Posted on 06/22/2005 5:19:10 AM PDT by thierrya
Jun. 22, 2005 0:50 | Updated Jun. 22, 2005 3:01
China, Israel discuss expanding defense ties
By NINA GILBERT
Expansion of defense ties with Israel was on the agenda during talks with his Israeli counterparts this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Tuesday.
Li, who spoke at the start of a meeting with the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, did not go into detail about the current dispute between Israel and the US over the Israel upgrade of Chinese Harpy drones.
He said that during his visit he had held talks on expanding ties in the fields of "trade, army, culture, education and tourism."
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom apologized to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier this week over the deal, and expressed hope that the crisis would be quickly resolved.
Defense Minister Director-General Amos Yaron is expected to be sacked as part of the deal to resolve the crisis with the US.
Li was asked by Labor MK Danny Yatom about US-Chinese relations and how the ties were affecting Israel's ability to sell arms to China. Li responded that ties between the US and China were improving, and that the main problem in the ties was Taiwan. He said China also opposed the sale of US arms to Taiwan that could pose a threat to it, according to Yatom, who heads the Israel-China parliamentary friendship association.
Li also told Israel to prepare for an imminent influx of Chinese tourists as an outgrowth of deepening ties.
"I can let you know with some certainty that thousands of Chinese tourists will visit Jerusalem and other parts of the country. You are such an attraction. I have already advised enterprises of this country to prepare more hotel rooms for the upcoming Chinese tourism," he said.
Li also told the MKs that he was moved by his visit to Yad Vashem, saying it made him feel a bond between the Jewish people and the Chinese. He said 20 million Chinese were "slaughtered by the Japanese aggressors" during the same period of World War II.
"We should never forget history, instead we should turn it into united efforts to maintain world peace," he said.
Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz said the relations with China were "extremely" important for Israel, referring to China as the "giant" and Israel as the "dwarf."
WTF. He's laying it on pretty thick.
"I can let you know with some certainty that thousands of Chinese tourists will visit Jerusalem and other parts of the country. You are such an attraction. I have already advised enterprises of this country to prepare more hotel rooms for the upcoming Chinese tourism," he said.
Yea, I hope there is too. It seems like we complicate everything we try to do in the MidEast and Europe by backing the Israelis but they don't do much in return.
To be fair, given their long history and the persecution they've undergone it isn't surprising that they are unwilling to rely on anyone save themselves. If I was Israel, I would make sure I had as many military sources and political/economic avenues open to me as possible...
That said, I think Pollard should have swung as soon as he was found guilty. Going softly on spies from friendly nations only encourages such spying.
"However, with US support they would have never come into existence nor would they continue to survive."
Freudian slip, right?
Maybe you should first consider stop footing the Chinese defence bill by buying $300 bln-worth of merchendise from them, and then, maybe, consider stopping selling weapons to muslims that eventually will kill the Americans. Ah, whatever.
China wasn't a giant until we started pumping money into their moribund economy. Now that they are becoming wealthy, they are becoming far more influential -- and the last thing that we could possibly want is for a large totalitarian state to become more influential.
I have to admit that I am surprised at Israel's engagement with China, though. I think that speaks volumes, as does Argentina's and Indonesia's.
Israel recently sold China its drone aircraft under great "protest" from the U.S.
I am a strong supporter of Israel but that support must be a two-way street.
We need to say to Israel - will it be the U.S. or will it be China, because from a U.S. point of view it cannot be both.
"will it be the U.S. or will it be China, because from a U.S. point of view it cannot be both"
Yes, it can. See my post above.
Your post is irrelevant because it assumes that the US will allow this double dealing to go on. The U.S should force Israel to choose and then let it live with the consequences. Also, your comment about arming islamofascists is pretty amusing considering Israel is doing everything in their power to arm over a billion communists...
US discusses cutting Israel off?
Shhhh! You are supposed to be an "innocent bystander" during this bit of choreography and delightful pretense.
Please refrain from bolting onto the stage and mouthing truthful sayings.
Israel's strategy has always been to be close allies with a superpower. This looks like a warning shot across our bow. In which case, they are making a grave error.
ADD: Unless of course you are the 'delightful stooge' in all of this .
ADD: The Harlequin suit does look particulaly natty ,though.
Now that the US has pumped into China billions of dollars expect more and more countries to cozy up to China. That would include Isreal, India and Australia.....and so on.
You're saying it can be both? That Israel should not face strong U.S. reactions for its military hardware trade with China? Or that that trade does not matter?
What does your "Yes It can" mean?
