Was Napoleon Right About China?

[asianobserve]

You may find the following entry in Wikipedia -

"Russian and Chinese undermining of sanctions

Amnesty International issued a report[112][113][114] accusing Russia and the People's Republic of China of supplying arms, ammunition and related equipment to Sudan. This hardware has been transferred to Darfur for use by the government and the Janjaweed militias and thus violating a UN arms embargo against Darfur. In its report it showed a photo of Chinese-made Fantan fighters that have been seen at Nyala, Darfur and a Ukrainian Antonov-26 aircraft (painted white). The report provided evidence (including eyewitness testimony) that the Sudan Air Force has been conducting a pattern of indiscriminate aerial bombings of villages in Darfur and eastern Chad using ground attack jet fighters and Antonov planes. The report contained an image of a Russian made Mi-24 attack helicopter (reg. n° 928) at Nyala airport in Darfur in March 2007. For several years the Sudan Air Force has used this type of attack helicopter for operations during Janjaweed attacks on villages in Darfur. The report also showed evidence that the government has been camouflaging military aircraft and helicopters by painting them white and in doing so, tried to cover up their military use by claiming that they were civilian in nature. The white Antonov-26 aircraft was reported to have been used in Darfur in bombing missions. Recently it has been confirmed by Airforces Monthly Magazine for June 2007, that China and Iran have financed and delivered "newer" aircraft for Sudan. The most recent additions have been 15-20 A-5 Fantan ground attack aircraft. Also confirmed by Airforces Monthly is the use of Mil Mi-24 Hind gunships and Mil Mi-171 Assault Helicopters. They have been photographed painted in UN markings and white color for disguised use in illegal attack missions into the Darfur Region. The base in which they have been seen is at Nyala Airport in the Darfur Region. 8 Hinds have been confirmed operating in the Darfur region. One An-26 transport has been also confirmed delivered from a Russian civil aviation corporation. This aircraft is modified with bomb racks, and painted in U.N. white for illegal bombing missions into Darfur. The aircraft serial 7705 is used, but actually confirmed as 26563. Training for Sudanese crew has recently been confirmed to have been conducted and ongoing at Dezful-Ardestani Air Base in southern Iran. China and Russia denied they had broken UN sanctions. China has a close relationship with Sudan and increased its military co-operation with the government in early 2007. Because of Sudan's plentiful supply of oil, China considers good relations with Sudan to be a strategic necessity that is needed to fuel its booming economy. India also has oil interests in the country. [115][116][117] China also has direct commercial interests in Sudan's oil. China's state-owned company CNPC controls between 60 and 70 percent of Sudan's total oil production. Additionally, it owns the largest single share (40 percent) of Sudan's national oil company, Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company.[118][119][120] China has also consistently opposed economic and non-military sanctions on Sudan.[121][122][123][124] Recently, however, a Small Arms Survey research paper suggested that China may be changing its stance on Darfur due to international pressure.[125]"

citing the following reports/news articles:

1. "Sudan: Arms continuing to fuel serious human rights violations in Darfur". Amnesty International. 2007-05-08. http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/8bfe199c-a2b8-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/afr540192007en.pdf.

2. "Report Accuses China and Russia Of Arming Sudan". New York Times. 2007-05-09. Report Accuses China and Russia Of Arming Sudan - NYTimes.com.

3. Coile, Zachary (2007-05-17). "Congress pressures China on Darfur as Olympics near". San Francisco Chronicle. Congress pressures China on Darfur as Olympics near.

4. "China, Russia breach Darfur arms embargo: Amnesty". Reuters. 2007-05-08. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08646701.htm.

5. "China, Russia deny weapons breach". BBC News. 2007-05-08. BBC NEWS | Africa | China, Russia deny weapons breach.

6. Two, Part (2007-05-09). "Amnesty International criticizes arms sales to Sudan". LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sudan9may09,1,3436998.story?track=rss. Retrieved 25 May 2010. [dead link]

7. Williams, Jody; Farrow, Mia (2007-05-23). "Sudan's Enablers". The Wall Street Journal. Sudan's Enablers - WSJ.com.

8. "China's rise: Hope or doom for Africa? (III)". Sunday Vision. 2007-06-16. Welcome To The Sunday Vision online: Uganda's leading weekly.

