China has much to lose from Iran sanctions

[Fighter488]

China has much to lose from Iran sanctions​

As Tehran's biggest trade partner, it is doubtful China will back US move for additional sanctions



This week US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Gulf States in an attempt to gather support for more severe sanctions against Iran. Her meetings in Saudi Arabia were aimed at putting pressure on Riyadh to use its influence with China in order to get it to support the sanctions.


In recent years China has been improving its economic ties with Saudi Arabia on the basis of oil. Chinese firms are also granted preference for the establishment of factories on Saudi soil, which translates into billions of dollars in annual profit.

But it remains to be seen whether Saudi pressure or oil benefits it is able to give Beijing will convince China to toe the line on sanctions, as in recent years the country has increased trade with Iran and its economic interests are now firmly bound to those of the Islamic Republic.



For example, Iran currently exports 448,000 barrels of oil a day to China, which amounts to 15% of the gross.



Trade volume between the two countries has reached at least $36.5 billion, the Iran-China Chamber of Commerce reported, which makes Beijing Tehran's biggest trading partner. Iran mainly imports consumer goods and machinery from China.


The rise in commerce between the partners was made possible by Western countries' abandonment of the oil-rich country due to the sanctions imposed on it. For example, a Chinese firm has replaced France's Total in a widespread natural gas project in southern Iran.



In total, China has earmarked $50 billion in investments in Iranian gas and oil, of which $35 billion has already been invested.



Yin Gang, an expert on Iran at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, offers another explanation for China's reluctance in imposing sanctions – namely Beijing's concern that they will go too far, ultimately harming the flourishing economic ties.

"China has economic and trade relations with Iran, so it's natural that China would not want to see regional security and its own national interests affected due to excessive sanctions," Yin said.



In addition, Beijing believes past measures to punish Iran have been largely ineffective, said retired diplomat Hua Liming.




"China and the international community have all seen that the sanctions have not changed Iran's decision to carry on the nuclear program," Hua said.




"On the contrary, sanctions will take the already complex and tense situation in the Middle East to a more dangerous stage, which is something China does not wish to see," he said.



Doron Peskin is chief of the research department at Info Prod Research (Middle East) Ltd.



The Associated Press contributed to this report


China has much to lose from Iran sanctions - Israel Business, Ynetnews

 

[gambit]

If this is how China feel...Then may be it is time for China to support a harsher response to Iran: military.

Sanctions often does not work because the applied sanction for that particular situation was insufficiently punitive to convince the target that there is a better alternative. War at its highest is a state of mind, a feeling of hostility towards another. The descent to armed conflict is when there are physical confrontations between aggrieved parties. What we casually called 'war' is actually an 'armed conflict'. The two Koreas have been technically at war for decades, but the actual 'armed conflict' period ended in July 1953.

Sanctions, therefore, should be considered to be low intensity warfare through means other than military ones. Low intensity conflicts do not settle wars, or rather satisfied those harboring feelings of hostilities towards others. Low intensity conflicts prolong wars and as the sanction regime against Iraq during the rule of Saddam Hussein have shown, nominal allies can exhibit an indifference attitude towards the rules of the sanction regime and eventually violated them altogether, the result was the infamous Oil For Food scandal that tainted the office of the UN SecGen itself, the office that is supposed to be the highest moral and diplomatic dais for all the nation-states.

Sanctions are almost always applied against dictatorships whose recaltricancies are deemed unacceptable usually by an alliance of other nation-states and usually the first action item on the sanctioned nation-state's agenda is internal oppression of its own citizenry for two reasons:

1- Sanctions are always the results of conflicts of interests between nation-states, or more precisely, between the interests of the ruling regimes of those nation-states. Whether those interests are reflective of the will of their respective citizenry is another issue. Sanctions are also formalized statements of limits self imposed by superior external powers, therefore, the sanctioned nation-state have some measure of security from external threats. What remains are potential internal threats by a dissatisfied citizenry. The government can play the proverbial carrot-and-stick game with those who imposed those sanctions to prolong this period of self restraints, thereby prolonging its reign over the oppressed citizenry. It is the interests of the ruling regime, not the citizenry, that matters most.

2- The sanctioned nation-state can exploit the deteriorating standards of living, sometimes created by the government, for propaganda purposes and internal oppression is necessary to compel and sustain the decline.

China has not one whit of interest in the welfare of ordinary Iranians. Chinese interests come first, Iranian interests secondary. There are no reasons for China to play dice and nice with Iranian fickleness in the hope that Iran will not fail to deliver oil contracts. Iran is an oil exporter but a refined petroleum products importer. There are no guarantees that Iran will not fail to deliver those oil contracts when Iran will be facing shortages in tools and resources to maintain those oil outputs.

A military strike to swiftly cripple Iranian uranium enrichment capability will force the Iranian government to reassess its ability to leverage at the negotiation table. If there are any pause in Iranian oil outlay it will be short lived. With no nuclear assets to hold, there will be either a genuine regime change in Iran, or the current regime will be more amenable to honesty and compromises to what it promised when it signed the NPT. Either way...China will receive those oil contracts.

 

[Fighter488]

What IRAN has done AGAINST NPT obligations, till now? Care to elaborate?

