Conquer Club

What should Washington do about the Middle East? It appears that at present, it has no choice but to help the Iraqi government drive ISIS out and restore order in Iraq. But in regard to the problems in Syria and Yemen, and for many other issues in the region, the United States does have choices and must come up with a long-term strategy.

For a variety of compelling reasons, this strategy should include China as an important component. China has been rising in national power and steadily moving toward the center stage of world politics. It is now eager to play a bigger role in international affairs in general and in the Middle East in particular. China’s growing economic ties with both Israel and Arab nations and its lack of religious and political baggage make it an ideal candidate to break the gridlocks in the Middle East and initiate constructive changes. The U.S. should seriously consider this option and carefully facilitate China’s assumption of duties in this conflicted region.

...

In the quest for influence in the Middle East, China’s future ambitions are even more important than its past diplomatic dealings. Through its policy of promoting investment in the region, China has built strong ties to both Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors. These ties provide the leverage necessary to broker more peaceful relations in the region. Chinese businessmen and entrepreneurs have invested heavily in Israel’s “Silicon Wadi” and have helped the country grow through venture capital and private equity deals. Beijing is Israel’s third-largest trading partner and Israel is China’s second-largest source of military technology.

In the Arab nations, Chinese companies have invested heavily in infrastructure, engaged in arms sales, and initiated extensive resource extraction operations. China’s desire to play a larger role in the world, and the Middle East in particular, is largely defined by its oil and resource ambitions. In 2014, China imported about 6.2 million barrels of oil per day. About 3.1 million of those barrels came from the Middle East. More specifically, 989,000 barrels came from Saudi Arabia, 573,000 barrels came from Iraq, and 546,000 barrels came from Iran. China’s thriving economy has propelled it past the United States as the world’s largest oil importer. As the United States continues to demonstrate its preference for non-Arab oil sources, the bond between Arab oil-producing nations and Chinese companies will strengthen.

...

China enjoys a number of advantages over the United States (and other great powers such as Great Britain, France, Germany, or Russia) in the Middle East. First, it lacks the religious, colonial, and historical baggage that weighs down many other nations. By refusing to get entangled in violence between Arabs and Israelis, China has demonstrated that it holds no preference between Jews and Muslims. China has also avoided the quagmire of picking sides between competing Muslim sects. Plus, geographic and demographic divisions in the Middle East cannot be attributed to the Chinese. Unlike the other great powers, China has no negative historical legacy in the region. More importantly, China enjoys normal relations with all Middle Eastern countries. Lastly, one should not discount China’s “One Belt, One Road” plan and its ability to bring change to the region.

Of course, China’s increased Middle Eastern investment doesn’t necessarily guarantee future diplomatic success. Key players must also demonstrate their willingness to cooperate with the Chinese. Historical and current political and economic trends indicate that both Israel and Palestine would be likely to do so. China’s support for Palestine is longstanding. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) received weapons and money from China in the 1970s and 1980s, and Chinese leaders refer to Yasser Arafat as “an old friend of the Chinese people.” Nonetheless, China’s historically pro-Arab position and its support for the Iranian regime has not prevented the Israeli government from inviting the Chinese to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. Member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) also welcome China’s economic involvement as way to stabilize the region. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, regard China as a balancing force against their overall reliance on Western powers for stability.

waauw wrote:The article mentions that peace is possible only if the countries are willing to cooperate, which is precisely the problem.

The countries don't have full control. Too many extremists in the region act outside of the law and incite violence.

mrswdk wrote:It mentions they need to be willing to cooperate with China, which they are.

mrswdk wrote:Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. are all perfectly stable and peaceful. If we take a look at the countries which have serious problems with violent extremism (Syria, Iraq and Libya) we see one country which was stable until its government was overthrown in an invasion and two countries which were stable until foreign powers started providing financial, material and military support to violent insurgencies.

Were outside powers to stop trying to destabilize regional governments by stoking violence, it would not be such a problem. So there is no real reason to cite 'extremism' as a reason why the Middle East cannot be peaceful.

waauw wrote: In the Arab spring Saudi-Arabia was only able to contain its citizens by bribing them.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:It mentions they need to be willing to cooperate with China, which they are.

You don't just need the governments willing to cooperate. If those countries can't control their own people, foreign aid is not going to help very much.

Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. are all perfectly stable and peaceful. If we take a look at the countries which have serious problems with violent extremism (Syria, Iraq and Libya) we see one country which was stable until its government was overthrown in an invasion and two countries which were stable until foreign powers started providing financial, material and military support to violent insurgencies.

Were outside powers to stop trying to destabilize regional governments by stoking violence, it would not be such a problem. So there is no real reason to cite 'extremism' as a reason why the Middle East cannot be peaceful.

Perfectly stable and peaceful? In the Arab spring Saudi-Arabia was only able to containkeep its citizens happy by bribing them giving them exactly what they want. In 2011 there was a miniscule uprising in Bahrain which was onlysuccessfully and quickly subdued with military force.

Qatar constantly finances terrorist organizations and the muslim brotherhood. Saudi-Arabia aided ISIS in arms supply until they got out of hand.

