China seals oil deal with Chavez

[Martino]

Looks like China could give the US a lesson on the advantages of diplomacy over bluster ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5286766.stm

China has secured a major energy deal during a state visit to the country by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Mr Chavez has repeated earlier promises to provide China, his number two customer for oil after the US, with one million barrels of oil per day by 2012.

China's booming economy has huge energy needs and Beijing is concerned about future fuel supplies.

A joint deal to build a new refinery in Venezuela with Chinese technology was also announced.

Venezuela currently exports 155,000 barrels per day to China and will increase this to 300,000 by 2007.

Venezuela will expand its own fleet of oil tankers, with nearly half of this capacity being built in Chinese yards.

China is the world's second largest consumer of energy and is engaged in a massive diplomatic push to acquire allies who can keep it supplied. This is Mr Chavez's fourth visit to the country since 1999.

For Mr Chavez, the Chinese connection offers an opportunity to reduce Venezuela's reliance on the US market. He has courted controversy with a high profile campaign against Washington's foreign policy and spices his speeches with anti-US rhetoric.

The US still relies on Venezuela for 12% of its oil imports, but the relationship is frayed.

A huge deal to buy arms from Russia, financed by oil revenues, is the latest of Mr Chavez's attempts to underline his independence from his powerful neighbour in the north.

Mr Chavez used the trip to hail what he calls a "strategic alliance" between China and Venezuela that will meet Beijing's energy needs "today, tomorrow and always".

[LaiSteve66]

Yes, the U.S. has a bad habit of biting the hand that feeds it.

[SunWuKong]

http://www.axmedis.org/imgs/flags/cn.gif

起來！

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

You know, Venezuala under Chavez has never been particularly interested in good relations with the United States. Even before the attempted coup, Chavez's political power has come from popular resentment of American-style capitalism and globalization. I don't see America could ever make Chavez happy without rolling over and dying.

[SunWuKong]

in other, less political, but equally exciting economic news:

Chile enacts China's first free-trade pact with LatAm country (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060821/bs_afp/chilechinatradepact_060821230950)

[haplesshobo]

You know, Venezuala under Chavez has never been particularly interested in good relations with the United States. Even before the attempted coup, Chavez's political power has come from popular resentment of American-style capitalism and globalization. I don't see America could ever make Chavez happy without rolling over and dying.

I absolutely agree with TyroneK here. I've always been surprised his karma is so low here since I've always found his arguments to be well written and thought out.

This is nothing new here with China. China is growing so fast and needs oil so much that it is willing to make partnerships with pariah states that the rest of the international community shuns. The US State Department doesn't allow american companies in Sudan, but China is more than happy to prop up the Sudanese despite international outcry over the genoicide in Dafur. There's also Iran, another source of oil for China. This has repurcusions for us all as China then blocks any attempts by the US and Europeans from preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The same Iran where the president of that country has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

[SunWuKong]

I absolutely agree with TyroneK here. I've always been surprised his karma is so low here since I've always found his arguments to be well written and thought out.

This is nothing new here with China. China is growing so fast and needs oil so much that it is willing to make partnerships with pariah states that the rest of the international community shuns. The US State Department doesn't allow american companies in Sudan, but China is more than happy to prop up the Sudanese despite international outcry over the genoicide in Dafur. There's also Iran, another source of oil for China. This has repurcusions for us all as China then blocks any attempts by the US and Europeans from preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The same Iran where the president of that country has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

and yet, the US keeps doing business with China...

but let us not forget about Russia. it stands with China on how to deal with the Iran situation, which is not so much that they block attempts to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but that they prefer engagement rather than more efforts to isolate Iran.

[Tao]

china should invest heavily in renewable fuels, cause the pollution is getting to be ridiculous.

[SunWuKong]

china should invest heavily in renewable fuels, cause the pollution is getting to be ridiculous.

that's what the Three Gorges is. it's not a perfect project though, so Western media decries how it's oppressive to the people and damaging to the environment. of course, without the Three Gorges, Western media would just be decrying how China does not invest in renewable energy. in my mind it's the same as how Western media demonises the One Child Policy. because without it, Western media would just demonise the overpopulation of China.

[Tao]

that's what the Three Gorges is. it's not a perfect project though, so Western media decries how it's oppressive to the people and damaging to the environment. of course, without the Three Gorges, Western media would just be decrying how China does not invest in renewable energy. in my mind it's the same as how Western media demonises the One Child Policy. because without it, Western media would just demonise the overpopulation of China.
totally. the good thing is that the govt's running lots of ads on the benefiets of "green" products, and raising public awareness of it. hell, i'd hate to see china 50 years from now being dependent on arab nations just cause they need fuel....basically try to avoid the mistakes we're facing right now in the us.

[haplesshobo]

that's what the Three Gorges is. it's not a perfect project though, so Western media decries how it's oppressive to the people and damaging to the environment. of course, without the Three Gorges, Western media would just be decrying how China does not invest in renewable energy. in my mind it's the same as how Western media demonises the One Child Policy. because without it, Western media would just demonise the overpopulation of China.

I think the enviormental complaints arose because some people felt that you could have gotten the same energy by building smaller dams which would have left less of a footprint in the enviornment. Instead, the critics contend that the only reason the Three Gorges had to be so big and enviornmentally damaging because it was going to serve as a monument and testament to the communist party.

[SunWuKong]

I think the enviormental complaints arose because some people felt that you could have gotten the same energy by building smaller dams which would have left less of a footprint in the enviornment. Instead, the critics contend that the only reason the Three Gorges had to be so big and enviornmentally damaging because it was going to serve as a monument and testament to the communist party.

i do believe there's an amount of truth in that. unfortunately, i hardly read about how they could have built smaller dams, it's usually that the Three Gorges is bad, bad, bad. it's considered an incredible feat to tame Changjiang, so i'm sure there's some dick waving on the part of the Chinese government. it's the same thing as the ongoing competition to have the world's tallest building. one thing i'm not certain though, is whether smaller dams can prevent floods as well as Three Gorges can. China, to this day, is unnecessarily plagued with floods, and something definitely needs to be done.

[Martino]

and yet, the US keeps doing business with China...

China is clearly looking to a profitable future - which is perhaps why a lot of countries (particularly the UK) are so keen to work closer with China. For example, there has been an increased collaboration on space science between China and the EU, with a degree of technology transfer perhaps impossible for US companies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4782881.stm

[Yeahman]

The US is getting a lot of oil from Venezula. The rift, as far as trade is concerned, isn't as big as some people think.
And of course Chavez is more likely to deal with China than with the US. He's also more likely to deal with Cuba than with Japan or France.

[yoMAMA]

He's also more likely to deal with Cuba than with Japan or France.

Japan and France usually looks out for its own commercial interests first.

Japan has extensive energy deals with Iran (and something like 90% of all its oil imports are from the persian gulf).

The US is getting a lot of oil from Venezula. The rift, as far as trade is concerned, isn't as big as some people think.


venezuela also owns citgo.

[Arex]

The same Iran where the president of that country has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.Completely off topic, but Iran's president has never "threatened" to wipe Israel off the map. He simply agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that it "must be wiped off the map." Hardly the same thing.

