CHINESE NEWS SITE SLAPS DOWN uSA MISSILE DEFENCE PLANS IN ASIA

China in no mood for usa war moves against it
Sukant Chandan,
Friends of China

A great and even militant anti-imperialist piece from the official Chinese news site Global Times on the renewed usa plans to encircle China under the pretence of a 'missile defence shield' against north Korea and Iran.

This article pulls few punches. It states clearly that China should assertively oppose these new aggressive plas, and that there will be grim consequences for those the usa and the nations supporting the missile plans.

The piece criticises "the pessimistic view" from those who state that China can do little against usa plans. While it makes clear that China does not want this escalation "but it will have to deal with it if the arms race happens." The kind of self-defensive fighting talk that inspired Malcolm X and the Black Panthers to see socialist China as a vanguard struggle against white supremacy and empire.

One can feel a moment of breathing space for the Global South after the veto at the UNSC by China and Russia on Syria. From the time of the no fly zone resolution against Libya at the UNSC a year ago the Global South has been subject to a massive offensive for recolonisation of the Global South, with provocations across the continents. With China and especially Russia making it clear to the empire that they will not allow Syria to fall, the western war machine has been forced to slow down for a short while.

Russia and China have allowed the Global South, including themselves, a bit of space to develop as fast as they can their defence capabilities against empire's provocations for the defence of themselves and each other. It should always be  remembered that until empire is a museum piece, there is only one language that empire truly understands, and that is force and strategies for defensive liberation war which will defeat it.

It is pieces like this from Global Times that helps to give leadership to oppose the empire's war plans for a major part of the planet. It is this type of open anti-imperialist defence approach which will raise peoples and nations militancy to a more effective strategy of defending them/ourselves. Russia has done relatively well to counter the usa's missile defence plans in europe against it, but all observers no well that it was the 2008 conflict with Georgia that was the most real and meaningful message to nato and the usa that Russia will not be treated like a fool. China is most likely getting lessons from our Russian friends on this score.

Like Russia, China is being forced into this situation also by the usa, and all those who believe in peace for our peoples will stand with China unconditionally in this confrontation.



US missile shield fosters Asian arms race 

Global Times

The US has announced that it is seeking to build a missile defense system in Asia and the Middle East, following a similar step in Europe.

This will no doubt create disturbance and tension in the region, as it has in Europe. Japan, South Korea and Australia, which are invited to join the system, must seriously ponder the consequences.

North Korea and Iran are named by Washington as the targets of the missile defense system, though it is clear the real targets are China and Russia. China should firmly oppose it.

This is not a fresh idea for the White House. The concept was raised during the Clinton administration. The impact it brings today is much worse than back then.

China needs to assess what long-term damage this system will impose on China's strategic security. The system will be deployed on the soil of Japan, South Korea and Australia. It is widely agreed that China has little chance to stop it. The pessimistic view holds that China can do nothing about it.

But China can balance out the system's impact. North Korea's plan to launch a satellite next month has been used by Washington to install a missile defense system. It is a wise move. China can copy it and upgrade its nuclear weapon capability due to the possible threats posed by the US system. Specifically, China can improve its nuclear weapons in both quantity and quality as well as develop offensive nuclear-powered submarines. China's ballistic missiles should be able to break the interception capability of the US system.

Among the nuclear powers, China has the smallest number of nuclear weapons. It is also the only country to make a 'no first use' commitment. Installing a missile defense system in Asia disrespects China's nuclear policy.

The US is seeking to shift the regional balance. A strong response from China should be expected. An overarching missile defense system would force China to change its long-held nuclear policy.

If Japan, South Korea and Australia join the system, a vicious arms race in Asia may follow.

It is not what China wants to see, but it will have to deal with it if the arms race happens.

The US is creating waves in Asia. The region may see more conflicts intensify in the future. China should make utmost efforts to prevent it, but prepare for the worst.

MAINSTREAM PRESS IN OVERDRIVE IN PUSHING WAR PROPAGANDA AGAINST CHINA & IRAN

There are now countless western mainstream media reports talking up war with China, and this one is just one example of that.

Isnt it time serious anti-imperialists in the west, people who will assertively believe in eace and respect with the nations of the Global South to now put the defence of China, and building positive relations with the Chinese people and leadership as some of the foremost anti-war strategies, along with the defence of Syria and Iran?
Sukant Chandan - Sons of Malcolm/Friends of China



U.S. Defense Strategy Plan Focuses on Thwarting China, Iran

[source]

The U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines must combine resources to thwart any efforts by countries such as China and Iran to block America’s access to the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf and other strategic regions, according to a draft of a Pentagon review.

