What's in it for China?

[chris330 0]

Hi,

Watching the news I see the Chinese have been observed selling trucks and fighter jets (and providing training) to the (if I've got this right) Sudanese government which are using them in Darfur (spelling?) where there are blatant and obvious atrocities of the machete kind going on against civlians.

I don't want to discuss the moral aspects as they're obvious but what I'm wondering is what's in it for the Chinese? Why would someone as rich as them get involved in something so dodgy and in a fashion which they know will be spotted by the world's media? It's not like they need the money. They probably had to lend it to them in the first place for them to be able to buy the weapons. Seems like a pointless exercise to get themselves bad press.

Is this just one in the eye for the West or what? What are their motives?

[walker 0]

Oil

[Balschoiw 0]

As with other african countries china is about to secure ressources for the next decades by supporting countries with military xports or boosting infrastructure in countries of their interest to get exclusive contracts. Still this isn´t something new as they just have learned this lessons from all the other big players who did/do this for decades already and still do. France delivering a nuclear power plant to Lybia is one of the most prominent examples of the last years.

[Daniel 0]

Yep, China have their foot in a number of African countries, they can secure materials that way. Isn't helping the people at the bottom.

[scousejedi 0]

According to Panorama (BBC) tonight, 7% of China's oil imports come from the Sudan, and at a significant discount.

When is the US going to begin another cold war to protect its status as the only superpower, can it afford to challenge China given the status of its economy in this time of crunching credit and its commitments elsewhere?

[chris330 0]

Nice one guys, thought I could trust you lads to see through the nonsense and get to the truth. Makes sense now cheers. Other than oil what are the major resources Africa has available? What does Libya have that France would want to risk getting so dirty over?

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Reason the Bush Government will not even say boo! to China is that China owns them lock stock and barrel. The bad state of the US economy for past 6 years (massively in debt) and the proportion of US debt China owns means they can trigger a run on the US dollar any time they want to.

China spent a lot of time getting together a descent treasury team and has been practicing very effective economic measures for the past 2 or 3 decades.  

While China will not pass the USA in terms of GDP until some time in the next decade much US economic power is old, fat and out of condition where as Chinese economic power is young, lean and fit. Many now think China may already have passed the USA in terms of economic power it can apply.

There were large oil reserves discovered in Darfur just before the crisis started.

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/111885496661.htm

All the major nations and international Oil companies are trying to maneuver to get some of them. There is a long term Arab African split in Sudan. Khartoum wanted control of the oil rich region which is areas not aligned with the northern Arab Khartoum parties. They have spent a lot of time trying to drive out the central African tribes in order to gain full control of the region.

Many of the oil companies want Khartoum to do so as well; same as they did in Nigeria this was what triggered Biafra 4 decades ago; which is why much of the western efforts are disorganised; the people in real power will not let anyone act.

Kind Regards walker

[chris330 0]

All the major nations and international Oil companies are trying to maneuver to get some of them. There is a long term Arab African split in Sudan. Khartoum wanted control of the oil rich region which is areas not aligned with the northern Arab Khartoum parties. They have spent a lot of time trying to drive out the central African tribes in order to gain full control of the region.

So the Arab based parties in Khartoum are trying to boot out the African lads to get full control of the oil. Is that right?

Many of the oil companies want Khartoum to do so as well; same as they did in Nigeria this was what triggered Biafra 4 decades ago; which is why much of the western efforts are disorganised; the people in real power will not let anyone act.

So the Oil companies want this to happen, is that because they'd prefer one group to control the reserves to prevent instabilities? You talk about Nigeria and Biafra what happened there? A carbon copy of this situation? Why would this stop Western efforts to control these areas?

Great post you've got wonderful insight into this

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Other than oil what are the major resources Africa has available?

Uranium, gold, copper, diamonds and all other valuable metals you can think of. In fact the african continent is very rich judged by it´s ressources. If there were no dictators like Mugabe and other guys of his kind the people in africa could live prosperity if they get a grip on exploiting the ressources for the better of the resident people. Unfortunally the interests of other countries are supporting dictators like Mugabe as the big players only want to have acess to ressources for the lowest price and therefore they indirectly support the dictators to keep the people low. There are examples of countries in africa that are on a good way for their own people and not the better of foreign companies. Mosambique may be the best example for this. After endless wars they managed (with the help of the UN) to get things going and today 80 percent of the children are visiting a school as they have realized that education is the longterm key to developement and success. They are very aware of the ressources they have and are very cautios with exploiting them. There is a huge potential there as they have almost everything from coal to titan but are only exporting raw material to produce alluminium so far. If they keep going like that you will see a country within africa that is seeking a step-by-step developement for the better of it´s own people and not for the profits of foreign countries.