Anyway, I don't necessarily see a problem with China engaging these countries. Not like China has any desire to affect policy in those countries, but isolation has never worked to bring about desired change anyway. And, in the case of Venezuela, despite all the shit talking between Bush and Chavez, the U.S. is still a paying customer as well.

[haplesshobo]

Completely off topic, but Iran's president has never "threatened" to wipe Israel off the map. He simply agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that it "must be wiped off the map." Hardly the same thing.

You're right that he was agreeing with Khomeini that Israel 'must be wiped off the map.' However, I also see that as an implied threat.

Others also interpreted this as a threat.

In condeming those remarks, the EU stated "calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community."

And, Canada's PM response to those statements were "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."


Anyway, I don't necessarily see a problem with China engaging these countries. Not like China has any desire to affect policy in those countries, but isolation has never worked to bring about desired change anyway. And, in the case of Venezuela, despite all the shit talking between Bush and Chavez, the U.S. is still a paying customer as well.

But, if we were talking about the US, would you also not see a problem if it was dealing with the Sudanse?

With its growing power, China must also take on responsibilty on things outside its border. In a large part, China is abetting what's happening in Dafur through its trade which is providing money and weapons to the Sudanese. And, this same Chinese diplomacy has helped protect Sudan in the UN. Its not surprising that the Chinese would threaten to veto any oil sanctions since it is the chief oil partner with Sudan.

[Arex]

You're right that he was agreeing with Khomeini that Israel 'must be wiped off the map.' However, I also see that as an implied threat.

Others also interpreted this as a threat.

In condeming those remarks, the EU stated "calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community."

And, Canada's PM response to those statements were "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."I don't really see it as anything more than inflammatory rhetoric, but I don't doubt that Iran would love to see it actually happen. Ultimately, however, China doesn't have the same interest in the never-ending Israeli/Arab conflict that the U.S. does, so they have no reason to take such a hard/inflexible stance against Iran. Their softer stance, coupled with their economic ties, may actually put China in a better place to negotiate/reason with Iran with respect to its nuclear "ambitions."

But, if we were talking about the US, would you also not see a problem if it was dealing with the Sudanse?

With its growing power, China must also take on responsibilty on things outside its border. In a large part, China is abetting what's happening in Dafur through its trade which is providing money and weapons to the Sudanese. And, this same Chinese diplomacy has helped protect Sudan in the UN. Its not surprising that the Chinese would threaten to veto any oil sanctions since it is the chief oil partner with Sudan.Good points as to Sudan--I fully agree. But I'm not sure China's dealings with Venezuela or even Iran are analogous.

[Martino]

The US is getting a lot of oil from Venezula. The rift, as far as trade is concerned, isn't as big as some people think.


Venezuela provides 12% of the US's energy needs, but is clearly keen to seek alternative customers, in South America (where Chavez is blatantly trying to take control of the Mercosur trading bloc), the Caribbean and China. Who's to say how much of its oil Chavez will sell to the US in future, esp. with new markets (and spheres of influence) opening elsewhere?

Nor is it hard to guess why Chavez would want to continue to push to be less dependent on the US as a trading partner ...

[Yeahman]

Japan and France usually looks out for its own commercial interests first.
Japan, yes. It's easy when your only enemy in the world is North Korea. And they don't treat NK any better than we treat Venezuela.

France seems to look out for its own cultural interests before it looks out for its economic interests.

Japan has extensive energy deals with Iran (and something like 90% of all its oil imports are from the persian gulf).
Iran is a different story altogether. The point is that it should be no surprise that Chavez likes to play favorites with nations sympathetic to the socialist cause.

[SunWuKong]

With its growing power, China must also take on responsibilty on things outside its border. In a large part, China is abetting what's happening in Dafur through its trade which is providing money and weapons to the Sudanese. And, this same Chinese diplomacy has helped protect Sudan in the UN. Its not surprising that the Chinese would threaten to veto any oil sanctions since it is the chief oil partner with Sudan.

i can agree with that, and i wouldn't just give the Chinese government a free pass on how it deals with, for example, certain African governments. what we do know, however, is that the US's tactic of isolating "rogue regimes", or whatever one may call them, is not exactly having the desired effect.

i absolutely think that the Chinese government doesn't give a shit about what these other governments are doing though, and that it's just concerned about China's own benefit. it's sort of like how the US propped up oppressive leaders in South America during the Cold War.

[haplesshobo]

i can agree with that, and i wouldn't just give the Chinese government a free pass on how it deals with, for example, certain African governments. what we do know, however, is that the US's tactic of isolating "rogue regimes", or whatever one may call them, is not exactly having the desired effect.

I absolutely agree that the United State's isolation tactics do not always produce the desired effect. But, I still see that as a better alternative than what the Chinese are doing with the Sudanese- giving them the money and weapons and diplomatic protection to carry out what many outside observers feel is genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I think that you need to hold some countries accountable and responsible for their actions if that means economic sanctions, etc rather than rewarding them. Sometimes, it ends up working, as we witnessed with Libya.

I'm curious but what would be your solutions with those rogue countries?


i absolutely think that the Chinese government doesn't give a shit about what these other governments are doing though, and that it's just concerned about China's own benefit. it's sort of like how the US propped up oppressive leaders in South America during the Cold War.

I don't have a problem if somebody takes issue with a particular action, and then criticizes all those who engage in that action. But, all too often, I see people selectively criticizing the united states for something but yet gives other countries such as china a free pass for doing the exact same thing or something even worse.

[SunWuKong]

I absolutely agree that the United State's isolation tactics do not always produce the desired effect. But, I still see that as a better alternative than what the Chinese are doing with the Sudanese- giving them the money and weapons and diplomatic protection to carry out what many outside observers feel is genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I think that you need to hold some countries accountable and responsible for their actions if that means economic sanctions, etc rather than rewarding them. Sometimes, it ends up working, as we witnessed with Libya.

I'm curious but what would be your solutions with those rogue countries?

i honestly haven't read too much of the specifics about them. i don't think China should stop doing business with them though, but i think the Chinese government needs to apply better ethical considerations when dealing with them. both sides keep harping the same old bullshit of mutual benefit, but really, the only people that benefit are the people who are already sitting at the top.



I don't have a problem if somebody takes issue with a particular action, and then criticizes all those who engage in that action. But, all too often, I see people selectively criticizing the united states for something but yet gives other countries such as china a free pass for doing the exact same thing or something even worse.

i'll get back to you on this one when China becomes a dominant super power that projects its military might right outside the border of other countries or even inside other countries, and then take unilateral actions with global consequences regardless of what the UN says. :wink:

[Arex]

I'm curious but what would be your solutions with those rogue countries?I think the first thing to do would be to stop calling them "rogue" nations. It's kind of hard to engage these countries in a dialogue if we're calling them names right out of the starting gate.=)

I don't have a problem if somebody takes issue with a particular action, and then criticizes all those who engage in that action. But, all too often, I see people selectively criticizing the united states for something but yet gives other countries such as china a free pass for doing the exact same thing or something even worse.I think it's perfectly fair to hold one's own country (and oneself) to a higher standard, particularly when, in the specific case of the U.S., the country holds itself out as a beacon of truth, justice, honor, democracy, diplomacy, etc., etc., which all other countries and planets should strive to emulate.