...

The U.S. should be able to deter any emerging anti-access capabilities such as the diesel attack submarines being developed by China and the anti-ship ballistic missiles deployed by China and Iran, and if necessary, defeat them, said the administration official.

...

The review is expected to conclude that the U.S. no longer will engage in protracted large-scale stabilization operations, as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it won’t have sufficient forces to fight two major conflicts at the same time, according to the official.


Rather, the U.S. will be able to fight in one major conflict and have the ability to deploy forces to deter another potential adversary from pursuing another major conflict, said the official.

...


“China sticks to the path of peaceful development and is always a force in maintaining regional and world peace,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a regular briefing in Beijing today in response to a question about the U.S. strategy. He said he had not seen the draft and that China and the U.S. must work together. “Cooperation is the only way,” he said.

While Chinese officials generally downplay offensive intentions, Iranians have threatened to use military force to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an oil embargo or full conflict with the U.S. over its nuclear program.

...


The state-run Fars news agency yesterday cited the head of Iran’s army, Ataollah Salehi, as “warning” the U.S. not to return an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. Pentagon spokesman George Little said the deployment of ships in the region “will continue as it has for decades.”

[end]

OBAMA AND HILARY LEAD THE EMPIRE IN UNDERHAND DIVIDE AND RULE BETWEEN ARAB WORLD, IRAN AND CHINA

China feels US-Iran fallout

By Peter Lee
Asia Times Online

The question of the day in Washington is will the People's
Republic of China veto further United Nations Security
Council sanctions against Iran over Tehran's nuclear
program?

Informed opinion says "no".

China has exercised its veto only six times in 30 years on
the council. In matters core to national priorities, like
punishing countries such as Guatemala and Macedonia for
their ties to the Republic of China (Taiwan) and protecting
the interests of Pakistan, it has acted alone.

However, on broader geopolitical issues, in recent years it
has vetoed resolutions only when joined by at least one
other Security Council member.

France and the United Kingdom are lined up solidly behind
the United States on Iran's nuclear program, which some say
is geared towards making a nuclear bomb, a charge Tehran
consistently dismisses.

Russia this year is interested in improving ties with the
US and Europe and has moved toward support of sanctions. No
Russian veto, no Chinese veto, says the conventional
wisdom.

On the other hand, chances of China voting for sanctions
are slim. A press report covering Chinese Foreign Minister
Yang Jiechi's visit to Paris at the beginning of February
says it all: "China Says Iran Sanctions Hinder Diplomacy."

Abstention is, therefore, China's most likely course.

Beijing's reaction might be expected to be a dismissive and
a resigned shrug: a symbolic vote, another toothless round
of sanctions, more political kabuki, and eventually
business as usual.

However, China's expected non-vote will be accompanied by
new feelings of unease and anger, reflecting Beijing's
growing suspicion that an important motivation for the Iran
sanctions, and the escalation of Iran tensions in general,
is Washington's desire to employ the issue as a wedge
against China.

In past years, China could regard US sanctions against
authoritarian regimes with a certain amount of complacency.
The George W Bush administration's heavy-handed approach
dismayed and divided natural allies of the US and drove its
targets deeper into China's embrace.

However, the Obama administration has decided to supplement
brute power with smart power. It apparently promotes
divisive international initiatives only when the splits in
international opinion and alliances are expected to go
America's way.

China first got a taste of the smart-power approach in
December at the Copenhagen climate summit. The US linked
the release of billions of dollars of climate adaptation
aid to vulnerable developing countries with China's
acceptance of a satisfactory transparency regime. Its
delegation passed the message to smaller nations that
China's intransigence was standing between them and
billions of dollars of much-needed assistance.

Despite the treaty debacle, the geopolitical results for
the Obama administration were encouraging. The European
Union sided with the US. According to an internal Chinese
report, a good number of Group of 77 nations were, for the
large part, influenced by the American position but did not
openly confront China. China cobbled together an alliance
with the emerging economies of Brazil and India and,
despite a concerted "blame China" effort by the US and the
UK, was able to limit the political damage.

However, it was a sobering experience for Chinese
diplomats. The report concluded "A conspiracy by developed
nations to divide the camp of developing nations [was] a
success."

Now, the Obama administration is picking on the regionally
and globally unpopular government of Iran, thereby exposing
China as the regime's lone international supporter of note.

The US has worked to bring the EU and Russia to its side.
The EU, at least, is now an enthusiastic ally. Relieved to
be dealing with a judicious and consultative American
president, it no longer sees the need to accommodate a
greater role for China on the world stage.