It means that you are buying a lot of stuff from China thus supporting its degense and space programs. And these moneys may translate into lost American lives if China attacks Taiwan, since America has a mutual defence treaty with Taiwan. So you see, it's both America and China for you.
degense=defence
However, the problem with Israel can be solved overnight if the US government really puts its foot down and do it like it means it. How long can Israel resist pressure from the US. I don't see, however, the problem with China being fixed any time soon.
The indirect affects of economic trade are one thing, for which you are right in the general sense; although some would argue that China would easily get foreign investment and sell its goods elsewhere if we did not trade with China.
Our allies directly supplying advanced military hardware to China is a whole other dimension and it is not hypocritical of the U.S. to expect Israel to not supply such material to China.
????
Yep, should have been without although I am not sure it traces back to any sexual aberration.
Maybe you should first consider stop footing the Chinese defence bill by buying $300 bln-worth of merchendise from them,
That is a subject all by itself with good arguments on both sides. I will be happy to discuss it but that is not the subject at the moment.
... and then, maybe, consider stopping selling weapons to muslims that eventually will kill the Americans. Ah, whatever.
The US has see-sawed on both sides of this issue since the beginning. We first had to assure Israel's survival since we had helped create them and secondly they were the only democracy in that area. We were in the beginning of the cold war with the USSR arming the Arabs and us arming Israel. We are actually in a continuation of that at the moment. The left has always used surrogates to fight us rather than confront us directly.
It is obviously a mixed bag over there with allegiances changing constantly and policies shifting accordingly. Shortly after Carter allowed the Ayatollahs to overthrow the Shah, Iraq invaded Iran. We preferred Iraq under the circumstances and helped arm them. As an example of shifting allegiances, we invaded them after they invaded Kuwait.
Our alliance with Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt, and many others in the area have also been based in the cold war era and shifted over time due to changes over there.
To those who point out that Saudi supports the terrorists and that we support the Saudi leadership should not take such glee in pointing out the seeming hypocrisy. The world runs on oil. We run on oil. The Saudis and their neighbors sit on most of it. The cold war is still being fought and the Communists are still using surrogates, this time the Islamists. We can't successfully invade and occupy Saudi and wouldn't if we could. We aren't that practical.
So the area must be managed as best it can be under the circumstances. Bill Clinton mismanaged it and Bush is trying to not only straighten that out but to also make bold moves to transform the entire area.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is central to all that. The Arabs and terrorists use Israel as their excuse and rallying cry to keep the historic conflict boiling. That keeps us tied to that, spending lots of money and time best spent elsewhere. It would be nice if Israel would show a little more appreciation.
Yes, that is what we wish we could and would do. Life is so much simpler in black and white. Unfortunately, we are frequently forced into gray areas.
What if they took us up on our dare and chose China? Would China take their side in the current and probably continuing conflict or would they quickly facilitate the extinction of Israel? Since the Arabs are fighting us I suspect China would back them. With Israel gone and the Arabs emboldened and backed by China what would happen to Iraq and the rest of the area? In my view it would be forced to join China and the terrorists and make our security much in doubt.
Life ain't easy and hasn't been since Eve decided to push apples.
This is a good analysis. But I would not agree that Israel is not showing support. But consider Israel's situaltion. She has lost so much blood over recently, both figuratively and literally and keeps on loosing it. The economy has been down the drains with all the terrosism, boycots by governments, churhes and universities. The country is jumping on every opportunity to earn an extra buck. However, if push comes to shove, she will never geopardize its relationship with the US. But, please, give the country a break. It's been cornered and is just trying to survive.
I did not envoke hypocricy. But the effects of the trade with China are direct all right. The money goes straight to developing and buying sophisticated weaponry, if not from Israel than elsewhere. And this weaponry will kill the American soldiers if the US chooses to interfere with the Chinese-Taiwanese conflict on the side of Taiwan (and I'm not even mentioning the long-term challenges). True, China can find other investment sources, let them, but let them not get money from us. And the problem with Israel can be fixed in half a jiffy, if the US government says it like it means it. Yes, the Israelis are desperate, but not crazy.
And India, for that matter.
Already happened. Neighboring muslim countries (not Syria or Lebanon) are already full of modern US weapons.
Besides, are you sure those couple of "Patriot or Arrow systems" will not end up in the hands of terrorists and be used against US troops in the region? So, go ahead, arm Hizbullah.
Your correct, It won't happen.
How do you know China or Russia won't sell U.S. / Israeli weapons to Israels enemies (Iran, Syria)?
"I can let you know with some certainty that thousands of Chinese tourists will visit Jerusalem and other parts of the country. You are such an attraction. I have already advised enterprises of this country to prepare more hotel rooms for the upcoming Chinese tourism"
"and later perhaps we could make out..."
ping.