9. "Can LeBron save Darfur?". Chicago Tribune. 2007-06-17. Topic Galleries -- chicagotribune.com.


A foretaste of things to come.

 

[AOE]

Some good posts asianobserve, the only counter-argument that comes to mind is the statistics quoted for WWII might be overstated, and those for Stalin are underrepresented. Authoritarian regimes generally tend to kill more than outright warfare, andwhen I see 50-70 million for WWII, the statistics cited often lumps in a sizable portion or all of Stalins purges with this conflict, but your point on a multipolar world is spot on. During WWI, WWII, and the Cold War; the greatest killings occured and have helped to factor in the 20th century being the bloodiest in human history. This isn't to say that a multipolar world isn't possible, but that people should be extremely cautious about advocating it just because the US happens to be the lone super power now. The world is a much better place today than it was 60-70 years ago.

On the point of Russia and China selling weapons to Sudan; you just know that if the US was doing this, we'd have an endless supply of dramatic Hollywood films on the subject, and the Michael Moores, Ramsey Clarkes, and Noam Chomskys of this world would be making documentaries and speeches about the evil, imperialist, zionist, fascist United States. If an ex-Soviet mafia state like Russia, or a communist dictatorship like China engages in such acts, you'll be lucky to hear any condemnation from those same experts on foreign policy, and you'd be lucky to find any similar condemnation here by leftist armchair generals when Russia behaves in the same manner they accuse the US of behaving in. Geopolitics is a funny thing.

 

[asianobserve]

Some good posts asianobserve, the only counter-argument that comes to mind is the statistics quoted for WWII might be overstated, and those for Stalin are underrepresented. Authoritarian regimes generally tend to kill more than outright warfare, andwhen I see 50-70 million for WWII, the statistics cited often lumps in a sizable portion or all of Stalins purges with this conflict, but your point on a multipolar world is spot on. During WWI, WWII, and the Cold War; the greatest killings occured and have helped to factor in the 20th century being the bloodiest in human history. This isn't to say that a multipolar world isn't possible, but that people should be extremely cautious about advocating it just because the US happens to be the lone super power now. The world is a much better place today than it was 60-70 years ago.

On the point of Russia and China selling weapons to Sudan; you just know that if the US was doing this, we'd have an endless supply of dramatic Hollywood films on the subject, and the Michael Moores, Ramsey Clarkes, and Noam Chomskys of this world would be making documentaries and speeches about the evil, imperialist, zionist, fascist United States. If an ex-Soviet mafia state like Russia, or a communist dictatorship like China engages in such acts, you'll be lucky to hear any condemnation from those same experts on foreign policy, and you'd be lucky to find any similar condemnation here by leftist armchair generals when Russia behaves in the same manner they accuse the US of behaving in. Geopolitics is a funny thing.

Well, exactly what one should expect from these regimes.

 

[BackToEast]

The notorious dictator Napolean's only right dicision was attacking Moscow.

 

[huaxia rox]

What natural resource Pakistan has!!!

If stupidity is an national resource pakistan has plenty!

1 i was replying ohimalaya....i didnt say china developes its relationship with other countries ONLY for obtainning natrual resources......not just pakistan....others like japan cuba (resources?) or any random countries...

2 while the US as the so called leader of the free world tends to offcially labal some countries 'rogues' every now and then.....and other wester nations follow.... which gov labals pakistan as a rogue nation??? US??UK?? or just GOI??

 

[Sikh_warrior]

india has already been invaded by chinese.

from writting pens, toys for kids, CDs, DVDs, utensils, diwali lights, motorbikes, cars.....they dump everything in india at half the manufacturing cost of india.

people can cry about china being a closed or controlled country, Fact of the matter is that they control the manufacturing for the world!

west can give xmas gifts if china stops making them!