Russia has joined the American team (with sub voce
reservations), reportedly in response to the Obama
administration's concessions on shelving plans for a
missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.

The State Department has also worked with the Gulf states
to gain their support for a policy of putting Iran in its
place.

As far as the China issue is concerned, America's direct
solicitation of China's Security Council vote involved
Obama passing the word to President Hu Jintao that China's
interests would suffer if diplomatic pressure failed,
Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, and the price of
oil went up.

It is unlikely that the Israel attack card was persuasive
to the Chinese leadership, and did little more than
convince them that Washington was using it as an excuse to
justify an extension of US influence in the Middle East.

A pre-emptive attack by Israel to nip Iran's nuclear
ambitions in the bud is unlikely.

Despite Tel Aviv's brave talk of its ability and
determination to launch a raid independent of US approval,
even a resounding success would probably only slow down the
program a few years while earning the undying enmity of the
Iranian people and the Muslim world toward Israel ... and
the United States, which would have to provide Israel with
flight privileges over Iraq to stage the attack.

American assertions that the Iranian nuclear program will
spark a ruinous arms race in the Gulf no doubt elicited
similar skepticism from China, with the unspoken
observation that, since most of those arms would be
supplied by the US and EU, the onus for (and profits of) an
arms race would probably fall to the West.

American efforts to wedge the Arab states away from China
are more likely to attract Beijing's attention and concern.

James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation spun US Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's current trip to the Middle East:

Clinton will be looking to the Arabs to "act as a
counterweight [to Iran] on China and help unlock its
Security Council vote.

The US is hoping to use these discussions with the Arabs as
a way to encourage China to look at its long-term economic
interests," Phillips added. "The Arabs could let the
Chinese know that it will hurt them economically with the
Arab countries in the long run if China clings to this
pro-Iran position.

United States protestations that all this diplomatic
maneuvering directed at China is justified by the need to
exhibit international unity on Iran ring hollow.

Invocation of the Israeli attack and the Gulf states arms
race bogeymen notwithstanding, the primary justification
for the current spasm of concern over Iran's nascent
nuclear activities is the dreaded Western "impatience",
which appears very similar to the manufactured impatience
that sent the coalition of the willing charging into Iraq
in 2003.

The stated remedy for this impatience, the UN sanctions, is
unlikely to work.

Russia cares enough about its relationship with Tehran to
make sure anything that gets through the Security Council
will not be particularly catastrophic.

On February 11, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Ryabkov made
this memorable statement: "We do not think sanctions will
work, but we understand that it is impossible to get by
without them in certain circumstances."

With early reports that a massive government presence
marginalized Green Movement demonstrators on the February
11 anniversary of the Iranian revolution of 1979, regime
change in Iran is probably off the table, too.

Even if a new regime came to power, Iran's national
commitment to nuclear power - and the perceived nuclear
weapons threat to the region - would probably remain
unchanged.

By conventional geopolitical logic, China would seem to
have the right idea: more jaw-jaw and engagement or, as it
called for in a recent editorial, "patience, patience and
more patience."

But US policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction,
stoking the crisis instead of lowering the heat.

So what's China's takeaway from the Iran crisis?

Absent an immediate, credible threat of an Israeli attack
on Iran, the US is rushing the international community
toward "crushing sanctions" on Tehran that, if carried out,
would result in disruption of Iran's energy exports.

If this were to actually occur, the big loser in the Iran
crisis would be China.

As a Chinese analyst told Reuters: "Fully going with
Western expansion of sanctions on Iran so they restrict
Iran's energy exports would amount to disguised sanctions
against China, and China certainly won't agree," Wang Feng,
a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences told
the Global Times, a Chinese newspaper published on
Thursday.

Reportedly, the US had advised China it would dispatch
Hillary Clinton to visit Iran's enemies in the Persian Gulf
and ensure that, if sanctions disrupted the supply of
Iranian oil, Saudi Arabia and its associates would ensure
that China's petroleum needs would continue to be met.

It is unlikely that China's vision of its energy security
involves relying on the US's good offices to deal with the
consequences of a US-imposed policy that it rejects and had
no voice in formulating.

In any case, the prospects for an oil-price Armageddon are
unlikely. Given free-market realities and the greed of oil
producers inside and outside the Gulf, the world would
suffer as much as China if Iranian crude disappeared from
the market.

For Beijing, the biggest concern is its perception that
Europe, Russia and the Gulf states are signing on to an
anti-Iran initiative that could impact China's interests in
such a major way without accommodating China's priorities.

From Beijing's point of view, China is the main superpower
stakeholder in the Iran crisis.