...

And as you mentioned Iraq and Syria are still in civil war.

How are those countries in any way stable and peaceful? The west didn't arm the terrorists on their own. Either the weapons were stolen or middle-eastern countries bought the weapons and they functioned as proxy to supply the weapons to terrorists themselves.

PS: even without western interference the Sunni's and Shia's would still hate each other. The west does carry much of the blame, but not all of it.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

waauw wrote: In the Arab spring Saudi-Arabia was only able to contain its citizens by bribing them.

Isnt that called the welfare state? The UK government has been bribing us for donkeys years in that case.

The real question here is whether America and Russia are willing to just stand by and watch China exert its influence. And the answer is no.

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:It mentions they need to be willing to cooperate with China, which they are.

You don't just need the governments willing to cooperate. If those countries can't control their own people, foreign aid is not going to help very much.

No one said anything about foreign aid. It's about trade links and investment that will help these countries develop, and a bit of cajoling along the lines of telling them that if they value their links with China then a little more regional cooperation might be in order.

mrswdk wrote:

Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. are all perfectly stable and peaceful. If we take a look at the countries which have serious problems with violent extremism (Syria, Iraq and Libya) we see one country which was stable until its government was overthrown in an invasion and two countries which were stable until foreign powers started providing financial, material and military support to violent insurgencies.

Were outside powers to stop trying to destabilize regional governments by stoking violence, it would not be such a problem. So there is no real reason to cite 'extremism' as a reason why the Middle East cannot be peaceful.

Perfectly stable and peaceful? In the Arab spring Saudi-Arabia was only able to containkeep its citizens happy by bribing them giving them exactly what they want. In 2011 there was a miniscule uprising in Bahrain which was onlysuccessfully and quickly subdued with military force.

Two effective governments.

mrswdk wrote:

Qatar constantly finances terrorist organizations and the muslim brotherhood. Saudi-Arabia aided ISIS in arms supply until they got out of hand.

...

And as you mentioned Iraq and Syria are still in civil war.

How are those countries in any way stable and peaceful? The west didn't arm the terrorists on their own. Either the weapons were stolen or middle-eastern countries bought the weapons and they functioned as proxy to supply the weapons to terrorists themselves.

I didn't point any fingers specifically at the West. I just said people need to stop interfering in each other's business. Sure, some of the regional players have behaved just as naughtily as the imperial powers, but the point is that by becoming a key trading partner of everyone in the region, and remaining neutral enough that no one thinks China is secretly taking sides, China is actually in a position to make itself a much more credible negotiator than any of the imperial powers are.

mrswdk wrote:

PS: even without western interference the Sunni's and Shia's would still hate each other. The west does carry much of the blame, but not all of it.

Meh. Catholics and Protestants, or Christians and Muslims, used to be the same and they seem able to co-exist with each other pretty peacefully now.

DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk, your hailing of China is beyond the point. In March-August 1900 Alfred Thayer wrote 3 essays which were collected in a book called The Problem of Asia. The premise of the book was that Europe was a failing continent, and that trade with the (soon-to-be) superpower China was to be the chief component of America's foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt read this book and cited it when he gave the orders to engineer a coup in Panama to build the canal. Nearly 115 years later Thayer's prediction is finally coming true. What took you so long? It seems China might finally be moving out of his parents basement - on account of them being dead.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:It mentions they need to be willing to cooperate with China, which they are.

You don't just need the governments willing to cooperate. If those countries can't control their own people, foreign aid is not going to help very much.

No one said anything about foreign aid. It's about trade links and investment that will help these countries develop, and a bit of cajoling along the lines of telling them that if they value their links with China then a little more regional cooperation might be in order.

Won't be enough. The arabs have money enough on their own, have been investing for over decade to diversify away from oil and gas. Yet they have hardly been very succesful.
Countries like Iran and Turkey do have quite a bit of potential, but the arab peninsula much less. Industry is built around large population centers, which Arab countries don't have.
And services sectors have their limits, since they on their turn seek proximity to industry.

Again, one can wonder about China's real position of power to goad/coerce these countries around the table. China needs Arab oil just as much as they need to sell it to China. The only way the US has been able to get these countries to sit together and come to deals was through arms trade and war.
I think the whole Europe-Russia relationship that also relies energy-trade should be evidence enough. Being key trading partner when are talking about massive amounts of oil, doesn't put you in a key political position.

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:Won't be enough. The arabs have money enough on their own, have been investing for over decade to diversify away from oil and gas. Yet they have hardly been very succesful.
Countries like Iran and Turkey do have quite a bit of potential, but the arab peninsula much less. Industry is built around large population centers, which Arab countries don't have.
And services sectors have their limits, since they on their turn seek proximity to industry.

Not necessarily. To pick one country off the top of my head, the UK has a very strong services sector with little to no industry to speak of. Ditto Singapore.