[otter p.]

stop support for militias by threatening to sanction its oil sales. China has threatened Man, I never knew too much about Dafur, much less China's involvement before all this. But, after reading up on it, I'm so fucking pissed off by this type of shit. Chinese 'diplomacy' my ass. What's the point of the UN if its going to water down any resolutions because of this diplomacy. Everybody else recognizes what's going down as nothing short of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but the UN doesn't have the balls to call it that because China would veto any resolution that did that.

China Invests Heavily In Sudan's Oil Industry
Beijing Supplies Arms Used on Villagers

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A01

LEAL, Sudan -- On this parched and dusty African plain, China's largest energy company is pumping crude oil, sending it 1,000 miles upcountry through a Chinese-made pipeline to the Red Sea, where tankers wait to ferry it to China's industrial cities. Chinese laborers based in a camp of prefabricated sheds work the wells and lay highways across the flats to make way for heavy machinery.

Only seven miles south, the rebel army that controls much of southern Sudan marches troops through this sun-baked town of mud huts. For years, the rebels have attacked oil installations, seeking to deprive the Sudan government of the wherewithal to pursue a civil war that has killed more than 2 million people and displaced 4 million from their homes over the past two decades. But the Chinese laborers are protected: They work under the vigilant gaze of Sudanese government troops armed largely with Chinese-made weapons -- a partnership of the world's fastest-growing oil consumer with a pariah state accused of fostering genocide in its western Darfur region.

China's transformation from an insular, agrarian society into a key force in the global economy has spawned a voracious appetite for raw materials, sending its companies to distant points of the globe in pursuit -- sometimes to lands shunned by the rest of the world as rogue states. China's relationship with Sudan has become particularly deep, demonstrating that China's commercial relations are intensifying human rights concerns outside its borders while beginning to clash with U.S. policies and interests.

Sudan is China's largest overseas oil project. China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms, according to a former Sudan government minister. Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades have intensified Sudan's two-decade-old north-south civil war. A cease-fire is in effect and a peace agreement is expected to be signed by year-end. But the fighting in Sudan's Darfur region rages on, as government-backed Arab militias push African tribes off their land.

China in October signed a $70 billion oil deal with Iran, and the evolving ties between those two countries could complicate U.S. efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically or pressure it to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons. China is also pursuing oil in Angola.

In the case of Sudan, Africa's largest country, China is in a lucrative partnership that delivers billions of dollars in investment, oil revenue and weapons -- as well as diplomatic protection -- to a government accused by the United States of genocide in Darfur and cited by human rights groups for systematically massacring civilians and chasing them off ancestral lands to clear oil-producing areas. The country once gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and is listed by Washington as a state supporter of terrorism. U.S. companies are prohibited from investing there.

Part of a broader push by China to expand trade and influence across the African continent, its relationship with Sudan also demonstrates the intensity of China's quest for energy security and its willingness to do business wherever it must to lock up oil.

From Kazakhstan to the Middle East, past pursuits have ended in failure as Chinese firms have been aced out by the multinational titans that dominate the energy business. Japan appears set to claim Siberian stocks that China once thought were in hand. The U.S.-led war in Iraq has thrown Chinese oil concessions in that country into doubt.

The pressure to find new sources of oil has grown as China has swelled into the world's second-largest consumer and as production at the largest of its domestic fields is declining. According to government statistics, China's imports have grown from about 6 percent of its oil needs a decade ago to roughly one-third today and are forecast to rise to rise to 60 percent by 2020.

"China confronts foreign competition," said Chen Fengying, an expert at the China Contemporary International Relations Institute, which is based in Beijing and affiliated with the state security system. "Chinese companies must go places for oil where American [and] European companies are not present. Sudan represents this strategy put into practice."

China National Petroleum Corp. owns 40 percent -- the largest single share -- of the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Co., a consortium that dominates Sudan's oil fields in partnership with the national energy company and firms from Malaysia and India.

From its seat on the United Nations Security Council, China has been Sudan's chief diplomatic ally. In recent months, the council has neared votes on a series of resolutions aimed at pressuring Sudan's predominantly Arab government to protect the African tribes under attack in Darfur and to veto such actions while watering down the threat of oil sanctions.

"China has a long tradition of friendly relations with Sudan," Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the U.N., said in a recent interview in New York. He confirmed China's veto threats, though he dismissed as "categorically wrong" suggestions that oil interests were a factor, asserting that the resolutions would have eliminated the Sudan government's incentive to cooperate. China -- itself often criticized on human rights issues -- has a philosophical predisposition against outside pressure.

But Chinese diplomatic experts say oil interests clearly played a role in Beijing's actions at the United Nations.

"Oil from Sudan makes up one-tenth of all of China's imported oil," said Zhu Weilie, director of Middle East and North African Studies at Shanghai International Studies University, who has links with the Foreign Affairs Ministry. "If we lose this source, how can we find another market to replace it? China has to balance its interests."

Sudan is not a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, but it was granted observer status in August 2001, a sign it is being recognized as a significant oil producer. Its proven reserves are currently 563 million barrels, double what they were three years ago.

n an interview in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, Energy and Mining Minister Awad Ahmed Jaz praised his Chinese partners for sticking to trade issues.

"The Chinese are very nice," he said. "They don't have anything to do with any politics or problems. Things move smoothly, successfully. They are very hard workers looking for business, not politics."

Human rights advocates and opponents of the Sudanese government portray China's role in different terms: Just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains the military means to maintain control as they extracted natural resources, China is propping up a rogue regime to get what it needs.

"The Chinese calculation is to consolidate and expand while Sudan is still a pariah state," said John Ryle, chairman of the Rift Valley Institute, a Nairobi-based research group that focuses on East Africa.

One of the poorest countries in the world, Sudan has long aimed to extract oil riches but lacked the necessary capital. It needed the help of deep-pocketed outsiders. In the 1960s and 1970s, Chevron Corp. took the lead. But as the civil war flared in the south in the 1980s, Chevron abandoned its concessions. During the early 1990s, the Canadian firm Arakis Energy Corp. took up the task, later selling out to a larger Canadian company, Talisman Energy Inc.

China National Petroleum Corp., still owned by the Communist Party government, bought into the Sudan consortium in 1996. It joined with Sudan's Energy Ministry to build the country's largest refinery, then last year invested in a $300 million expansion that nearly doubled production, according to a report in the Shenzhen Business Post.

The consortium's Heglig and Unity oil fields now produce 350,000 barrels per day, according to the U.S. Energy Department. Separately, CNPC owns most of a field in southern Darfur, which began trial production this year, and 41 percent of a field in the Melut Basin, which is expected to produce as much as 300,000 barrels per day by the end of 2006. Another Chinese firm, Sinopec Corp., is erecting a pipeline from that complex to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where China's Petroleum Engineering Construction Group is building a tanker terminal.

Sudan's bloody north-south conflict began long before China arrived, but oil has dramatically increased the stakes as well as the government's ability to pursue the battle. The war is a struggle over the resources of the south, pitting the mostly Muslim, Arab elite that runs the government in Khartoum against the largely Christian and animist African tribes who live in the lower half of the country.