So it is asking why isn't it being consulted? Indeed, why
aren't its critical interests given priority, instead of
subjecting it to moonshine about an Israeli attack, an arms
race in the Gulf and lectures about its geopolitical
interests?

China is not a threat to the international order, but it is
its most independent and uncontrollable element. There are
growing signs of a shared consensus in the West that
reliance on China as a stabilizing financial, economic and
geopolitical factor must be reduced.

The past few years have been good to China's competitors
-especially India - and bad for China's allies - Pakistan
and Iran.

By accident or design, the Obama administration's decision
to heat up the Iran controversy has driven another wedge
between China and the US, the EU, the Gulf states and even
Russia.

The issue for China is whether the purpose of America's
Iran campaign is to isolate Iran ... or to isolate China?
This is a consequence of China's participation in the
security initiatives that the US chooses to organize to
protect and promote its own and loyal allies' interests.

China responded to the escalation of the Iran nuclear
crisis with a remarkable lead editorial in the Global
Times, the international affairs organ of People's Daily,
the government mouthpiece,.

The editorial, with the eye-catching title "Iran and the
West: Neither Should Think of Taking China Hostage",
painted China as the victim of the standoff. In an effort
to be even-handed, both Iran and the West are criticized
for their intransigence.

Nevertheless, both the West and Iran are unheeding at this
time. They both believe that only if they are unyielding,
then the other side will back off. This unenlightened
attitude even extends to their attitude toward China. Both
sides believe that all that's needed is to put pressure on
China, then China will, without considering its own
interests ... lower its head to them ... This thinking is
unrealistic.

The use of the loaded term, "lower its head", conjuring
images of the humiliating kowtow, instead of a more neutral
term such as "support one or the other" is an indication
that red lines are being drawn.

The fact that China's main worry is the West, and not Iran,
is unambiguously conveyed in the editorial's conclusion.

Recently in Western public opinion has been a call to use
the Iran issue to isolate China. This is extremely
superficial ... China is a big country and its interests
must be respected. China's dilemma must be sympathized
with. China's proposal opposing sanctions must be
understood. The big powers must cooperate and negotiate on
the Iran issue ...

China is a great country. If anyone seeks to compel her, to
injure her, they will certainly pay the price. Pretty
strong stuff.

The editorial is a clear indication that China considers
itself the target - or at least intended collateral damage
- in America's anti-Iran campaign. It makes the case that,
if the Obama administration sincerely cared about its
relationship with China, Washington would back off from the
sanctions campaign and allow negotiations to continue.

But that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Sanctions will probably go ahead, with China either
abstaining or throwing in a tactical "yes" vote to postpone
an overt breach, and Washington will obtain another point
of leverage against China in the Persian Gulf.

If that happens, China will have to think about adjusting
to a new world situation in which the West seems less
interested in bargaining for its support or respecting its
interests.

Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.

VOICE OF BRITISH FINANCIAL ELITE: US ARE LOSING THE FREE WORLD

America is losing the free world

By Gideon Rachman

4 Jan, 2010, FT

Ever since 1945, the US has regarded itself as the leader of the “free world”. But the Obama administration is facing an unexpected and unwelcome development in global politics. Four of the biggest and most strategically important democracies in the developing world – Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey – are increasingly at odds with American foreign policy. Rather than siding with the US on the big international issues, they are just as likely to line up with authoritarian powers such as China and Iran.

The US has been slow to pick up on this development, perhaps because it seems so surprising and unnatural. Most Americans assume that fellow democracies will share their values and opinions on international affairs. During the last presidential election campaign, John McCain, the Republican candidate, called for the formation of a global alliance of democracies to push back against authoritarian powers. Some of President Barack Obama’s senior advisers have also written enthusiastically about an international league of democracies.

But the assumption that the world’s democracies will naturally stick together is proving unfounded. The latest example came during the Copenhagen climate summit. On the last day of the talks, the Americans tried to fix up one-to-one meetings between Mr Obama and the leaders of South Africa, Brazil and India – but failed each time. The Indians even said that their prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had already left for the airport.

So Mr Obama must have felt something of a chump when he arrived for a last-minute meeting with Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, only to find him already deep in negotiations with the leaders of none other than Brazil, South Africa and India. Symbolically, the leaders had to squeeze up to make space for the American president around the table.

There was more than symbolism at work. In Copenhagen, Brazil, South Africa and India decided that their status as developing nations was more important than their status as democracies. Like the Chinese, they argued that it is fundamentally unjust to cap the greenhouse gas emissions of poor countries at a lower level than the emissions of the US or the European Union; all the more so since the industrialised west is responsible for the great bulk of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

Revealingly, both Brazilian and Chinese leaders have made the same pointed joke – likening the US to a rich man who, after gorging himself at a banquet, then invites the neighbours in for coffee and asks them to split the bill.

