By It will be interesting to see how long this distrust lasts once China starts to throw around their financial and political weight to get deals they want agreed upon with the new government in Libya:
The Libyan National Transitional Council flag at the Libyan Embassy in Beijing on Aug. 23 Read more: China Political Memo: Beijing's Noninterference Policy and Post-Gadhafi Libya | STRATFOR
Chinese state-owned news agency Xinhua on Sept. 8 condemned what it said were false accusations against the Chinese government by “international forces” attempting to freeze it out of reconstruction efforts in Libya. Xinhua’s statement comes after the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Sept. 6 confirmed a Globe and Mail report released the previous day claiming that envoys of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had traveled to Beijing in July to meet with representatives from Chinese state-controlled weapons manufacturing companies (though it said the talks did not result in any deals or deliveries and said that the envoys had arranged to meet with the arms makers without permission from Beijing). It also comes after recent statements by Mustafa Abdel Jalil, interim chairman of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC), accusing China of obstructing the release of some of Libya’s frozen assets.
This has exacerbated the distrust between Beijing and the NTC, borne out of the latter’s suspicion that China favored the Gadhafi regime during the war. The roots of this lie in Beijing’s stated, longstanding policy of noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs: China abstained from voting in March on the U.N. Security Council resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, later publicly condemning the Western military intervention, and it remains the only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to not recognize the NTC.
Beijing’s interests in Libya are relatively small; its relations with the former regime of Gadhafi were never close, and it owns no producing
Libyan oilfields. However, it receives 3.5 percent of its total crude imports from Libya, and it has invested an estimated $20 billion in the country, mostly through state-owned enterprises. China is looking to improve relations with the NTC, both to see a return on those investments and to use its wealth to carve out a place in cash-poor post-Gadhafi Libya. However, several NTC officials have warned it may freeze out countries that did not support the rebellion.
The fact that several elements within the NTC are displaying hostility to China and the other countries that did not fully support the rebels during the war suggests the NTC’s willingness to use this perceived non-support in any future deals, meaning China’s goals in Libya may not be easily achievable. It also reflects Beijing’s uneasiness with its noninterference policy, especially in light of the rapidly changing situations in Libya and the Arab world.
6:35 am on September 13th, 2011 1
“The roots of this lie in Beijing’s stated, longstanding policy of noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs”
Just ask Tibet and Taiwan about China’s non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. I’m sure they know ALL about it.
2:03 pm on September 13th, 2011 2
johnny boy 1, China and Taiwan agree on one thing: they both say Taiwan is part of China. The Dalai Lama does not seek independence for Tibet. So I don’t think you’ve presented convincing examples of China interfering in other countries’ internal affairs.
2:49 pm on September 13th, 2011 3
Glans, the Green Coalition (not Greens as in environmental party, just the non-KMT) largely believe Taiwan should declare itself independent. For now, however, the Blue-run Taiwanese government officially says they are the rightful rulers of all of China, and Mongolia.
3:40 pm on September 13th, 2011 4
kushibo 3 gives a good clarification. Until Taiwan declares independence, nothing China does there is interference in another country’s internal affairs. I’m not endorsing anything done there by the Chinese government; I’m just saying it’s not interference in another country’s internal affairs.
Like the Fed chairman adopting policies with which one disagrees does not thereby become a traitor. Depriving veterans of the benefits which they have earned, and are therefore entitled to, is not treason. Bad morals and bad policy, but not treason.
Accusations should be accurate.
4:16 pm on September 13th, 2011 5
Glans wrote:
I don’t think it’s that simple. China does in fact use explicit threats of force prevent a declaration of independence.
Moreover, and this is why it’s murky, Taiwan is a de facto independent country, as much as China except for widespread diplomatic recognition. China may consider Taiwan technically part of the People’s Republic of China, but after sixty years of no control over that land, they are actually not.
Would North Korea be justified in telling the world to buqqer off when it attacks Yŏnpyŏng-do, because the two countries mutually claim each other? How about if Taiwan were to attack Mongolia, since they claim that?
