorry to flog a dead horse, but am I reading you right in saying that if China called for sanctions (for an important reason), they were passed and then weren't enforced by other member states, you wouldn't bat an eyelid?
 

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but am I reading you right in saying that if China called for sanctions (for an important reason), they were passed and then weren't enforced by other member states, you wouldn't bat an eyelid?

honestly i really won't expect too much lol
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but am I reading you right in saying that if China called for sanctions (for an important reason), they were passed and then weren't enforced by other member states, you wouldn't bat an eyelid?

But international relations aren't quite as "symmetrical" as that. China is opposed to international sanctions that affect a country's economic development, period. It claims this as a position of principle.

You might think this is hypocrisy, and that if China was stronger, things would change. But I am not so sure. It is interesting to compare China's policy towards Taiwan with American policy towards Cuba. Both are island states which are quite close the respective large mainland states, and both are bucking the "authority" of the larger state. Of course, Cuba was never part of the US, the history is different, the arguments are different, etc. But I think the comparison is valid.

In the case of China, the PRC government refuses to recognize the Taiwan government as legitimate and refuses to have OFFICIAL state-to-state relations with any other state which recognizes Taiwan (although it often conducts trade and other forms of relations with such countries). China makes a big stink if anybody suggests Taiwan join an international body of states. On the other hand, the PRC promotes trade with Taiwan, and has no problem with any other state that trades with Taiwan. Every indication is that the PRC government would like Taiwan to ride the PRC's development bandwagon, and would like to INTEGRATE the Taiwanese economy into the Chinese and East Asian economy as much as possible.

In the case of the US, the attempt to isolate Cuba diplomatically is coupled with every effort to lock Cuba out of the world trading system. First, the US does not trade with Cuba itself, and secondly, it prevents US banks from issuing letters of credit. Since most world trade, especially in the Western Hemisphere, is in dollars, this has quite an effect.

It should be noted that diplomatically, American policy towards Cuba has failed COMPLETELY: every single state in Latin America has relations with Cuba. Therefore, the situation of the two islands is almost exactly opposite. Cuba struggles to develop trade, but has diplomatic relations with everybody. Taiwan is doing fine economically (thanks partly, in fact, to special trade treatment from the mainland) but is being recognized by fewer and fewer states.

The case of Taiwan is actually a sort of test, because China at this point would be strong enough in its region to have a big negative impact on the Taiwanese economy it it wanted it.

Another difference in the approach is ideological. China makes no attempt at justifying its policy on "moral" grounds. Perhaps, since, arguably, "the people" are not being hurt, there is nothing to justify. For the US, there is usually some moral spin that goes along with the policy, whether it is human rights, "freedom", non-proliferation, terrorism, or even drugs. When pursuing its aims with respect to Taiwan, China does not claim it is doing such a thing for the good of the world.

One thing that impresses me about Chinese leadership's foreign policy is that, aside from knowing their own history they seem to have studied the experience of European and world powers in the last century and more. They seem to design their policies in such a way that they avoid the pitfalls and mistakes others have made. It would not surprise me if China's Taiwan policy has benefited from a careful study of American policy towards Cuba, and if China's policy on "sanctions" in general take this experience into consideration.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Sanctions or no sanctions the provocation and sabre rattling continues.

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
Hugh Tomlinson
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and from Teheran

Influential Iranian cleric calls for 'special weapons' in veiled reference to nuclear arms
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI , Associated Press
Last update: June 14, 2010 - 1:42 PM
TEHRAN, Iran - The hardline spiritual mentor of Iran's president has made a rare public call for producing the "special weapons" that are a monopoly of a few nations — a veiled reference to nuclear arms.
The Associated Press on Monday obtained a copy of a book written by Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi in which he wrote Iran should not deprive itself of the right to produce these "special weapons."
Iran's government, as well as its clerical hierarchy, have repeatedly denied the country is seeking nuclear weapons, as alleged by the U.S. and its allies.
The Security Council last week imposed a fourth round of sanctions in response to Tehran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, which Iran maintains is only for its nuclear energy program, but could conceivably be used to produce material for weapons.
The new U.N. sanctions call for an asset freeze of another 40 additional companies and organizations, including 22 involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities.
Yazdi's hardline views, including devotion to the Mahdi, a messiah-like figure to reappear ahead of judgement day, have had a strong impact on Ahmadinejad, who shows him more respect than any other senior cleric.
Yazdi's book, "The Islamic Revolution, a Surge in Political Changes in History," was written in 2005 and then reprinted last year, but would have only had a very limited circulation among senior clerics and would not have been widely known.
"The most advanced weapons must be produced inside our country even if our enemies don't like it. There is no reason that they have the right to produce a special type of weapons, while other countries are deprived of it," Yazdi said.
Yazdi is a member of the Assembly of Experts, a conservative body of 86 senior clerics that monitors Iran's supreme leader and chooses his successor. He also heads the Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute, an Islamic think tank, in the holy city of Qom, 80 miles (130 kilometers) south of the capital.
In his book, Yazdi said Iran must acquire the necessary deterrent weapons in order to be able to stand up to its enemies.
"Under Islamic teachings, all common tools and materialistic instruments must be employed against the enemy and prevent enemy's military superiority," he said.
He also said Muslims must not allow a few powers to monopolize certain weapons in their arsenal.
"From Islam's point of view, Muslims must make efforts to benefit from the most sophisticated military equipment and get specific weapons out of the monopoly of powerful countries," he said.
The last time a high ranking official made such remarks was in 2005 when Mohammad Javad Larijani, now a senior judiciary official, said Islam has not tied Iran's hands in producing nuclear weapons.
But Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, has repeatedly denied that Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons because Islam forbids weapons of mass destruction.
Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwa, or religious decree, saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.
In May, a senior reformist cleric warned about the increasing power of Yazdi and his loyalists within the ruling system, calling them "a very dangerous and harsh current who won't show mercy to anybody."
Earlier this month, a hardline website called Yazdi an "Imam", a title given only to Shiite Islam's saints and the founder of the Islamic Republic, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Such a title has not been awarded to Khamenei, Iran's current leader.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top