For years, the government lacked the arms to vanquish the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the rebel group that controls much of the south. With the dawn of oil production in 1999, Sudan's government began collecting $500 million a year in revenue. About 80 percent went to buy weapons, said Lam Akol, who was Sudan's transportation minister from 1998 to 2002 and is now a rebel commander. Over the same period, Sudan's military budget has doubled, according to the International Monetary Fund. A study by PFC Strategic Studies concluded that the Sudan government could collect as much as $30 billion in total oil revenue by 2012, with the potential for much more if exploration succeeds.

As the oil began to flow, Sudan relied on Chinese assistance to set up three weapons factories near Khartoum, Ryle said. Human rights groups say oil receipts have helped pay for a government-led scorched-earth campaign to remove mostly ethnic Nuer and Dinka tribes from around the oil installations. The goal is to deprive the rebels of a base of support in their bid to attack the industry and undermine the government's oil revenue.

A report by the U.S.-funded Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, which investigates attacks in southern Sudan, asserted that government troops have "sought to clear the way for oil exploration and to create a cordon sanitaire around the oil fields."

"This government has always waged war against civilians," said Jemera Rone, Sudan researcher for Human Rights Watch in Washington. Aided by an influx of newly purchased helicopters, a government attack in Ruweng county in October 2001 displaced 80,000 people, according to a Human Rights Watch report. The next year, government troops again used helicopters, killing 24 people during an attack on an emergency food distribution center.

The Nuer people who now live in Leal were at the center of this contested area. Their former town, Nhialdiu, was wiped off the map on Feb. 26, 2002, in an attack confirmed by survivors and rebel commanders.

Mortar shells landed at dawn. Then came helicopter gunships, directing fire at the huts. Antonov airplanes dropped heavy bombs. Roughly 7,000 government troops, mixed with pro-government militias, then swept through with rifles and more than 20 tanks.

"Any human being who could not get away was killed, even children," said the chief of Leal, Tunguar Kuiyguong, who lost three of his 10 children that day. About 3,000 of the town's 10,000 inhabitants died, he said, and every house was burned to the ground. The soldiers made off with 10,000 head of cattle, which are the fundamental currency of Nuer life -- the payment for brides and the source of meat, milk and pride.

"The Chinese want to drill for oil, that is why we were pushed out," said Rusthal Yackok, who was blinded, his wife and six children killed. "Now, I have no family, no cows," he said. "I have nothing. My life is totally destroyed."

Even as people fled, walking more than seven miles to settle on a treeless plain, the bombs continued to rain down and the helicopter gunships buzzed in pursuit. "We would see the helicopters and try to hide in the grasses," said David Majang. People stripped off their colorful robes to try to blend in with the scrub.

Today, people in Leal try to coax crops from unproductive soil. They line up at wells drilled by an aid organization and await the next shipment of food aid. "Oil has brought devastation to our lives," said Stephen Mayang, a father of three whose legs were badly hurt during the attack.

China National Petroleum Corp. refused repeated requests over the past 10 months for an in-person interview to discuss its operations in Sudan.

Last week, in a telephone call, a spokesman said the company bears no responsibility for the war. "We do our own business," he said. "Nothing else."

But field reports produced by human rights groups describe a connection between the people extracting the oil and those waging the war. Some of the helicopter gunships used in the attacks on civilians are Chinese-made, according to Akol, the former Khartoum transportation minister. The helicopters, he said, have frequently been based at airstrips maintained by the oil companies -- a statement consistent with the findings of Canada-based World Vision when it interviewed survivors of attacks and defecting government soldiers in 2001.

"The Chinese have every reason not to lose these oil fields, and that is why they are committed to fighting the war by supplying the Sudan government the wherewithal," Akol said.

A recent report in the state-controlled China Business News quotes a Chinese foreign affairs official as saying that Beijing has asked Khartoum to "send troops" to areas in which Chinese companies operate.

The exit of Canada's Talisman company from Sudan was largely a reaction to public pressure. China National Petroleum has felt similar pressures. In April 1999, the company announced plans to sell shares on the New York Stock Exchange -- the first Chinese state-owned firm to land on the Big Board. It was to be the largest initial public offering in the exchange's history, valued at $10 billion. But human rights groups said the deal would be the effective use of U.S. financing to aid the killing of innocents in Sudan. Eventually, CNPC restructured the transaction. It sold $2.9 billion in a newly created subsidiary, PetroChina, asserting that none of the money would be used in Sudan.

Ultimately, it may be peace that presents the Chinese firm with its greatest challenge. Under the terms of an agreement still being negotiated, oil contracts are supposed to remain secure. But three commanders of the southern Sudan rebel group said in interviews that the SPLA will seek to punish China once the rebels gain a formal decision-making role in the government.

The stakes could be considerable: Peace would allow the world's major energy companies to enter Sudan's oil patch. Moreover, roughly two-fifths of all known reserves -- oil worth more than $16 billion -- are now in rebel-controlled territory, according to the study by PFC, the strategic analysis group.

"The suffering of the people is on the hands of the Chinese," said commander Deng Awou. "The agreements for the Chinese company may be terminated."

Correspondents Emily Wax in Khartoum, Colum Lynch in New York and special correspondent Jason Cai in Shanghai contributed to this report.

[Player 0]

^First off link

Second off: What's your point? 'genocide' happens all the time, don't see the US placed under UN sanctions after the Vietnam war, don't see Israel put under sanctions after their little romp in Lebanon.

[otter p.]

^First off link


The article I linked already had the byline that it was from the Washington Post. I tried linking it, but this forum won't let me do that until I've made 15 posts.

And, the point is how impotent the UN has become- all those countries that get away with genocide do it because they have veto status or somebody protecting them with veto status, as with China protecting Sudan. Amnesty International and other organizations recognize what's happening in Dafur as genocide. But, since China will veto any such resolutions, the UN doesn't call it genocide or ethnic cleansing.

This whole thing just makes my stomach sick. I don't why the original poster would even celebrate such blood-soaked 'diplomacy'.

[power puff girl]

woo hoo! petty nationalism trumps progressivism yet again.

[Martino]

woo hoo! petty nationalism trumps progressivism yet again.

Pretty in-depth piece of political analysis there, PPG. Care to expand on that? Whose 'progressivism' has been trumped? China for securing an important energy supply? Venezuela for reducing reliance on the US market?

There's a lot to criticise about both said governments, but the one thing they have in common is a country which is trying its damnest to demonise them both.

I'd also call it a victory for free trade. This is one oil deal American Sinophobia couldn't scupper.

[yoMAMA]

And, the point is how impotent the UN has become- all those countries that get away with genocide do it because they have veto status or somebody protecting them with veto status, as with China protecting Sudan. Amnesty International and other organizations recognize what's happening in Dafur as genocide. But, since China will veto any such resolutions, the UN doesn't call it genocide or ethnic cleansing.


I agree that the UN in its current form sucks.

time to implement reform to keep up with the times.....the current 5 nation veto club is a relic from yalta at the end of ww2.

Japan, India and South Africa should all be included as veto power members.

[SunWuKong]

Japan, India and South Africa should all be included as veto power members.

no to Japan. not until they have a foreign policy more independent of the US.

