CHINA'S MONEY BUYS IT ALL IT WANTS......AND MORE

With the Beijing Olympics less than a year away, China has been trying to clean up its image, starting with attempts to change an international belief that until this year it was more concerned about Sudan’s oil than the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of that country.
China not only buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil but regularly sells the Sudanese weapons and aircraft. Some of the weapons are believed to have found their way into the hands of the government sponsored Janjaweed Arab militias that have murdered 200,000 men women and children and forced over two million to flee the country. Several of the planes bought from China were allegedly used by the Sudanese military in attacks on villages.
In an effort to silence international criticism, and to avoid any possible protests or boycotts of the Olympics, China is sending 315 engineers and medical staff from its Peoples Liberation Army to join a 28,000 UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. The Chinese contingent will be used to build bridges and roads and to dig wells for water. Critics have argued that China should have offered combat troops too.
The Chinese government says that sending some of its military shows it cares deeply about the plight of the Darfur refugees. That assertion has not convinced many China critics who claim that China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has consistently blocked efforts by the US and others to impose stern sanctions on the Sudanese regime in order to force it to rein its murderous Arab militia. Lately, prominent figures in the entertainment industry in the US made a point of publicly embarrassing China into doing something positive in Sudan. The actress Mia Farrow, former wife of actor/producer, Woody Allen, warned director Steven Spielberg that by co-directing the Olympic opening ceremony with the Chinese he risked comparison with “Leni” Riefenstahl, a prominent filmmaker during the Third Reich.
The controversy surrounding China’s role in Darfur exposes a much wider issue about the extent of China’s growing influence on the African Continent, and also in Latin America. The Chinese first became involved in Africa during the Cold War when they were anxious to provide a counter weight to Russian influence in countries like Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, they supported a revolutionary movement led by Robert Mugabe while the Russians aligned themselves with a guerilla chief who had fought with Mugabe against the British.
Over the succeeding years, China has maintained its links to Mugabe and has remained his number one supporter, even while his regime has been condemned by the West for human rights abuses. And, despite international embargos, China has supplied Mugabe’s military with weapons and has given him hard cash. In return, he has allowed the Chinese unfettered access to his nation’s natural resources.
China’s Africa policy, which it replicates elsewhere in the world, demonstrates that it cares little about international opinion. Chinese leaders have made it clear they have no desire to mix politics with economics, thereby enabling China to do business with tyrannical regimes. The Chinese have long seen huge potential in Africa, especially now that China has enough money to go on major buying sprees for natural resources – something it was unable to do in the days of the Cold War. Its generosity towards Zimbabwe illustrates how it has learned to use its new found wealth in schemes whereby it gives money with one hand and takes it back with the other in the form of acquiring mining and oil rights.
The Chinese believe that investing across Africa buys them influence and provides access to natural resources. At the same time, it expands the global market for China’s massive export of cheap products. Africa not only has the range of natural resources that China requires in the rebuilding of its infrastructure and but it also has a massive consumer population. For example, China invested close to $200 million in the Zambia mining industry because it uses more copper than any other country in the world. In other countries like Nigeria it is after oil, wood and cobalt. But while it is busy investing in these countries, it is flooding them with cheap textiles. In doing so, it is killing of indigenous industries, leaving many people out of work.
In 2004, thousands lost their jobs in Lesotho when a dozen factories closed because they could not compete with cheap Chinese fabric imports. And, South Africa has voiced strong opposition to China’s economic policies, claiming that China’s economic colonization, which involves linking investment with agreements to buy Chinese goods, has limited SA clothing sales to the US.
One aspect of China’s overseas policies that has stunned observers has been China’s knack for doing business in parts of Africa devastated by civil war. The Chinese, it seems, go where others fear to tread because they make it clear to all sides from the moment they invest in a country that they are neutral brokers and will not comment on the politics or actions of any of the combatants. They have at thee same time developed a strategy of providing huge grants or gifts of millions of dollars with no strings attached. Their aim is to buy influence and expand China’s global presence. For some time, the International Monetary Fund has been alarmed that China’s monetary policies in Africa have undermined the efforts of the US and others to make African regimes more fiscally responsible. China scoffs at such criticism and continues on its merry way. While America has become more conscious of China’s growing footprint in Africa, many observers believe the Bush Administration has been too overly preoccupied with Iraq to give the issue much thought.
