Having it both ways

Iran and the gap between theory and practice in Chinese foreign policy

See article

Readers' comments



China is as much an ally of Iran as it is an ally of the US, considering it does far more trade with and arguably provide far more financial and intellectual aid to the latter, but every country have their own interests, and right now China's interest is a secure supply of oil and global peace, stability and growth, allowing the US to destabilize the Middle East (again or just continue to) does not help with that national interest, and cutting off one's own oil supply certainly do not, there is no reason for any rational thinking nation to go along with these sanctions unless they are literally enslaved to American (read Israel) foreign policy.

Jean Michel in reply to VLHC

I fully agree with you. There is no valid reason for China to impose sanctions on Iran. Iran is not a threat to China.
China makes its policies from the point of view of China and not from the point of view of the US.
This is also the point of view of many other countries like India, Russia, etc.


This is exactly what I find so disappointing in the Economist's China coverage. I hereby edit their provincial and partisan text as a courtesy (assuming of course that they aspire to be a journal with a global perspective).

“Energy security” has long been a priority for all INDUSTRIAL POWERS. It has underpinned WESTERN friendships with regimes excoriated in LIBERAL CIRCLES INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA AND THE SHAH'S IRAN.

Honestly, The Economist is the one trying to have it both ways. Britain would never have been great had it not pioneered, practiced or perfected privateering, realpolitik, mercantilism, and imperialism. When China does the same it should be duly noted. But we can and should do so in a manner which acknowledges that the soot on the kettle fell first on the pot.

Jean Michel

China is not having it both ways with regards to its relations with Iran. China pursues a single course with Iran and with all other countries, and this single course is the policy of cooperation and trade in a context of peaceful development.
Can the US give a single reason that makes sense why China should impose economic sanctions on Iran? Iran is not threatening China militarily. So, why should China impose any sanction.
Geithner visited China and Japan in an attempt to pursuade these two countries to impose sanctions on Iran. China gave no indication that it will and Japan's reply was more ambiguous. There is no indication that India will impose sanctions on Iran too.


The media is using a very manipulative narrative. According to this narrative the "West" is imposing sanctions on Iran because the "West" does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. 70% of the people in America are against war with Iran. Sanctions are an act of war - according to Ron Paul. The majority of the people in the so called "West" are more interested in having sound monetary policy and economy reactivated as opposed to wasting money on policing the world. I think when the media refers to the "West" it means a very narrow segment of the population comprised by Military-Industrial complex, CNN, FOX, Economist, Halliburton and people who benefit from warmongering. The rest of the "western" countries are even less inclined to these type of sanctions.
Vote Ron Paul 2012


What will China do if iranians petrol dries up?
i think the answer is so clear. China follows a win-win policy.
it does not want to lose the cheap energy supplies which come from iran while ameliorating its relation with west,especially with USA.
As everybody knows USA has some concerns about the deveploment of china.
USA tries to keep China in its teritories at least in far east.While China looks for better place in world diplomacy.
Guess who will win this compettion?
i guess no one. there looks a big treat in near future for the OUR world.
i hope the discreation wins.

Jean Michel in reply to aliden

Aliden, you wrote:
"What will China do if iranians petrol dries up?"
The answer is: "The same thing that the US will do when a big meteorite falls on the US."

Felipe Coelho

Foreign Policies are generally the most hypocritical parts of the policies of any nation. The Cold War, against the oppression of 300 millions of Soviets, Eastern Europeans and Cubans, denied basic Human Rights, led the Americans, the French and the British to support dictatorships that ruled over a billion people in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, deposing elected and unelected governments alike.

Iranians were one of the first to have a pro-Western dictatorship imposed on them, for their own good. Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Zaire, Brazil, Vietnam, South Korea, North Yemen were some of the others. In other cases (Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco, the Persian Gulf Sheikdoms, Oman, Egypt, Haiti,... ) the West just supported bad guys already established, invoking the same "non-interference" principle of China and Brazil, one that exists in any International Relations textbook. Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban and Iran in the hands of the Shah were once victories of the Free World, as Papa Doc's Haiti was better than Fidel Castro's Cuba.

Now the American and Israeli nuclear weapons are peaceful, as they would never do anything wrong with them, like dropping them into a city, while an Iranian nuclear bomb would create tensions in the peaceful and denuclearized Asia (if one excepts the USA, Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China and North Korea). Now the USA and the UK pay the price of the lie of the WMD of Saddam, and Israel is sending death squads to murder Iranian nuclear scientists. It is an interesting scenario for the West to start a generalized war, by the wrong reasons and against the wrong nations.

I think Argentina, Brazil, South Korea had dictatorships arise from internal political forcs.

Argentina, Peron passed away and his wife Isabel wasn't up for the job, so generals who never liked Peronism took over
Brazil - the military didn't like Goulart messing with the enlisted men with his politicking
South Korea - I think both Rhee and Park were quick to institute dictatorship on their own initiative. Rhee got a little wacky after his return; Park being a grad from the Imperial Japanese Army, probably had some strong authoritarian tendencies, and didn't care for the protests in 1960 and what not.

Zaire - You are going to blame the Congo on us? That is a bit of a laugh. The place was a complete mess. The Belgiums are the ones who deserve alot of blame. Then again, if there is decolonization, how can one stop centrifugal forces, and deny subunits of colonies from seceding, or trying to, like Katanga?

Can't recall the situation in North Yemen. The Gulf states were creations of the British (can't blame those on us).

Michael Dunne in reply to KKumar572

Think most of Pakistan's development still remained primarily driven by internal dynamics and the rivalry with India. Particularly the army achieving paramountcy (which is not unusual - See Taiwan, S. Korea, etc.)

Pakistan's army arose from the British Indian Army. So not sure what can be placed at the US' feet there.

Seems more like Jinnah passing away, and the lack of a successor of similar prestige or political party was able to stabilize civilian rule.

There was a "American Era" but things seem to get strained after the US demonstrated little enthusiasm over confrontation over Kashmir and various machinations of the Pakistani's in 1965.

After the loss of Bengladesh things went south. Had the impression Zia Al Haq was anti-American, like letting our embassy get burned to the ground in 1979.

The whole Afghanistan operation was one of convenience, and one which the Americans pretty much forfeited much of a hands on role to Pakistan. Pakistan got alot of money in turn.

whackamole in reply to Felipe Coelho

How is foreign policy hypocritical? For EVERY nation, the goal of their foreign policy is to advance their countries interests (economic, security). What sucks is if your small and weak you are dependent on the kindness of the bigger powers. Creates an inferiority complex, hence the violent anti-US penis envy displayed by many of the tools on these blogs. The world would be so much better off if the Russians or Chinese ran things. These countries represent the very best man has to offer: freedom, optimism, fairness, openness...

