Skip to comments.China's Wen in Iceland, eyes on Arctic riches
Posted on 04/20/2012 10:06:16 AM PDT by Olog-hai
China's premier Wen Jiabao was in Iceland on Friday, beginning a tour of northern Europe that will focus on Chinese investment in a continent eager for funds and to trade with the rising world power.
That the prime minister of the world's most populous nation should stop first, however, on a remote island of just 320,000 has raised hopes for an injection of Chinese cash into an economy ravaged by the bursting of a financial bubble in 2008but also suspicion of Beijing's hunger for natural resources.
A Chinese developer is fighting a government decision last year to bar him from buying a vast tract of land which some had suggested might be a cover for a possible future naval base and part of a wider strategy to gain a foothold in the region.
Among discussions on investment and industrial projectsVW is expected to announce plans to build a new plant in Chinathe Chinese leader is also likely to hear pleas for Beijing to drop its resistance to Western efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
But by starting with a full-scale visit to Iceland, he has fueled European concern that China might be trying to exploit the country's economic troubles to gain a strategic foothold in the North Atlantic and Arctic region.
The area has big reserves of oil, gas, gold, diamonds, zinc and iron. And with global warming melting polar ice, it may offer world powers new shipping routesand naval interestsfor the trade between Asia, Europe and America's east coast.
"When it comes to the Arctic, we always have China on our mind," said one European diplomat from the Nordic region, who spoke to Reuters this week on condition of anonymity.
When it comes to the Arctic, we always have China on our mind,
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
ALL YOUR ICEBERGS BELONG TO US !
The Ice Landic folks ought to be flattered that China wants to invest there. Iceland, and much of Northern Europe would be good investments. Investment, is as much, if not more, about people than they are about resources. Yes, it does include mineral resources, such as China's heavy investment in Africa, but it also includes investments in people. Hence, China's investment in mineral resource poor Europe, but people rich continent.
I read an article recently, where a Chinese investor bought a German company. And one of the condition of the sale, was that the seller had to gurantee the German management team would stay on. Because the Chinese have finally realized, that its an investment in people (i.e., the management team and its workers) as much as it is in capital resources (in this case, the technology and patents).
Such as their many bubbles, biggest of all their housing bubble . . . ?
sound economic decisions by the Chinese are here to stay
Dont be bothered by ponderlife. He is an insidious Chinese bastard.
I had a look at his past posts, which are all pro-Chinese pro-Marxist propaganda. Already on mental killfile . . .
Economic bubbles occur in fiscally responsible countries all the time. Globally, we aren't in an era that has figured out how to avoid them. Or rather, resist the temptation to get into them.
Not sure why you would use that kind of language on me. I've seldom criticized American policy towards China. People like yourselves and your FR cohorts do so much more than I do. I have little to complain about. Ever since the Nixon administration, every administration has tried to engage with China.
And I appreciate key figures who have participated in deepening US China trade relations. Such Bill Gates, Jeffrey Immelt, Andy Grove, etc. And many more. And I applaud many American politicians and business groups that have deepened US China trade and deepened US China engagement.
So, I'm very American. More so than you.
Simply because I express my views against ignorant people like the Duncan Hunters, Donald Trumps, Lou Dobbs, does not make me a "bastard". The bastards are the Hunters, Trumps, and Dobbs who disguise themselves as patriots.
Meanwhile, Red China has not become one iota less communist. Trade with other countries is a means to an end for communistsin order for them to increase their power and their hegemony. Communism ranks among those ideologies whose goal is world conquest. Your views are in support of traitors, therefore. Be so kind as to reconsider those views and not splatter them all over a website dedicated to the upholding of the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which Marxism in all of its forms is the antithesis of.
Also,lets keep in mind, during the American Civil War, the Confederacy accused those in the Union government of going against the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They called Abraham Lincoln, an American version of King George. You are living in the very Union that won the Civil War.
This same Union, today, is made up of politicians, Senators, Representatives, the President, and all the branches of government, which, collectively, engages China. Sure, there are hold outs and begrudgingly goes along because majority rules. But collectively, this Union has decided to engage China. So, how am I supporting traitors?
And in the financial world, made up of investors, who, indirectly, control your retirement fund. These investors, loan out to big business, who, in tern, lend to big corporations. And big corporations, in terms seek the greatest return. And they lobby for congress access to the Chinese market. If I support something that already exists and is out of my hands (and it really is out of my hands as much as it is out of yours), why do you accuse me of supporting traitors? And many of these captains of business whole heartily embrace China.
And how am I promoting Marxism, when I support this entire American system of enterprise? Something that wasn't even my idea to begin with, but rather, an American effort since the days of colonialism to expand global trade.
Read their constitution. Anyone who supports Red China is supporting world communism. That obviously includes the current slew of US liberal politicians who are foolish enough to allow bilateral (such as it is) trade with Red China. Businesses won't stop trading with Red China until that entity gains too much political power worldwide and their livelihoods are surreptitiously taken from them.
This thread, for example was about Chinese investments in Iceland. How is giving a perspective that China is a legitimate investor, in a foreign country, going against the ideals of the Founding Fathers of the US?
Also, keep in mind, few people inside or outside of China really consider China a communist country anymore. China's educated class know significantly more about the economic theories taught at Harvard and Stanford than Marxism.
And I don't support "Red" China. I support the US engagement with an ever evolving and changing China. The days of Mao are behind us. But many see China in that light (in the shadow of Mao), because they want to, and refuse to see China any other way. But the reality is, China is flourishing because the Western world won. That may sound ironic to hear, but it is true. China could no longer isolate herself and prosper. But instead, gave into the globalization brought about by the West.
Mao would be turning over in his grave if he saw the China of today. Giving into Western influence, practicing free market, etc.
Actually, I'm on the right forum. My political views are not counter to the Founding Fathers of the United States. I agree with them.
Also, we need to keep in mind, many of the global institutions we have today, were started by the West, and eventually led by the US. The League of Nations, for example, was started by the US and evolved into the UN. And WTO, was formerly GATT, which, was started by the West. And the US dollar, is the world's reserve currency. This is why the USSR opposed American policy during the Cold War. It was a battle of which system would win. In the end, the American system of global commerce won out, and even political system.
So, the reality, I support America's engagement of bringing China INTO this AMERICAN system of globalization. It was not China's idea, but rather America's.