[yoMAMA]

here's an interesting article from marketwatch:

for U.S oil interests, the China-Chavez alliance could be an marriage from hell.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BDB6E298C%2D9F76%2D42D3%2DB14D%2 D7A8FB6FD42F0%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=

no to Japan. not until they have a foreign policy more independent of the US.

like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

:wink:

[Yeahman]

No nation should have veto power.

[yoMAMA]

No nation should have veto power.

Now I think about it, I think you have a good point.

It’s good to star from scratch with the UN-for too long, all they have to show for donor nation’s money is to spent on their cronies’ luxury cars and private schools for their kids.

They don't do shit...not when it comes to Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur.

[SunWuKong]

the US has greatly undermined the UN in recent years anyway. all it will take is another permanent member of the security council to also give the middle finger to the UN. love the UN or hate the UN, either way it's on its way to becoming a lame duck.

---------(stupid automerge)-------------------

Iran and Japan close to oil deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5309904.stm)

two questions.
1) Is this another sign that Japan is growing less subjected to US's foreign policy?
2) Should Japan be under the same microscope that the US and China might be, for dealing with certain "unsavory" countries?

[haplesshobo]

Venezuela for reducing reliance on the US market?

I'd also call it a victory for free trade.

Not really.

I wouldn't call Chavez a proponent of free trade given his history as a vocal critic of free trade, especially the FTAA which would have reduced or even eliminated trade barriers for trade between the countries in North and South America.

With free trade, you'd expect free movement of trade, with no gov. interference or artificial barriers, where the most efficient markets and trade would emerge. But that's really happening with these deals. Otherwise, they wouldn't agree to send oil to Cuba, when Cuba doesn't have the capital to pay for this oil. The oil sent to Cuba is being subsidized by Venz because Chavez is interefering with his country's oil industry.

Or, let's look at Venz. sending oil to China over the United States. The US is closer and has already established the refeniries to deal with the oil from Venz. It would be cheaper, and ulitmately, more profittable for Venz. to send its oil to the US over China.

So, there are reasons why Chavez is sending oil to countries like China and Cuba, but it has nothing to do with free trade or with basic economic principles of making a profit.

For such a reputed man of the people, you'd think he would be more concerned with their welfare by getting the best price for oil rather than giving it away for a lower price or even subsidizing it to other countries. He's shortchanging his country hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, with his policies.

[SunWuKong]

Or, let's look at Venz. sending oil to China over the United States. The US is closer and has already established the refeniries to deal with the oil from Venz. It would be cheaper, and ulitmately, more profittable for Venz. to send its oil to the US over China.

Chavez targetting foreign oil companies is already a good sign that he's not on the side of free trade, but that's something i personally think is not necessarily a negative thing, depending on how he manages state-owned oil production, and who benefits from that ownership. a big part of today's trend of "free trade" benefits the rich much more than it does the poor.

but it's not necessarily true that sending oil to the US is more profitable for Venezuela. transportation is not the only cost of selling oil. are there higher taxes in the US? are there tariffs? does the US buy more Venezuelan oil than China would? etc etc.

[haplesshobo]

but that's something i personally think is not necessarily a negative thing, depending on how he manages state-owned oil production, and who benefits from that ownership.

So far, it doesn't sound like his management will be written up by Forbes with all the turmoil in the oil industry. There's been crippling strikes, and Chavez has fired around 20,000 skilled oil workers as well as management. That's been a serious blow to oil production. Some critics contend that Chavez has decreased Ven. oil production not to just hypothetically raise oil prices, but because Venz. cannot meet the production quota caps that OPEC has set up. Instead of pumping out 3.2 million barrels, Venz can only currently pump out 2.5. That's down from 3 million barrels Venz. was extracting just a few years ago. And, if he goes through with his threat of nationalizing the oil industry, that's going to drive away the oil companies and foreign investment which would also hurt Venz. oil industry. The big thing that's saving Chavez right now are the record oil prices.

[SunWuKong]

And, if you go through with his threat of nationalizing the oil industry, that's going to drive away the oil companies and foreign investment which would also hurt Venz. oil industry.

unless you seal an oil deal with China... :wink:

[Martino]

unless you seal an oil deal with China... :wink:

Haplesshobo is on my Ignore list, so I can't/wont address his points directly, but I will add that Venezuela and Chavez (they're not one and the same yet) are in a very strong position thanks to the oil bonanza there; the free trade the country is encouraging is largely aimed at the South American trading bloc, Africa and the Caribbean (where he almost barters his oil for minerals, fertilisers, technology etc.), but also striking lucrative deals with countries like China that include sweetenersl (on both sides) like the building of refineries and orders for tankers.

With an estimated 79-year oil reserve under his feet, this oil-fueled Socialist leader will have to to something spectacularly stupid to topple himself. But hey, charasmatic leaderships are often their own undoing.

[haplesshobo]

but it's not necessarily true that sending oil to the US is more profitable for Venezuela. transportation is not the only cost of selling oil. are there higher taxes in the US? are there tariffs? does the US buy more Venezuelan oil than China would? etc etc.

All those questions you raised have already been answered by the trade history between these countries in the 90s when China needed to start importing oil. If it was true that it wasn't more profitable to be sending that oil to the United States, then you would have seen that oil already shipped elsewhere.

Analysts that follow the oil industry agree that its more profitable for the Venz to ship oil to the US rather than to China. It takes about 45 days for those oil cargos to ship that oil to China, which tacks on an extra 3-4 dollar cost per barrell vs. the 5 day trip it takes to ship that oil to the United States. Plus, the US has already invested the money in its refineries to be able to specifically refine Venz. oil. China's going have to invest major money into refeneries to be able to specifically deal with Venz oil which is going to add on to the costs of this oil.

It is simply a fallacy to somehow claim that this deal was done for purely economic reasons and to portray this as a victory for free trade.

[SunWuKong]

All those questions you raised have already been answered by the trade history between these countries in the 90s when China needed to start importing oil. If it was true that it wasn't more profitable to be sending that oil to the United States, then you would have seen that oil already shipped elsewhere.

and those foreign oil companies were all, or mostly American companies, right? with that in mind, i'm very doubtful that profit was the only reason they exported to the US. were they even allowed access to the Chinese market...?

[otter p.]

no to Japan. not until they have a foreign policy more independent of the US.

I thought we were supposed to be about uniting asians together, not reliving the past about WWII.

Japan is a major player in the UN and contributes a lot of money to the UN. Such an appoitment would signal the rise of Asia in the UN.

We don't strip Britain's veto power be stripped as well even though its the lap dog of the US. And, China too follwed the Soviet Union's lead for much of the Cold War.

Pretty in-depth piece of political analysis there, PPG. Care to expand on that?

Yeah, just like you've contributed pretty in-depth political analysis when you started this thread. :rolleyes:

[Martino]

We don't strip Britain's veto power be stripped as well even though its the lap dog of the US. And, China too follwed the Soviet Union's lead for much of the Cold War.

You shouldn't try to type whilst under the influence of alcohol.

[SunWuKong]

We don't strip Britain's veto power be stripped as well even though its the lap dog of the US. And, China too follwed the Soviet Union's lead for much of the Cold War.

read about the Sino-Soviet split. the Chinese leadership hated/resented the Soviets for much of the Cold War. and actually switched sides to ally with the US in 1972.