Victorious Secret

What was it about this article that brought all the rabid 'anything but what the West tries to do,' deep intellectual leftist, American shame brigade out? Just check out the most recommended comments. . . or are they all Chinese government spambots, voting each others' comments up? (that last is not unheard of, by the way)


Whatever. All the fuss centers on the possibility of a radical theocracy owning nuclear weapons. Even a communist country is preferable in that Allah will never command them to nuke a neighbor. And as for the US killing all those innocent people and having some grad scheme to conquer the world, can you honestly think of another country better suited to lead? China, Russia...And someone must lead the children of the world and this leadership has saved more lives than it has taken.

To the subject at hand, I´m trying to understand why China does not seize this opportunity to influence world events commensurate with its growing strength on the world stage. I´m guessing the Communist Party is abhorrent to any policy that would upset the "masses" (higher fuel costs?) thereby threatening their control? It seems with every passing day the public is growing bolder and seeking greater self determination and freedom. Social evolution.

Lastly, the anti US rhetoric has me feeling the need to defend her. When thinking of the US I suggest people remember the US is a collection of all the World's people. There many people of Iranian descent living in freedom and voting in the US. The US is mankind's most promising model, the facts speak for themselves. Pick an area of human pursuit: science, art, religious freedom, economics, academics...Perfect no, and she will be the first to admit it. Thanks I feel better now.

Take care!

Alfa Victor Sierra in reply to whackamole

Yes, continental USA is home to many of the most prominent scientists, artists, academics and athletes. Does this mean that amongst its population there is a widespread pursuit of scientific knowledge, artistic sensitivity and physical fitness? I don't think so.

The USA is a lot more than just New York, Boston, the District of Columbia, Chicago and San Francisco.

Death penalty, widespread cultural illiteracy, generalised ethnocentrism, widespread belief in creationism, bearing firearms as a constitutional right, Fox News being a core media outlet, and a long etcetera of similar cultural "features": "mankind's most promising model"? Give me a break!

Ahsan617796 in reply to whackamole

"The US is mankind's most promising model, the facts speak for themselves. "

I accept that US is one of the nicest place to be at but you also need to understand that americans are not paying the price for it. Latin americans, asians, arabs, chinese, russians each of them are suffering from american foreign policy.

and I always say that a clever man doesn't takes as many enemy as America has. Eventually some country will get fed up with interventions.....that could be the end for us - If US is to be true leader its decisions need to be JUDICIOUS.

Help might be in sight: Newt wants to conquer the moon. If they are smart they send him there NOW together with Bachmann but without a return ticket. The two could mate with each other and breed a new moon population called GingBach as long as they don't send any of these children back to earth because they would probably be quite ugly.

Jean Michel in reply to whackamole

No one knows how many lives the US has saved but the fact is that the US has killed, murdered, assassinated, tortured and mutilated millions of innocent, unarmed people over the last 60 years. The latest victim might be an innocent Iranian scientist.
The World does not need a leader. The world need countries that cooperate peaceful as equal partners for its development. This is the policy of China and this is the way it is influencing world's events. You are speaking from the point of view of the US and you are unable to see things from another perspective. Looking from another perspective, you will see the US as a killer and torturer of innocent, unarmed civilians.
Like any fool who thinks that he is better, more intelligent, more trustworthy and has more common sense than anyone else, so the US thinks it is better in all fields than any other country.

Prior to the rise of the British Empire, the world was not "lead" by any country (with the brief exception of the Mongolian Empire). Right now the world is very slowly heading back to what could be thought of as its natural state of multipolarity. Russia and China are in absolutely no position to set up a global hegemony of the sort the USA has right now.

Other cultures are not children that need to be lead. Europe does not need to be lead by its own child, most Asian civilizations are older than those of the western world, and if the Africans want western or Chinese guidance they can choose that for themselves.

The USA is like 64% white and 5% Asian. It is hardly representative of all of the world's people. The USA has accomplished great things and its system is definitely partly to thank for that; but so is the fact that it has access to a grossly disproportionate amount of resources. We have 5% of the world's population and consume 25% of the energy. When you talk about the "lives that we've saved" (which I honestly can not think of many examples of), keep in mind that among other things Americans consume 200 billion more calories in a day than they need to and throw away 200,000 tons of edible food everyday. 800 million+ people in the world who are starving partially have America to thank for consuming far more than their share. And this imbalance isn't caused by the magic of the free market.

Even within the USA what I can blame the American system for is the gross inequality of intellectual/cultural development. On the one hand America has some of the best research centers in the world and produces great scientists. On the other, less than 50% of the people believe in or understand basic scientific concepts like evolution.

For China, isn't a system where the government wants to keep the masses happy what the world wants? Isn't that the idea behind democracy? The government will act in the best interest of the majority in order to get votes? While in China, if nothing else, the government delivers on its responsibility to keep people employed and keep energy coming in. But also even though Wen Jiabao told Iran's gulf rivals that China is adamantly against Iran having nuclear weapons, it doesn't mean that China actually is against it.

whackamole in reply to teacup775

"GingBachs" too funny. In brief rebuttal my friends. The subject is China's role or lack thereof with regards to Iran, I apologize for turning this into a defensive of the US. Stripping away one's prejudice, we can be thankful for the US role in modern history. It is guilty of everything the previous posters have subscribed to it, and more. But what other nation could have done better? A large percentage of the word would be unfamiliar with the terms "freedom of-expression-commerce-religion" had it not been for the US promotion of these ideas. What other nation would have re-built Europe and Japan or stepped up to stop genocide in Serbia, etc., etc., etc. Yes innocents have died, resources have been exploited this is the nature of things. But how much worse would have things been if...and yes the world, just like the people who inhabit it, need leadership, more so as we become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Is the necessary coordination and planning going to happen by itself? Duplicity, arrogance, simplicity, et al do existence in the execution of foreign policy but at least someone, with a relatively even hand is "fighting the good fight". And as for China wanting to keep its people happy, true but more so controlled. Imagine China's potential operating under a free society.

Freedom of expression, what a cool thing. Cheers.

KKumar572 in reply to whackamole

The US has a split personality. The natives are great people; childlike, frank, easy to laugh, honest, straightforward. Even the business are transparent, profit-driven, efficient, good to do business with. But, the US govt. is obnoxious, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. In its effort to protect these good natives, the US govt. invariably screws the rest of the world (Iraq being the latest in a long, continuing saga of violence).

whackamole in reply to KKumar572

Clearly US foreign policy is not wholly altruistic, they get paid to expand and promote US interests. Hamfisted at times for sure. But I don't see where keeping Europe, China, SE Asia, South Korea, etc., free and helping them develop thriving economies, and in most cases (except China) thriving free societies can be described as a "long list" of screw ups? Some yes, Vietnam, perhaps Iraq. However, I don't think Iraq would have a snow balls chance in hell to develop without the removal of Saddam. They have an opportunity now to build a prosperous, democratically inclusive country along the lines of Turkey. Time will tell but for the first time in decades Iraq now has its own fate in its hands. Bloody growing process but regrettably it is sometimes only through war that we appreciate the alternative. The US is guilty of taking the top off, but they are not involved in the current secular none sense. By the way, just how many wars has the US started? WWI and II, nope, Vietnam-nope, Korea-nope, Serbia-nope, Libya-nope, Iraq-yes. Not too bad of a track record. How many wars has the US prevented? Korea, WWIII, countless more, not too bad. Those natives buy Chinese manufacturing, Japanese cars, Taiwanese computers, middle east oil, Russian and African minerals, European cars-technology. The government is helping to standardized international law and lower trade barriers while giving economic aid to poor countries. I'm sorry, how is the US exactly screwing the world again?