Whether or not China helps the region develop or merely develops strong economic ties with it, this doesn't change the emergence of China as a key regional player which also has the bonus of being politically neutral.

mrswdk wrote:

Again, one can wonder about China's real position of power to goad/coerce these countries around the table. China needs Arab oil just as much as they need to sell it to China. The only way the US has been able to get these countries to sit together and come to deals was through arms trade and war.
I think the whole Europe-Russia relationship that also relies energy-trade should be evidence enough. Being key trading partner when are talking about massive amounts of oil, doesn't put you in a key political position.

China is a massive, growing consumer of Middle Eastern oil. That said, it's not all about oil. China is also a big investor in the region and a big trading partner in its own right.

mrswdk wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk, your hailing of China is beyond the point. In March-August 1900 Alfred Thayer wrote 3 essays which were collected in a book called The Problem of Asia. The premise of the book was that Europe was a failing continent, and that trade with the (soon-to-be) superpower China was to be the chief component of America's foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt read this book and cited it when he gave the orders to engineer a coup in Panama to build the canal. Nearly 115 years later Thayer's prediction is finally coming true. What took you so long? It seems China might finally be moving out of his parents basement - on account of them being dead.

In which year did Thayer predict Canada would become a superpower?

DoomYoshi wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk, your hailing of China is beyond the point. In March-August 1900 Alfred Thayer wrote 3 essays which were collected in a book called The Problem of Asia. The premise of the book was that Europe was a failing continent, and that trade with the (soon-to-be) superpower China was to be the chief component of America's foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt read this book and cited it when he gave the orders to engineer a coup in Panama to build the canal. Nearly 115 years later Thayer's prediction is finally coming true. What took you so long? It seems China might finally be moving out of his parents basement - on account of them being dead.

In which year did Thayer predict Canada would become a superpower?

Oh, burn. I'm not the patriotic one, so your insults are barren.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:Won't be enough. The arabs have money enough on their own, have been investing for over decade to diversify away from oil and gas. Yet they have hardly been very succesful.
Countries like Iran and Turkey do have quite a bit of potential, but the arab peninsula much less. Industry is built around large population centers, which Arab countries don't have.
And services sectors have their limits, since they on their turn seek proximity to industry.

Not necessarily. To pick one country off the top of my head, the UK has a very strong services sector with little to no industry to speak of. Ditto Singapore.

Whether or not China helps the region develop or merely develops strong economic ties with it, this doesn't change the emergence of China as a key regional player which also has the bonus of being politically neutral.

Bad example, the UK has a population the size of about the entire arabian peninsula and it merely has to cross a narrow channel to find even larger populations that have well-developed industries, are very rich and have great logistical foundations. Singapore is located in one of the most populous regions in the world, south-east asia. The city gets to thrive on the strenght of these regional partners and its historical ties.

Again, one can wonder about China's real position of power to goad/coerce these countries around the table. China needs Arab oil just as much as they need to sell it to China. The only way the US has been able to get these countries to sit together and come to deals was through arms trade and war.
I think the whole Europe-Russia relationship that also relies energy-trade should be evidence enough. Being key trading partner when are talking about massive amounts of oil, doesn't put you in a key political position.

China is a massive, growing consumer of Middle Eastern oil. That said, it's not all about oil. China is also a big investor in the region and a big trading partner in its own right.

The west has been a massive consumer, investor and trading partner as well. There are limits to what you can pull off when both are equally dependent on the other.

mrswdk wrote:So your reasoning is that the UK and Singapore stand at the crossroads of heavily populated areas? On top of its ties with the US and the fear East the Middle East bridges Europe with Africa, central and south Asia.

mrswdk wrote:

The west has been a massive consumer, investor and trading partner as well. There are limits to what you can pull off when both are equally dependent on the other.

Well now we're in danger of going round in circles. Trade links aren't the only point being argued in the OP article.

mrswdk wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Oh, burn. I'm not the patriotic one, so your insults are barren.

Who said I'm patriotic?

mrswdk wrote:I like some of the things that China stands for, and I like seeing those things get more air time as China's power grows. That's not the same thing as loving China.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I like some of the things that China stands for, and I like seeing those things get more air time as China's power grows. That's not the same thing as loving China.

Well I don't remember ever seeing you criticize anything China related, which is why you seem so patriotic. I'm curious what do you think are the errors in China's current policy?

mrswdk wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk, your hailing of China is beyond the point. In March-August 1900 Alfred Thayer wrote 3 essays which were collected in a book called The Problem of Asia. The premise of the book was that Europe was a failing continent, and that trade with the (soon-to-be) superpower China was to be the chief component of America's foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt read this book and cited it when he gave the orders to engineer a coup in Panama to build the canal. Nearly 115 years later Thayer's prediction is finally coming true. What took you so long? It seems China might finally be moving out of his parents basement - on account of them being dead.

In which year did Thayer predict Canada would become a superpower?

mrswdk wrote:I know China's not perfect, I just think it gets a lot of unfair criticism from people who don't really understand what they're talking about.

AndyDufresne wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I know China's not perfect, I just think it gets a lot of unfair criticism from people who don't really understand what they're talking about.

I think you could insert almost any country into that phrase. Ha.


--Andy