I thought we were supposed to be about uniting asians together, not reliving the past about WWII.

Japan is a major player in the UN and contributes a lot of money to the UN. Such an appoitment would signal the rise of Asia in the UN.

if only Asian politics were so simple.

[otter p.]

You shouldn't try to type whilst under the influence of alcohol.

What the hell got stuck up your ass?

Sun's argument was that Japan shouldn't be given veto power despite all of its contributions to the UN, and I responded that there are other countries that more or less follow the actions of another state. For example, the UK is basically the lap dog of the US as we all saw in invading Iraq. When the US tells the UK to jump, the British ask how high.

If Japan hadn't done what it did in WWII, giving Japan veto power really wouldn't be an issue.

[Yeahman]

If Japan hadn't done what it did in WWII, giving Japan veto power really wouldn't be an issue.
And what's the issue with India, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany, and Nigeria not having veto power?

[Martino]

Sun's argument was that Japan shouldn't be given veto power despite all of its contributions to the UN, and I responded that there are other countries that more or less follow the actions of another state. For example, the UK is basically the lap dog of the US as we all saw in invading Iraq. When the US tells the UK to jump, the British ask how high.

Britain is certainly idealogically alligned with the US, but does not agree or bow down to the US on every or all issues: witness the UK's pursuit of a multilateral agreement on Trade Facilitation as part of the Doha Development Round, which the US opposes, or the UK government taking a lead on global issues such as global warming at Kyoto and elsewere, whilst the US government continued to downplay the threat.

Seems you are accusing the UK of being a good ally, as if that was some terrible crime. The UK is a nuclear power, with the fourth strongest economy on the planet. Some lap dog.

[ahsingjai]

The UK is a nuclear power, with the fourth strongest economy on the planet. Some lap dog.

You mean 5th. China is the 4th now sucker! And that's excluding Macau and Hong Kong's GDP. Soon to be 3rd, replacing Germany.

[SunWuKong]

You mean 5th. China is the 4th now sucker! And that's excluding Macau and Hong Kong's GDP. Soon to be 3rd, replacing Germany.

GDP is not nearly as indicative as per-capita GDP though. and in that area, China has a long way to go.

[VV o n g B a]

Britain is certainly idealogically alligned with the US, but does not agree or bow down to the US on every or all issues: witness the UK's pursuit of a multilateral agreement on Trade Facilitation as part of the Doha Development Round, which the US opposesthat's a mischaracterization. the US wanted an agreement on doha as much as anyone else. they didn't want the particular agreement the europeans wanted and the UK pushed.

or the UK government taking a lead on global issues such as global warming at Kyoto and elsewere, whilst the US government continued to downplay the threat.oh come on. thats pretty weak evidence of not being a lapdog. even if the world ratified the kyoto treaty, it would have done precious little to stop global warming. the cutbacks there were so small as to be almost meaningless.

Seems you are accusing the UK of being a good ally, as if that was some terrible crime.it's not a crime, but it doesn't justify holding a veto. and anyways, that wasn't the main point of his argument. his point was that swk's argument for keeping japan out was weak b/c the UK was still in. japan also pushed the kyoto treaty. doesn't mean they had a very independent foreign policy b/c of it.

[SunWuKong]

And what's the issue with India, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany, and Nigeria not having veto power?

India, i think should be represented as a permanent member. especially because it's at a stage right now that's trying to decide how much it wants to cooperate or compete against both China and the US, and how to balance the relationships with both of the countries.

and probably Brazil also, because there is no permanent member from South America right now, and Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world.

i'm don't know much about Africa. what is the state of the African Union? and is it possible to put the AU in a permanent seat instead?

[Martino]

that's a mischaracterization. the US wanted an agreement on doha as much as anyone else. they didn't want the particular agreement the europeans wanted and the UK pushed.

The main stumbling block on DOHA was the US not making enough concessions on agricultural subsidies and tariffs, and accusing the EU of not making concessions (which in fact it moved a long way on).

oh come on. thats pretty weak evidence of not being a lapdog. even if the world ratified the kyoto treaty, it would have done precious little to stop global warming. the cutbacks there were so small as to be almost meaningless.

In what way weak? The UK government accepted that global warming was occuring, and started taking steps, when the US was (and is) still debating about whether it's real. With initiatives like the Carbon Trust, the UK alone is well on its way to meeting its Kyoto targets.

The fact that US business needs force the US government not to acknowledge global warming demonstrates my point that the UK is ruled from London, not Washington.

it's not a crime, but it doesn't justify holding a veto. and anyways, that wasn't the main point of his argument. his point was that swk's argument for keeping japan out was weak b/c the UK was still in. japan also pushed the kyoto treaty. doesn't mean they had a very independent foreign policy b/c of it.


I'm surprised at you. I thought you had been around long enough to know my political leanings. I was only responding to the stupid assertion that one modern Western power is somehow the bitch of another. I didn't address the membership issue at all. In fact, I've often stated that I oppose the existence of the Security Council:


http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?p=326774&highlight=veto+UN#post326774 (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?p=326774&highlight=veto+UN#post326774)

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?p=259909&highlight=veto+UN#post259909

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?p=405981&highlight=veto+UN#post405981

[VV o n g B a]

it just seemed to me a case of "thou dost protest too much." it seemed like u were grasping at straws to prove the british weren't lapdogs when ur own newpaper (http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1156882006) editorials (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,651674,00.html) call blair a lapdog. now it may be that u completely disagree w/ those editorials, but the image is certainly there and wasn't created by us.

[Martino]

it just seemed to me a case of "thou dost protest too much." it seemed like u were grasping at straws to prove the british weren't lapdogs when ur own newpaper (http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1156882006) editorials (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,651674,00.html) call blair a lapdog. now it may be that u completely disagree w/ those editorials, but the image is certainly there and wasn't created by us.

Is it possible to protest too much in the space of two messages?

I suppose the shorter answer would be to ask, how often has the UK acted as 'lap dog' to the US compared to how often the UK has come into conflict with the US? Trade Wars over GM crops, bananas, steel? US political donations to the IRA? Trade with China?

Or ...

The military alliance, the Cloalition of the Willing, seems ideological, but is also an acknowledgement of the debt owed to the US when it came to Britains aid during World War 2. But what about all the variations of the 'special relationship' between the UK and US over the last six decades? Suez? The Falklands? Reagan and Thatcher? Wilson? The Cold War? Communism in Asia?

I'm a big critic of both the US and UK governments, but I don't think the British were ever the lap dog of the Americans. Rather, the British agenda has sometimes run in parallel to the Americans.

[ahsingjai]

and probably Brazil also, because there is no permanent member from South America right now, and Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world.

i'm don't know much about Africa. what is the state of the African Union? and is it possible to put the AU in a permanent seat instead?

I don't think AU is as fully intergrated as EU and even so, I don't think E.U would qualify for a seat unless UK steps down...

[haplesshobo]

and those foreign oil companies were all, or mostly American companies, right? with that in mind, i'm very doubtful that profit was the only reason they exported to the US. were they even allowed access to the Chinese market...?

I can't tell if that was a serious question. But, I'll answer it anyways.