"The [US] government is helping to standardized (sic) international law and lower trade barriers": it is obvious that you have been brainwashed.
Regarding international law, ask whether the USA has signed and ratified any of the following:
-Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (along with countries like Russia, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Syria, Bahrain, UAE, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Thailand, the USA is yet to ratify it)
-Kyoto Protocol (the USA is the only signatory country yet to ratify it)
-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the USA and Somalia are the only UN members yet to ratify it)
-United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the USA is the only developed sovereignty yet to ratify it)
Lower trade barriers? Give me a break!
Try importing Brazilian sugar into the US...
Stop posting Fox News-style nonsense, please.

Nice selective research. In most instances the US led the drafting of these treaties but for various legitimate has not signed yet. Example

And the US hates kids, seals, clean air, and the law. Geez everyone on your planet knows that. BTW its called "faux" news.

As for trade deals, ever heard of NAFTA and this long list

"The US hates kids, seals, clean air, and the law." That's your burlesque statement, nothing that can be deducted from any of my posts.

What is clear is that the US is amongst the most stubborn nations when it comes to international law harmonisation.

US government believes in free flow of goods and capitals for American goods and investments, not necessarily the other way around. Playing the "national security" wildcard, they have blocked many substantial instances of foreign investment (e.g. China's CNOOC winning bid for Unocal, UAE's DP World takeover of several US-based container marine terminals when it acquired P&O Ports, and a long etcetera).

KKumar572 in reply to whackamole

The basic argument is that whatever damage the US causes in other small countries (Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, Libya, Iraq) should be downplayed (in fact, it is for their own good; carpet bombing the Vietnamese with Napalm was extremely beneficial for them). The US, by definition, is a "good" country and hence should be given lot of leeway for its aggressive actions. When it comes to China or Iran, such leeway should not be given since they are, by definition, "bad" countries. Such an argument is iron-clad and cannot be breached. Well done.


(The gap between theory and practice in Chinese foreign policy)< (The gap between theory and practice in EU foreign policy) < (The gap between theory and practice in Ob's foreign policy)

According to Ob, he would extend a hand to Iran who has a clinched fist. It turned out, that has turned out that the gesture was a "trick".

50 Cent Peasant Troll

So umm here's an easy way to convince Iran to give up its nuclear programs: by convincing Israel to give up its nukes and join the NPT in a peace treaty.

But of course Israel will never give up its nukes, and America will never allow the UN to put pressure on its puppet state.

So I for one am very happy that Iran is about to develop its own nukes! Peace through diplomacy is nice, but when your adversary (Israel) refuses to negotiate, then you must take self-defense measures.

Go Iran!

I'm no fan of Israel. However, with a population of 7.6 millions against 300 millions arabs, plus the muslims, plus the persians, I think Israel needs the nukes. If you want a level playing field, remove 293 millions arabs, plus the muslims, plus the persians, then we can ask Israel to get rid of its nukes. It's only fair.

That's what Israel has been trying for years: to be recognized as a country that can co-exist with the Arabs. The Arabs do not want that and that's why they keep attacking each other. Israel started out with out nukes but it has to develop nukes due to the fact that Arabs want to wipe it off the middle east map. Please read history. That's is like 101 middle east history.

That's what the Arabs has been trying for years: to be recognized as countries that will not be spontaneously attacked by Israel. The Israelites do not want that and that's why they keep attacking each other. Israel started out with out nukes in order to establish their perceived supremacy to the Arabs. Please read history. That's is like 101 middle east history.

You are officially on the "ignorant" list. Why would a country of 7.6 millions want to attack the whole arab population of 300 millions (40 times bigger)? Think...please use your brain once in a while. And also please, you are no modern...more like ignorant asia to me.

You are officially on the "ignorant" list. Why would a country of small Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany attack the whole European population? Think...please use your brain once in a while. And also please, you are no E Reader... more like paperback book to me.

I stand corrected. You are not capable of thinking. All you did was using my words, change here and there, then put them out as if you wrote them. Just like typical Chinese products...copy the west ideas, modify here and there, produce in mass and sell them. That's your definition of "modern".

I stand corrected. You are not capable of thinking. All you did was use your trashy American education and copy what Fox News has to say. Just like typical American products...complete brainwashed garbage. That's your definition of "paperback books".


Israel did start the 6 day war. However, it seems a casus belli had been established by Egypt prior to the sneak attack, by ordering the UN out of the Sinai and then occupying their troop positions.

In reality the Israelis pulled a Pearl Harbor. However, this was at a time when nearby polities were screaming for their blood, and the Egyptians were amassing troop provocatively, in terrain that beforehand had been demilitarized to an extent.

So, may have fallen under self defense. A bit tricky.

What are the other 7 conflicts that Israel started?

sure..."i'm just joking" about removing 7.6 millions jews (but honestly, if I can, I would)...nice try buddy

And stop being so obsessed with Faux News. I'm no fan of that channel. Just because you don't like my point of view, it doesn't make me a Faux News audience.

Oh are speaking for Kishore now? Just because Kishore is Indian, he has no idea what the Arabs think? (and you do Modern Asia? Are you an arab?) and just because Kishore is Indian, he does not care the slightest about the Arab-Israel conflict? I'm sorry, are you trying to defend Kishore or insult him? either way, it shows how arrogant you are mr. 'modern' asia.

Oh, we all know you would. And that's why you are for Iran to have nukes in the first place. You have been wasting all this time to hide your real intention? why? just be brave and come out in the first place saying: i hate America. And since we already established that, please leave this 'uneducated' american alone. If I responded to Kishore or whoever else, please do not jump in and speak for anyone of us. Thank you and have a nice day.

Really? it takes the Taliban years to brainwash an uneducated boy and turn him into a fanatic terrorist. And it only took a few posts on Economist from us to turn you into a fanatic. Maybe the Taliban should go on here and recruit guys like you, it's faster and easier.

KKumar572 in reply to E Reader

Trouble is, everyone deserves nukes since everyone is afraid of someone else. Once the Pandora's Box has been opened there is no closing it again.

Anyway, the Iran sanctions are not about nukes. It is about getting rid of an anti-American govt. in Iran.

Ahmadi has been demonized as a holocaust denier (Ahmadi says "Assume it happened. What do the Palestinians have to do with it?"). Khamenei has been demonized as a mad mullah (which he is not). Iranian Presidential elections have been rejected as being rigged because the urban, pro-American candidate lost to the populist, anti-American Ahmadi (only non-rigged election is one where the pro-American candidate wins). A crackpot assassination plot (possibly entirely imaginary) targeting a Saudi envoy in the US has been attributed to Iran. Now, with a new, pliant IAEA chief in place, Iran is being projected as a nuclear threat (El Baradei could never find any evidence of nuclear weapon program in Iran after multiple inspections). Also, noise is being made in American media that "Iran could attack US".

