"Sinocism is the Presidential Daily Brief for China hands"- Evan Osnos, New Yorker Correspondent and National Book Award Winner
The Atlantic Monthly has a must read cover story on the possibility that Israel may attack Iran within the next year-The Point of No Return. The author-Jeffrey Goldberg–had remarkable access to both US and Israeli policy elite. If you take the time to read Goldberg’s long article I urge you to read both Glenn Greenwald’s critique of Goldberg and this story and Jim Fallows’ very thoughtful defense.
But this is a blog about China, so I will get to the point. What I found remarkable about Goldberg’s opus is that there is not a single mention of China, its interests in the Middle East, its relationship with Israel, its commercial and diplomatic relationships with Iran, or its role in keeping sanctions against Iran relatively weak.
An attack on Iran would be devastating to China’s economy and thus its political stability. As Goldberg writes, such a strike, among many bad outcomes, would likely cause “the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973.”
Israel has tried in the last few months to impress upon the Chinese the seriousness of their intentions to never allow an Iranian nuclear bomb, and the possible consequences for China in the event of an attack. To lobby China for support for tougher UN sanctions, Israel in April sent Major-General Amir Eshel, chief of the IDF’s Planning Directorate, to “warn China of the international consequences of military action, particularly the potential disruption to oil supplies on which much of China’s manufacturing and international trade depend.”
Will Goldberg’s article make a positive contribution to efforts to convince the Chinese government that the Israelis feel threatened enough to attack, China and the world’s economies be damned, and so they need to agree to serious sanctions against Iran? Or do the Chinese have no real understanding of Israeli psychology and the historical forces that make many Israelis think an attack on Iran is justified, without regard for global consequences?
Goldberg’s discussion of how an attack might unfold is also a stark reminder that in spite of China’s increasing economic and diplomatic clout, the US remains the world’s only superpower. China has minimal force projection capabilities, no meaningful military presence in the Middle East, and no likely military role in the event of war after an Israeli attack, other than making lucrative arms sales (probably to many participants).
If the US-led diplomatic efforts to force Iran to renounce nuclear weapons development fail and Israel attacks, China risks being seen again as a less than responsible stakeholder in the international system, whether or not you believe Israel is justified in such an attack. China’s support of North Korea in the wake of the Cheonan attack has demonstrated once again to many neighboring Asian countries that China can not be relied upon. As with North Korea, most people believe China could play a very positive role in pushing Iran towards a “good” outcome, but that it refuses to do so, for commercial reasons as well as very narrow and likely miscalculated “strategic” gains at America’s expense.
In March 2010 the Jamestown Foundation published an interesting article on the China-Iran relationship, in the context of a possible Israeli attack–Hobson’s Choice: China’s Second Worst Option on Iran. The author, Yitzhak Shichor, argues that China will ultimately be willing to side with the international community in favor of tougher Iran sanctions. He wrote this piece before the last round of disappointing sanctions, and his conclusion, that “compelled to make a choice between sanctions and war, Beijing may ultimately prefer the former to the latter”, was premature. But it is not too late, and we should all hope that China understands the determination of the Israelis, and their willingness to possibly plunge the world into war and another Depression.
Please tell me what you think in the comments.
If you use RSS you can subscribe to this blog’s feed here, and if you use Twitter you can follow my more frequent updates @niubi, and if you use Sina Weibo you can follow me here. You can also follow my blogging on digital media and the Internet in China at DigiCha.
On a positive note, this is the first blog post written in Beijing’s first and best cupcake shop, soon to be opened by my spouse. By the end of the month CCSweets will have locations in Central Park in CBD and the Village North in Sanlitun. And you can always order online.
world oil market prices have no logic, looking at the last few years. and that market is a bit like the internet, it routes around disruptions.
one thing is for sure … the best solution is the easiest … kiss and make up .. same if your twins are squabbling … increase trade, not sanctions … increase exchanges, diplomatic and cultural, not withdrawal …
oh, that is impossible, many would say … and so it is, as long as they say it is … china seems so well-equipped for taking the long view, they probably can even handle israel and usa being unable to do so
world oil market prices have no logic, looking at the last few years. and that market is a bit like the internet, it routes around disruptions.
one thing is for sure … the best solution is the easiest … kiss and make up .. same if your twins are squabbling … increase trade, not sanctions … increase exchanges, diplomatic and cultural, not withdrawal …
oh, that is impossible, many would say … and so it is, as long as they say it is … china seems so well-equipped for taking the long view, they probably can even handle israel and usa being unable to do so
Matthew Yglesias » A Message for You, Hu Jintao
The Basic Question:
1. China and Russia seem to be taking the same tack on Iran. Russia exports more oil & gas than Iran, and China is an oil importer. So why are they the same? Habitual anti-Americanism?
I actually don’t have an answer, I was hoping you could help me out here.