"To those who point out that Saudi supports the terrorists and that we support the Saudi leadership should not take such glee in pointing out the seeming hypocrisy. The world runs on oil. We run on oil. The Saudis and their neighbors sit on most of it. The cold war is still being fought and the Communists are still using surrogates, this time the Islamists. We can't successfully invade and occupy Saudi and wouldn't if we could. We aren't that practical."
I take no joy. It makes me sick. It is a holdover from Pres Bush 1 Arabist realism. And it is contra to the current President's stated aims and a clearly failed policy of appeasement. That policy got us 15 of 19 attackers on 9/11. That policy continues to placate the number one supporter and exporter of Jihad in the world.
What is the point of draining the swamp in Iraq if the swamp is allowed to grow in SA?
What would happen if we took a hardline with SA? Can they drink their oil? If they don't sell it to us they will sell it elsewhere thus freeing up another supplier. The Arab Oil boycott is not possible today. They can't afford it and are not unified anymore. We are propping up a doomed, corrupt regime that foments anti-US jihadism to stay in power.
As to our not being able to invade or occupy SA, why not? Not saying we should but we certainly could. Sometimes I think our bail out of Kuwait and SA in Gulf 1 was a huge strategic error.
One major difference. In the drone deal under discussion, Israel asked the DOD if they could sell them, and defense said OK. Different administration, I know. Israel doesn't get a say in our sales, four times what we sell to Israel, to her enemies. Who we're commited to keeping in an inferior military position.
Israel can do the calculations as easily as you, and given the choice can calculate that choosing China over the U.S. would likely be suicidal for them in the long run; and thus it is not likely a choice Israel would make.
Second, the chances that jettising automatic support for Israel (over its sale of arms to China) would hurt us in Iraq is laughable in as much as the Iraqi's who are fighting the insurgents are fighting for a democratic based government and the prospect of a democratic based future.
I agree with you in principal, on our trade with China. The difficulty with the practical means to living by that principal must overcome two different concurrent ideas that four administrations have practiced (counting the current one); they are: (1)that economic liberty will create the legal requirements, and the public sentiment towards the extablishment of greater political liberty and (2)if China would gain and advance equally as well from trade diverted to other nations (instead of the U.S.), then depriving China of trade with us deprives them China of nothing and only deprives our own companies, and our workers in those companies.
I, like you, do not think we have seen the beneficial trends in China's domestic politics that the two dominant policy ideas continue to believe will happen, in time. Those that have secured the policies based on those two ideas believe that our objectives should be to preserve the status quo in the China-Taiwan relationship, and the hoped for internal changes in China will eventually make the question moot.
I, like you, believe it is a race in which the chances are better than not that China will move against Taiwan, militarily, before (and possibly without ever) changing politically.
The problem is how to move, in practical ways, to demonstrate that the two dominant ideas are failing to achieve their objectives. Using examples alone only demonstrates that the ideas have not "yet" achieved their objectives, not that they will not, at some future date and our desire and attempts to make those declarations now are simply used, by China and in the U.S., to say that we are being "belligerent" because in fact China has not (yet) taken military action against Taiwan. These are very stubborn ideas to move directly against politically.
We are left with the realization that in all likelihood American policy towards China will not change until China in fact does attack Taiwan. If that is true, then our best policy is simply to prepare militarily as if it is inevitable, while the public continues with its stubborn majority support for the two dominant ideas that believe China "will change".
Granting all that, I'd still much rather Israel develop a relationship with Taiwa, which is in a very similar position to Israel's. Of course, I am aware that the Republic of China was very, very hostile to Israel for a very long time, but so was the PRC. No need saying that it would also give the Israel-haters one less reason to spew their garbage, because they don't need any.
"Most of you would have to start riding a bike."
Good for the health. Besides Not True.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4) The United States and other consumers need Gulf oil much more than the Gulf countries need the money paid for the oil. Wrong. Most of the Gulf countries have become very dependent on their oil income, which provides almost all their foreign currency. The oil-consuming countries get less than a quarter of their oil from the Gulf and have stockpiles of oil that could replace Gulf supply for six months or more.
Twenty years ago, oil gave Saudi Arabia a per capita income of $20,000 and huge financial reserves, while the rapid growth of income made it easy for the government to afford a boycott or other temporary reduction in oil sales. Today Saudi per capita income is down to $6,000, the huge financial reserves have been replaced by a large national debt, and much of the country is dependent on government agencies' having a regular flow of cash.
It used to be thought that if oil from other regions, or unconventional oil, threatened the dominance of the Gulf producers, then the Saudis and other Gulf countries would blow away the competition by taking advantage of their low production cost to force the price down below the competitors' production cost. Even if that were true in the past, it is not true today. No Arab regime has the stomach--or the funds--to endure very low prices for an extended time, if at all. And almost all of the non-Gulf producers make a profit even if the price is as low as $15 a barrel, and many are profitable at even lower prices.
