Skip to content or view screen version

The Whole World

James Jones | 19.02.2007 19:32

Stands united against the USA.Though some whisper all are united.The unreported alliance between China,Russia and Iran.

The new geostrategic alliance
Along with energy trade, investment and economic development, the China-Iran-Russia alliance has cultivated compatible foreign policies. China, Iran and Russia have identical foreign policy positions regarding Taiwan and Chechnya. China and Iran fully support the Putin government's war against the Chechen separatists (Iran's self-described status as an "Islamic republic" notwithstanding). Russia and Iran support Beijing's one-China policy. The recent promulgation of China's anti-secession law, aimed at making Beijing's intolerance of Taiwanese independence explicit, was heartily commended in both Moscow and Tehran.

The most compelling aspect of this alliance is revealed in China's and Russia's support for Iran's much-maligned nuclear energy program. The Putin government has consistently maintained that Russia would not support UN Security Council resolutions that condemn Iran's nuclear energy program or apply economic sanctions against Iran. In February, Putin said he was convinced Iran was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons and announced plans to visit the country, in support of Tehran, just prior to his summit with President Bush.

Beijing has echoed Moscow's opposition to UN action against Iran. After concluding the historic gas and oil deal between China and Iran in October 2004, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing announced that China would not support UN Security Council action against Iran's nuclear energy program. Opposition in Moscow and Beijing to UN action against Iran is significant because both countries hold UN Security Council veto power.

The endorsement of Tehran's nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis - to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions. For Beijing and Moscow, this means minimizing US influence in Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the regime in Tehran, keeping the US at bay is a matter of survival.

The joint statement issued at the conclusion of Putin's state visit to China in October 2004 was a clear indication of Beijing's and Moscow's abhorrence of the Bush administration's unilateral foreign policy. The statement noted that China and Russia "hold that it is urgently needed to [resolve] international disputes under the chairing of the UN and resolve crisis [sic] on the basis of universally recognized principles of international law. Any coercive action should only be taken with the approval of the UN Security Council and enforced under its supervision..."

Two weeks after this statement was released, and just prior to the US presidential election, Beijing's position against US unilateralism was again made explicit by China's former foreign minister Qian Qichen - arguably China's most distinguished diplomat.

In an opinion piece published in the state-controlled China Daily, Qian ripped Washington's unilateralism: "The United States has tightened its control of the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia." He noted that this control "testifies that Washington's anti-terror campaign has already gone beyond the scope of self defense". Qian went further, stating that: "The US case in Iraq has caused the Muslim world and Arab countries to believe that the superpower already regards them as targets [for] its ambitious democratic reform program."

To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons.

James Jones

Comments

Hide 9 hidden comments or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Nice to see ..

19.02.2007 20:28

some of world's greatest dictatorships ganging up together ... against the world's second largest democracy [I believe India is the largest, and it is interesting that India and America seem to be getting closer.] Nice place China - don't they harvest the organs of the executed for organ transplants?

sceptic


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

sceptic

19.02.2007 20:46

I am saying that this tri-lateral union will not stand by while Iran is nuked.And in worst case will nuke the USA

James Jones


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

You're making a lot of assumptions on no evidence.

19.02.2007 21:27

First, that America will 'nuke' Iran. Oh, I'm sure you'll come back and say: why not? Well, if you're going to make assertions as serious as that, you've got to back it up with harder evidence than 'Bush is capable of anything', 'AIPAC wants them to,' or whatever.

Second - do you think Russia and China are suicidal? They may 'nuke' America, as you put it, but given the size of the American arsenal, and its second strike capacity, there wouldn't be a building standing between Hong Kong and St Petersburg.

Russia never 'nuked' America during forty years of the Cold War. No one has ever nuked anyone since 1945 (and, I suppose, sooner or later someone's going to trot out the argument, 'well, if they've done it once, they can do it again', which is a amazingly feeble argument for anyone with an IQ above absolute zero).

People have been asserting for the last few months on this 'newsline' that America is going to attack Iran with zero evidence.

Now, the line taken is that Bush is incredibly stupid - but, hey, he got away with 9/11, didn't he? Ah, no, that was the wicked string pullers behind the scenes. Unfortunately, the wicked string pullers don't have access to the nuclear codes, and even if they did, any general ordered to 'nuke' Iran is going to check, double check and triple check that yes, he is getting his orders direct from the White House.

The scenario is so implausible in 99 different ways. Suppose Bush does say - go ahead, nuke Iran. You think the Chiefs of Staff would go along with it? Contrary to popular belief, they are not all General Turgison. They resign en masse. Bush says okay, I'll appoint new Chiefs. He'd have to go down the military heirarchy an awful long way to find his Turgison. And in the meantime, the rest of the world, the rest of America, the Senate, sits there watching?

It might give you pleasure to make people's flesh creep, but do try and get out and get some sunshine.

sceptic


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

There were comments to this

19.02.2007 22:23

now theres none.INDYMEDIA?

James Jones


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

echo chamber

19.02.2007 22:29

No doubt the mods will hide this too in double quick time. So what do you want Indymedia to be? An echo chamber? All dissent to be squashed? Or do you just see the name 'sceptic', and think - we'll hide that. We don't like how he thinks. So what if I post under a different name? Are you going to think to yourself every time you see a criticial comment - ah, he's back, so let's get the censorship going again.

I would dearly love to know which of the 'editorial guidelines' I breach. But then, I don't suppose you have the guts either to explain or to engage in debate.

sceptic


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

u

19.02.2007 23:15

are

so


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

James Jones

20.02.2007 00:08

because James, I made the mistake of posting under my usual name of 'sceptic'. Since my world view doesn't mesh with that of IM, they hide my comments.

If you can read the hidden comments, then, James, which of the 'editorial guidelines' do you think I'm breaking?

sceptic


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

sceptic

20.02.2007 01:49

none

James Jones


moderation queries

20.02.2007 08:21

sceptic wrote: "I would dearly love to know which of the 'editorial guidelines' I breach. But then, I don't suppose you have the guts either to explain or to engage in debate."

The editorial guidelines say:

"Concerns about editorial guidelines or queries about moderation are dealt with on the imc-uk-features list. These issues are not dealt with through the newswire, and newswire posts on these topics will be hidden."

 imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org

If you want to discuss moderation take it there - its an open list.

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/

imcista


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

James

20.02.2007 09:15

Funny you should say that.

sceptic


Thank you for that, but ...

20.02.2007 12:56

having gone to the link, it doesn't seem obvious how one posts to it.

Is it possible to explain this to a bear of small brain?

sceptic


did we all

20.02.2007 15:09

miss something here?

?


you need to

20.02.2007 20:43

go and look at 'Vieew All Posts'

fimmod


Hide 9 hidden comments or hide all comments