That criticism has also been applied to the way the White House has taken its eye off the ball with regard to how China has stealthily inserted itself into the politics and economics of Latin America, employing the economic tactics it developed in Africa. In the last five years, China has used its huge monetary reserves, acquired in part from its massive sale of goods yearly in the US, to build economic relationships with a host of Latin American nations, including two of the largest, Brazil and Argentina.
One of the unusual, and perhaps for the US one of the most disquieting aspects of Chinese economic expansionism, is the fact that many of the Chinese companies doing business in Africa and Latin America are owned and controlled by the Peoples Liberation Army and are not bound by orthodox business practices. For instance, they can afford to lose money on deals in order to forge links in countries where their long term objective is to gain a large foothold sufficient to allow them to buy up a country’s natural resources. In many African countries, including Nigeria and Ethiopia, they have made business deals regardless of the fact there were no monetary gains.
Between now and the opening of next year’s Olympics in Beijing, Chinese leaders will be especially careful not to court controversy over China’s role in Sudan and other countries across the globe. To that end, they have begun by sending engineers Darfur, hoping it will make them appear squeaky clean.

COMMUNISTS WANT TO WRECK US-INDIA ALLIANCE

In decades to come, one of the unsung successes of the Bush presidency could very well turn out to be the strategic alliance it is forging with India. That will of course depend on whether the communist bloc in the Indian parliament can be prevented from wrecking the alliance.
The Communist Party of India is trying to convince parliamentarians and the population at large that the alliance would mean the US dictating India’s foreign policy and the size of its nuclear arsenal. Behind the Marxist rhetoric is a deep seated opposition to the United States and its war in Iraq, but some observers believe the communists will have to back down because India will not be a superpower without United States support. The Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, recently told the Indian parliament that it is only with the help of the US that India will be given a voice in “global councils.”
Democratic presidential hopeful, Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been a staunch critic of President Bush, has admitted that the alliance has incredible potential. In 2006, he declared that by 2020 the partnership with India would likely be the most important global alliance. His view may be one reason democrats running for president in 2008 have avoided any discussion of the decision by the Bush White House to share civilian nuclear technology with India, a move that would reverse a previous US policy denying India legitimate access to the nuclear club. The change in policy has still to be passed by lawmakers but all indications are that it will receive majority support even though senators on both sides have expressed to view that India is the biggest benefactor in the deal, which would permit stockpiling of nuclear fuel for civilian power purposes. If India begins to back track on forming the alliance because of internal political disputes, the US Congress could begin to have second thoughts about the idea. Leaders in both countries believe it would be a serious mistake to let the formation of the alliance be scuppered by Marxists in India, or critics in the US.
In the opinion of many analysts, India’s importance to the US cannot be overestimated. India is on course to become an economic superpower and it has a sizeable nuclear arsenal. More importantly, it is the world’s largest democracy, shaped in the British tradition and it shares Washington’s concerns about the need to combat terrorism and to establish an international force to protect the world’s shipping lanes. The India of the Cold War, that maintained close ties to China and Russia, has been courting the US for some time and sees an alliance with America as the ideal catalyst to transform itself from a world player into an economic superpower respected throughout the globe. It also believes that, like China, it has the right to a seat on the UN Security Council. Its desire to be a legitimate nuclear player, accepted as such by the West, was a major motivation in its desire to have closer links to the US. With a massive population, it had no desire to be solely dependant on gas and oil in decades to come. It needed the US to help it break the international embargo on it acquiring civilian nuclear technology. That embargo came into place after India’s nuclear tests in 1998 but is now likely to be ended by Congress, thereby putting India on an equal footing with its neighbors, China and Pakistan.
New Delhi’s changing relationship with Washington began just after 9/11 when it told the White House it supported a global war on terror. It also made a genuine plea for a different relationship with the US by offering a cogent argument that the US treated its neighbours differently even though Pakistan had sold nuclear weapons technology to rogue states like Iran, and China continued to pose a significant threat to America’s interests in the region. In contrast, India pointed out, it was a true democracy that meant no ill will to the US and there was much to gain from both countries forging a new partnership.