[4 IN 1 0]

the rules aint set by western nor eastern countrys

changing things are not as easy as giving them money or having a talk with them

and if any things china government have to do to help people over there

its to simply not stepping into UN and charities way

china is simply playing it safe to avoid direct involvement

and what Steven Spielberg trying to make china government to do is an ignorant of facts

[[aps]gnat 28]

The 5 decades of so of US and East Block dominance throughout the world is near over, both have just about run their race, cash is getting short, but Russia is making a bit of a comeback riding the back of gas and oil.

China appears to be the new "bully" on the block, all cashed up and buying their resource futures in just about every country of the world.

[4 IN 1 0]

Gnat @ July 15 2008,18:16)]The 5 decades of so of US and East Block dominance throughout the world is near over, both have just about run their race, cash is getting short, but Russia is making a bit of a comeback riding the back of gas and oil.

China appears to be the new "bully" on the block, all cashed up and buying their resource futures in just about every country of the world.

history repeats

anyway i think what china doing right now is just what western doing back in 19 centurys without acturally using gunboats, cannon balls, gunpowder and colonizating

[[aps]gnat 28]

anyway i think what china doing right now is just what western doing back in 19 centurys without acturally using gunboats, cannon balls, gunpowder and colonizating

hehehehe ... true.

well .... not yet anyhow, until later when a popular revolt against the "oppressive, greedy and corrupt foreign owners" ..... just as you say, history repeats

[walker 0]

Gnat @ July 15 2008,12:16)]The 5 decades of so of US and East Block dominance throughout the world is near over, both have just about run their race, cash is getting short, but Russia is making a bit of a comeback riding the back of gas and oil.

China appears to be the new "bully" on the block, all cashed up and buying their resource futures in just about every country of the world.

Hi all

That is a partially correct assessment of the strategic geopolitical position.

But you are missing important parts.

Arab Peak oil

Declining US Dollar

Europe

South America

Japan

In reply to chris330

Quote[/b] ]So the Arab based parties in Khartoum are trying to boot out the African lads to get full control of the oil. Is that right?

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]So the Oil companies want this to happen, is that because they'd prefer one group to control the reserves to prevent instabilities?

Yes. See my too many chefs comment below.

Quote[/b] ]You talk about Nigeria and Biafra what happened there?

What is/was Biafra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra

What happened Read:

http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/biafra.htm

Process Read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/589221.stmEffects Read:

An Interesting Person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_von_Rosen

Quote[/b] ]A carbon copy of this situation?

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]Why would this stop Western efforts to control these areas?

Too many Chefs. Also assumption west is the good guy is a little naive. There is no "West" there are competing western influences: Oil companies, secret services, governments (and no the last two are not the same) maverick idiots, maverick saints, NGO's, UN, World Court.

Once you get above two involved major powers things get very messy.  That said you need to understand Chaos theory and strange attractors to get a handle on what is going on consequently it is possible for a concept to coalesce and it might be that China could be the catalyst but it could just as easy be one of those maverick saints.

Kind regards walker

[chris330 0]

Wow some great replies there men all the way from Balschoiw to walker. Thanks for your insight and input.

Things like Uranium are important to countries using and intending to use Nuclear power in the future I presume. Also I would imagine they're useful to countries whom are fledgling nuclear powers both in weapon and energy senses.

Given that the world's developed western nations are under pressure from their population not to use nuclear power and already have vast amounts of nuclear weapons (which I presume don't need to be maintained by more Uranium to remain effective) is it fair to say that potential fledgling nuclear powers such as maybe say Iran and others will have great need of these Uranium supplies in the future? If so doesn't that mean whoever got control of these resources now will have future developing nuclear nations in their pocket?

@Walker

Another great post (as were everyone else's) so does that mean that once you get too many fingers in the pie the chances of one power being able to bring stability to the exploitation of a new natural resource evaporate into ugly infighting, espionage and brutal local warfare? Would this be bad for (or put a limit on) share prices in major companies trying to indirectly control these resources (such as oil for example) or are these things happening on too high a level to affect things like the stock market and world economy?

[walker 0]

@Walker

Another great post (as were everyone else's) so does that mean that once you get too many fingers in the pie the chances of one power being able to bring stability to the exploitation of a new natural resource evaporate into ugly infighting, espionage and brutal local warfare? Would this be bad for (or put a limit on) share prices in major companies trying to indirectly control these resources (such as oil for example) or are these things happening on too high a level to affect things like the stock market and world economy?

Hi chris330

Yes.

It is why companies use chaos theory in decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

http://www.12manage.com/methods_lorenz_chaos_theory.html

The alternative old method is to reduce all other factors in the equation: wars, mass assasinations, genocides, coups, revolutions, hostile business take-overs, regulatory responces to exclude competitors and new market entrants. etc.