 

[Adux]

Napoleon did not know about Nuclear Ballistic Missile. So fvck him.

 

[tarunraju]

Your wonderful idea of natural resources conservation is a recipe for stagnation, hunger, irrelevance, for abject poverty really accross the whole region. If not for these oil resources, what have the Arabs got to offer? Camel dung?

No, the very same oil, but at higher prices, forcing the world to buy it, and yielding more economic and cultural progress than there is now. The Muslim autocracy is fed by actual instruments of stagnation, that is rigid and fundamentalist Islam. Islam doesn't have to be like that in order to drive a healthy society, and there are countless examples to back that.

Autocracy is a key ingredient in the Westerners' designs to exploit the Muslim world's oil resources at the least possible price. Intermittent war is another ingredient.

Don't apologize for these bunch of lucky but lazy desert warfreaks. They really are natural whiners. That's the only thing they can competntly do without foreign intervention.

The same lazy "warfreaks" were the cradle of the Persian Empire, which had a progressive and liberal society, which formed the ideal trade bridge between Europe and Asia. Of course that changed with fundamentalism that started as an instrument to check dissenting masses when the rulers couldn't maintain economic and military success in the society.

 

[LurkerBaba]

The same lazy "warfreaks" were the cradle of the Persian Empire, which had a progressive and liberal society, which formed the ideal trade bridge between Europe and Asia. Of course that changed with fundamentalism that started as an instrument to check dissenting masses when the rulers couldn't maintain economic and military success in the society.

But there is a world of difference between Persia and Arabia. AFAIK Arabian society was always tribal in nature

 

[AOE]

What the hell? Why is it I click on the fourth page, yet it still shows the third page? Some kind of weird bug, maybe.

 

[civfanatic]

But there is a world of difference between Persia and Arabia. AFAIK Arabian society was always tribal in nature

Correct. Although there were a few notable Arab mathematicians, geographers, and scientists in the early Middle Ages (especially during the Abbasid Caliphate), the vast majority of work was done by Persians, who in turn borrowed heavily from Indians.

Having some family in Iran (I am part Parsi) I can tell you that Iranians are infinitely more liberal and progressive than Arabs.

 

[civfanatic]

History has taught me prudence and a little foresight. The same lessons were learned by the Japanese and the Europeans. It's not surprising therefore that these countries are not contesting US' dominance. Instead the World's nouveau riche are itching to be on top of the World (and the necks of their neighbors. Slave mentality.. Yeah, wait until the World's major powers have to mobilize again...

The basic flaw in your "argument" is that you forget about the existence of nuclear WMDs which effectively prevent wide-scale war from ever happening between the major powers. There is a reason why the second half of the 20th century (Cold War) was far less bloody than the first half.

The Earth is finite. Its resources are land are finite. As it stands today, India has four times the population of America, but consumes only a fraction of the resources that America does. It is impossible for India's standard of living to ever match America's, because the sheer amount of resources needed to sustain such a standard of living would destroy the world's ecosphere. Same applies to China as well.

What this means is that India in this century will be engaged in a struggle for resources on a giant scale, with its two main competitors being America and China. Japanese and Europeans may be able to afford taking a back seat and being America's stooge, but India has one-sixth of the world's population and we cannot afford such luxury. We must be a major power in our own right, to secure the resources that we need to sustain our economic growth and improve our standard of living.

 

[asianobserve]

What this means is that India in this century will be engaged in a struggle for resources on a giant scale, with its two main competitors being America and China. xxx

You're admitting that a conflict is just over the horizon. Actually it's not going to be just a 3-way polarity in the future, you have to consider the Russian and Brazil as equal competitors, which makes the competition a more volatile mix. The spectre of MAD may provide some since of detente but there's just too many buttons that the sense of nuclear rationality of the Cold War may not be true this time... Pakistan, Iran, North Korea (which have some close defense agreements with the new powers) will make sure that there will be a serious conflagration at some time.

 

[civfanatic]

You're admitting that a conflict is just over the horizon.

Conflict can take many forms. It does not need to involve missiles or bombs.

