Posted on 06/22/2005 5:19:10 AM PDT by thierrya
Jun. 22, 2005 0:50 | Updated Jun. 22, 2005 3:01
China, Israel discuss expanding defense ties
By NINA GILBERT
Expansion of defense ties with Israel was on the agenda during talks with his Israeli counterparts this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Tuesday.
Li, who spoke at the start of a meeting with the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, did not go into detail about the current dispute between Israel and the US over the Israel upgrade of Chinese Harpy drones.
He said that during his visit he had held talks on expanding ties in the fields of "trade, army, culture, education and tourism."
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom apologized to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier this week over the deal, and expressed hope that the crisis would be quickly resolved.
Defense Minister Director-General Amos Yaron is expected to be sacked as part of the deal to resolve the crisis with the US.
Li was asked by Labor MK Danny Yatom about US-Chinese relations and how the ties were affecting Israel's ability to sell arms to China. Li responded that ties between the US and China were improving, and that the main problem in the ties was Taiwan. He said China also opposed the sale of US arms to Taiwan that could pose a threat to it, according to Yatom, who heads the Israel-China parliamentary friendship association.
Li also told Israel to prepare for an imminent influx of Chinese tourists as an outgrowth of deepening ties.
"I can let you know with some certainty that thousands of Chinese tourists will visit Jerusalem and other parts of the country. You are such an attraction. I have already advised enterprises of this country to prepare more hotel rooms for the upcoming Chinese tourism," he said.
Li also told the MKs that he was moved by his visit to Yad Vashem, saying it made him feel a bond between the Jewish people and the Chinese. He said 20 million Chinese were "slaughtered by the Japanese aggressors" during the same period of World War II.
"We should never forget history, instead we should turn it into united efforts to maintain world peace," he said.
Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz said the relations with China were "extremely" important for Israel, referring to China as the "giant" and Israel as the "dwarf."
Israel can do the calculations as easily as you, and given the choice can calculate that choosing China over the U.S. would likely be suicidal for them in the long run; and thus it is not likely a choice Israel would make.
Second, the chances that jettising automatic support for Israel (over its sale of arms to China) would hurt us in Iraq is laughable in as much as the Iraqi's who are fighting the insurgents are fighting for a democratic based government and the prospect of a democratic based future.
I agree with you in principal, on our trade with China. The difficulty with the practical means to living by that principal must overcome two different concurrent ideas that four administrations have practiced (counting the current one); they are: (1)that economic liberty will create the legal requirements, and the public sentiment towards the extablishment of greater political liberty and (2)if China would gain and advance equally as well from trade diverted to other nations (instead of the U.S.), then depriving China of trade with us deprives them China of nothing and only deprives our own companies, and our workers in those companies.
I, like you, do not think we have seen the beneficial trends in China's domestic politics that the two dominant policy ideas continue to believe will happen, in time. Those that have secured the policies based on those two ideas believe that our objectives should be to preserve the status quo in the China-Taiwan relationship, and the hoped for internal changes in China will eventually make the question moot.
I, like you, believe it is a race in which the chances are better than not that China will move against Taiwan, militarily, before (and possibly without ever) changing politically.
The problem is how to move, in practical ways, to demonstrate that the two dominant ideas are failing to achieve their objectives. Using examples alone only demonstrates that the ideas have not "yet" achieved their objectives, not that they will not, at some future date and our desire and attempts to make those declarations now are simply used, by China and in the U.S., to say that we are being "belligerent" because in fact China has not (yet) taken military action against Taiwan. These are very stubborn ideas to move directly against politically.
We are left with the realization that in all likelihood American policy towards China will not change until China in fact does attack Taiwan. If that is true, then our best policy is simply to prepare militarily as if it is inevitable, while the public continues with its stubborn majority support for the two dominant ideas that believe China "will change".
Granting all that, I'd still much rather Israel develop a relationship with Taiwa, which is in a very similar position to Israel's. Of course, I am aware that the Republic of China was very, very hostile to Israel for a very long time, but so was the PRC. No need saying that it would also give the Israel-haters one less reason to spew their garbage, because they don't need any.
"Most of you would have to start riding a bike."
Good for the health. Besides Not True.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4) The United States and other consumers need Gulf oil much more than the Gulf countries need the money paid for the oil. Wrong. Most of the Gulf countries have become very dependent on their oil income, which provides almost all their foreign currency. The oil-consuming countries get less than a quarter of their oil from the Gulf and have stockpiles of oil that could replace Gulf supply for six months or more.
Twenty years ago, oil gave Saudi Arabia a per capita income of $20,000 and huge financial reserves, while the rapid growth of income made it easy for the government to afford a boycott or other temporary reduction in oil sales. Today Saudi per capita income is down to $6,000, the huge financial reserves have been replaced by a large national debt, and much of the country is dependent on government agencies' having a regular flow of cash.
It used to be thought that if oil from other regions, or unconventional oil, threatened the dominance of the Gulf producers, then the Saudis and other Gulf countries would blow away the competition by taking advantage of their low production cost to force the price down below the competitors' production cost. Even if that were true in the past, it is not true today. No Arab regime has the stomach--or the funds--to endure very low prices for an extended time, if at all. And almost all of the non-Gulf producers make a profit even if the price is as low as $15 a barrel, and many are profitable at even lower prices.