The Basic Question:
1. China and Russia seem to be taking the same tack on Iran. Russia exports more oil & gas than Iran, and China is an oil importer. So why are they the same? Habitual anti-Americanism?
I actually don’t have an answer, I was hoping you could help me out here.
Goldberg’s Little Mistakes on NPR « LobeLog.com
The underlying premise is that China’s connection with Iran is primarily economic and thus the chinese have motive to advise, or in the alternative be neutral, on the nuclear issue.
What if the nuclear issue and subsequent sanctions are pretextual?
Does Isreali psychology justify a strike in the western mind? Where is the western mind guided with US troops conceived of in harm’s way?
The only common chord that remains between National tensions, when all the propoganda is swept away, is a fight over the emergent chinese consumer and where his/her debt obligations lie. In other words, who will reap the harvest from the neo- consumer’s production.
The underlying premise is that China’s connection with Iran is primarily economic and thus the chinese have motive to advise, or in the alternative be neutral, on the nuclear issue.
What if the nuclear issue and subsequent sanctions are pretextual?
Does Isreali psychology justify a strike in the western mind? Where is the western mind guided with US troops conceived of in harm’s way?
The only common chord that remains between National tensions, when all the propoganda is swept away, is a fight over the emergent chinese consumer and where his/her debt obligations lie. In other words, who will reap the harvest from the neo- consumer’s production.
Good article. I am researching for my blog www. BrusselsBlog.co.uk and found this interesting and useful. China is securing its oil from a number of sources in the Middle East South and North america and Africa. To do so it offers cash inducements, infrastructure support and arms technology. America uses brute force to open up oil suppies but has the disadvantage of relying on private companies to exploit them. China deals with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is a moderating influence-the Saudis are worried by the Iranians so China has to be careful not to be seen to be over supportive of Iran whilst protecting its oil interests there.
Good article. I am researching for my blog www. BrusselsBlog.co.uk and found this interesting and useful. China is securing its oil from a number of sources in the Middle East South and North america and Africa. To do so it offers cash inducements, infrastructure support and arms technology. America uses brute force to open up oil suppies but has the disadvantage of relying on private companies to exploit them. China deals with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is a moderating influence-the Saudis are worried by the Iranians so China has to be careful not to be seen to be over supportive of Iran whilst protecting its oil interests there.
>China’s support of North Korea in the wake of the Cheonan attack has demonstrated once again to many neighboring Asian countries that China can not be relied upon. As with North Korea, most people believe China could play a very positive role in pushing Iran towards a “good” outcome, but that it refuses to do so, for commercial reasons as well as very narrow and likely miscalculated “strategic” gains at America’s expense.
I take issue with this paragraph. China wasn’t shooting for to get any strategic” gains at all. They were trying to avoid a strategic loss. We do not achieve damage control by pouring oil on the fire.
It would of been extremely unwise for Beijing to give the impression that she will buckle in the face of American pressure on North Korea. Pyongyang is sufficiently paranoid and isolated already. Making a paranoid and isolated regime with nukes even more paranoid and isolated sounds like a very bad idea to me.
From my perspective, Beijing’s actions were wise and stabilising. I want to turn your charge back on Washington. It is Washington who is guilty of playing politics for strategic gain at the expense at the expense of China and regional stability. It was after all Washington that encouraged Seoul to play this issue up to embarrass and out manoeuvre Beijing which you succeeded marvellously. If Beijing backed from Pyongyang, we risked an even more irrational and dangerous Pyongyang which would suit America just fine to lay the ground work to build an international case to justify another invasion for “democracy” and WMDs.
>China’s support of North Korea in the wake of the Cheonan attack has demonstrated once again to many neighboring Asian countries that China can not be relied upon. As with North Korea, most people believe China could play a very positive role in pushing Iran towards a “good” outcome, but that it refuses to do so, for commercial reasons as well as very narrow and likely miscalculated “strategic” gains at America’s expense.
I take issue with this paragraph. China wasn’t shooting for to get any strategic” gains at all. They were trying to avoid a strategic loss. We do not achieve damage control by pouring oil on the fire.
It would of been extremely unwise for Beijing to give the impression that she will buckle in the face of American pressure on North Korea. Pyongyang is sufficiently paranoid and isolated already. Making a paranoid and isolated regime with nukes even more paranoid and isolated sounds like a very bad idea to me.
From my perspective, Beijing’s actions were wise and stabilising. I want to turn your charge back on Washington. It is Washington who is guilty of playing politics for strategic gain at the expense at the expense of China and regional stability. It was after all Washington that encouraged Seoul to play this issue up to embarrass and out manoeuvre Beijing which you succeeded marvellously. If Beijing backed from Pyongyang, we risked an even more irrational and dangerous Pyongyang which would suit America just fine to lay the ground work to build an international case to justify another invasion for “democracy” and WMDs.