If climate change were an isolated example, it might be dismissed as an important but anomalous issue that is almost designed to split countries along rich-poor lines. But, in fact, if you look at Brazil, South Africa, India and Turkey – the four most important democracies in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the greater Middle East – it is clear that none of them can be counted as a reliable ally of the US, or of a broader “community of democracies”.

In the past year, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil has cut a lucrative oil deal with China, spoken warmly of Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, and congratulated Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad on his “victory” in the Iranian presidential election, while welcoming him on a state visit to Brazil.

During a two-year stint on the United Nations Security Council from 2006, the South Africans routinely joined China and Russia in blocking resolutions on human rights and protecting authoritarian regimes such as Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan and Iran.

Turkey, once regarded as a crucial American ally in the cold war and then trumpeted as the only example of a secular, pro-western, Muslim democracy, is also no longer a reliable partner for the west. Ever since the US-led invasion of Iraq, opinion polls there have shown very high levels of anti-Americanism. The mildly Islamist AKP government has engaged with America’s regional enemies – including Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran – and alarmed the Americans by taking an increasingly hostile attitude to Israel.

India’s leaders do seem to cherish the idea that they have a “special relationship” with the US. But even the Indians regularly line up against the Americans on a range of international issues, from climate change to the Doha round of trade negotiations and the pursuit of sanctions against Iran or Burma.

So what is going on? The answer is that Brazil, South Africa, Turkey and India are all countries whose identities as democracies are now being balanced – or even trumped – by their identities as developing nations that are not part of the white, rich, western world. All four countries have ruling parties that see themselves as champions of social justice at home and a more equitable global order overseas. Brazil’s Workers’ party, India’s Congress party, Turkey’s AKP and South Africa’s African National Congress have all adapted to globalisation – but they all retain traces of the old suspicions of global capitalism and of the US.

Mr Obama is seen as a huge improvement on George W. Bush – but he is still an American president. As emerging global powers and developing nations, Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey may often feel they have more in common with a rising China than with the democratic US.

ON CHINA'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS US POLICY TOWARDS IRAN

Beijing cautions US over Iran

Asia Times Online
By M K Bhadrakumar

China has broken silence on the developing situation in
Iran. This comes against the backdrop of a discernible
shift in Washington's posturing toward political
developments in Iran.

The government-owned China Daily featured its main
editorial comment on Thursday titled "For Peace in Iran".
It comes amid reports in the Western media that the former
president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is rallying the Qom
clergy to put pressure on the Guardians Council - and, in
turn, on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - to annul last
Friday's presidential election that gave Mahmud Ahmadinejad
another four-year term.

Beijing fears a confrontation looming and counsels Obama to
keep the pledge in his Cairo speech not to repeat such
errors in the US's Middle East policy as the overthrow of
the elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran in
1953. Beijing also warns about letting the genie of popular
unrest get out of the bottle in a highly volatile region
that is waiting to explode. Tehran on Friday saw its sixth
day of massive protests by supporters of Mir Hossein
Mousavi, whom they say was cheated out of victory.

A parallel with Thailand Meanwhile, China's special envoy
on Middle East, Wu Sike, is setting out on an extensive
fortnight-long regional tour on Saturday (which,
significantly, will be rounded off with consultations in
Moscow) to fathom the political temperature in capitals as
varied as Cairo and Tel Aviv, Amman and Damascus, and
Beirut and Ramallah.

Beijing also made a political statement when a substantive
bilateral was scheduled between President Hu Jintao and
Ahmadinejad on Tuesday on the sidelines of the summit
meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in
Yekaterinburg, Russia.

Conceivably, Hu would have discussed the Iran situation
with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev during his
official visit to Moscow that followed the SCO summit.
Earlier, Moscow welcomed Ahmadinejad's re-election. Both
China and Russia abhor "color" revolutions, especially
something as intriguing as Twitter, which Moscow came
across a few months ago in Moldova and raises hackles about
the US's interventionist global strategy.

China anticipated the backlash against Ahmadinejad's
victory. On Monday, The Global Times newspaper quoted the
former Chinese ambassador to Iran, Hua Liming, that the
Iranian situation would get back to normalcy only if a
negotiated agreement was reached among the "major centers
of political power ... But, if not, the recent turmoil in
Thailand will possibly be repeated". It is quite revealing
that the veteran Chinese diplomat drew a parallel with
Thailand.

