Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

coolieno99

coolieno99

Junior Member
bladerunner said:
Sanctions or no sanctions the provocation and sabre rattling continues.
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
Click to expand...

This is not the first time the Times of London have made false reports. And it probably won't be the last.

The same type of report published in July 5, 2009.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


1 year later, the current report published in June 12, 2010.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Rebuttal by the Saudis to that dubious report.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Red Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Daniel Blumenthal on the Foreign Policy magazine website. said "It is not that China has a masterplan for world domination. Rather, like all rising powers (19th-century America included), the logic of its growth requires it to play a greater international role," Sooner or later, he predicted, China would develop expeditionary land forces to defend its interests in the region and in strategic areas like central Asia.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
bladerunner said:
Daniel Blumenthal on the Foreign Policy magazine website. said "It is not that China has a masterplan for world domination. Rather, like all rising powers (19th-century America included), the logic of its growth requires it to play a greater international role," Sooner or later, he predicted, China would develop expeditionary land forces to defend its interests in the region and in strategic areas like central Asia.
Click to expand...

China has never really lacked 'expeditionary land forces'. It sent troops into Korea soon after the establishment of the PRC against the most powerful armies in the world.

What China currently lacks is a means to safely transport its land forces to far away places. A shortcoming that is being addressed with the development and expansion of the Chinese navy and its not so secret, secret carrier programme.

But having the force and deciding to use it are two very different things.

If recent American history has taught has anything, it is that whimsical application of overwhelming military force is destined to failure.

Ordering an air strike as a knee jerk reaction to provocation or attack on your interests abroad is almost certain to do your cause more harm then good.

The only time military force works is when it is applied with determination, focus and clear objectives. China has no far-away interests that meet those requirements, thus military power would do little to safeguard them, and China's leaders knows as much.

The vast majority of China's overseas interests are focused in its immediate vicinity, where forces based in China could strike easily. Beyond that its Europe and America - places where there is no chance of applying military force.

Chinese interests in the rest of the world are vital, but could be safeguarded far better by co-opting local governments and authorities. If things go so bad that the government of some African country (for example) could not safeguard Chinese interests in the country, an expedition force would be able to do little better without invading the whole country. In such circumstances, its better to simply cut your losses and pull out rather then risk getting stuck in a hopeless quagmire.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
plawolf said:
In such circumstances, its better to simply cut your losses and pull out rather then risk getting stuck in a hopeless quagmire.
Click to expand...

One can only hope that its a point of view that the Chinese will follow in the decades to come, but who can safely say what might happen if a over confident hawkish but frustrated China was to evolve?
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
bladerunner said:
One can only hope that its a point of view that the Chinese will follow in the decades to come, but who can safely say what might happen if a over confident hawkish but frustrated China was to evolve?
Click to expand...

An over-confident, frustrated and hawkish China will most certainly emerge if the West tries to 'contain' China and limit Chinese power at every turn no matter what the excuse.

The West and the US in particular are in no moral position to lecture China or anyone else on foreign policy with their own bloody past history.

If anything, a stronger China is already starting to act as a counter-weight to American power may serve to curb American military adventurism and excess in the future.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
plawolf said:
An over-confident, frustrated and hawkish China will most certainly emerge if the West tries to 'contain' China and limit Chinese power at every turn no matter what the excuse.
Click to expand...

However the way China has reacted in disputes with its neigbours in the South China seas, the fun and games it plays with Taiwan concerning political recognition with the island states in the South Pacific, in the absence of western provacation is more reminescent of the American approch IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
bladerunner said:
However the way China has reacted in disputes with its neigbours in the South China seas, the fun and games it plays with Taiwan concerning political recognition with the island states in the South Pacific, in the absence of western provacation is more reminescent of the American approch IMO.
Click to expand...


Some interests you can't walk away from, no nation can pretend to be above such things. Go take any nation's core interests and give it a tug and you would get the same reaction.

And China has displayed considerable restraint and pragmatism in defending its core interests, certainly far more then many western countries would have ever displayed in similar circumstances.

The real test is if a nation can have the foresight and maturity to not go picking fights over non-critical interests or misguided ideological zeal. On that front, China's record is certainly cleaner.

Just as we should acknowledge that that record is mainly better because up until now China has not really been in any position to go fighting wars of choice far away from home, we must also accept that it is hugely egotistical and illogical to suggest that the only thing keeping the big bad upstart China from tearing up the place is the 'influence and pressure' of the west.

China will do what it is in its interests and will choose its own path and shape its own destiny. It might stumble or make mistakes or over-react from time to time, just like every other country. That is normal and even to be expected, but it will be the exceptions, and when that happens, China and the world may benefit from a calming and mediating role played by the west. However, to assume that China will rampage out of control at the first opportunity as the default and thus basing your entire China policy on that assumption is juvenile, retarded and ultimately could prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

China is on the rise. The West can either accept that and seek means to accommodate this to the benefit of all sides, or they can try and stand in China's way and try to stop China from reaching it full potential.