Given this story line (which is one of many possible story lines, but is strikingly similar to the propaganda war against a toothless tin pot dictator Saddam Hussain), it is hard to take the nuke accusations seriously.

E Reader in reply to KKumar572


If that theory is true, why Cuba, Venezuela, Syria aren't accused of trying getting nukes by America? Of course America would love to get rid of the anti-American regime in Iran. But Iran is the one who does not come clean about its nuke program. Remember, UN has four rounds of sanctions against Iran. It means China & Russia also do not trust Iran and hence agreed to those four rounds of sanctions.

E Reader in reply to KKumar572

btw, this is what Modern Asia wrote about you:

Kishore is Indian, and therefore he has no idea what the Arabs think and do not care the slightest about the Arab-Israeli conflict

Is that true? I find it's quite insulting,

KKumar572 in reply to E Reader

Don't get me wrong. By moving them, I mean use ships and planes to resettle the Israelis somewhere suitable in Europe.

Europe is where most of the Jewish persecution by Christians happened and I am sure today's enlightened Europeans will be happy to make amends. Then everybody will be happy.

Michael Dunne in reply to KKumar572

I think that 7.6 million figure includes Arabs, Druze and maybe a few others. Something like 18% of the population in Israel proper is supposedly of Arab descent.

Otherwise, in the modern era, not sure of the cost of moving millions of people. Stalin, Hitler and possibly others didn't have to account for costs, and just engaged in brute force and leveraging existing assets.

Of course, Stalin and Hitler were in positions where those getting moved couldn't easily resist. I don't think that is the case now with Israel. That situation will likely remain unless multiple nuclear strikes were accomplished somehow on its territories.

Simply said, I don't think the Israelis can be shipped out; nor do I think the Palestinians can be shipped out. Neither side is able to kill off the other. They will eventually have to compromise.

Michael Dunne in reply to E Reader

E Reader,

Syria was accused of a nuclear program of sorts. There was also a raid by Israel on a facility. I haven't kept abreast of developments in that area, but seems some programmatic activities of the Syrians got impacted and possibly derailed.

E Reader in reply to KKumar572

Then I'm sorry to hear that. Why would you be ok to be stereotype? Do you know stereotype is very close to racism? I would think as an Indian, you should stand up and defend your people. Just like here in America, there is a stereotype of black, mexicans, asians. If you are black, you must deal drugs. If you are Mexicans, you must be drunk all the time. If you are Asians, you can't drive. What do you think a black guy accepts that stereotype and tell other race: "It's true the majority of black deal drugs, I'm the exception."

I am sorry, but I am against racism or stereotype of any form. And if you accept the stereotype other people put on you, then I am very very sorry to hear that.

E Reader in reply to Michael Dunne

Don't you think Syria has something to hide here? If Israel raided on the facility and if it weren't a nuclear site, don't you think Syria would have invited the whole world to come to the site? Instead, it went quietly. So yeah, not everything is fabricated by the western media.


Iran is hostile twoards the West and its nuclear programme is geared towards self-protection. It's clear that of the three named countries in the axis of evil, the two with some form of nuclear (weapons) programme were not hit militarily. It's an uncomfortable fact, not just to the West, but understandable that they want nukes.

This all began a long time ago when Iran had a democracy whose leadership was deemed hostile to British oil interest. That government was overthrown in a CIA engineered coup which resulted in decades of brutal dictatorship by the Shah. When the Shah was overthrown later, his regime was replaced by the current authoritarian theocracy. They thought religion was the answer.

I don't see how even more hostility in the form of sanctions or otherwise is going to convince them they should negotiate away their nuclear programme. This makes no sense. Besides, in the words of a Chinese diplomat, sanctions only hurt the people at the lowest rungs of society. Its unintended effect is to drive support for the regime. It's true, this is modern day siege warfare. If and when Iran actually gets their hand on a nuke, we'd really be screwed... now that they we've angered them so much.

On the other hand, Israeli (and US?) assasinations of Iran's nuclear scientists and IT warfare, by introducing software viruses to their embedded computers seem to work really well. Of course this is never an assured thing. Maybe they have a shadow programme going on?

We can't go back in time and undo the things we did to cause this blowback. But I'm convinced that more hostile attitudes isn't the answer. It is "W"'s lumping in of Iran, N. Korea, and Iraq in the Axis of Evil and the subsequent (flimsy WMD excuse) invasion of Iraq that quite likely caused the Iranians to feel unsafe and accelerate their nuclear programme.

At the end of the day, the gaps between theory and practice in American and British foreign policies are at least as wide and much older than the Chinese one on the issue of Iran.

teacup775 in reply to Daveycool

It didnt help that Iran had aided the US with regard to the Al Queda and the Taliban, only to get buggered by GW Shrub and that axis of evil line.

One more score for Team Idiot, otherwise known as the Republican party. As relatviely neutral as I am about Romney, the continued diplomatic ineptitude of the party nauseates me.

teacup775 in reply to teacup775

In this sense Banyan isnt speaking to the fact that the US itself had it both ways with Iran. We buggered them with the Shah, and we buggered them again when they were willing to patch things up. Now we pay the price for being so kissy kissy with t he House of Saud.

Daveycool in reply to teacup775


Tip O'Neill, I believe, said that "all politics is local". This is true even for foreign policyand especially so in America. "Rambo" foreign policies appeal to a large swath of Americans and it sells well for re-election.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama's limited use of US air power in Libya was astonishingly effective and clean. [disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with what happened in Libya and especially disagree with what they did to Qaddafi.] He achieved regime change without going into any further (significant) debt and with relatively very limited collateral damage. Yet he was derided as having led "from behind". Regime change has to be something the people want, not what the West wants for the people and this idea naturally leads to a cleaner more limited, and more effective use of the military. You just don't need so many "boots on the ground" when the people are willing.

Anyway, inconsistencies in foreign policy are more easily deciphered when you consider that what's good for re-election and what's actually good for the US or the UK in the long term diverge.


What is more important to China: Alienating European and American markets from which they derive most of their trade, or getting cheaper oil?

Does not make sense to me...

Jean Michel in reply to Food4Thought

The Europeans and the Americans need the Chinese suppliers as much as the Chinese need the European and American markets.
Moreover, China's exports to Europe and the US are increasing less rapidly than the increase to other markets.

And you think China has free and open markets? Of course, lets ignore the issue of patents and copyrights altogether.

Of course - World trade is a good thing overall - anything that can bring nations closer together and increase prosperity and the exchange of ideas. Just like basic human rights are a good thing...

I for one would love to see the US, China Europe and India (or whomever wants to join) coperate on world peace (gotta do something about North Korea, eh?)improve world trade, improve the environment and maybe even jointly establising a moonbase. Wishful thinking?

Maybe not....maybe we can envision a future where we don't have to settle disputes with war.

