It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Introducing: China our New World Peacekeepers. Sudan, Oil and a new war front for us?

page: 1

log in

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:44 AM
As China becomes the world economic force it appears they too are now willing to fight for a peoples 'freedom'.
It begs the question: why do we act as peacekeepers? Is China simply honest about its motives for moving into the peace keeping arena? and are our western alliances simply masking our peacekeeping under the guise of freedom, as opposed to true economic underlying motives.

The facts:
China has invested billions in to the Sudan

Southern Sudan is a oil rich country

Sudan is going to the vote shortly to see if the south will secede.

Do not underestimate the importance of this cog in the wheel of international politics and economics.

The Sudan for China is positioned as such that it has become its foothold into africa, and the middle east. The decision to secede, has a strong chance of seeing civil war return to the country, a war that China can nil afford when considering the that oil production would be disrupted, and Chinas investements/oil pipeline compromised.

With an estimated 24,000 of its citizens living there and billions of dollars worth of investments in the country, China is the key foreign player in Khartoum. When the US oil giant Chevron pulled out of Sudan - beginning in 1984 when three of its employees were killed and culminating in 1992 when it finally sold all of its Sudanese interests - the state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) stepped in. It now has controlling stakes in the biggest energy consortiums operating in Sudan, giving China an estimated 60 per cent share of the 490,000 barrels of crude oil produced daily. It also constructed the 1,500km pipeline that connects the oil fields of the south with Port Sudan in the north - from where the oil is exported. But with oil accounting for more than 90 per cent of government revenues in the south, compared to just over 40 per cent in the north, there is a possibility that Khartoum could close the pipeline should the south vote for independence.

China since the 1990s has had too elsewhere to supply its oil resources, and is since focused with a almost fevered intent on 'exploiting' the natural reserves of third worlds unstable countries (sound familiar anyone, hows it feel looking into a mirror?)

In the early 1990s, the Chinese government projected that it could have a shortfall of about 50 million tons of crude oil (30 percent of its oil needs) in 2000, while domestic crude output remained static at 160 million tons. China therefore had to rely on its ability to stake out oil reserves abroad. Oil analysts projected that China would become an oil importer�at the mercy of non-Chinese oil producing states and companies�within five years.1391 China set about becoming a global player in the oil industry. Chinese officials wanted “to have a 10-million-ton-oil supply from overseas a year by 2000 and 50 million tons of oil and 50 billion cubic meters of gas by 2010.
By 1997, according to CNPC’s then president, Zhou Yongkang, China was “very aggressive in buying foreign oil and gas fields.”1393 The CNPC brought its first shipment of foreign crude oil to China in 1997.1394

CNPC, a government-owned corporation, acting through a wholly-owned subsidiary, took the largest share, 40 percent, in the GNPOC consortium on December 6, 1996, when Arakis sold 75 percent of its interest in the project to three other companies to form that consortium.1395 The Sudanese project was expected to produce up to ten million tons of oil a year for China by 2000, which would by itself help meet China’s projected oil import target for 2000.1396”

Enter a pipeline...again....sound familiar anyone?
In 1998, CNPC’s construction arm, China Petroleum Engineering & Construction (Group) Corporation (CPECC), participated in the construction of the 1,500-kilometer-long GNPOC pipeline to the Red Sea. It also built a refinery near Khartoum with a 2.5 million-ton processing capacity. It further engaged in “10 million tons oilfield surface engineering.” The Sudan project became “the first overseas large oilfield operated by China,” according to the Chinese

Should the south secede, It will allow for western investments in the south, it puts the west in a positoion where they want to see instabilty possibly to gain investment access in the oil rich south, currently monopolised by China.

Religious Freedom (U.S. CIRF),1412 a creation of the U.S. Congress, on November 1, 1999, asked the U.S. Treasury to extend the stringent 1997 economic sanctions imposed on U.S. companies doing business with Sudan to CNPC and others using American debt and equity markets to raise money for the Sudan oil project. The grounds were that CNPC’s oil interest in Sudan would fund a “war against the south . . . patterns of forced conversion to Islam, manipulation of food aid, bombing of refugee camps, hospitals, churches, and other civilian targets, as well as enslavement.”1413 This pressure came just as the Clinton administration was launching an effort to persuade Congress to approve China’s admission into the World Trade Organization.1414

Succession will open up trade opportunites with the west, and the sanctions imposed by the US will apply only to Khartoum with whom China has traditionally managed its relationship. Will the US secretly support the south? what will play out here?

But despite China's growing ties with the south and the south's need for investment, southerners may not have entirely forgotten Beijing's traditional support for Khartoum. And as US sanctions will only apply to the north should the south secede, the new country could potentially be open to new investors from the West.