I am also of the belief that some conflict/competition is healthy, because it spurs innovation and progress. For example, if India did not feel threatened by Pakistan/China, we would have never started developing an indigenous defence industry or a modern military.

Actually it's not going to be just a 3-way polarity in the future, you have to consider the Russian and Brazil as equal competitors, which makes the competition a more volatile mix.

Russia and Brazil are both net exporters of natural resources, and thus will not be part of the competition in the same way. Rather, the world will be competing over Brazilian and Russian resources, and the Brazilians and Russians will use this to their advantage to increase their own geopolitical clout.

The spectre of MAD may provide some since of detente but there's just too many buttons that the sense of nuclear rationality of the Cold War may not be true this time... Pakistan, Iran, North Korea (which have some close defense agreements with the new powers) will make sure that there will be a serious conflagration at some time.

The chances of Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea nuking someone is about as likely as United States invading Canada*. Especially considering that, of those three nations, only Pakistan has a verified nuclear capability, and even that is extremely limited in range and potency (as it is India-centric).

*There was actually a plan to do this. It was declassified in 1974.

 

[AOE]

The chances of Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea nuking someone is about as likely as United States invading Canada*. Especially considering that, of those three nations, only Pakistan has a verified nuclear capability, and even that is extremely limited in range and potency (as it is India-centric).

*There was actually a plan to do this. It was declassified in 1974.

Maybe that is a bad example on your part, as by that logic; it would run counter to your own argument.

North Koreas nuclear weapons program is verified, they have conducted two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, not to mention publicly warning everyone about the first one in advance. They may lack the missile technology and range at present that Pakistan possesses, but what is the point of stating that? Should the world wait until they have the capability until we get a response? That kind of thinking is problematic.

Irans nuclear weapons program is not verified but cannot be ruled out, especially since they have more developed missiles with longer range than North Korea. Ahmadinejad even admitted back in 2009 that the launching of medium ranged missiles that could strike Israel were part of Irans nuclear program, and also stated he would like to see an end to the Israeli state. Put two and two together.

Indeed, there has been nuclear proliferation between these and many other countries with the help of A. Q. Khan.

Barring North Korea for a moment, I don't think countries like Pakistan and Iran should have nuclear weapons capability given their open willingness to religious martyrdom through suicide, at least with communist countries you can assume they will be cold and calculating through MAD; we don't have that guarantee from Iran.

 

[civfanatic]

Maybe that is a bad example on your part, as by that logic; it would run counter to your own argument.

The U.S. plan to invade Canada was formulated in the 1930s, because the U.S. was worried about the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the possibility of fighting a two-front war. The plan was trashed once WWII started.

In the present day, the example works.

North Koreas nuclear weapons program is verified, they have conducted two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, not to mention publicly warning everyone about the first one in advance. They may lack the missile technology and range at present that Pakistan possesses, but what is the point of stating that? Should the world wait until they have the capability until we get a response? That kind of thinking is problematic.

Testing a kiloton-size bomb and deploying it effectively are two very different things. India conducted a similar test in 1974 called "Smiling Buddha", but we did not have credible nuclear deterrent until the late 90s/early 2000s.

North Korea's biggest military deterrent remains its rocket artillery aimed at South Korean population centers, particularly Seoul. The rocket artillery can carry chemical as well as conventional munitions.

Irans nuclear weapons program is not verified but cannot be ruled out, especially since they have more developed missiles with longer range than North Korea. Ahmadinejad even admitted back in 2009 that the launching of medium ranged missiles that could strike Israel were part of Irans nuclear program, and also stated he would like to see an end to the Israeli state. Put two and two together.

Barring North Korea for a moment, I don't think countries like Pakistan and Iran should have nuclear weapons capability given their open willingness to religious martyrdom through suicide, at least with communist countries you can assume they will be cold and calculating through MAD; we don't have that guarantee from Iran.

