SinoDefence Forum

Red Moon

A recent article in Asia Times Online by Bhadrakumar asserts that the US essentially is taking aim at China in it's growing involvement in Yemen. The author connects this with the recent comments by Chinese officials about the possibility of establishing some sort of basing facilities overseas for the PLAN, and as usual, his articles are interesting to read. Below is the link to the article:

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

In connection with the matter of Iran sanctions, one paragraph in the article called my attention:

I have no illusion that China is planning to establish a naval base in Iran, at least anytime in the foreseable future. In this case, it would look too much like an "alliance", rather than a more neutral sort of basing arrangement.

But the sort of information pointed to in the paragraph above cannot be overlooked in any discussion of Iran. To me, the US, with its European allies at its side, simply seems to be saying to China and Russia: "Hand Iran over!" "Crippling" sanctions, after all, are aimed at the economy, at the population, and at fomenting unrest. Regime change is what they seek, and with regime change, at least the West hopes, would come the return of some sort of military relationship, perhaps direct military presense for the US or NATO.

Such a change would be much bigger, and more 'destabilizing', in my view, than the acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons.

flyzies

^ Bhadrakumar's articles are usually good, but that one was well wide off the mark. It sounded more like a personal opinion rant rather than a well logic article.

And why would China set up a base in Iran, when they can set one up next door in Gwardar much easier?

duskylim

Dear Sirs:

The latest news is that China will veto any "crippling sanctions" levied against Iran. This along with tacit Russian support, will bring the crises to a head in the UN security council.

Once again the West will have to produce hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, rather than rely on Israeli accusations alone.

In fact, this manufactured crises is a perfect opportunity to invite Israel to respect international law and come clean about its own nuclear weapons program.

The West has 2 sets of rules and morality, one that apply to it's allies, and another for anyone else.

No Western country has asked Israel to open up the Dimona complex, free Mordechai Vanunu, and consulted with Saint-Gobain Techniques Nouvelle (who actually built the reactor) or allow random international inspections of site.

Similar random UN inspections should be undertaken of the missile complexes around the Judean foothills at Sderot Micha and Kfar Zacharia.

If the rules apply to Iran (which has in fact allowed inspections) then they should certainly apply to Israel.

So long as the West chooses to maintain this dual-standard, China's and Russia's answer to sanctions should be an emphatic NO.

If as usual, the West seeks to apply sanctions regardless of the UN's decisions, then they should continue to trade with her - via tne northern corridor of the Caspian Sea, and the pipelines from Turkmenistan.

pla101prc

^surprising, China has always been letting Russia to take all the heat when it comes to dealing with the west, but you seem to suggest that this time the Russians are only offering "tacit" support. so is China getting an overdose of self-confidence after the missile test and forcing google back on the table or can they not trust Russia anymore on iran?

jantxv

Some might say Russia has an economic interest in allowing sanctions either inside or outside a UN framework since Iran is a competitor in petroleum exports. Russia benefits by still doing business with Iran and also reaps the rewards of higher petroleum revenue due to Iranian disruptions because of increased sanctions.

Pragmatically, China may ultimately endorse sanctions against Iran. China may not agree with the sanctions politically, but economically, it may be cheaper to follow the majority G-8 viewpoint.

Red Moon

I'm sorry, flyzies, I thought my point was clear. The key passage is this:
I am not making any point about bases, although I realize Bhadrakumar was doing so. My point is in connection with sanctions (the topic of the thread). If the US military and it's allies control the entire coastline from India to Kenya, and thus all access from the sea to not only Middle Eastern energy deposits but to trade with Europe and even a significant portion of Africa. This is why it is important for China to keep Iran alive, stable, and out of Western hands, and therefore to oppose any sanctions that are actually "crippling".

Red Moon

China has 1) a lot of investments in Iran, 2) a huge amount of trade with Iran (in both directions) and 3) gets a lot of needed oil from Iran. It would be hugely expensive to support the sanctions, as well as being strategically against their interests.