Indian leaders stressed that they shared America’s ideological goals of defeating terrorism and guaranteeing regional security in a part of the world dominated by China. That argument resonated well in the corridors of power in the Pentagon where analysts had already pointed out to vice-president, Dick Cheney that an economic and ideological battle was underway in South East Asia where China was using its massive economic might to expand its influence and exclude the United States. The only possible way to combat Chinese hegemony in the region was to create a counter mechanism to China’s Pan Asian forum. The ideal mechanism would be an alliance of India, the US, Australia and Japan. India agreed but pointed out it needed US help to shape it massive economy and to integrate with the US economy. Both countries had a lot to gain since the US was already India’s largest trading partner. The first goal would be for India to increase its 1% share of the huge US market compared to China’s 10%. To that end, a trade and economic relations committee was set up.
From a US economic perspective, there was much to be gained. India was the biggest arms buyer in the developing world and that offered great potential for US arms manufacturers. Year after year, India has been spending at least $15 billion annually on weapons for a military that was the world’s second largest, amounting to almost 4.3 million personnel with 1.5 million on active duty. It was a market the US had long failed to penetrate while countries like Russia, Israel, France and Spain had sold India everything from submarines, to aircraft, artillery and surface-to-air missiles. In January, 2007, Israel inked a $300 million deal to manufacture ship mounted missiles for the Indian navy. The problem for US arms suppliers had been the US system of licensing technology. It had was more cumbersome rules that those imposed by other countries in the international arms market. That was about to change as the new US-India alliance moved ahead because there was a need for interoperability between US and Indian weapons systems. That would mean India buying modern weapons platforms from America.
In many ways, military cooperation speeded up the progress of the new partnership. The military component of it took shape in 2002 with what became known as the Malabar joint exercises. They were initially small naval maneuvers but quickly expanded. Their success can be attributed to the relationship between two men – then Admiral Mike Mullen, Pacific Fleet Commander and his Indian opposite number, Arun Prakash. They first met at an Indian Defense Institute in 1979 and established a close friendship. It was their view of the need for a strong military alliance that probably led to the 2005 assertion by US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, that a 1,000 ship fleet was needed to protect the world’s oceans. Adm. Mullen identified India, Australia and Japan as significant partners with the US in such an endeavor. He stressed that for India to be an integral part of such a force, its weapons’ systems would have to be linked to those of the other nations, especially the US.
Like the US and Japan, Indian had long expressed serious concerns about the oceans, especially the Indian Ocean that it shared with China, and the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea. The Japanese agreed, pointing out that Chinese naval expansion indicated China wanted to make the South China Sea exclusive to China. From a Washington-New Delhi perspective the zone that most demanded their attention was the Straits of Malacca. It was one of the world’s busiest and most vital shipping lanes. Like the Suez Canal, it narrowed to 1.5 miles in parts, had 5,000 ships a day passing through it and it was the passageway for a quarter of the world’s oil shipments. Linking the Indian and Pacific oceans, it was expected to carry even more oil and natural resources as China continued to rebuild its whole infrastructure. Most disturbing for India and the US was the fact that the CIA in a raid on an Al Qaeda safe house had discovered maps and video footage of the Straits and details about security along its shorelines. Countries like Singapore that bordered the Straits publicly supported a Chinese contention that the Straits did not need US military protection. Washington and New Delhi ignored their objections and in January 2007 showed how important the Straits were to them by running a joint exercise to protect a US naval convoy passing through the Straits. Very much in the minds of the planners was the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden in 2001.
As China has continued to build its navy, especially its submarine, fleet to project greater power in the Indian Ocean, New Delhi has pointed out to Washington that it is important for India to provide a counterbalance. To do that, it will need to replace Russian, Kilo-class diesel subs with US vessels capable of launching short range nukes. All signs are that India will get those submarines as its partnership with the US develops.
There is yet another unseen partnership between the US and India and that is moving ahead with great potential. India is one of the world’s most technologically advanced nations and in recent years more and more of its engineering and hi-tech students have been coming to the US to complete Masters Degrees. In fact, more visas are now issued to Indian students than any other nation.
Here are a few interesting facts about Indians in the US, supplied by Stephen Knapp of Duke University: There are 3.22 million Indians in USA (1.5% of population). 12% of the scientists in the USA are Indians. 38% of doctors in America are Indian. 36% of NASA scientists are Indians. 34% of Microsoft employees are Indians. 28% of IBM employees are Indians. 17% of INTEL scientists are Indians. 13% of XEROX employees are Indians. The creator of the Pentium chip that runs most of the world’s computers was Indian, Vinod Dahm.