Food4Thought in reply to Jean Michel

Europe and America could supply their own manufacturing base - it actually might bring back jobs (what a concept). Granted, prices may raise - but ask any European or American Union if they would prefer this approach to relying on Chinese imports.

windgo in reply to Food4Thought

You can keep the wish. Not familiar with EU, but speak for US, the base of manufacture industry had rotten, no equipments, no factories, no trained workers, but with fat fat lazy mob-like union, you put your bet on such a country to supply all its own people need? Think twice.

Jean Michel in reply to Food4Thought

Where are you living? In the moon? Though the balance of trade is in China's favour, yet China also imports hundreds of billions of American goods. Should the two countries close their doors to each other's exports, I do not think China will be the worse of the two. As I said, China's exports to other countries, besides the US and Europe, are increasing much faster than the exports to the US and Europe. If you do not understand it, it means that from China's point of view, the importance of the US and Europe is decreasing.


China has been more aggressive with its UN veto of late. The new Chinese foreign policy may be 'oppose American policies and make America pay the highest price possible, especially when it concerns anti-American nations'.

50 Cent Peasant Troll in reply to Gigle

Don't you just love it? China pretends to give America the slightest of hope with its pro-peace rhetoric when in reality it is intent to block American foreign policy agenda in any way possible.
I am ROFLMAO so hard right now.
And after what America did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine it deserves this treatment sooooo much...

succulent pig

So Iran can't have the bomb even though China does.
So Israel can't have the bomb even though America does.
But the Jews do, don't they!


If you take a vote in non-US and non-Eu countries, the result will be a spectacular NO to trade sanction on Iran.

Institutions and people still remember how the US lead coalition lied to the world about the WMD in Iraq.

Next, the US is not so relevant in today's world and will be less relevant in the future.

Further, India has also taken a view that this trade sanction on Iran does not enjoy the support of the UN.

And, last, every country is now understanding the US policy of taking care of themselves. So, if oil from Iran is critical, these oil importing countries will not toes the US and EU line.

Best wishes

Kishore Nair from Mumbai

E Reader in reply to soffina

If US is not so relevant, then who is? give me one example that a country can set out its own agenda and be successful at UN without US support. What can India do to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapon? absolutely nothing. India has a handful problem dealing with Pakistan. India should be grateful that other world powers have to deal with Iran so India does not have to.

Dogsi in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

America doesn't need to buy oil from Iran. America gets the vast Majority of its oil from the America's. America is the primary source of American oil. After that is Canada.

America's reliance on oil imports are declining. This is because America has the worlds largest oil reserves. The reason why most people don't realize this is because they are not listed as "proven reserves" until they are both technologically and legally accessible. The single largest deposit of oil in the entire world is the Green River Basin. It has 2-5 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

America has more oil than all of OPEC that is not legally accessible. Thanks the Shell, America has also developed an effective means to extract our oil at a cost far below market.

So no, we aren't really being hurt by not importing oil from Iran. America, unlike China, has the luxury to be a bit pickier about our oil imports. China has very little in the way of natural resources but a large population with growing demands for those scarce natural resources.

Dogsi in reply to E Reader

I think his point was that they do not view Iran pursuing Nuclear weapons to be something they need to be concerned with. Personally, I agree with him (assuming that is his claim). Iran has acted rationally but idealistic. Despite their rhetoric, they would never move against Israel.

What Iran having nuclear weapons would do is simply disrupt the current Israeli and Saudi dominance in the middle east. This would impact America's dominance of the region. So while it's a bad thing for America, America has no right to demand that another country not do something simply because it would be bad for America's geopolitics.

windgo in reply to E Reader

The only problem is: Who the bloody hell ask the americans to deal with itself or other countries?

Nobody give US the rights, and nobody welcome US to step into their backyard, US just love to be in the middle, and for sure, rob some small countrys to maintain back home.

E Reader in reply to Dogsi


You are wrong. You think it's ok for Iran to have nuclear weapon and America is wrong to prevent it. NOBODY wants a nuclear Iran (yes, even Russia & China). Do you know about Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Even Iran denies trying to obtain nuclear weapon. And you think it's ok? and if it's ok for Iran to have nuke, then it's ok for Arab Saudi (Iran's rival) , it's ok for Turkey (Iran's rival), then it's ok for Greece (Turkey's rival) see my point?

E Reader in reply to windgo

hummm...depends on what problem?

with Iran, the gulf countries would like US to get involved because they are not strong enough to deal with Iran.

with North Korea: South Korea & Japan

with Pakistan: India & Afghanistan

you want me to go on?

Dogsi in reply to E Reader

Yes, it is ok for them to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Nuclear countries don't go to war because the consequences are to great.

If Afghanistan had nuclear weapons, would America have invaded? Of course not. If Iran has nuclear weapons, it can not use them as it would be annihilated if it did so.

Of course other countries don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as it makes the political situation far more difficult for themselves. America can not bully a nuclear Iran in the same way it does now.

Finally, a nuclear Iran is not a threat to America. Iran has no means to actually nuke America. All it could do is threaten to use nukes defensively or in retaliation against America's allies in the region.

E Reader in reply to Dogsi


Based on your logic, let's scrap the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. All countries have right to develop nuclear weapons since Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and the world will no longer have wars. No more war! yeah, why didn't anyone think of that? you are such a genius. 6 billions of us couldn't think of that, just you. You should apply for Nobel peace prize.

Dogsi in reply to E Reader

First, what right does the US government, or any government for that matter, have to tell the Iranian government what they can and can not do with in the confines of their own country? None.

Secondly, simply because the world powers have decided to contain the spread of nuclear weapons doesn't mean that decision was what was best for the world, only best for the countries at hand.

Besides rhetoric, have any actual retort to what I am stating?

Dogsi in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

I fail to see the point of the first statement other than an obvious chest thumping pro-china sentiment? America has also decreased its energy imports over the last 3 years by 28%. See? I can thump my chest too. We both know the reality is that China is a massively impoverished nation that is playing catch up. It is not superior to America in any significant way (unless you consider a larger population to be superior).

China also HAS to develop renewable energy sources more than America does. It has very little resources. America has far more coal, oil, natural gas, etc. than China does.

No, it is not giving up something that it does not need. For instance, if some one offers me a hotdog and I'm not hungry, I am not "giving it up". I am declining something I do not need.

A more apt example would be a competitor offering to help me train when I already am better trained. By allowing him to help me train, he would likely benefit far more than I would and I don't need his help to begin with.


E Reader in reply to Dogsi


Again, you are wrong. I'll give you one simple example: your neighbor next door beat up his wife repeatedly.

1. You ignore it and say: as long as it's within his house, it's not my problem.

2. Be a good citizen, You call police to save the wife.

I assume you would go with option 1?

Similar logic would apply to countries.

If Iran thinks the treaty does not do any good for herself, then don't sign it. Simple as that.

Dogsi in reply to E Reader

This would be a fine analogy if Iran was killing its people, but it's not.