Fighter

 

[gambit]

What IRAN has done AGAINST NPT obligations, till now? Care to elaborate?

Fighter

Here is an article from several years ago but still relevant today...

Harvard International Review

Academy and Policy, Vol. 28 (2) - Summer 2006 Issue

As the most widely accepted arms-control agreement, the NPT attempts to codify the prevention of arms proliferation among states. However, a major weakness of the NPT lies in the enforcement of its policies.

Yes...That was and still is a major problem.

Under the NPT, the five declared nuclear weapons states—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—agree to not assist other states in acquiring nuclear weapons. They also consent to reduce and eventually eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.

Yes...Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both the US and Russia have been reducing our combined nuclear warhead stockpile. It may not be as quick as many, including myself, hoped for, but there are progress.

Non-weapons states are obligated not to pursue nuclear weapons and can individually allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect their nuclear facilities.

Germany and Japan are nuclear states but not nuclear WEAPONS states. There are others equally technically capable but also have refrained from developing their own nuclear weapons arsenals.

All states are forbidden to supply certain nuclear-related weapons or materials to others unless they are under safeguards.

Reasonable enough since the intent of the NPT is to prevent proliferation first, then reduction and hopefully elimination.

Only peaceful nuclear technology such as energy technology is allowed under the NPT.

This is where a lot of deceptive arguments for Iran occurs. The NPT does not prevent states from exchanging nuclear technology, only weapons related resources.

Iran does not have to make any DIRECT violations of any specific NPT agreements to incur suspicions, however, failure to disclose an enrichment facility when IAEA inspectors were in-country does constitute a violation of principles, if not rules. Persistence of this type of behavior will earn Iran greater scrutiny and greater doubts regarding any Iranian claims of innocence. This old article is only one of many up to now that exposed Iranian deceptive behaviors, such as...

In February 2003, then Iranian President Mohammed Khatami stated that Iran planned to mine its own uranium and reprocess spent fuel from the reactor, contrary to previous understandings that the uranium would be returned to Russia. In a report issued in late November 2003, IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei stated that Iran had admitted to developing a uranium centrifuge enrichment program, adding that Iran had “failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its safeguards agreement.”

There is nothing in the NPT that says one country must ship spent nuclear fuel to another. However, in this particular instance, Russia and Iran had an agreement that is approved by other NPT members and Iran reneged. Iran did not violate any NPT rules but refusal to abide by an agreement under NPT jurisdiction pretty much make that refusal a moral equivalent of a violation.

 

[Fighter488]

Pity you !

U are totally confused! Do you want to implement NPT on Iran or Uncle SAM (and Allies), own set of (not so friendly) rules?

No sovereign nation would allow to go beyond NPT. Iran went extra miles just to show its clean nuclear projects. That DO NOT mean it has to agree to all demands by west. They are charting to more independent path recently.

Fighter

 

[gambit]

Pity you !

U are totally confused! Do you want to implement NPT on Iran or Uncle SAM (and Allies), own set of (not so friendly) rules?

No sovereign nation would allow to go beyond NPT. Iran went extra miles just to show its clean nuclear projects. That DO NOT mean it has to agree to all demands by west. They are charting to more independent path recently.

Fighter

You are wrong...No one forced Iran to become an NPT member. The reason why anyone would want to become an NPT member is to benefit from nuclear technology as ASSISTED by those who are ALREADY nuclear capable powers. No one is OBLIGATED to give anyone nuclear technology. So if you VOLUNTARILY entered a club, you have to abide by the rules of the club.

 

[Fighter488]

You are wrong...No one forced Iran to become an NPT member. The reason why anyone would want to become an NPT member is to benefit from nuclear technology as ASSISTED by those who are ALREADY nuclear capable powers. No one is OBLIGATED to give anyone nuclear technology. So if you VOLUNTARILY entered a club, you have to abide by the rules of the club.

I am not talking about the RULES OF THE CLUB, which IRAN adheres to more strictly then any other NPT complaint nation of this planet. I am pointing to RULES BEYOND THE CLUB.

Fighter

 

[jeypore]

I am not talking about the RULES OF THE CLUB, which IRAN adheres to more strictly then any other NPT complaint nation of this planet. I am pointing to RULES BEYOND THE CLUB.

Fighter

I am pointing to RULES BEYOND THE
CLUB.

Can you explain "Further along the Culb".

Thanks. It would really help...

 

[Fighter488]

Can you explain "Further along the Culb".

Thanks. It would really help...

Please care to google about Iran nuclear issue. There is Tons of information. You will be mesmerised! Just spare me the time.

Fighter

 

[Sino-PakFriendship]

China can one veto for Iranian sanction.

USA / NATO cannot use the name of UN to implement sanction.

 

[shchinese]

india friends need to work another 1 hundred years to get the veto power in the UNSC.

 

[prithwidw]

india friends need to work another 1 hundred years to get the veto power in the UNSC.

How is this unnecessary comment related to the topic being discussed?

 

[Fighter488]

india friends need to work another 1 hundred years to get the veto power in the UNSC.

Please contribute some worth to this thread.
Do not TROLL.

Fighter