Personally, I would be far more willing to give Iran nuclear weapons than North Korea, as Kim Jong-Il appears to be a complete wacko while the Iranian government is far more open and sensible (propaganda aside). The fact is, none of these countries will use nuclear weapons even if they could, because the response from the rest of the world will be overwhelming. Nuclear weapons are tools of diplomacy, not weapons of war.

 

[amoy]

Personally, I would be far more willing to give Iran nuclear weapons than North Korea, as Kim Jong-Il appears to be a complete wacko while the Iranian government is far more open and sensible (propaganda aside). The fact is, none of these countries will use nuclear weapons even if they could, because the response from the rest of the world will be overwhelming. Nuclear weapons are tools of diplomacy, not weapons of war.

NK aside I totally echo that Iran is the most open and domcratic in the Gulf, in contrast to those emirates / Saudi...

 

[victor rock]

No doubt he was right in this sense almost same thing happening here. China wake up and economy of other country going down day by day in front of China

 

[AOE]

The U.S. plan to invade Canada was formulated in the 1930s, because the U.S. was worried about the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the possibility of fighting a two-front war. The plan was trashed once WWII started.

In the present day, the example works.

I think you missed the joke, you were stating that those three regimes were as likely to use nukes as the US invading Canada (to dismiss the point), yet you say it was very likely to happen at one point.

Testing a kiloton-size bomb and deploying it effectively are two very different things. India conducted a similar test in 1974 called "Smiling Buddha", but we did not have credible nuclear deterrent until the late 90s/early 2000s.

I know that, you said that those nuclear programs were unverified, yet detonating such weapons shows that such a program does exist in that country; thus your statement was false.

North Korea's biggest military deterrent remains its rocket artillery aimed at South Korean population centers, particularly Seoul. The rocket artillery can carry chemical as well as conventional munitions.

Also aware of this, and this is your typical cowardice by communist countries, I might add.

Personally, I would be far more willing to give Iran nuclear weapons than North Korea, as Kim Jong-Il appears to be a complete wacko while the Iranian government is far more open and sensible (propaganda aside). The fact is, none of these countries will use nuclear weapons even if they could, because the response from the rest of the world will be overwhelming. Nuclear weapons are tools of diplomacy, not weapons of war.

By saying 'Barring North Korea' I was making them an exception since they are communist as opposed to Islamist, it wasn't an argument about which violent dictatorships are preferable, but yes; NK is ten times as homicidal as Iran. Neither should have nuclear capability, and yes I already know that nuclear weapons are more so diplomatic than weapons of war, M.A.D is an example of this. Even such a rogue state like NK will keep its nukes in check given that it is still the lap dog... or buffer state of the cold and calculating PRC. Any major attack by them on SK could escalate into a Second Korean War.

This is the name of the game, and the PRC/USA on either side will keep this conflict from erupting, so it's effectively a prolonged stalemate.

 

[civfanatic]

I think you missed the joke, you were stating that those three regimes were as likely to use nukes as the US invading Canada (to dismiss the point), yet you say it was very likely to happen at one point.

I was talking about the present-day. In the present-day, the chances of U.S. invading Canada are abysmally low, as are the chances of anyone using nuclear weapons.

I just added the historical fact for flavour, in case anyone was interested.

I know that, you said that those nuclear programs were unverified, yet detonating such weapons shows that such a program does exist in that country; thus your statement was false.

I never said they didn't have a nuclear program. I said they didn't have a nuclear capability. Testing a 1kt nuclear bomb does not mean you have a nuclear capability.

By saying 'Barring North Korea' I was making them an exception since they are communist as opposed to Islamist, it wasn't an argument about which violent dictatorships are preferable, but yes; NK is ten times as homicidal as Iran. Neither should have nuclear capability, and yes I already know that nuclear weapons are more so diplomatic than weapons of war, M.A.D is an example of this. Even such a rogue state like NK will keep its nukes in check given that it is still the lap dog... or buffer state of the cold and calculating PRC. Any major attack by them on SK could escalate into a Second Korean War.

It is in the interest of South Korea that North Korea continues to exist.

Also, a brief scan of North Korea will show that a large number of troops and military installations are not aimed against South Korea/U.S. but the PRC.