Skip to comments.Analysis: African oil and Chinese arms
Posted on 11/05/2007 7:30:57 PM PST by Flavius
China has been promoting arms-for-oil deals with Africa as the continent is becoming one of its major sources of oil. Since last year, top Chinese leaders and military officers have made frequent visits to Africa. And at the Zhuhai Air Show under way this week in southern China's Guangdong province, military delegations from African countries including Sudan, Angola and Zimbabwe have made frequent appearances.
In 2005, Angola exported to China nearly 17.5 million tons of crude oil, becoming China's second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia. Oil from Angola makes up nearly 14 percent of China's annual oil imports, valued at US$6.58 billion. In the months of January and February last year, Angola surpassed Saudi Arabia to become China's largest supplier of crude oil, providing 456,000 barrels per day.
(Excerpt) Read more at upiasiaonline.com ...
we will go to war with china over africa before we go to war with china over taiwan.
If there is a “war for oil” anywhere in the world, it’s the Chinese-backed war in Sudan.
I will never understand why we deal with communists. The only thing it could be is blind, short-sided greed.
How do you think that statement would sound to people not just in China, but Africa? Are not China and the nations of Africa SOVEIRGN nations? And do they not have a right to deal with one another without suggestion of war by a third party country?
I guess that as long as two sovereign countries are conducting business, there is no level of despicable behavior you can’t tolerate. Raping the land, murdering opponents of unchecked development, etc. - For you it’s all good. China backs some of the worst regimes in Africa - all for natural resources. My point was that if there is to be a confrontation with China, it will be over natural resources, not Taiwan. Now go back to the dummy board dummy.
Didn't the US buy oil from Iraq when Sadaam was in power?
My point was that if there is to be a confrontation with China, it will be over natural resources, not Taiwan.
No reason to go to war over it, if the US wants to buy natural resources from Africa, they're welcome to it to.
Now go back to the dummy board dummy.
Well, I'm here writing you aren't I?
Well, it all depends on what standard you are using. Are you talking about sending out doctors to third world countries by individuals and organizations? Yes, America is ahead of China on that. Sending Missionaries and opening schools and clinics? America is ahead there.
Does the average Chinese citizen have the right to bear arms? If you want to use that as a measure, go ahead.
But dealing with dictators to benefit their own country. America has done it. If it's a measure you use to criticize China, shouldn't that measure be used to criticize the US as well?
True, but what happens when the PRC stops asking and starts taking?
There are alot of other countries that China can take from now and they haven't. I doubt China will be agressive in the future since they are not today.
They have their eye on Siberia, the Hainan islands, not to mention Taiwan and a host of other locations.
They have their eyes on territories that once belonged to them. And they will negotiate them back in the coming years.
Right now in China, there is a gas crisis whereby the gov. is atempting to get refiners to sell at a loss, in addition to providing subsidies that artificially constrain the prices. This is unsustainable. What happens when they can no longer afford to pay 90-100 a barrel for oil? What if they just decided that some or all of these disputed territories are ripe for exploration, regardless fo what anyone thinks?
There is plenty of resources to go around. Shortages, for the most part, are man made. Prices of alot of other commodities have gone up, copper, lead, etc. China is continuing to meet market prices.
That is why they are rushing to field a blue water Navy - to protect their shipping lanes as well as fight and win a comprehensive war against anyone (read: the US)
Their naval build up is nothing unique. It's simply reflecting or mirroring their economy. The military, as a percentage of their economy, is no different that the other major powers.
as opposed to the venemous name calling that one would naturally find over at DU or Daily Kos.
I was merely RETURNING the sentiment I received...
scratch that about the old thread.
And China, along with many other countries is experiencing the peace and prosperity. And siezing the opportunity provided them by the WTO. Is the succcess and prosperity only reserved for a few select countries?
When we were the first to have nuclear weapons, did we use them to subjugate the world? No. Do we, as the world's only superpower, seek to control the world for our own gain?
Last I checked, China hasn't launched a nuclear attack. They also could potentially build more if they wanted to, but haven't. They haven't used their nuclear leverage against countries that don't have them.
No. All you need to do is ask yourself what would China do if they became the world's strongest power tomorrow?
Before I answer that, under what condition would you graciously accept China to become the strongest power in the world? Is it never? Then what more is there to talk about if that is true.
I could go on and question your motives for responding to such an old thread, or why you seem to be so pro-China, willing to sweep every Chinese indescretion under the rug.