There are scores of foreign oil companies from about a dozen countries in Venzuela. Out of those companies, looking at the three biggest ones, only one was american. The other two were european- British Petroleum and Royal Shell. And, keep in mind, its not like those foreign oil companies controlled the oil market in Venzuela. PDVSA, Venzuela's state oil company, has larger reserves and pumps out more oil although that difference has shrunk due to mismanagement by Chavez. And, we also have to remember that the foreign oil companies have only joint ownership with PDVSA of their oil fields.

If you were an oil company, who would you rather ship your oil to- the nearer country which means you'll be paid sooner or the further country which means that you'd have to incur higher transportation costs which would cut into your profits? If you had access to China, why would you want to ship oil there when you could make more money shipping it to the US and the US still needed your oil?

I don't see why its so controversial to point out that there are other reasons outside of maximizing profit for this deal, especially given Chavez's history. Call it bartering or trading or whatnot, but Venz. has already subsidized oil to other countries like Cuba; Venz. could have gotten more money and things in return by selling it to other countries. Yes, countries like Cuba were trading things in return for the oil. But, if Venz. had sold their oil at the highest price, they would have had the money to buy much more than what they were traded.

Haplesshobo is on my Ignore list, so I can't/wont address his points directly, but I will add that Venezuela and Chavez (they're not one and the same yet) are in a very strong position thanks to the oil bonanza there.
With an estimated 79-year oil reserve under his feet, this oil-fueled Socialist leader will have to to something spectacularly stupid to topple himself. But hey, charasmatic leaderships are often their own undoing.

Umm....

I already acknowledged and addressed that record oil prices were saving Chavez's ass. Its covering his mistakes right now as all that oil money glides over a lot of problems. So, what else is there that you can't directly address:

That Chavez has mismanaged VDSPA? He's already done something spectacturaly stupid if he ends up killing the golden goose, VDSPA.

Its oil production is down half a million barrels from just a few years ago. This year, VDSPA had to sign a 2B deal with Russia to avoid defaulting contracts where it had promised oil to other countries. Why would it not want to meet its quota from OPEC when oil prices are this high? By firing all those engineers and managers and workers who ran VDSPA, it weakened VDSPA and deprived it of the technical support it used to have.

[SunWuKong]

If you were an oil company, who would you rather ship your oil to- the nearer country which means you'll be paid sooner or the further country which means that you'd have to incur higher transportation costs which would cut into your profits? If you had access to China, why would you want to ship oil there when you could make more money shipping it to the US and the US still needed your oil?

i'm casting doubts that profit was the only reason they shipped mostly to the US. and i'm wondering if shipping cost was the only factor here. i'm not familiar with shipping regulations when it comes to oil, nor am i familiar with how open or close the oil markets are in China and the US. when it comes to oil trade, profits is hardly the only factor. i mean, were these specific companies even allowed access to the Chinese market? the US gets most of its oil from the Middle East, if Venezuelan oil had access to China as well, why would they not ship there?

I don't see why its so controversial to point out that there are other reasons outside of maximizing profit for this deal, especially given Chavez's history.

i don't think it's controversial to point that out. i also don't think what Chavez is doing would definitely lead to the downfall of the Venezuelan oil industry either.

[otter p.]

I'm a big critic of both the US and UK governments, but I don't think the British were ever the lap dog of the Americans. Rather, the British agenda has sometimes run in parallel to the Americans.

LOL. This should be rich, but tell me, dear sir, how Britian's agenda ran in parallel to the United States concerning the invasion of Iraq.

Was it because UK actually believed Iraq had WMDs, when clearly there were some red flags over that concern?

Was it because UK believed there was some Al-Queda connection with Iraq, when clearly that was a weak excuse?

Or, was it to turn to Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism, which our invasion has clearly done?

If Bush hadn't been so obessed with Iraq, Blair wouldn't have gone along against his better judgement. Blair is a smart guy, and he knew the whole invasion was a very bad idea. If you know its a bad idea and wouldn't go along otherwise but still do it, in my book, then you're Bush's bitch.

The whole thing with the Coalition of the Willing was that they were all countries currying favor to the US. Britain didn't want to be in the doghouse, like the French. If China punches under its weight, then UK punches over its weight. UK uses its alliance with the US to have a bigger influence it otherwise it wouldn't have and lets the British hang onto their memories of their imperial empire.

[SunWuKong]

Martino - i know you might be feeling ganged up on here at an American forum, but i do have to wonder, would the UK be as influential in the EU as it currently is without being such a close ally to the US?

[Martino]

Martino - i know you might be feeling ganged up on here at an American forum,

It's the 'in' thing.


but i do have to wonder, would the UK be as influential in the EU as it currently is without being such a close ally to the US?

The UK would probably be more influential if its links to the US were lessened, given the cult of anti-Americanism in Europe today. As it is, Britain is undeniably a country with a strong economy and an influential voice in Europe and elsewhere. In many ways it straddles the Atlantic, orbiting both the EU and US, and investing heavily in both.

Along with the French and the Germans, the UK has shaped modern Europe through investment and political union. Britain is a major player in the international economy too; it is part of the EU trading bloc, but has strong trade links with the US and the Pacific Rim, growing links with China - and globally it remains in a strong position within the Commonwealth of Nations (an accidental product of the British Empire).

All this highlights one simple fact: the UK isn't some isolated island nation that is being sponsored or supported by the US. Nor does it exist to do the US's bidding. The UK is a major global trading nation with links throughout the world; it is a huge global outward investor, and is a magnet for European, Chinese and Japanese investment, and in fact has many points of conflict with the US.

Britain's strength, in trade, and in technology transfer, can in no way be attributable to America, with which it really has few shared interests - even militarily. No British troops went to Vietnam; the US invaded Grenada despite protestations from the Thatcher government; the US opposed the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt. So, without all that, comments that the UK is the 'lapdog' of the Americans really boils down to an overused left-wing sensationalist tabloid term, an over-simplified piece of national stereotyping.

And we don't encourage national stereotyping in YW, do we?

[otter p.]

Yada, yada, yada.

I could also highlight Japan's trade and economy.

But, you still haven't answered why Britain went along with the US into an illegal invasion of Iraq if it knew that it was a bad idea.

It could be either two things

1) The UK really believed all those lies Bush was selling to the public about how dangerous Iraq was- WMDs, Al-Queda, etc..

OR

2) It knew it was a bad idea, but along with it anyways to make Bush happy.

Which one is it?

Sure, there are a few isolated instances where the UK didn't slavishly follow America's lead in its junior partnership role. But, those were mostly minor ones where it didn't really concern America.

And, its not just the left that's been critical of how Blair has bowed and acquiesed to all of Bush's demands. The Tory party has called the relationship 'slavish':

Tory Denounces Blair’s ‘Slavish’ Tie to U.S.

By ALAN COWELL
Published: September 12, 2006

LONDON, Sept. 11 — In his first major foreign policy address, David Cameron, the leader of Britain’s opposition Conservatives, sought Monday to distance his party from what he called a “slavish” bond established between Britain and the United States by Prime Minister Tony Blair.