The Sudan is a perfect microcosm of how a great power can financially control a country and keep it underdeveloped and destabalised. With such oil richness, the nation is a mess. When you hear about a possible new war in the Sudan, dont think it has to do with national and religious freedoms, its about the resource from this country provides 90% of its' revenue. Religion and ethnic sensibilitiues as always will simply be a shiny suit donned to distract us.

communicating with the government of South Sudan while it is not an official sovereign entity, it is partially abandoning its 'non-interference policy' and its traditional reluctance to engage with separatist movements .

"They are beginning to realise that a strict 'non-interference' policy is political and diplomatic nonsense. The very relationship between China and an African state is a political act that has implications. The relationship creates a political dynamic that implies support for the ruling group.

China is already in dialogue and intefering with southern factions, not only did they make it possiblte to export the oil, they funded AND supplied the arms for its conflicts.

Weapons deliveries from China to Sudan since 1995 have included ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft. China also became a major supplier of antipersonnel and antitank mines after 1980, according to a Sudanese government official.1387 The SPLA in 1997 overran government garrison towns in the south, and in one town alone, Yei, a Human Rights Watch researcher saw eight Chinese 122 mm towed howitzers, five Chinese-made T-59 tanks, and one Chinese 37 mm anti-aircraft gun abandoned by the government army.1388 Human Rights Watch concluded that while China’s motivation for this arms trade appeared to be primarily economic, China made available easy financing for some of these arms purchases.1

China is in negotiations to build a new pipleline basically monopolising totally the oil resources movement....and this pipeline will offer alternate routefrom the landlocked if it goes ahead....freedom be damned right?

So this time they are ditching their non intervenion policies, as the outcome will have enourmous economic impact on them and other neighbouring countries that are unstable that they are investiing in.

But with both the north and south rearming, Beijing is keen to ensure that the referendum does not result in renewed instability, which could threaten its multi-billion dollar investments and potentially impact its growing interests in neighbouring countries like Ethiopia, Chad and Libya.

China the truthful peacekeepers? Your thoughts? And what will the US do?

China has sent a delegation to the south to observe the referendum and a foreign ministry spokesman has stressed Beijing's hopes that the vote will be held in a "fair, free, transparent and peaceful atmosphere and that all parties involved should be committed to peace and stability". In turn, the government of South Sudan has assured China that its investments will be protected if the south secedes from the north.

edit on 13-1-2011 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:48 AM
If China becomes the new "world police", they probably won't be much more "benevolent" or "tyrannical" than the US.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:51 AM
I wish they were the new peacekeepers but they`ve done nothing to stop the US invading and occupying any country they want.
Unless the US military machine is stopped, there will never be peace.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by lambros56
I wish they were the new peacekeepers but they`ve done nothing to stop the US invading and occupying any country they want.
Unless the US military machine is stopped, there will never be peace.

If you honestly believe this than I would say you'd be merely trading one master for another. So, while protesting the American boot you perceive is being stamped onto the world's neck, if it wasn't the US's it'd just be someone else.

To keep this on track with the OP:

China is doing what is in China's best interest. They are no different than America in that sense. There is a massive grab for Africa right now and you can see that in the US military's standing up of AFRICOM and in China's current activity in Sudan and other African countries.

While some may not agree with US foreign policy, to believe that some other nation would not fill the role of world super power any differently, or more benevolently, is naive. History has shown that world powers serve their personal interests first and any benefit that any other nation receives is merely coincidental.

Good thread, Zazz. Star and Flag.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by lambros56

Their non intervention policy is defunct with Sudan, they are not acting as peacekeepers for anything other than economic reasons.

The building of the pipeline initially was seen as violating human rights as near slavery was who do we want doing the peacekeeping when the motive is not to peacekeep.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:19 AM
Yes it seems China is taking a leaf out of Americas book (and the many countries before) in becoming covert empire builders in the name or stabilising, democratising or "bringing peace" to countries that just happen to have a wealth of natural resources.

If they decide to go and help out in the Congo then I might believe they were peace keeping.

As for how it effects the US.. I guess we will have to see what happens when they both decide that they want to "bring peace" to the same region at the same time, it's going to turn into a giant game of Risk

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:34 AM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The Sudan is a perfect microcosm of how a great power can financially control a country and keep it underdeveloped and destabalised.

I have read your thread with interest, as I see China rising up the ranks of power very soon. Alot of what you are writing about is similar to Peru and Bolivia, whilst the people there are living in an undeveloped country, the fat cats and the people of wealth and power skim off all the resources.

Some of the richest people of the world come from South America, why doesn't anyone notice how corrupt and evil these people are, killing thousands in toxic poisonings each year ??

With great wealth and power there is always mass corruption.
edit on 13-1-2011 by franspeakfree because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:40 AM

Originally posted by lambros56
Unless the US military machine is stopped, there will never be peace.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written in regards to the US military machine being stopped. However, I do not think peace will arise after their downfall. As history has shown us there will always be another that will fill the shoes of the most hungry of powers.

