|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 8, 2009 13:22:40 GMT -5
Fifty years of "condemnations" by the West has not changed the situation in Tibet at all. Regardless of "honorary citizenships" bestowed by Western cities or "conversions" to Tibetan Buddhism by Western celebrities, no economic sanctions were carried out against China, thus nothing has changed in Tibet. By contrast, the Uighur riots have the potential to anger oil-exporting Muslim countries, and they will do more than issue token condemnations. If China gets cut off from Middle Eastern oil, it will spell catastrophe for China's economy. President Hu Jintao knows this, and went so far as to cancel his attendance at the G-8 summit to tend to the riot. China will be forced to accomodate the demands of its Uighur minority to satisfy Muslim countries under threat of oil embargoes. Muslim countries, who face their own internal turmoil in Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, etc., will also welcome a new issue to rally against. www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/asia/08hu.html?scp=2&sq=hu%20jintao&st=cse |
|
|
|
Post by EAgent on Jul 13, 2009 10:33:14 GMT -5
Who knows. Maybe the riots will trigger China to join the Allies in the current world war.
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 13, 2009 12:28:35 GMT -5
Interesting observation. Is there any evidence that oil-exporting muslim countries have made such threats? My impression is that their concern for the welfare of muslims in other countries is just as token as the concern of western countries - economics trumps their concern for human rights. They might make noises, but an oil embargo? That will probably just lead to more Venezuelan and Canadian oil going to China, which will mean higher prices for China and lower prices (less revenue) for the muslim oil-exporters. After all, there is one global price for oil so any successful restriction on China will lead to a surplus elsewhere at the current global price. Whether muslim countries are actually willing to pay a price to support the uighurs is an open question, but color me skeptical.
|
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 13, 2009 13:44:16 GMT -5
Interesting observation. Is there any evidence that oil-exporting muslim countries have made such threats? My impression is that their concern for the welfare of muslims in other countries is just as token as the concern of western countries - economics trumps their concern for human rights. They might make noises, but an oil embargo? They did so in 1973. The business community has since insisted that such embargoes are a "relic of the past" -- but then, just last year, Russia caused severe economic problems for Europe when they cut off oil supplies for purely political reasons. Canadians love to grandstand on the issue of "human rights", so they may join the embargo as well. Oil-exporting Muslim countries can kill multiple birds with one stone -- by pleasing their own people, pleasing the West with lower oil prices, and pleasing the West with "support of human rights". If Venezuela continues to sell oil to the Chinese, then Venezula will increases its alienation from the world, which will also serve the interests of oil-exporting Muslim countries that do not welcome Venezuela. |
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 13, 2009 15:23:47 GMT -5
Interesting observation. Is there any evidence that oil-exporting muslim countries have made such threats? My impression is that their concern for the welfare of muslims in other countries is just as token as the concern of western countries - economics trumps their concern for human rights. They might make noises, but an oil embargo? They did so in 1973. The business community has since insisted that such embargoes are a "relic of the past" -- but then, just last year, Russia caused severe economic problems for Europe when they cut off oil supplies for purely political reasons. The 1973 Oil Embargo against the U.S. during the Yom Kippur War by the Arab states was issued in response to Nixon's Operation Nickel Grass. Were it not for the massive influx of U.S. military aid, Israel would not have been able to sustain that war. Had Israel lost, they would've taken out the whole Middle East with nuclear weapons. The Arab nations were engaged in a military conflict with Israel--and their economic policies followed suit. No such situation exists in China. It might become useful propaganda in some Muslim countries, but it certainly won't cause any political realignments in the Middle East. That, and it's quite normal for democracies to beat up on their minorities. For the most, it's a winner-take-all system. What you're seeing is the majority taking their winnings--regardless of any pretense to democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 13, 2009 16:06:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 13, 2009 16:23:19 GMT -5
The 1973 Oil Embargo against the U.S. during the Yom Kippur War by the Arab states was issued in response to Nixon's Operation Nickel Grass. Were it not for the massive influx of U.S. military aid, Israel would not have been able to sustain that war. Had Israel lost, they would've taken out the whole Middle East with nuclear weapons. The Arab nations were engaged in a military conflict with Israel--and their economic policies followed suit. No such situation exists in China. It might become useful propaganda in some Muslim countries, but it certainly won't cause any political realignments in the Middle East. That, and it's quite normal for democracies to beat up on their minorities. For the most, it's a winner-take-all system. What you're seeing is the majority taking their winnings--regardless of any pretense to democracy. Israel posed no direct threat to oil-producing Arab states, but the embargo happened anyway. At the time, "pan-Arabism" was popular, motivating the oil producers to conduct their embargo. Today, pan-Arabism is out of fashion but pan-Islamism is in. |