At the same time, though, he asked his audience of several hundred bankers and policy experts in London’s financial district to bow their heads in silence during his speech at the moment when the first hijacked plane slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Cameron is the main opposition contender likely to challenge whoever takes over the governing Labor Party from Mr. Blair, who has promised to quit within a year. His remarks seemed intended to sharply demarcate his foreign policy from that of Mr. Blair, for whom the war in Iraq and his ties with President Bush have proved politically ruinous.

His remarks — by a Conservative accusing a Labor leader of being too far to the right — showed just how far the British political spectrum has shifted since the end of the cold war and, particularly, since Mr. Blair’s rise to power in 1997.

The speech was also intended to draw a line under previous Conservative policy. Mr. Cameron himself supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, but a senior Conservative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under party rules, said: “We don’t want to have an endless fight about what happened three or four years ago. This is about the next 10 years.”

Mr. Cameron, 39, a former public relations executive who took over the Conservative leadership last December, assailed what he described as American neoconservatism and Mr. Blair’s close alliance with the White House, which has encouraged British critics to label their prime minister America’s “poodle.”

But, he said, “I and my party are instinctive friends of America and passionate supporters of the Atlantic Alliance.”

Mr. Cameron said there had been mixed success by Britain and the United States in curbing terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks. A terrorist attack on the same scale had been averted, he said, but “across the globe, terrorists are being recruited in increasing numbers and are active in many more areas than before Sept. 11.” Anti-Americanism had taken hold, he said, “not just in countries affected by war and instability, but here in the West, here in Britain.”

He urged development of “a foreign policy that goes beyond neo-conservatism, retaining its strengths but learning from its failures.”

“We will serve neither our own, nor America’s, nor the world’s interests, if we are seen as America’s unconditional associate in every endeavor,” he said. “Our duty is to our own citizens, and to our own conception of what is right for the world. We should be solid but not slavish in our friendship with America.”

The gibe was clearly aimed at Mr. Blair, who faced hostile protesters in Lebanon on Monday because of his support for the American and Israeli positions during the Lebanon war.

Senior Conservatives acknowledged that Mr. Cameron seemed to be positioning himself for a post-Bush White House. “He’s unlikely to be prime minister when George Bush is president,” the Conservative official said. Britain’s next general election is due some time before 2010, probably long after the 2008 American presidential vote.

Before his speech, Mr. Cameron met with Robert H. Tuttle, the American ambassador, and asked him to “take the speech as a whole and not bits and pieces of it,” said David T. Johnson, the deputy chief of mission, the No. 2 diplomat at the American Embassy. “Some of the things we disagree with,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview, singling out a reference in the text of the speech to “illiberalism,” referring to repressive behavior at the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But, he said, “I take him at his word that he did not intend it to be anything other than pro-American.”

Much of the speech seemed intended for a British rather than an American audience, Mr. Johnson said. For instance, in the address, Mr. Cameron said that Mr. Blair had “lost the art” familiar to British leaders going back to Winston Churchill of effectively playing what he called the junior partner in the so-called “special relationship” with Washington.

“I fear that if we continue as at present we may combine the maximum of exposure with the minimum of real influence over decisions,” Mr. Cameron said.

He assailed Mr. Blair’s and Mr. Bush’s view of the effort to prevent terrorism, saying he was “skeptical of grand schemes to remake the world” and asserting that Western policy had lacked “humility and patience.”

He also attacked the notion that counterterrorism was “a single struggle between single protagonists.’’

“The danger is that by positing a single source of terrorism — a global jihad — and opposing it with a single global response — American-backed force — we will simply fulfill our own prophecy.”

George Osborne, a senior Conservative official, said in an interview: “He talks about the future. Most of the speech is about the future and how we get beyond neo-conservatism.”

[Yeahman]

The US is just in a stronger bargaining position than the UK so we can demand a lot from them. But I doubt this war was one of them. I think Blair's a neo-con who really believes in the righteousness of his actions.

[Martino]

Yada, yada, yada.

That's the most intelligent thing you've said since you joined the board.

I could also highlight Japan's trade and economy.

Are you saying the Japanese are the lapdogs of the Americans now?

But, you still haven't answered why Britain went along with the US into an illegal invasion of Iraq if it knew that it was a bad idea.

Maybe I didn't answer because that wasn't the fucking question?

[otter p.]

That's the most intelligent thing you've said since you joined the board.

And, yet, its still more intelligent than the stuff I've read you post- the rambling posts why Steve Irwin provoked that stingray into attacking him despite all the evidence to the contrary, your refusal to explain why england went along with the invasion into iraq, etc...



Are you saying the Japanese are the lapdogs of the Americans now?


That point has already been expressed by the moderator. I happen to think that if you're going to accuse the Japanese of being lapdogs, then that term should apply to the British as well, especially for their support and assistance in invading Iraq.


Maybe I didn't answer because that wasn't the fucking question?

Your refusal to answer it already gives the answer that we already know about why England went into Iraq.

[SunWuKong]

That point has already been expressed by the moderator. I happen to think that if you're going to accuse the Japanese of being lapdogs, then that term should apply to the British as well, especially for their support and assistance in invading Iraq.

um. hold on. i didn't say that Japan is a lapdog of the US. i said i don't think Japan should get a permanent seat at the UN security council until its foreign policy is more independent of the US.

[Martino]

And, yet, its still more intelligent than the stuff I've read you post- the rambling posts why Steve Irwin provoked that stingray into attacking him despite all the evidence to the contrary, your refusal to explain why england went along with the invasion into iraq, etc...

Again, the Steve Irwin thread contained something called spec-u-la-tion. Look the word up. It was something people (thinking people) do.

Re "england" (England??) going along with the invasion, I've already covered that. I can't help if you're too stooopid to read.


That point has already been expressed by the moderator. I happen to think that if you're going to accuse the Japanese of being lapdogs, then that term should apply to the British as well, especially for their support and assistance in invading Iraq.


As I keep pointing out, you can't read. Luckily, it's you yourself who proves my point over and over. You make it so easy for me, thank you.

Your refusal to answer it already gives the answer that we already know about why England went into Iraq.

England again? Don't think England went into Iraq ... not my fault if you are incapable of understanding. Refusal to answer? I explained how I see Britains relationship with the US. Increase your medication.

um. hold on. i didn't say that Japan is a lapdog of the US. i said i don't think Japan should get a permanent seat at the UN security council until its foreign policy is more independent of the US.

Illustrates my point exactly re otter p's reading and comprehension skills...

Methinks otter p is simply scrambling to oppose any viewpoint I post - note the reference to Irwin - but lacks the wit to construct an argument to back his views that the UK is anyones lapdog.

Note: I'm adding otter p to my ignore list, because frankly, talking to someone who has the intellect of a carrot is no fun.

[haplesshobo]

Looking at the Ven. situation right now, its a reminder that Hitler was democratically elected.

i do believe there's an amount of truth in that. unfortunately, i hardly read about how they could have built smaller dams, it's usually that the Three Gorges is bad, bad, bad.

I think there has been, but that whenever wrote a nuanced piece, it tended to be longer than a lot of people were willing to read. Its going to be easier to critically look at all sides with a three page piece than a short blurb about an issue.

For example, the NYTimes, one of the most influential papers in the US, just published this piece about the Dams:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/asia/19dam.html?_r=1&oref=slogin