I think duskylim may have a point. Precisely because Iran is a potential competitor with Russia in the European gas equation, it needs cooperation with Iran rather than antagonism. If Iran is pushed into making concessions to the West, the West may "reward" Iran by buying its gas for Nabucco. Thus, Russia would end up with a slap in the face. But it is true that Russia has been 'quieter' of late.

Obama's subtle shifts in the balance of US policy towards Russia and Eastern Europe (cancelling of the missile defense plans in Poland and the Check Republic) is having significant reverberations, in my opinion, just like the shift with respect to India and Pakistan in the whole Afghanistan scenario.

On the other hand, I remember reading something, probably in china.org.cn, towards the end of 2008, where an official asserted that China would be "more assertive" from then onward. It was stated quite blandly, and not followed immediately by anything bombastic, but I think the assertion has been borne out in connection with the G-20 meetings and the matter of world financial govenance, the climate talks, their position of Afghanistan (they were totally silent on the matter until early 2009) and even such stuff as military sales to Latin America. A few years back, the only announcement I remember was a sale of radars to Venezuela.

pla101prc

its highly unlikely that the US would invade iran within the foreseeable future. so its really up to iran itself to prevent a regime change from the inside. so that means build a better economy, in which oil export is an important component but you gotta do a lot more than just that.

Red Moon

I agree. However, sanctions make this difficult, and in my opinion, that is one of their aims.

supercat

I don't see any break in the Iran, or North Korea, stalemate unless the U.S. changes its policy on Taiwan arms sales.

supercat

How about arms sales to Taiwan? Maybe the U.S. can do something about it before asking China to change her stance on the Iran stalemate?

jantxv

The resolution space for the Iran issue may be smaller than many other questions. Israel has expressed zero tolerance for operational Iranian nuclear capability. Given past Israeli actions of destroying both Iraq's and Syria's nuclear capabilities, destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities in the near future is perhaps more than guaranteed.

Although many nations have trade and investments in Iran, it is likely the vast bulk of those interests will survive an Iranian transition period. Given Iran's highly unpredictable political status in the very near future, it may not be wise to form strong expectations from the contemporary status quo.

SampanViking

Iran is now a fully integrated part of the Russian and Chinese Asian Energy Nexus as well as still a candidate member for the SCO.

The fact that China has come out so strongly against further UN sanctions is telling. It is also the case that China and Russia are very carefully harmonising their foreign policies on such matters these days and so talk of differences between them is really wishful thinking from certain Governments.

The bare fact is that China and Russia are not prepared to tolerate any measure that threatens a change of regime in Iran to one less favourable to them. This means that they will not recognise the legality of any non UN approved sanctions or military action and that any such which are applied unilaterally can expect to generate an extremely harsh and punitive response.

__________________
For uncensored Chinese Politics and Current Affairs join us all at New Century China Forum -http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums

jantxv

It is usually in no nation's national interests to enter into open military conflict. Some may argue sanctions against Iran are a last ditch effort to prevent open warfare between Iran and Israel. If that premise is accepted, then opposing the sanctions may hasten military hostilities.

Perhaps open warfare is in the national interests of some nations in order to avoid a long drawn out sanctioning period. Israeli offensive actions are usually very short and focus on targeted destruction without the encumbrance of employing any effort towards regime change. Given past actions, the Israelis are credible as opposed to the rhetoric of other world powers, no matter what side of the issue they may fall upon.

pla101prc

you shouldnt count on some sort of regime change as a way out of the nuclear question. because the only faction that is capable of replacing the current one is just as hardline if not more. regime change leading to peace is just an American fantasy that has failed again and again and again.

israeli air strike is theoretically possible but you have to first figure out where to hit, iran is pretty darn big. and i somehow doubt israel would want to risk another drawn out conflict with hezbollah over a program that hasnt really become a substantial threat to its national security at the moment.