However, Hua underscored that Ahmadinejad does enjoy
popularity and has "lots of support in this nationalist
country because he has the courage to state his own opinion
and dares to carry out his policies". The consensus opinion
of Chinese academic community is also that Ahmadinejad's
re-election will "test" Obama.

Thus, Thursday's China Daily editorial is broadly in the
nature of an appeal to the Obama administration not to
spoil its new Middle East policy, which is shaping well,
through impetuous actions. Significantly, the editorial
upheld the authenticity of Ahmadinejad's election victory:
"Win and loss are two sides of an election coin. Some
candidates are less inclined to accept defeat."

The daily pointed out that a pre-election public opinion
poll conducted by the Washington Post newspaper showed
Ahmadinejad having a 2-1 lead over his nearest rival and
some opinion polls in Iran also indicated more or less the
same, whereas, actually, "he won the election on a lower
margin. Thus, the opposition's allegations against
Ahmadinejad come as a trifle surprising".

The editorial warns: "Attempts to push the so-called color
revolution toward chaos will prove very dangerous. A
destabilized Iran is in nobody's interest if we want to
maintain peace and stability in the Middle East, and the
world beyond." It pointedly recalled that the US's "Cold
War intervention in Iran" made US-Iran relationship a
troubled one, "with US presidents trying to stick their
nose into Iran's internal business".

Theocracy versus republicanism Beijing understands Iran's
revolutionary politics very well. China was one of the few
countries that warmly hosted Ruhollah Khomeini as president
(in 1981 and 1989). In contrast, India, which professes
"civilizational" ties with Iran, was much too confused
about Iran's revolutionary legacy to be able to correctly
estimate Khamenei's political instincts favoring
republicanism. Most of the Indian elites aren't even aware
that Khamenei studied as a youth in Moscow's Patrice
Lumumba University.

Be that as it may, the Hu-Ahmadinejad meeting in
Yekaterinburg on Tuesday once again shows Beijing has a
very clear idea about the ebb and flow of Iran's politics.
Hu demonstrably accorded to Ahmadinejad the full honor as
Beijing's valued interlocutor.

Chinese media have closely followed the trajectory of the
US reaction to the situation in Iran, especially the
"Twitter revolution", which puts Beijing on guard about US
intentions. Indications are that the US establishment has
begun meddling in Iranian politics. Rafsanjani's camp
always keeps lines open to the West. All-in-all, a degree
of synchronization is visible involving the US's "Twitter
revolution" route, Rafsanjani's parleys with the
conservative clergy in Qom and Mousavi's
uncharacteristically defiant stance.

Obama faces multiple challenges. On the one hand, as Helene
Cooper of The New York Times reported on Thursday, the
continuing street protests in Tehran are emboldening a
corpus of (pro-Israel) conservatives in Washington to
demand that Obama should take a "more visible stance in
support of the protesters". But then, a regime change would
inevitably delay the expected US-Iran direct engagement and
upset Obama's tight calendar to ensure the negotiations
gained traction by year's end, while Iran's centrifuges in
its nuclear establishments keep spinning.

Also, a fragmented power structure in Tehran will prove
ineffectual in helping the US stabilize Afghanistan.
However, top administration officials like Vice President
Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would
like the US to "strike a stronger tone" on Iran's turmoil.
Cooper reported they are piling pressure on Obama that he
might run the risk of "coming across the wrong side of
history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran".

A Thermidorian reaction No doubt, the turmoil has an
intellectual side to it. Obama being a rare politician
gifted with intellectuality and a keen sense of history
would know that what is at stake is a well-orchestrated
attempt by the hardcore conservative clerical establishment
to roll back the four-year-old painful, zig-zag process
toward republicanism in Iran.

Mousavi is the affable front man for the mullahs, who fear
that another four years of Ahmadinejad would hurt their
vested interests. Ahmadinejad has already begun
marginalizing the clergy from the sinecures of power and
the honey pots of the Iranian economy, especially the oil
industry.

The struggle between the worldly mullahs (in alliance with
the bazaar) and the republicans is as old as the 1979
Iranian revolution, where the fedayeen of the proscribed
Tudeh party (communist cadres) were the original foot
soldiers of the revolution, but the clerics usurped the
leadership. The highly contrived political passions let
loose by the 444-day hostage crisis with the US helped the
wily Shi'ite clerics to stage the Thermidorian reaction and
isolate the progressive revolutionary leadership.
Ironically, the US once again figures as a key protagonist
in Iran's dialectics - not as a hostage, though.