If the West chooses the former, then you will find the Chinese fair, sincere and eager friends. If you choose the later, then you put yourself on a collision course with China and the Chinese people.

Iran is a good example of where western meddling for their self-interest and greed can lead. America has poisoned the hearts of generations of Iranians against them with what they did to Iran, and now we stand on the brink of the nuclear threshold and possible all out war in the middle east because of it. Yet the west's remedies are simply the same recycled saber-wattling and thuggish tactics that started all this so many years ago.

Do you know what the clinical definition of insanity is? It is doing exactly the same thing and expecting different outcomes.

Sanctions are a means to make the west feel happy, a form of impotent vindictiveness, little more. It has nothing to do with stopping anything. When has sanctions ever really worked as they were intended? Did the politicians baying for sanctions on Iran really expect them to achieve their objectives?

If you are honest with yourself, you would know the answers to all those questions without having to find excuses or trying to blame someone else. Sanctions, in any form short of a medieval seize don't work. Hell, the Israelis might as well have called the blockade of Gaza a medieval seize, but did that get them the results they wanted or even came remotely close to it?
 
duskylim

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Hard bargaining by Russia and China over these sanctions has resulted in them being watered down to almost a slap on the wrist.

Some aspects are even voluntary and up to the particular state or party involved to enforce.

China will be able to import petroleum and petroleum products, export finished fuels and petrochemicals and even continue joint exploration with the Iranians.

It can continue to build Iranian refineries and petrochemical plants, railways and transport systems, export rolling stock, consumer whitegoods and electronics.

The deals China has struck with the West guarantee's that it's considerable Iranian investments are not at risk.

It only forbids the export of weapons and weapon system components.

For the most part the Iranian leadership is correct in calling it a toothless document.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
duskylim said:
Hard bargaining by Russia and China over these sanctions has resulted in them being watered down to almost a slap on the wrist.

Some aspects are even voluntary and up to the particular state or party involved to enforce.

China will be able to import petroleum and petroleum products, export finished fuels and petrochemicals and even continue joint exploration with the Iranians.

It can continue to build Iranian refineries and petrochemical plants, railways and transport systems, export rolling stock, consumer whitegoods and electronics.

The deals China has struck with the West guarantee's that it's considerable Iranian investments are not at risk.

It only forbids the export of weapons and weapon system components.

For the most part the Iranian leadership is correct in calling it a toothless document.
Click to expand...

And even if the sanctions were not watered down, hands up anyone who thinks they would have dissuaded Iran's nuclear ambitions? Many countries and peoples have been subjected to far harsher sanctions and showed no sign of cracking. It would be illogical to assume that the Iranians would somehow be easier to break.

I repeat my previous position that: "Sanctions are a means to make the west feel happy, a form of impotent vindictiveness, little more. It has nothing to do with stopping anything. When has sanctions ever really worked as they were intended? Did the politicians baying for sanctions on Iran really expect them to achieve their objectives?

If you are honest with yourself, you would know the answers to all those questions without having to find excuses or trying to blame someone else. Sanctions, in any form short of a medieval seize don't work. Hell, the Israelis might as well have called the blockade of Gaza a medieval seize, but did that get them the results they wanted or even came remotely close to it?"
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
:eek:ffOn the matter of using "expeditionary forces" (i.e., of attacking other states) there is a short quote from an ancient source that I find extremely profound, because it is so simple, and yet seems to explain quite a bit. It is from the Book of Lord Shang (Shang Yang, a minister of the Qin state somewhere around the 4th century BC.
Originally posted by Lord Shang:D
A state that has to fight on four fronts values defence, and a state that rests against the sea values attack. For if a state that fights on four fronts is fond of raising soldiers, it will be in a dangerous position, as it has to resist four neighbours. As soon as a country with four neighbours begins hostilities, four countries mobilize armies; therefore is it said that the country is in a dangerous position.
Click to expand...
So, asymmetry in the foreign policy style of different states is an old matter. It can often be explained by geography.

@bladerunner: On the shenanigans between Taiwan and China over diplomatic recognition, this actually proves my point. It is not that China will not play hardball. The diplomatic isolation of Taiwan is testimony to this. But China is against ECONOMIC sanctions, even in this case. By the way, according to what I read several months ago, these shenanigans have been frozen by agreement between the PRC and Taiwan. This is something Ma claimed as one of his victories in negotiating with the mainland. This is why, after Costa Rica, no more countries in Latin America have switched over to the PRC, even when there are leftist governments in many of them. Paraguay, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, for example still recognize Taiwan. Yet, they all have pavilions at the world Expo (along with Taiwan itself).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top