And that Korean parallel brings into focus what’s wrong with the way that was described. You wrote that “China and Taiwan agree on one thing: they both say Taiwan is part of China,” but that’s actually not true. The Republic of China believes that all of the land occupied by the People’s Republic of China and Outer Mongolia are rightfully the ROC’s, while the PRC believes that all of the land occupied by the ROC is rightfully the PRC’s.
In fact, they don’t “agree” at all that they are part of the same country; they may acknowledged that each government claims the same area.
4:32 pm on September 13th, 2011 6
To Taiwain, Outer Mongolia is a foreign country, but Inner Mongolia isn’t. That doesn’t mean it would be OK for Taiwan to kill people or destroy property in either of them. When North Korea attacked Yŏnpyŏng-do it dead a very bad thing, but it didn’t attack a foreign country.
If a US agent violates a suspect’s right in Minnesota, he does wrong. If he violates a suspect’s rights in Manitoba, he does that same wrong and additionally he attacks another country, Canada.
I think I’ll leave it at that.
7:01 pm on September 13th, 2011 7
Glans wrote:
I’m not so sure, having been told directly by people who work in the Taiwanese government that the ROC claims both Inner Mongolia (currently occupied by the PRC) and Outer Mongolia (the country of Mongolia).
This site backs up that claim:
So does this map.
I think the Greens (DPP) was trying to end this farce, but the KMT has kept it alive.
7:33 pm on September 13th, 2011 8
Nice wrap up post #7 Kushibo. It will be interesting to see if the new Libya anti-China policy holds. Gadhafi constantly played the Pan-Africa card but dallied with China when he felt ncessary, yet Africa today is being colonized all over, in de facto terms, by China. Can the Islamists and whoever else is taking over Libya resist Chinese investment? Only if the West gets smart and exploits Libya fast.
7:36 pm on September 13th, 2011 9
Here in Hawaii I’ve met a number of students from Africa. Almost universally, they feel something negative toward the Chinese, ranging from disdain to distrust. “Neo-colonists,” a guy from Botswana told me last week.
By contrast, the view toward Koreans is positive (in relation to hospital and school construction) to neutral (from those who have had little contact with Koreans in Africa).
2:08 am on September 14th, 2011 10
Glans, I suppose you are technically correct.
I know the Dalai Lama no longer seeks independence, but rather autonomy. Not to generalize too much, but wouldn’t that make it more of a territory so to speak? (if the Dalai Lama were to be considered the ruler of Tibet by all parties concerned)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/07/501364/main20040184.shtm
Key take-away from this article:
“The 76-year-old, who is 14th in the line of reincarnations, has at times insisted his successor would be born in exile but has also said the tradition could end with his death.”
Beijing’s response:
“China says that the reincarnation tradition cannot be abandoned and that the next Dalai Lama must be born in a Tibetan area under Chinese control.”
P.S. Chiang Kai-Shek was a bastard. Anybody wonder what the current global atmosphere would be like if he had been more worried about being a decent leader figure, and less worried about hoarding all the U.S. monetary assistance he was receiving? KMT in charge of China. For better or for worse? I am interested in hearing everyone’s opinion.
2:15 am on September 14th, 2011 11
#8 Expat
“Can the Islamists and whoever else is taking over Libya resist Chinese investment? Only if the West gets smart and exploits Libya fast.”
I am sure that some faction of our government is waaaaaay ahead of us on that one. Good ole’ Uncle Sam has never been ashamed of involving itself in others’ affairs.
2:35 pm on September 17th, 2011 12
The UN General Assembly voted to accept the new government in Libya. Russia and China voted with the majority, as did ROK, Vietnam, India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Brazil. Cuba, South Africa, Venezuela, and some others voted against. Another group abstained, including Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and a few African and Latin American countries.
Where was DPRK, you ask. Don’t know. It was in a pretty big group who were “absent”. So was Pakistan. Here’s the link.
6:40 pm on September 17th, 2011 13
#12
interesting. maybe i’m the only one who doesn’t know about this, but what does the south african government have against the new libyan government? were they close trading partners with gadaffhi’s regime?