‘snip’
THE MAIN CONCLUSION that American policymakers have been drawing from these myths--or outdated ideas--about oil is that the United States had better be deferential to Saudi Arabia because it has the power to ruin our economy. The United States pays more deference to the Saudis than to any other government in the world. If any other government imposes restrictions on American diplomats in their country, the United States applies the same restrictions to that country's diplomats in the United States. The only exception is Saudi Arabia--which, for example, pays no price for denying American women with diplomatic passports the right to drive in the kingdom. Recently there have been a number of stories about how American mothers have suffered as a result of U.S. deference to Saudi Arabia when their children were kidnapped by their fathers and taken to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi policy toward the United States is based on their perception of our fear of their oil power. That is why Crown Prince Abdullah felt free to patronize President Bush in Crawford, Texas, less than a year after 15 Saudi citizens attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is why they have felt safe enough to allow more than $50 billion of Saudi oil money to be exported to stir up hatred of the United States in the last 20 years.
When the American political community realizes that the world economy is not in Saudi hands as much as the Saudi economy is in the hands of Western oil buyers, Washington can stop being afraid of the Saudis. Then the Saudi government will understand that it must respond to the United States very differently than it has in the past.
The Saudis' belief in their oil power doesn't come from their economic analysis of the oil market, it comes from their recognition of our fear of them, our belief that we are vulnerable to what they can do to us. If we understand that the facts have changed, and we do not have to accept aggressive use of an "oil weapon" against us, then they will not risk their fate on the basis of any calculation of the balance of oil power. In practice they may test us, and we have the capacity to pass their test.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/002/977mwkuu.asp?pg=2
"Do you want to give them democracy ? They would choose Osama."
How do you know since they are not free to say? Besides the standard is freedom not democracy.
Me: As to our not being able to invade or occupy SA, why not?
You: Because loses would be huge.
Is this a joke? We went in to protect them from Saddam in 1992. Now they are too strong for us? We built all their military infrastructure and supply most of their weapons. Corruption is endemic. They are weaker than Iraq was and less populous. They lack the manpower of Iran. They have non-nationals (5-7 million)doing all their work, running the country. What would happen there under war conditions? In Kuwait the non-nationals (Palestinians) turned on the Kuwaitis who booted them out en masse after Gulf 1.
(That is, unless Israel is really working WITH us to secretly arm the Chinese with weaponry that the U.S. can secretly control and disable remotely)
"Also, unless they have been multiplying like rabbits I don't see how their standard of living went down so drastically."
define "multiplying like rabbits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia
later on the rest. (although this business of taking over SA is a digression since I am not recomending it -- not necessary!)
But for the night think on this. Let's say the US really doesn't need SA oil. What other reasons might we have for smoothing over the relationship?
"You really don't see the difference between "western" societies and Saudis ? In the "west" people are already crying that oil is too expensive... Tell the Saudis that Allah want them to be poor, they would reply: Great ! So I want to be even poorer !"
and
"There are serious internal problems in SA. Sauds are losing popularity, because... they are too much progressive."
So this business about women driving and complaints about how costly it is to hire a driver don't exist?
And if that were so where are the Saudi Jihadists coming from? Where did Bin Laden come from? Not so easy to placate I’m thinking. In fact the Saudis rule by providing prosperity and stability. Without political input, without freedom, and with cuts in life style, what exactly will keep the regime in power? The ones who want to overthrow the Saudi Kingdom are already dissatisfied. Cutting income will further threaten the ruling regime’s stability by those lookinh for slow change via reform.
As I see it there are the Jihadist, there are the reformists, and there's the Saudi Regime which stands for the status quo. The first two stand for change - Jihadists violent radical; reformists slower peaceful dhange. In your analysis all that exists is the regime and their followers.
You seem to be advocating a realist policy of maintaining the status quo even though the facts on the ground show that the situation there is explosive in the Jihadists direction. In the other direction the reformists are willing to support a regime that is making changes. In which direction should the US try to push the regime?
This is where the US petrodollars count.
As to taking over, that is last resort talk.
“In conventional war against SA…”
What is a “conventional war?” Non-nuclear obviously yes.
I don’t think Iraq was a “conventional war.” Great pains were taken to prevent casualties. In March of 2004 when we should have tightened the screws and cleaned out Fallujah we deferred to world opinion. Wars are not successfully fought and won by referendum. They are not won by half measures.
And while 1700 American lives are a tragedy, they are a small number to prevent the US economy from coming to a halt. That was what you predicted when you said we would all be riding bicycles. If that were to happen, many divisions you see now in the US would disappear. As you say, “In the "west" people are already crying that oil is too expensive...” There would be great unity to preserve our way of life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.