SinoDefence Forum

Finn McCool

According to "Nuclear Jihadist", a biography of AQ Khan, some Chinese warhead designs and other bits of technology from China ended up in the hands of the Iranians, some of which passed through AQ Khan. So China has made an intellectual contribution to Iran's program although it exist in a grey area. It certainly wasn't entirely intentional, but the full path and content of the information is not publicly known, so we don't know how much the Chinese knew about what information was leaking out of China and Pakistan to Iran. At the end of the day, some Chinese tech did end up in Iran. That's all I'm saying.

More importantly, China blocked sanctions against Iran earlier when they would have had a better chance of changing Iran's behavior. China may or may not be willing to back sanctions now, but either way sanctions aren't going to get Iran to give up it's nuclear program.

They're still worth a try though, for use within the context of wider negotiations, and to show other countries that proliferation has consequences. Sadly I don't have any illusions that the Western nations will be able to come up with any sort of coherent, satisfactory response to Iran's program. And only a fool would believe that what's happened to Iran will discourage other nations from developing nukes.

Lastly, don't be so trusting of governments. It's not a good idea to believe that "They know so much more than us, so therefore they must be making right decisions". If I were criticizing the US government for making short-sighted decisions, I doubt you would disagree with me. People at the top decision making positions in governments may have access to much more information than we do, but they're not much smarter. At least not much smarter than the smart posters on this board. Historical events are caused as much by mistakes and incompetence and institutional inertia as they are by wise grand strategy.

__________________
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill

montyp165

There's also willfull ignorance on top of that as well, I didn't realize just how bad it can get until I saw it up close.

vesicles

AND we are still assuming all these decisions are being made out of good intentions. What about those corrupted officials who simply are simply doing things to advance their personal gain, either monetary gain or for their own political future??

pla101prc

lol calm down, with all due respect i trust the government more than anyone on this forum, they do know more than us. if you were to criticize on US government's short-sighted decisions, i'll try to figure out for what political reasons they arrived at that decision. i am a firm believer that however smart anyone on this forum claims to be, that individual cannot perform any better if he were to be seated in the post that he criticizes, whatever that maybe.

pla101prc

lol we got some juicy insider info here? share em if you got em.

in the end its all about the classic cooperation dilemma where individual acting rationally may produce irrational results as a collective group. but that's the same no matter who you are, unless your ability really is a whole other league

pla101prc

that's not the individual's problem, its the institution's problem. say if something happened in the middle east requires the US to calm down. but everyone right now is playing the populist card, you might end up having a bunch of bellicose officials and congressman for all the wrong reasons, but if you look at each one individually, if they dont bark, they lose their seat. so that has nothing to do with intentions, where you sit determines where you stand, as the old saying goes.

montyp165

From my work vantage point, the American public really should keep a better eye on their bureaucrats, for the civil service is more focused on penny pinching and PR than whether the public is adequately served, and the interagency territoriality was surprising too.

pla101prc

that's for sure, when it comes to bureaucracy no one can beat Japan and Singapore

jantxv

The issue of more Iranian sanctions has been in the news a lot more recently. The prospect of a multi-lateral alliance of nations supporting stronger sanctions against Iran outside of the Security Council at the UN has been brought up once more. The Following link is from the English version of the People's Daily. Merkel threatens to sanction Iran - People's Daily Online

Another article, German, published last month citing the consensus of the commencement of open warfare in Iran. 'It's 1938, and Iran Is Germany': Israel's Patience with Tehran Wearing Thin - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

pla101prc

a multi-nation sanction is certainly possible, being the best way to circumvent the UN security council. i have been expecting this gesture from germany since netanyahu visited europe last week. it definitely is important for israel to look beyond the US, with this administration not so keen on upholding all of its interests.

but there is a difference between the stance of EU and that of israel, EU does not want armed intervention, and they make sure of this by cooperating with israel. we are seeing EU gradually becoming more hardline towards iran after it becomes clear that no military action by the US will take place, because if things does get that far oil price is gonna shoot through the roof.

AssassinsMace

This is all smoke and mirrors. If the West was serious about stopping Iran from getting nukes, then why do they focus on China? You can read the media themselves write about how all of Iran's nuclear power plants are from Russia. China's energy deals with Iran that would make it their no1 customer are at its infancy. Until they mature Japan's Iranian deals are no.1. You don't hear about Japan supporting evil regimes, do you?

The most realistic potential is Israel striking Iran on its own and destabilizing Western economies much further because of what it'll do to Middle East politics and world oil markets. Concentrating on China is a side benefit. If China goes along with sanctions and it doesn't work, China will lose the most from it. If it does work, the West benefits because they believe they'll get a pro-West government that works to their interests which will be against China's. This is about how Western countries will suffer the most if the most likely scenario of Israel striking Iran happens. China going along with sanctions doesn't guarantee that will stop it from happening.

