Iran, China Forming Major Alliance
I found an article at NewsMax today that details the strong alliance that has been forming over the years between China and Iran. It's a couple of years old, but I think it's especially relevant now as Iran is being taken to the Security Council, where China holds a critical veto power.
The article outlines the strong economic relationship of the two nations:
What [the relationship] means for the United States in the short term is an inability to pressure the Islamic republic into following policies beneficial to Washington. What it could mean for the long haul is a stronger, more menacing Iran and China, each buoyed by needs being met by the other.Even more troublesome is China's proliferation of nuclear technology to Tehran:
* * *
"The bilateral trade between China and Iran has increased fast in recent years, with trade volume reaching some 3.3 billion U.S. dollars last year, several times higher than that some 10 years ago," People's Daily reported.
* * *
For instance, said the Post, in October "the two countries signed a preliminary accord worth $70 billion to $100 billion by which China will purchase Iranian oil and gas and help develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field, near the Iraqi border."
And, "earlier this year, China agreed to buy $20 billion in liquefied natural gas from Iran over a quarter-century," the paper continued.
For Iran, however, more is better when it comes to China. Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said this month, according to China Business Weekly, "Japan is our number one energy importer for historical reasons . . . but we would like to give preference to exports to China."
In terms of its nuclear weapons ambitions, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has determined that China, along with Pakistan and Russia, have probably provided nuclear technology to Tehran.With China and Russia, two major trading partners with Iran, both holding a veto power in the Security Council, can you really expect to get a resolution with any teeth in it? If not, then what's the point of going through the United Nations?
Full Article
posted by Anonymous @ 2:14 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
How does the UN prevent unilateral action? If a nation feels the need to do something and has the power to do it, it will do it. The UN didn't stop the US from going into Bosnia, nor did it stop the US from invading Iraq. I think if we know that certain members of the Security Council have strong incentives to veto a resolution, then it's better to never bring it to the UN than to bring it and have it rejected.
Exactly, if we're so worried about China having nukes, and the only governing body available to dissuade them in any way outside of NORAD, is the U.N. why the hell does the US time and time again shoot its investment of legitimacy in the foot by skriting around the U.N.
We are, obviously, reaching a stage in world history that has become more and more defined by international poltics and relationships. A lack of legitimacy for the U.N. ultimately symbolizes a lack of legitmacy for the U.S.
Lincoln stresses that fact that if you don't agree with the law, do what you can to change it within the confines of the law or risk it all falling to pieces. Legitimacy and institutionalization are key to determing policy on a global scale and it is foolish to consider the two merely unimportant and flexible factors.
Iran is intimidating, but we need to check our river before raising the stakes. I say we improve relations with China by not alienating Iran completly and act responsibly witin the confines of the U.N. There's your radicalism! go to town!
I can't agree with Phoenix dealing with simply geographic logistics as China's reason to prefer Iran over the U.S.
First, the chief import from Iran is oil; we don't do that so much. Furthermore, we manufacture goods in China, and not Mexico or Turkey because they are a cheaper labor force by volume, not out of geographical rationale.
It is based on interest respective to the two nations. What I don't believe is that China is wholeheartedly in favor of Iran developing Nukes. They just might be willing to let the U.S. make an ass of itself instead and reap the reward of "well sorry about that, but WE were always there for you (Personofied China to personified Iran).
"Now, how 'bout your John Hancock?"
The United States backed the formation of the United Nations at the urging of Alger Hiss, a member of FDR's administration, who was the first Secretary-General of the UN. He was later shown to be a Soviet spy by Whittaker Chambers, who had defected from the USSR. It was the USSR that insisted on veto rights, which made it so that no action could ever be taken against them through the UN. The point is, the beginnings and susequent use of the UN doesn't exactly give them an exclusive claim to legitimacy.
Secondly, the way it is set up, five countries have the power to veto any resolution, and of course China is one of these. Essentially what this means is that any military action China doesn't like can be termed illegitimate, because they will veto it. Why should China have the right to make these decisions for the rest of the world?
My other point is that the UN will not stop China from using nuclear weapons, because they could veto any resolution to that effect!
The UN is a great ideal but just doesn't work in the real world.
Just because nothing's perfect doesn't mean we have to settle for something crappy. Why go through a body where any one of 5 governments can veto a resolution? If the US were invading Mexico, would Mexico go to the UN for a resolution against the US, knowing the latter can veto it? Of course not. I think if we have a legitimate national security concern with another country, we should take action to resolve it, and any other country who feels it also has a stake in the matter can help out. To me that makes more sense than having to plead your case before dictators of other governments before taking any action.
Post a Comment
<< Home