A better analogy would be:
A man lives in a dangerous neighborhood where he is unpopular and those who dislike him are well armed. So he decides to go out and buy a gun. Then the neighbors, who have lots of guns, decide that they don't want that man to buy a gun.

Does that mans neighbors have the right to tell him he can't buy a gun, especially when those neighbors are well armed with guns far bigger than anything else on the market?

E Reader in reply to Dogsi


It's not the point. The point is there are laws to set up to prevent things like this to happen. It was you to say as long as it's "within their countries, then it's ok. And my point is no, it's not. Anyway, I think we both stray away from the topic. We will have to agree to disagree: for me, Iran obtaining nuclear is bad for the world. For you, Iran obtaining nuclear is good for the world. yeah?

Dogsi in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

You are rampant pro Chinese and originally from China, as you have stated in other threads.

You were stating a fact that had nothing to do with the discussion. I could also state "the Vatican is the smallest country in the world" but the fact has no bearing on the topic.

50 Cent Peasant Troll in reply to Dogsi

And BTW I'm not so much pro-China as I am anti-America.

Honestly I don't like the CPC government much either, but it's nice to have some balance of power in the world so that America cannot go on murdering freely as it has.

*Modern Asia is a troll trolling*

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, you're rabidly pro-China. You may not intend to be, but you get pushed that way because you disagree with anyone who is pro-America consistently. If I say the US is the best country in the world and China is 1.4 billion people living on a pile of trash, you're going to make the exact opposite claim.

Not because you believe China is completely awesome, but because you like disagreeing as vehemently as possible with whoever you disagree with. You're almost as bad as the US Congress when it comes to common ground.

Michael Dunne in reply to windgo


I suspect the Gulf States. Look at wikileaks. Seems there was a lot of goating of the Americans to deal with Iran.

I would have to wonder what when on prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, we somehow got pulled into the Balkans by the Europeans.

Otherwise, the US had officially been on the isolationist side of things until WWII. Exceptions being Mexico, the Caribbean basin, and stupidly, the Philippines.

Involvement in N. Asia stemmed from being attacked by the Japanese.

Involvement with Iran originally stemmed from the British goading us into supporting them with their embargo back in the days of Mosadeg (payback for Korea).

soffina in reply to MattyG938

Matty, thanks to the US (Europe is co-joined) stupidity, the other countries benefited - the sanctions on Iran has made it possible for India and China to get better discounts on oil imports from Iran.

Best wishes

Kishore Nair from Mumbai

soffina in reply to E Reader

Why should India try to dissuade Iran from going nuclear? Can US do anything to break the Islamic hold on nuclear Pakistan? Would America dare to attack Iraw if they were nuclear?

E reader, I think that the US fraudulent action on Europe has changed the way countries will act. So, why should India think the way US thinks?

Best wishes

Kishore Nair from Mumbai

soffina in reply to E Reader

E REader, do not stay put in history or you will be destroyed (it does not mean partying)Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not relevant in today's context. Iran is a responsible country and has been derided because of it's views on the US.

And please try to understand that the US is a pariah.

Best wishes

Kishore Nair from Mumbai

No, you are pro-China. At least your posts are. You post in almost every article concerning China and I have yet to see you post anything negative.

As for being anti-America, I see no particular reason to be so. America is not any worse than any other country. In fact, considering the massive gulf in US military power and that of the rest of the world, America has been fairly benign. Compare the actions of America to any other dominant world or regional power in history and you will quickly see that America's actions are quite mild.

Now as for the balance of power, I agree completely. American global dominance is also not good for Americans or the world. Currently, America is simply to significant to the rest of the world and the rest of the world is to insignificant to Americans.

I also find the Chinese take on economics to be interesting. I am curious to see if its style of state capitalism will turn out to be more effective than America's "free market" capitalism or the European social "free market" economic styles.

However, I often come across as anti-Chinese because so many of the posters here are so rabidly pro-China and anti-American that I feel the need to correct their inaccuracies. America currently is, and will be for decades to come, the single most significant country in the world. It's economic, social, academic, technological, cultural, military, etc., influences all trump China by a large margin.

Even the assertions that China is gaining ground in all of those areas is erroneous. Here's an interesting analysis on the issue.

E Reader in reply to soffina

"Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not relevant in today's context"

Are you saying that every country should be able to develop nuclear weapons at will? If so, I really do not have to discuss this with you because I thought the debate was why US & China trying to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes but US support sanction while China does not. It's NOT a debate if Iran should have nukes or not.

E Reader in reply to soffina

" Can US do anything to break the Islamic hold on nuclear Pakistan?"

Why is it a US problem? shouldn't it be the whole world problem and especially India's problem? the question should have been why the WORLD didn't do anything to prevent Pakistan from obtaining nukes.

"why should India think the way US thinks?"

India is still too weak to have her own voice. Right now, India either side with US/EU or side with Russia/China on international issues. It's still a long way for India to be considered at the same level with US/Russia/China.

KKumar572 in reply to E Reader

India does not want the US to get involved in Pakistan and for obvious reasons. US supplies Pakistan with fighter plane (to fight the "war on terror"!). US funds end up in Pakistani terrorist training camps targeting India.

50 Cent Peasant Troll in reply to Dogsi

BTW, oil is a truly global commodity as the cost of production and transportation is negligible compared to how much oil is worth. Therefore oil distribution globally is governed almost entirely by the supply vs demand.

So it's not inconceivable that if Iran blows up, then oil producers in Texas will start shipping oil to China because it would be more profitable than to so than to sell it to Americans, which will of course raise the price of oil in the US. So the US still loses...

Iran happens to be shipping artificially discounted oil to China in exchange for diplomatic favors.

Also most economists predict that China will overtake the US as the world's largest economy in ~5 years, and double the US economy in 15-20 years. I really don't see how the US can be more relevant its economy being half of China's, despite its cultural or military edge.

E Reader in reply to KKumar572

If I recall correctly, after the terrorist bomb plot in Mumbai, it was India asking US to help to deal with Pakistan. But of course, you only want to bash America every chance you can.


Chinese leaders want to keep peace during this crucial leadership transition period. Neither do they want to antagonize with America nor Iran, which would cause political issues and energy issues. China and America hold the some view of resisting nuclear weapon program in Iran, but they are taking two different ways, one in sanction and one in a more peaceful way.


China is simply pursuing a shrewd diplomacy that best served its interests. The country's amoral approach in international relations is reflective of its pragmatic strategy of acquiring global power with little or no responsibilities. It distanced itself from highly contentious socio-political issues of global importance such as human rights and democracy in other countries. It has its own set of problems at home.

Dogsi in reply to guest-iwnnmei

America has supported dictators and mass murders when it benefited itself. America has killed roughly 4-6 million people since the end of WW2 in wars and supporting violent dictatorships that would otherwise have collapsed.

America does not have the moral authority to condemn the practical amorality of other countries. China is not any more vile than America is. It is simply different and doesn't automatically pander to American geopolitics as most EU countries do.

Michael Dunne in reply to Dogsi


Where do you get killed "4 to 6 million" people? Are you including combatants?