It's clear that the West wants to stifle Chinese competition in all facets. It's like with the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia. Western countries and their allies laughed at China's inability to bring in emergency humanitarian aid relief. Now China has been sending warships to the Gulf of Aden, a sign of China overcoming logistical challenges that include emergency aid relief. But they're alarmed at that too. There were also a couple stories from the media that said there were those in the US government that were outraged that China landed in Haiti with a rescue team before the US.

They don't want China to sell J-10s to Iran... why? If you want to believe all the machismo, J-10s are just target practice for the West. Don't they want Iran to waste money on inferior Chinese fighters they can easily handle? And Israel should beat them even more because it's their Lavi. The contradictions put a big question mark to all the grand talk. China has to overcome the prejudice of their products. Just imagine if a J-10 shoots down just one modern Western fighter in the hands of one of their customers. Russian fighters in the hands of one of their customers up against a Western fighter don't have a good record. That's a game changer. That's why they don't want China to sell any J-10s to anyone. A fighter that can shoot down a modern Western fighter at half the cost of the competition's... You'll have Western allies buying J-10s.

There's a story that some Western diplomat privately asked the Chinese unofficially what would it take for China to go along with sanctions on Iran. The Chinese responded, "Find us another source for oil." Since we haven't seen any oil deal with China from the West and their allies, they apparently are unable or won't follow through. Just as the West is heavily influence by the geo-politics of oil, so is China. But of course China is not allowed to make the same excuses, so they instead paint China as in league with extremist unstable elements in the world bent on changing it to their diabolical favor.

Iran for China is a big question mark too but not for that same reasons as the West. The opposition stirring up trouble for the present Iranian regime has expressed its anti-China sentiments for congratulating Ahmadinejad in the last election. Makes you wonder if the recent cyberattack on a Chinese media website by self-proclaimed Iranian nationalists was ochestrated by outside forces to get China to be suspicious of Iran.

The fact is what the West wants to be done to Iran is what many Westerners want to do to China. So why help advance a war of attrition that eventually will come around to being waged on China? You can forget about good will gestures and mutual respect. The Chinese will never get it from the West. So if the West wants China to follow along, then you pay up. It's that simple. But the problem is the West overvalues itself. Because Obama delayed a meeting with the Dalai Lama and did not mention human rights on his trip to China somehow China is suppose to give blind obedience in return including going along with sanctions on Iran. They think that's an equal or even a generous trade in China's favor. The Western media depicts a carried-out threat of a pull out of Google from China will follow with the collapse of China. If that's true, why haven't they done this earlier? The West doesn't even offer some of the most superficial things that apparently Beijing values like a partnership in the International Space Station. China can build its own space station and get more value from it in the end but Beijing too falls into the trap of status symbols. But some won't give up the things that others want just to believe they're in power. That's why it won't be offered especially when they need something from China in exchange.

So if Iranian sanctions were that important, wouldn't they offer something better other than not saying anything bad about China for a day or two in exchange?

Finn McCool

I agree with that wholeheartedly. The West has offered China no good reason to cooperate on Iran on really anything for that matter. The US wants to have it's cake and eat it too; they want to have China's cooperation and still take a high-minded moral line on human rights and Tibet, and still wants to support Taiwan. The US might have to "make a deal with the Devil" so to speak and agree to stop throwing bones to the Dalai Lama and cancel the current round of Taiwan arms sales. At least that's what I would put on the table if I were president.

__________________
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
-Winston Churchill

jantxv

To expect the West to compromise on values, like Iranian sanctions, is as short-sighted as to expect the PRC to compromise on their own stated values. The disagreements are known and it is less than likely that either side will budge.

Instead of focusing on the disagreements and sanctions, perhaps the stakeholders should be agreeing to actions that will definitely NOT be taken. Agreements such as a guarantee of non-interference if Iran and Israel do go to war. Agreements not to interfere, one way or the other, in the internal overthrow of third party governments.

Perhaps such talk is naive. Perhaps it is time once again to let the peoples of the world feel their oats. As Einstein once said, ""I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

pla101prc

iran is a great card for energy security, you are wondering why Sinopec keeps on getting those deals on iraqi oil, sometimes beating British oil companies to it, its because the US knows that China needs oil from iran. so they figured if China gets a good deal in iraq, maybe it'll support the west in iran.

but if you look at this another way, if the world has come to a consensus on a super-strict sanction, is it really gonna make everyone safer? no its gonna close up all the channels of dialogue, and threaten the delicate situation in the middle east. you are only gonna radicalize these ppl. if anything, netanyahu's recent statements regarding lebanon is an indication that the US and israel do not want anything that would destabilize the region.

Dolcevita

Agreed. accepting sanctions on Iran on its legitimate right to develop nuclear energy can come back to bite China's ass later. As long as the there is no clear proof that Iran has or is developing nuclear weapons, there is no legitimacy in any sanctions. simple as that.

The west wants to keep the power status quo and it may one day call for sanctions on China on similar illegimate grounds. Who is to say the west will not call on sanctions to punish China for reunification with Taiwan, control riots on Tibet, defend the Paracel and Spartley island on the China sea. These are all sovereign and legitimate rights that needs to be defended. We must also not forget that until the late 70's, the same western powers had sanctions in place against China,