Kind Regards walker

[4 IN 1 0]

speaking of morden day economy, effect of oil price raise have already been seen on many countrys and even some company which have direct link to it, simply check cathay pacific and you will know why

but the really important result should be inflation, basic things such as foods getting more expensive mainly because the transportation cost goes rocket high, and this is just one of the chain reaction that cause

this will eventuraly being show up on stock market too

and guess who is controling the oil price

[chris330 0]

Good replies chaps!

@walker

So instead of having to get so dirty and 'manually' affect what's going on companies can use sophisticated mathematical models to simulate what will occur and react accordingly. Surely don't they have to factor the absence of their own influence on the situation aswell though? Must be a difficult process where they have to update the variables involved daily, but much better than having to get so directly involved.

@4 IN 1

I see, so is it possible that certain wars such as those in the Gulf have been intentionally started indirectly by the oil companies to raise oil prices which makes them richer and also causes other major knock-on effects that are beneficial to them such as the removal of non-lean companies in major industry sectors leaving only a handful of operators in those sectors which they can then influence more easily and with more stability in a situation rather similar to what we were describing above in Khartoum but on a much grander scale and with much more inertia?

Lol sounds like humans behave like atoms. Always trying to get to the lowest and most stable configuration

[4 IN 1 0]

Good replies chaps!

@walker

So instead of having to get so dirty and 'manually' affect what's going on companies can use sophisticated mathematical models to simulate what will occur and react accordingly. Surely don't they have to factor the absence of their own influence on the situation aswell though? Must be a difficult process where they have to update the variables involved daily, but much better than having to get so directly involved.

@4 IN 1

I see, so is it possible that certain wars such as those in the Gulf have been intentionally started indirectly by the oil companies to raise oil prices which makes them richer and also causes other major knock-on effects that are beneficial to them such as the removal of non-lean companies in major industry sectors leaving only a handful of operators in those sectors which they can then influence more easily and with more stability in a situation rather similar to what we were describing above in Khartoum but on a much grander scale and with much more inertia?

Lol sounds like humans behave like atoms. Always trying to get to the lowest and most stable configuration

cant really say that the oil company "intentionally" start the war, large company do have their influence on government, but the fact that US start a war on IRAQ is more a political thing, oil is just one of the "benfit", infact oil company wouldnt want to see the oil price to be raise too much, as thats will hurts their stock price quite a bit, and the lost might not be recoverable through oil price raise, there is many reason for this.

smaller company would take a hit quite hard too, but thats is more likely to be a normal economic reaction then an intentional thing, they aint that stupid to do something that would do more harm then goods

[walker 0]

@walker

So instead of having to get so dirty and 'manually' affect what's going on companies can use sophisticated mathematical models to simulate what will occur and react accordingly. Surely don't they have to factor the absence of their own influence on the situation aswell though? Must be a difficult process where they have to update the variables involved daily, but much better than having to get so directly involved.

The brighter ones do.

BUT you point out the inherent problem stick in a finger and give a chaotic mass a poke; and pulling out is the same as going in, in this sense, and the spinning mass will not necessarily move in the direction you poke.

Therefor you need a model. Data Mining is used to gather the data. You then shove it into a simulation and add factors to make the simulation more accurate. Once the simulation models fluctuations in the data reasonably accurately you use historical data to test this. Once you are happy with that you examine the data inputs to find which ones trigger certain outputs. You use a Neural net to do most of this. Once you are happy with it you use it in your decision making.

Some people think this looks like magic but it is not. Other powers within an organisation oppose its use and prefer the old fashioned method of only investing in markets with few factors. They also use contractors and links to governmental and other organisations to create such environments.

The same system is used in marketing, threat assessment, tracking terrorist activity, and even political analysis. It is why people put tracking cookies in your Internet browser and why people want to get hold of Google Data, many legal cases against Google are not about suing them but getting access to their data. Ditto the value of yahoo. There are also systems that track what you say in forums, blogs etc. It is not that they want to know what an individual says; its that they want to know what factors are key and is the system Chaotic or Random!

In business if it is Random then do not invest. If it is Chaotic then what are the key factors.

Quote[/b] ]Lol sounds like humans behave like atoms. Always trying to get to the lowest and most stable configuration

atoms conform to chaos theory ergo so does everything else.

Kind regards walker

[chris330 0]

This is the most enlightening topic I've ever read

[4 IN 1 0]

all in all about benfits, for the same reason an atom would join with another atom and from a more stable compound, smaller companys might joint up to from a group to fight against large company, large company try to brought in small company to get more market share, countrys try to get other countrys to line up with them, etc

[shinRaiden 0]

One of the great difficulties in working with foreign policy is that you have to negotiate where there are neither terms nor room for negotiation, and moral equivalence ambiguity gets thrown under the bus for frank ambivalence.