Starting to sound like Jean Michel.

You have high figures of deaths from the Korean and Vietnam wars. But causes of death in Korea are not exactly clear since the country essentially collapse, followed by cold winters and lots of disease.

Vietnam could possibly provide something towards a million figure of sorts, depending on the estimates for civilians in the south, but still debatable.

What sources do can you provide?

Dogsi in reply to Michael Dunne

Michael Dunne, I am not a blind patriot nor am I anti-American. I prefer to base my opinions on truth.

The casualties from the Korean conflict are not significant in my opinion as there likely would have been far more deaths and suffering if America had abandoned South Korea to North Korea.

The generally accepted figures of casualties in the Vietnam war is around 1.3-1.7 million.

One a little closer to home (I live in Indonesia) is the CIA support of the Suharto communist "purge" and the wide range of massacres that occurred because of it.

Estimates vary but in total approximately 1-2 million Indonesians, disproportionately Ethnic Chinese, were killed. The CIA gave Suharto a list of 2,000 names it wanted removed as well. This information is in the national archives if you wish to look it up and verify it. The US government does not deny its involvement. It doesn't need to as very few people know about it.

So we are already up to 2.5-3.7 million, depending on estimates.

Shall I add in how many people died in the Iraq and Iran war, which was only perpetuated because of American support of Iraq?

How about the gulf war and its continuation? What about the 1.3 million Iraqi's who died under the sanctions because they were unable to receive basic medical and food products?

If anything, my estimate is far to low.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't always disagree with the actions. Often, I believe the consequences of America not getting involved would be worse, as is the case in the Korean war and the Iraqi war. However, it doesn't change the fact that millions have died directly or indirectly because of America.

Michael Dunne in reply to Dogsi


You appeared to have said "Americans killed" which implied direct action by American personnel.

Also, it is not clear whether you mean civilian deaths or also combatants. If including the latter, then you probably are getting into the million plus range.

I have seen the number of Indonesians go up (from half a million), so would be interested in credible sources other than wikipedia. I am not sure you can lay that all on America's feet - there were alot of domestic dynamics going on (quite a few folks sick of Suharto in the military, and many folks not happy about the PKI), as well as a lot of score settling, or so it seemed to be characterized in Bali when I visited there.

I don't think you can lay the Iraq Iran war at our feet. That was Saddam's project, and then Irans obsession for revanchism.

As for the Iraq under sanctions, claims of deaths are pretty controversial. No one takes the 1.3 million figure seriously, especially after Saddam kept claiming deaths from starvation after the food for oil program, when the Kurds were not facing such a situation to the north. I think it is called propaganda, ike with the German doctors after WWI.

So really comes down to Korea and Vietnam. And North Koreans, Chinese, S. Koreans, North Vietnamese, Viet Cong all killed quite a few people in those conflicts.

Bottom line, I don't think there is a case that millions died directly because of the US.

I think it gets to be a stretch to push those claims even for indirect cases, which Indonesia would probably fit the bill.

Think trying to attribute millions of Iraqi and Iranian deaths to us is a bit over the top.

Dogsi in reply to Michael Dunne

If you had read what I said a little more carefully you would have noticed "in wars and supporting violent dictatorships that would otherwise have collapsed".

Combatants are soldiers. If some one invaded America and killed American soldiers, would it not be just to blame the invader for killing those people?

The Indonesian situation you are speaking of would be the 1997 and 1998 crises. The one I am referring to was America supporting Suharto's rise to power, helping him to sustain power, and supporting and advocating purging the "communists" in Indonesia decades before the instance you are referring to. Sukarno was the one in power before Suharto. There are no official figures on this topic as the Indonesian government officially denies it ever occurred.

However, even if the figure is 500,000 people, that's 500,000 people. This is also just an instance I bring up because I am more familiar with the country because I live here.

I can lay the last half of the Iraq Iran war at the feet of America. It was a war fought over an insignificant piece of land. Iraq would have capitulated in the 4th year with out American support.

Actually, the claims go as high as 1.5 million. The 1.3 million if from the unicef report between 1991 and 1998. The sanctions continued after that. Again, while the exact figure is arguable, the casualties are not. Hundreds of thousands of people died. Whether it was the lowest figure of 130,000, the highest of 1.5 million, or somewhere between, hundreds of thousands of people died.

Again, not stating it was inappropriate only that it was indirectly caused in part my America.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that America is free from blame concerning the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Indonesians. Their actions directly caused those deaths.

More than a million died in Vietnam. This is not really arguable. The official dead from N. Korea alone is over a million.

whackamole in reply to Dogsi

Following your logic, then anyone who sits in the UN and does nothing to stop predatory human action is complicit, they indirectly allowed atrocities. In the contest of who's killed the most, guessing here, this is my top 5 since 1776 (bearing in mind its easier to kill in big numbers with modern weapons):

Nazi Germany
Imperial Japan
Soviet Union
Khmer Rouge

In the case of our Communist friends, not only did they kill million of their own in class warfare and social engineering projects, they exported revolutions that started Vietnam and Korea and dozens of other brush fires. I'm not a mathematician but the indirect implications make anything the US has done pale in comparison. So whose responsible, the ones that started it or the ones who finished it?

I'm sorry what is the point of this exercise. War sucks, don't start one?

As for Despots, during the Cold War the US backed a lot of thugs, however not as thug "ish" as the Russia and China gang (Pol Pot comes to mind).

At the end of the Cold War the only power left standing was the US and when you have to send bad countries to their room without dinner, their are consequences, yeah, so? The US is damned if they do and damned if they don't. "Why didn't you do something?" "Why did you get involved?"



Jean Michel

The foreign policy of the US and its allies is very crude and inefficient and contrary to all human rights. It consists of invading foreign countries that do not share their political philosophies or their dreams - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. n the process they have killed, tortured and mutilated millions of innocent and unarmed civilians. It consists of imposing economic sanctions on other countries because it is their pleasure to torture their inhabitants and to steal their money.
The Chinese foreign policy, on the other hand, consists of cooperating with other countries for the development of the World. Unlike the US and its allies, China does not believe in bombing, killing and torturing the unarmed population of other countries.
The US and its allies divide the World into friendly countries and hostile countries. China, on the other hand, considers that all countries are its friends and partner in economic development.
There is no reason for China to impose any sanctions on Iran on the basis of the paranoic state of the US.

Jean Michel in reply to Ghentis

This is because China does not make alliance with other countries like the US does. Actually, China has no ally, not even North Korea and Pakistan. On the other hand, China has partners in development and all the countries of the World are its partners. Furthermore, China values such partnership.
Do not judge China from the western perspective. This is wrong.

Dogsi in reply to Jean Michel

Korea was a war to defend S. Korea. S. Korea is now a fairly successful and capable country while N. Korea is one of the most destitute countries in the world. The invasion was a good decision.

Vietnam was one of the most horrendous acts in American history. It is not justifiable in any light.

Iraq benefited the Iraqi's, despite what you may think. Saddam took a country that had 1/4 of America's per capita income and ran it in to the ground through belligerence and mismanagement.