Imam Khomeini was wary of the Iranian mullahs and he
created the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as an
independent force to ensure the mullahs didn't hijack the
revolution. Equally, his preference was that the government
should be headed by non-clerics. In the early years of the
revolution, the conspiracies hatched by the triumvirate of
Beheshti-Rafsanjani-Rajai who engineered the ouster of the
secularist leftist president Bani Sadr (who was Khomeini's
protege), had the agenda to establish a one-party
theocratic state. These are vignettes of Iran's
revolutionary history that might have eluded the
intellectual grasp of George W Bush, but Obama must be au
fait with the deviousness of Rafsanjani's politics.

If Rafsanjani's putsch succeeds, Iran would at best bear
resemblance to a decadent outpost of the "pro-West" Persian
Gulf. Would a dubious regime be durable? More important, is
it what Obama wishes to see as the destiny of the Iranian
people? The Arab street is also watching. Iran is an
exception in the Muslim world where people have been
empowered. Iran's multitudes of poor, who form
Ahmadinejad's support base, detest the corrupt, venal
clerical establishment. They don't even hide their visceral
hatred of the Rafsanjani family.

Alas, the political class in Washington is clueless about
the Byzantine world of Iranian clergy. Egged on by the
Israeli lobby, it is obsessed with "regime change". The
temptation will be to engineer a "color revolution". But
the consequence will be far worse than what obtains in
Ukraine. Iran is a regional power and the debris will fall
all over. The US today has neither the clout nor the
stamina to stem the lava flow of a volcanic eruption
triggered by a color revolution that may spill over Iran's
borders.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

CHINESE STATE MEDIA ON OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a long anticipated speech on June 4, 2009 to the Muslim world during his visit to Egypt in Cairo University in Cairo, capital of Egypt, which is aimed at recovering U.S. relations with Muslim countries. (Xinhua/Zhang Ning) Photo Gallery>>>

Obama's "new beginning" needs concrete actions

BEIJING, June 5 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama said in a major speech at Cairo University on Thursday that the United States seeks a "new beginning" in relations with the Muslim world.

The "new beginning," however, still needs more actions to be realized.

The United States has experienced painful lessons in its treatment of different cultures. On the Middle East issue, the U.S. has consistently taken the side of Israel; on the issue of Iran, the U.S. has imposed sanctions.

In 2003, the U.S. military launched the Iraq war, saying that the Americans would "rebuild" the Middle East according to their own values and political system. Six years have past, however, and the war has left a trail of destruction in Iraq. The U.S. has also paid price, including a high death toll and an enormous expenditure. The facts have shown that the war has been a disaster for both the Middle East region and the U.S. itself.

As we can see, behind these crisis hides not only reasons for benefit, but also the exclusive mood of a super international power, which rejected different cultures, values and political systems. More introspection and less repugnance on the part of the United States would help improve relations between U.S. and the Muslim world.

Obama's proposition of a "new start" is a positive signal. Yet just as he recognizes himself, bilateral relations will not change overnight. Frankness and mutual trust are important for the two sides to listen and learn from each other in order to seek a common ground.

According to an ancient Chinese saying: "The gentleman aims at harmony, and not at uniformity," so different cultures, views, values and social systems need to be communicated and shared through dialogue on the basis of equality and mutual trust. That is the right way to build a world of peace and harmony.

To both the United States and the Muslim world, more communication and less actions to harm bilateral relations are the only way to gain mutual trust.

It is noticeable that some "changes" in U.S. diplomacy have taken place since Obama took office.

For one thing, the Obama administration has expressed its willingness to have open and direct talks with Iran. For another, it has shown intentions of easing the long-time tensions with Cuba. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also introduced the term "smart power" in the new administration's foreign policies.

How far can such "changes" go and what results can be achieved depends on a complexity of factors concerning the relevant parties, as well as the domestic political environment in the United States.

Although the president's speech at Cairo University received a certain amount of applause, some analysts pointed out that due to its long-time policy consistency, "changes" advocated by the Obama administration seemed to remain just words without action.

Therefore, to create a "new beginning," the U.S. should take more substantial steps, and with deeper sincerity.

IRAQ'S OIL - IRAN, RUSSIA & CHINA PUSH OUT THE WEST IN IRAQ'S FAVOUR

The Future of Iraq's Oil Industry:
China and Russia May have The Lion's Share!

Via The Angry Arab News Service

September 6, 2008

On Iraqi oil. Amer wrote this for Iraq Slogger:

"The Future of Iraq's Oil Industry: China and Russia May
have The Lion's Share!