I don't sweep every Chinese indescretion under the rug. You want to talk about human rights, democracy, environment there, then lets talk. There are many human rights and religous groups busy confronting China on many issues. They don't bother me. It's the Hawks that bother me. They want to tie everything (and I mean everything) to China's rise and growing global influence. That is what bothers me.
Take Africa for example. There are human rights groups that want China to use her INFLUENCE to confront the genocide there. The Hawks just want to raise the issue of the genocide to get China out of Africa. I'm not so sure they're (the Hawks) are so concerned about the genocide there. It (the genocide in Sudan) wasn't on their (the Hawks) radar until China showed up. But for religous and human rights groups, they've been pounding on the doors of congress for years to do something about it. The various religious and human rights groups aren't concerned about China's rise as they are about helping Africa. The Hawks aren't concerned about Africa, but rather, China's rise.
You want to make China a better place and confront what's bad there. Be my guest. But if your goal is nothing more than prevent the rise of China and keep them an agrarian society, then I'll speak up. So far, everything the Hawks talk about lead to that goal (containing China).
The bottom line is this, I want to see the Chinese people become a technologically advance and industrialized people. As result of going through the process of bringing 1.3 billion people into the 21st century, they will become a world super power. There's no way around that. So, any opposition to China's rise, is an opposition to the betterment of the average Chinese citizen.
Every once in awhile, I see a bumper sticker that says "Freedom isn't Free". True enough, there's a financial cost and human cost to military confrontation. But is freedom only brought about through military confrontation? Can it be brought about with the growing prosperity of others? Or is that prosperity only reserved for Americans and her few favorite allies.
I wonder sometimes, even if China met the expectations of a benign democracy, if those with a Hawkish view of China would accept China rise to super power status. Actually, I don't wonder, I already know the answer.
Economic prosper is what they want. Their policies really surround two ojbectives, one is to find jobs for the tens of thousands of peasants that enter the cities everyday and two, to secure energy and resources for the growing economy needed to employ such a shifting population. Administration officials understand this. That is why there isn't swift action against China's currency valuation against the dollar.
You were saying?
That is one general. And there may have been a few more like him that have said it. But don't forget, China is more than their generals. There are reformers within China that want to fully embrace the West and the world. But here is the irony, those who are Hawkish, want to punish the reformers and not the ol guards. That is what I find amazing. And even when brought to the attention of the Hawks, it doesn't matter. To them (the Hawks), China is rising and it's something that needs to be addressed, period.
You want to punish that general for saying that? Then treat China and the general the way you would say one of your allies, such as Britain or France. Insist on his resignation, but don't penalize the entire country.
You're missing the point - I'll put it another way: If China could take Taiwan tomorrow, by virtue of being the world's strongest power, they would in a heartbeat, not caring how many they killed or injured. The only thing that matters to the PRC is bringing Taiwan to heel. And they wouldn't stop there.
Did you know that the US supports a one-China policy? And everytime an American official goes to China, it is re-affirmed. And did you know, there is a large body of Chinese that want to rejoin the mainland? So, I don't believe there will be a war over Taiwan.
Perhaps you don't care that China is destroying their environment, crushing dissent, sabre rattling, etc. etc. ETC. BUT I DO.
In regards to the environment and crushing dissent, now honestly, do you really care about what is going on in China if China was still a poor agrarian society? Really now. These things are happening in other countries as well. But they only get the attention from the Hawks because the pace and magnitude in which China is acquiring manufacturing and technology.
In conclusion, you keep insisting that I'm trying to make a moral comparison between China and the US. I'm not. But keep one thing in mind. America's moral high ground is result of the success of those that restrain those who want to abuse their power. Slavery, child labor, corporate corruption and abuse, etc. had existed in America and didn't end without a fight.
Many Americans take pride in rebuilding her enemies after WWII. But did you know, within the power structure, there were people that wanted to rob Germany and Japan until they were put back into the stone age? But there were those that insisted rebuilding was the way to go. And it was unpopular with some.
So, there are people within America's government that do thing that isn't always restrained. Not all Americans are Ozzie Nelson. It's just there are enough Nelsons to restrain the Napoleans. And I think you know what I'm talking about. Some of the ol boys out in the work force, if they were in political circles, would have been pushing buttons longs ago.
China, as a nation, is doing the same. Slowly but surely, growing and maturing in her ability to restrain generals like the one you so beamingly mention. That is why her influence is growing, not because she wrecklessly develops, but because she is slowly growing in her ability to restrain those who behave wrecklessly.
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.