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 13, 2009 16:29:15 GMT -5
Turkey's prime minister has described ethnic violence in China's Xinjiang region as "a kind of genocide". Mr Erdogan's comments came a day after Turkish Trade and Industry Minister Nihat Ergun urged Turks to boycott Chinese goods. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8145451.stm |
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 13, 2009 17:00:33 GMT -5
Israel posed no direct threat to oil-producing Arab states, but the embargo happened anyway. At the time, "pan-Arabism" was popular, motivating the oil producers to conduct their embargo. Today, pan-Arabism is out of fashion but pan-Islamism is in. The embargo happened anyway... I think the modern day stereotype is that Arabs don't have strategic agendas, that they act out of impulse and religious ideology. Your statements say that much at least. In that case, the Uighurs won't democratize China. They're just trying to join the recent fashion in "pan-Islamism". |
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 13, 2009 21:22:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the link Haplo. It's kind of interesting that the Turks are speaking up and that they "deeper" links with the Uighurs than Arabs (ethnically and linguistically). Though it is mighty rich for Turkey to lecture other countries on human rights, especially where seccessionist ethnic minorities are involved. Definitely keep an eye on this and keep us informed
|
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 14, 2009 9:07:45 GMT -5
I think the modern day stereotype is that Arabs don't have strategic agendas, that they act out of impulse and religious ideology. Your statements say that much at least. Let's see, I have said "Muslim countries, who face their own internal turmoil in Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, etc., will also welcome a new issue to rally against." I have also said "Oil-exporting Muslim countries can kill multiple birds with one stone -- by pleasing their own people, pleasing the West with lower oil prices, and pleasing the West with 'support of human rights'. If Venezuela continues to sell oil to the Chinese, then Venezula will increases its alienation from the world, which will also serve the interests of oil-exporting Muslim countries that do not welcome Venezuela." The above sounds like a fine strategy to me. China will be forced to accomodate when they don't have any oil. |
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 14, 2009 9:32:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 14, 2009 11:33:15 GMT -5
The idea that Al-Quaeda is going to focus on China now has got to be music to the ears of the West... I suspect they'll have to work extra hard to make an impression there though. Those big poor countries are remarkably immune to terrorism - witness the Indian (non)response to the Bombay hotel killings.
|
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Jul 14, 2009 13:54:32 GMT -5
The idea that Al-Quaeda is going to focus on China now has got to be music to the ears of the West... I suspect they'll have to work extra hard to make an impression there though. Those big poor countries are remarkably immune to terrorism - witness the Indian (non)response to the Bombay hotel killings. Are they? Uighur terrorists have tried to crash an airliner into the Beijing Olympics, though the plot by amateurish teenagers was thwarted in-flight. An 18-yo Uighur girl on a passenger flight to Beijing stank of gasoline, but other passengers respected her "cultural difference" and kept quiet. When she tried to set fire to the airplane bathroom, she was arrested. The terrorist, who had at least one accomplice, had hoped to blow up the plane or crash it into the Beijing Olympic Stadium. Had they succeeded, the impact would have been felt around the world. In the past, other Uighur terrorists have blown up buses full of Han Chinese and plotted poison gas attacks on Beijing and Shanghai. The Uighurs have so far lacked the organizational sophistication to carry out large attacks. If Al Qaeda joins the picture, then all it takes is one highjacked international flight to crash it into a major Chinese city. From what I have seen, flight security in Asia tends to be poor; they only make a big fuss out of luggage contents and do not adequately screen passengers that board flights. edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/09/china.terror/index.htmlwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581210/Chinese-foil-plot-to-crash-hijacked-jet-airliner.htmlnews.searchina.ne.jp/disp.cgi?y=2008&d=0310&f=national_0310_004.shtmlwww.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article3724316.ece |
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 14, 2009 14:36:52 GMT -5
I'm not saying they couldn't pull it off - I'm saying I'm not sure China would really notice if they did. Do you really think they have the same fragile psyche of New Yorkers, who are naturally nervous people to begin with? I could be totally wrong about this, as I don't read the Chinese news media, but aren't people there a little more inured to terror (at least the older generation that lived through the great leap forward, cultural revolution, etc.)? I just don't see the Chinese going all crazy in the same way that the Japanese and Koreans do when Al-Quaeda or some other group kidnaps some of their workers in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in North Africa in this case since the Chinese aren't involved Iraq or Afghanistan). But I could be wrong. In any case, if I were an Uighur I would be saying thanks but no thanks to Al-Quaeda getting involved.
|
|