Most of the mainstream Western media reported – but gave
little heed – to the recent agreements between the Iraqi
Government and International oil companies to exploit
Iraq's vast oil resources. It was casually reported that
"service contracts" were to be granted to a group of
Western oil companies to refurbish and increase production
in several Iraqi oilfields. Shortly thereafter, it was
confirmed that oil contracts going back to the Saddam era
(mostly with Chinese and Russian companies) to exploit
several other oilfields will be revived - and revised - and
will shortly enter into effect.

The importance of this news cannot be underestimated; these
contracts – if fulfilled – will largely determine the
future of Iraq's oil industry, and by extension, its
economic development. On the other hand, the shape and
structure of these contracts reveal the "strategic"
political deals that took place in the backrooms: the
current contracts represent a major departure from the
original US vision for Iraq's oil future, and may be a
reflection of the new balance of power in the "New Iraq."

Az-Zaman reported on the official granting of "exploitation
rights" to the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation
(CNPC) to produce oil from the Ahdab field (near the
Iranian borders,) al-Ahdab, as described by the newspaper
is "one of five strategic oilfields in Iraq" whose
exploitation was contracted to Russian and Chinese
companies by the previous regime during the late 1990s.
Az-Zaman, reaching for the political angle, framed the
story with the following title: "Chinese deal with Iranian
mediation excludes US companies from investment in Iraq's
oil."

The title is somehow misleading – since US companies have
already guaranteed large contracts in Iraq, but it does
contain a grain of truth. Why would the United States (or
its "ally", the Iraqi government) be interested in reviving
oil contracts with nations that neither supported the
US-led invasion in 2003, nor are considered allies of the
US? Didn't US officials clearly proclaim in the early
months of the invasion that countries opposing the
enterprise will have little access to Iraq contracts? What
happened to the grand plans to privatize Iraq's oil
industry and use Western companies and expertise to quickly
boost production in the framework of production-sharing
contracts (PSCs)? Furthermore, the contracts handed out by
Saddam to CNPC and Russian companies represent most of
Iraq's oil potential.

Iraq's proven oil reserves can be roughly divided into A-
reserves in already-producing oilfields and B- reserves in
oilfields that have been discovered in the 20th century,
but remained (for various reasons) unexploited. The largest
proportion of Iraq's oil reserves belongs to the second
category. Most of Iraq's oil production in the last
half-century came from a handful of oil deposits that were
discovered in the 1920s-1950s and that have been
continuously producing ever since. These fields, such as
Kirkuk and Rumaila, are considered to be "maturing," that
is, their reserves are running out and any attempt to boost
production (and compensate for the natural decline) will be
progressively more expensive in the coming years. Some of
these oilfields, such as Kirkuk, have had their oil
reservoirs irreversibly damaged because of bad production
practices in the past. Virtually all of the "service
contracts" granted to Western oil companies are in those
aging oilfields, while Russian and Chinese companies will
be tasked with exploiting fresh reserves. Both categories
of contracts are substantial, and possibly very lucrative,
but it would seem ironic that, after America's costly
enterprise in the Middle East, the Chinese and the Russians
will stand to control most of Iraq's future oil production
– hence Az-Zaman's acerbic title.

What is more significant for Iraq is that all of the
contracts are reasonably favorable to the country and its
National Oil Company (or at least far better than the
original visions floated after 2003, which spoke of
Production-Sharing Contracts with unreasonably high margins
for foreign companies.) In fact, the original Saddam
contract with China was seen as "too favorable" and had to
be revised down to a "service contract" (Saddam had
originally offered generous production-sharing.) According
to Az-Zaman, the Chinese operator will receive compensation
for its investment costs in addition to an agreed-upon
profit margin – the paper said that the Chinese company
will receive around $6 for every barrel it extracts. The
oilfield is expected to produce around 110,000 Barrels per
day for a contractual period of 10 years.

Where does Iran come into the equation? The reason that
prevented the signing of quick, massive, oil contracts with
Western and US companies after the Iraq invasion was the
tremendous opposition fielded against such contracts in
Iraq. The oil workers Unions and Iraqi oil experts
mobilized quickly and were very vocal in expressing their
opposition to such plans; the raging public mood convinced
the government that "political" oil deals will be very
costly, and – maybe most importantly – pro-Iranian militias
in the South made it clear to the oil industry that no oil
will be profitably exported from Iraq under conditions
unfavorable to a host of local and regional "actors." Once
this new structure for the exploitation of Iraq's oil was
negotiated, probably many months ago – with limited Western
involvement, large contracts for China and Russia and a
larger participation on behalf of the Iraqi national oil
companies - "sabotage" and attacks against Iraq's oil
installations suddenly died down!"