Iraq's GDP in 2001, when America invaded, 12.8BUSD
Iraq's GDP in 2010, after America left Iraq, 117.8BUSD
Iraqi's are literally 10 times as wealthy as they were before the US invasion. Iraq have economic and political relations with countless countries around the world. It's political and economic situation is far superior to what it was before the invasion. Only a biased and ignorant opinion causes people to disapprove of the US invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and pointless. Not nearly as horrendous as Vietnam as the two are not really comparable other than both being undeniable mistakes.

Finally, the Europeans did not kill off the indigenous population of America. American Indians, which I am one of (Muskogee) are still quite numerous.

Much of what you state I agree with but over exaggeration and inaccurate statements simply makes me want to disagree with you.

Yeah, right! "The US and its allies divide the World into friendly countries and hostile countries. China, on the other hand, considers that all countries are its friends and partner in economic development." See North Korea.

China only believes in propping up North Korea, which tortures its own people. China only believes in opposing sanctions against Syria, (a country whose leader has turned the gun on its people), even with backing from the Arab league.

In Zimbabwe, pre-divided Sudan, and elsewhere, China has supported regimes that oppress their people. I don't think everything is right about Western foreign policy, but the picture you paint of China's foreign policy is inaccurate and misleading.

USCIS in reply to Dogsi

please check oil price. Oil price in 2001 is around $20-30 a barrel. oil price now is about $100 a barrel. That alone will explaining the ballooning of Iraq economy. Not to mention Iraq is also under sanction during 2001.

Dogsi in reply to USCIS

I am aware of the reasons for the economic growth and decreased death rate. However, those reasons were caused by Saddam's belligerence. Iraq is better off now than it was before the 2001 end of the case fire. This is not really arguable.

BurkeanPluralist in reply to Dogsi

Of course Iraq has rapid economic growth, that's entirely because of the lifting of economic sanctions imposed by the USA. Likewise for the decreased death rate.

Iraq is better off now purely because they are reintegrated in the global economy. It wasn't Hussein that shut Iraq off from the rest of the world, it was the USA who did. For sure the sanctions were because of Hussein's belligerence, but since the USA chose to get involved in the Gulf War it would have been better for the Iraqi's if we just eliminated Hussein rather than place sanctions that destroyed the entire countries economy.

It remains to be seen whether Iraq's current government will manage the economy better than the Baathists and Iraq is certainly much more unstable and dangerous now than it was under the Baath party.

Also, I'm not sure how you define numerous. It is pretty undeniable that the European invasions decimated the native population both through the spread of disease and-in the case of the USA- intentional mass killings.

Dogsi in reply to BurkeanPluralist

As I already stated, I am aware of why the growth occurred.

Iraq was alienated from the world because of the actions of its government, not because of of America. The initial invasion of Iraq was a UN resolution and the actual invasion included 34 nations. The sanctions were a UN security council decision that had overwhelming support (the only one who voted against it was Cuba, which did so for obvious political reasons).

Your focus on America acting alone here is erroneous. It is only in the ending of the ceasefire in 2001 that America acted against popular global will.

It is against international law to remove governments from power. So while I agree with you, America likely would have been condemned as vehemently if we had assassinated Saddam. Considering that's what we eventually did, I do agree that we should have done it the first time. However, how can you condemn the actions that ended in the exact same result as you stated?

If you believe America acted in appropriately in its relations with Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait (before I readily agree that America's behavior was self centered and inappropriate), what should America have done differently?

While it is true that it is less stable, I do not really see it as being more dangerous when there is a lower death rate and higher life expectancy. Rather than masses starving to death under the perpetual sanctions caused by Saddam's belligerence, occasional violent deaths occur. Personally, I'd rather be shot, beheaded or blown up than starve to death.

There are over 4 million US Citizens that are at least half native American. 1 in 3 Americans claim at least partial native American ancestry. The "native" population was bred out far more than it was killed off.

However, yes, large sections of the native population was decimated, most notably those who violently resisted European claims to their land. I was not justifying the actions of the Europeans but simply stating they they were not wiped out. There are still millions of them, myself included.

Personally, I am glad that the Europeans came to America, caused the deaths of thousands/millions of my "people", force them to relocate, etc. If they hadn't, America likely would still be an under developed part of the world. I would have been born in a primitive Muskogee village instead of enjoying the benefits of an American quality of life. So while it obviously was horrendous for my ancestors, it was beneficial for me.

Finally, you are once again focusing on the evils of America while diminishing the rest. The mass murders, rapes, etc., occurred through out the entire world. Colonialism only ended with the rise of America and a shift in the balance of global power.

BurkeanPluralist in reply to Dogsi

The reason I focus on the USA in this instance is because of the reality of 1991: The Soviet Union was the process of collapsing and China had not yet risen. Even though the USA was not acting alone it was very much running the show. I think you know that.

Hussein could have been eliminated without explicitly being assassinated after the first Gulf War just like he was after the second. The reason I would have supported it for that but condemn the second war is because if he was eliminated then it would have spared Iraq over a decade of extreme poverty under international sanctions and spared them the violence and blood shed of a second invasion.

Iraq is certinly better now than it was under sanctions, but I was comparing Iraq now to leadership under the pre-sanctions Baath Party. Saddam Hussein could have been taken down many ways without a full invasion and occupation, and sanctions could have been lifted accordingly.

I agree with you about the European colonialization of the America's and I do think it was beneficial to the world as a whole. But of course Europe did it purely for its own benefit. And that is also my point if I seem to focus excessively on the "evils" of the USA compared to the rest of the world; that's not my intent. I think the big scheme of things the USA, like all powerful countries, has brought the world an important mixture of "good and bad" and I also think that the good would have frequently been impossible without the bad. When I bring up these things my target audience is not people who already recognize this or think in similar terms. It is mostly for the great masses of Americans and other westerners who think in dualistic terms that the "USA and western democracies are good" and "Russia, China, and Muslim countries are evil." The good the west has brought into the world is readily evident in most people's eyes just as is the "evil" in the rest. That's why attention needs to be brought to the other side hopefully to gradually help some people see the limitations of a dualistic world view.

vinnystein in reply to Jean Michel

Re China's foreign policy, that probably has more to do with the fact that the present Chinese leadership set a higher priority for prosperity and economic growth than for any other stuff like say, any perceived responsibility that comes with China's rising clout.

Alfa Victor Sierra

"Having it both ways": another viciously misleading headline by The Economist against non-Western interests. The article fails to outline any instance of double standards on China's part; therefore, it fails to live up to its headline. It is shameful that The Economist doesn’t employ headlines like these to issues where such headlines would befit perfectly, such as the investment banking cartel’s unwavering “heads, we win; tails, taxpayers lose” expectations, expectations which -time after time- have been subserviently catered by their cronies in politics and central banking, whose objective has proven to be no other than the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of losses: that’s what I call “having it both ways”!

Devils Advocate_1


Was it you who commented here ?

And on Foreign Policy forum some months ago as well?




Products and events