‘snip’
THE MAIN CONCLUSION that American policymakers have been drawing from these myths--or outdated ideas--about oil is that the United States had better be deferential to Saudi Arabia because it has the power to ruin our economy. The United States pays more deference to the Saudis than to any other government in the world. If any other government imposes restrictions on American diplomats in their country, the United States applies the same restrictions to that country's diplomats in the United States. The only exception is Saudi Arabia--which, for example, pays no price for denying American women with diplomatic passports the right to drive in the kingdom. Recently there have been a number of stories about how American mothers have suffered as a result of U.S. deference to Saudi Arabia when their children were kidnapped by their fathers and taken to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi policy toward the United States is based on their perception of our fear of their oil power. That is why Crown Prince Abdullah felt free to patronize President Bush in Crawford, Texas, less than a year after 15 Saudi citizens attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is why they have felt safe enough to allow more than $50 billion of Saudi oil money to be exported to stir up hatred of the United States in the last 20 years.
When the American political community realizes that the world economy is not in Saudi hands as much as the Saudi economy is in the hands of Western oil buyers, Washington can stop being afraid of the Saudis. Then the Saudi government will understand that it must respond to the United States very differently than it has in the past.
The Saudis' belief in their oil power doesn't come from their economic analysis of the oil market, it comes from their recognition of our fear of them, our belief that we are vulnerable to what they can do to us. If we understand that the facts have changed, and we do not have to accept aggressive use of an "oil weapon" against us, then they will not risk their fate on the basis of any calculation of the balance of oil power. In practice they may test us, and we have the capacity to pass their test.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/002/977mwkuu.asp?pg=2
"Do you want to give them democracy ? They would choose Osama."
How do you know since they are not free to say? Besides the standard is freedom not democracy.
Me: As to our not being able to invade or occupy SA, why not?
You: Because loses would be huge.
Is this a joke? We went in to protect them from Saddam in 1992. Now they are too strong for us? We built all their military infrastructure and supply most of their weapons. Corruption is endemic. They are weaker than Iraq was and less populous. They lack the manpower of Iran. They have non-nationals (5-7 million)doing all their work, running the country. What would happen there under war conditions? In Kuwait the non-nationals (Palestinians) turned on the Kuwaitis who booted them out en masse after Gulf 1.
(That is, unless Israel is really working WITH us to secretly arm the Chinese with weaponry that the U.S. can secretly control and disable remotely)
"Also, unless they have been multiplying like rabbits I don't see how their standard of living went down so drastically."
define "multiplying like rabbits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia
later on the rest. (although this business of taking over SA is a digression since I am not recomending it -- not necessary!)
But for the night think on this. Let's say the US really doesn't need SA oil. What other reasons might we have for smoothing over the relationship?
"You really don't see the difference between "western" societies and Saudis ? In the "west" people are already crying that oil is too expensive... Tell the Saudis that Allah want them to be poor, they would reply: Great ! So I want to be even poorer !"
and
"There are serious internal problems in SA. Sauds are losing popularity, because... they are too much progressive."
So this business about women driving and complaints about how costly it is to hire a driver don't exist?
And if that were so where are the Saudi Jihadists coming from? Where did Bin Laden come from? Not so easy to placate I’m thinking. In fact the Saudis rule by providing prosperity and stability. Without political input, without freedom, and with cuts in life style, what exactly will keep the regime in power? The ones who want to overthrow the Saudi Kingdom are already dissatisfied. Cutting income will further threaten the ruling regime’s stability by those lookinh for slow change via reform.
As I see it there are the Jihadist, there are the reformists, and there's the Saudi Regime which stands for the status quo. The first two stand for change - Jihadists violent radical; reformists slower peaceful dhange. In your analysis all that exists is the regime and their followers.
You seem to be advocating a realist policy of maintaining the status quo even though the facts on the ground show that the situation there is explosive in the Jihadists direction. In the other direction the reformists are willing to support a regime that is making changes. In which direction should the US try to push the regime?
This is where the US petrodollars count.
As to taking over, that is last resort talk.
“In conventional war against SA…”
What is a “conventional war?” Non-nuclear obviously yes.
I don’t think Iraq was a “conventional war.” Great pains were taken to prevent casualties. In March of 2004 when we should have tightened the screws and cleaned out Fallujah we deferred to world opinion. Wars are not successfully fought and won by referendum. They are not won by half measures.
And while 1700 American lives are a tragedy, they are a small number to prevent the US economy from coming to a halt. That was what you predicted when you said we would all be riding bicycles. If that were to happen, many divisions you see now in the US would disappear. As you say, “In the "west" people are already crying that oil is too expensive...” There would be great unity to preserve our way of life.
ping to #50.
Any mideast country with great oil wealth, be it Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi, Kuwait, or whomever, who are outright and aggressive Islamists pose a grave threat to all civilization. We can't allow that even if we must stand alone in our vigil.
Well the missiles from China may not be quite as good but they are only 1/10 the price.
Excellent question, worth repeating.
China has a large Christian population and it should be expected that they will want to visit the Holy Land just as Americans do.
We're not going to sell weapons to Syria, but his point was that it would be equally absurd. How can Israel be sure any weapons sold to China won't end up in Iran?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.