Europe is probably the only region of the world that's had wide-spread inter-cultural relations with 'foriegn' cultures and nations beyond the last 50 years, and its track record in that regard is highlighted by successes such as those in the Congo and the Balkans.

Asia has not had that luxury / opportunity yet on a wide scale, and the unilateral conformist cultural mindsets often project an ethnocentric attitude, despite individual persuasions. This is reflected in policy decisions of both democratic and autocratic East-Asian governments where there is a strong tradition of cultural conformity.

Policies in the PRC that in the west would be interpreted as draconian are rather interpreted as 'harmonious' locally. Although there is a measure of sustaining the ancient imperial domestic policies in an attempt to prevent the bogeyman embodied in mass peasant uprisings, a substantial part of this is a shared fear of disharmony, perhaps even equal to or greater than the fear of regime change. The peasants will put up with whatever and dutifully serve in their place, so long as they have rice, and now oil too. Some would add Starcraft, though that still tends to be a localized perversion specific to the Korean peninsula.

Unfortunately this means that for those holding universal humanitarian ideals, this means that the PRC's primary domestic policy of "prevent internal disharmony at all costs" means that effectively PRC peasants are more important than Sudanese peasants in Dafur. In addition, in order to maintain their foreign policy in regards to ROC/Taiwan/Formosa, they have to support Sudan's claim that Dafur is a domestic dispute outside the purview of international concern.

So on the surface, you have several problems with how to effectively engage the situation. First, the PRC's number one priority is the avoidance of domestic disturbance at all costs. That is their primary motivation. Attempting to appeal directly to the Chinese populace would be ineffective due to media controls, and would furthermore pose a risk of being seen as deliberately destabilizing. Overt threats of punitive actions likewise would be problematic for similar cultural reasons.

Most likely the best effective method would a brokered disengagement, where African nations provided the security and political elements to influence Sudan, to the point that Sudan would be disinclined to request Chinese arms. This would require aligning the planets and balancing the US Federal Budget and converting all Atheists among other minor activities to accomplish.

The cynical matter is that while the massacres may be atrocities, they're not full extermination genocides, they're just unrestrained suppression of insurrection, regardless of whether the populace were combatants or not. True, there's raids and villages burned and women and children machete'd, but it's not like they're sweeping the face of the earth destroying every last living thing. And so while it is a great outrage, and absolutely reprehensible, the truely insidious part is statistically, it's not that big of a deal and will eventually go away.

The historical situation of the Armenians is a typical example. Great outrages and travesties in that situation, and the offenders were never brought to justice. But, the people and culture are still there, although with an understandable chip on their shoulders, and go on with life. To re-open the case now, what purpose would it serve? You can't bring back the dead, that's God's turf to deal with. That also has to enter into the diplomatic equation, the fact that a lot of conflicts blow over when the Great Leader has his number called. So while western nations may be shaking their fist over 'outrages in Dafur', fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, it'll probably sort itself out.

An excellent example of this is Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge made a real mess of the place, but ultimated pushed their luck and caused a domestic uprising and got overthrown. The leaders got old and finally arrested and hauled off to prison to rot. That chapter of history is for all intents now closed. That lesson in policy, the waiting game, is one that needs to be carefully understood by all policy leaders, particularly those in countries with restive populations generally opposed to unrestricted foreign intervention for humanitarian purposes.

[[aps]gnat 28]

An excellent example of this is Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge made a real mess of the place, but ultimated pushed their luck and caused a domestic uprising and got overthrown. The leaders got old and finally arrested and hauled off to prison to rot. That chapter of history is for all intents now closed.

I'd hardly think it "closed" for a few more generations .....

Several million dead "victims" left behind *some* living relatives, they will never forget or consider it closed in their life time.

Same as I will never forget the mounds of skulls .......

The so called policy of waiting is a very poor reflection on humanity in general. While each of us consider stepping in to help the other may cause us to loose something (whatever your poison, money, power, prestige, or simply time), lives will continue to be lost in meaningless manners.

... others could theorize that this is our own built in form of automatic population control that plagues almost every other living creature on this planet.

[Baff1 0]

You missed out the big one.

China needs food.

China has more people hungry than Africa has people in total.

The people of China have a greater responsability to their own starving than they do the people of foreign nations.

The people of China in the last 10 years have saved a population of the world from starvation equivalent to the total population of Africa or Western Europe or North America. (And they still have more in their sights).

On the other hand Angelina Jolie has great breasts. Go Angelina Jolie. Let the people of China die so that she may adopt more Darfurians!