In order to achieve peace, all the people of the world would have to take a good hard look of themselves and see beyond their selfish ways.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:10 AM
well somebodies got to take Canada's place as the peacekeeping/negotiating nation since they dumped that title at the turn of the millennium. You just know if theres a war in Saudi Canada won't be simply giving out aide as expected, but on the front lines with the US. However Canada had the resources, aide, and money to generously give away even if it was all for good PR. China though has a large military to flex so we will shall see what good they can do with that or if it will reflect more of the US/Christian way 'do as I say, or die'.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:54 AM
US and China are both important global players. After spending years watching the ways each country works in the globalisation process, China does provide more value to the social issues than America. Social stability is important to the long term success of projects undertaken, there have been worker rights issues in the past and these have been gradually improving. America has provided a more covert and forceful role with corporate interests valued when engaging in international programs. The IMF and its repercussions is one example of western influence, China does look for a fairer balance when providing financial assistance and does not try to bankrupt a nation in the process.

While China does have issues in discussing Tibet, America has these same problems with 9/11. It may do both countries a bit of good to sit down, talk about it and let it out. I may be idealistic here, but I think it would be good for peace world wide if they did.
edit on 13-1-2011 by kwakakev because: added paragraph on Tibet and 9/11

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:21 PM
I guess China is simply saying" my kung-fu is better than your kung-fu" to US...

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:40 PM
Well looks like Sudan is about to have it's own red dawn. And I'm wondering how can China invade southern Sudan ?they don't have a strong navy

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by davespanners

China already invests billions in the DR Congo. Keeping the peace in Congo would cement China's influence in central Africa and strike a blow against the agendas of the Europeans.

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by lambros56
I wish they were the new peacekeepers but they`ve done nothing to stop the US invading and occupying any country they want.
Unless the US military machine is stopped, there will never be peace.

Be careful what you wish for...

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:15 PM
C'mon people. Just because the United States is "so evil" doesn't mean China is better. By all means, let's have the world run by a country that still executes people for speaking out against the government, controls all media outlets, prohibits Google if unfavorable articles appear in the search results about China, still uses "execution vans" to keep costs down, etc. etc. etc.

It's just ridiculous. Hating the United States is one thing....embracing China is completely another. What a short memory some people on this site have. The true definition of a sheeple is one willing to embrace anything other than the status quo -- without so much as a thought as what the future would look like in such a situation.

On another note, they already voted and seceded.

Southern Sudan is accustomed to fighting for its freedom, but now that the nation has successfully seceded and gained independence, ...


edit on 4-4-2011 by lpowell0627 because: nevermind

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by lpowell0627

whos embracing China?

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by zazzafrazz

I think whatever country or corporation or group of people ultimately grab power there, eventually it will come down to the same old thing, and it will be business as usual. And most likely it will be the old line of "Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss" None of them have the peoples who live there interest at heart really, so they might as well go with whoever will shaft them over the least, and who really want's to bring some sort of balance and structure to such places, over who is just talk.

And since they all say things and have a habit of doing something else, that in itself to the people living there is gonna be a huge task, that is if they ever get to that point of coordination and unity, that it would be cheaper for the ptb to actually cooperate with them somewhat, then to run right over them. After all the bottom line is there god, so to whom it might concern they might want to raise that bottom line up a little, to were it's cheaper to cooperate then straight out run it as tptb see fit. Because if they can they will, follow the bottom line that is.

And that really is there choice now, and the rest of the people world wide might want to pay attention, and it's been said before about were this can go, so I wont waste my time explaining, the writing is on the wall. But the people might want to look at it because this very thing one day has a very real possibility in it's many guises to come to a town near you, and no doubt it is already there in many places world wide.

Anyways cool cheese S@F, just for pointing out the next possible liberation in this game, by all it's players be they China or Russian or USA or corporation or whomever. After all there was another thread were this thing is happening right now but still it is one among many.
The brewing civil war no one is talking about

That is a prime example of this African saying "When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers" As this link also explains what was happening on the ivory coast, in about March 11, 2011.

Snip from that link.

"The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has stated that more than 450,000 people have fled their homes in Ivory Coast as a result of the ongoing political crisis. Around 370,000 people have fled their homes in Abidjan, while a further 77,000 have crossed into neighbouring Liberia.
What is sad is that the crisis in Ivory Coast has so far been snubbed while international responsiveness has primarily focused on North Africa. Dead bodies in Abobo are still lying around eaten by dogs after the recent increase of violence in the past couple of weeks."

And all that was about a month ago, I'm sure the numbers of dead and homeless/refuges or even dead bodies eaten by dog's, and all other things that would happen in such a scenario no doubt have escalated since then. And all over which power controls them, in this case the one in power didn't want to relinquish it, to the new guy. And so the elephants fought backed by there interest, and interested parties, and you can guess who pay'd and will continue to pay the price for them fighting, it ain't exactly rocket science who it will be, if you know what I'm saying.

new topics

top topics


log in