Dear China...Your Fortune Cookie Says...There Is No Room In The Arctic For You

An Open Letter from Canada to China

>>  Posted by Blazing Cat Fur at 10:43 PM |  20 comments  |  link to this post |  send email  | 
Osumashi Kinyobe  – (11:14 PM)  

 Thanks for the link.

I couldn't believe what I was reading.

The reason why China thinks it can take the world is because no one is stopping it.

Blazingcatfur –   – (11:32 PM)  

They are everywhere ascendant, and Obama is leading the US into what may well be a permanent state of decline.

Raymond Hietapakka  – (11:52 PM)  

Look at how close the Spratly Islands are to Malaysia and the Phillipines, yet the Chinamen are trying to scam them, for the undersea resources.

Blazingcatfur –   – (11:53 PM)  

We had better hope Obama is voted out.

Peter F –   – (2:14 AM)  

I posted the following at the "Whatever.com" blog:



China is already an "ad-hoc
observer" on the Arctic Council. The "Permanent Observers" are
France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK.  What do we notice about all these?  Well, (i) that they're not anywhere
near the Arctic either, just like China, and (ii) that they're all European.
Why should an Asian state not be a Permanent Observer? 

Is it the view of the member states that
only *they* should be allowed to determine the fate of the
Arctic and benefit from any developments there which may  happen?

BTW: (i) "ad-hoc observers" are
entitled to request presence at meeting of the Council, as Zhang has done.  "Such requests are mostly granted
as a matter of routine" (wikipedia). 
(ii), Rakobowchuk, the writer of the article,  says China "covets additional energy...".  Now, "covets" is an emotive
word; but even so, who *doesn't* want (or "covet")
more energy? Canada?

 

Quibble: Ambassador Zhang Junsai's surname
is "Zhang", not "Junsai", which is his given name. One has
to wonder at Rakobowchuk's knowledge of the topic, or at least about China, if
he doesn't know that simple fact.

 

Peter Forsythe

Hong Kong

(Ex Australian Embassy Peking, and
Consulate Shanghai)

Peter F –   – (2:18 AM)  

It is not a zero-sum game. China's ascendancy does not imply America's (or Canada's) decline. Quite the opposite in fact.
In the case of Australia (my home country) the growth of China has kept our economy humming along, employment high and increased the value of our dollar.  I think you'd find the same for Canada.  (and ditto the US).

And.....Remember: China is "on our side", in the grand battle of the West vs. Islam...

Peter F –   – (2:22 AM)  

It's rather more complex than that, RH.
And use the word "Chinamen", only if you think it's ok to use the N word as well.  
Peter F, Hong Kong.

Anne_from_Victoria –   – (2:24 AM)  

Very true. Australia sells a lot of iron ore and coal to China. We don't export oil to them, lacking as we do a pipeline to the Pacific. We have to try to keep things win- win. On a positive note, the Chinese are pretty smart.

Hamid –   – (5:09 AM)  

 It's his language - he can use it any way he likes.

Fu Saisee –   – (8:18 AM)  

So it's ok to use the words "wog" and "nigger" then? I think not, even though they're part of the language. My point being that "Chinamen" is as offensive as those others.

Raymond Hietapakka  – (8:46 AM)  

 Thievery is "rather more complex".  Sure thang, Sahib.

Fu Saisee –   – (9:19 AM)  

@ RH:
If proximity were the only measure, the Spratlys are rather closer to Vietnam, than the Philippines or Malaysia. And what would the principle of proximity do to the Falklands?
China's position is based on its historical claim that it was there in the Han Dynasty, about 2,000 years ago.
The area is, in any case, subject to an international agreement on conduct with regards to the archipelago, to which China is a signatory.
Whatever one thinks of China's claims -- and I acknowledge they're arguable-- "thievery" and "scam" are not appropriate. (nor, btw, is "Sahib" for me...)

Fu Saisee –   – (9:25 AM)  

@RH:
BTW: "Peter F" and "Fu Saisee" are both me; just one is from my desktop the other my iPad (and I don't know why they're different....)
(Just to avoid confusion).
Peter Forsythe in Hong Kong.

Mainlander –   – (10:14 AM)  

Why is it offensive? What about an Englishman? People find offense in what they want to find offense in.

arturous –   – (10:51 AM)  

you doth protest too much, methinks.

Blazingcatfur –   – (11:40 AM)  

Thanks Peter for bringing us up to date on that. I sometimes forget you were in the diplomatic corps and have first hand experience in China. Still I find China's muscle flexing unsettling.

Blazingcatfur –   – (11:41 AM)  

Thanks Peter.

chayisun –   – (12:18 PM)  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vA4T1wfJLE

Well, there is room for these folks. OK, not in the Arctic but...I'm in love.....

Blazingcatfur –   – (12:22 PM)  

Ha! uhm very nice marching;)

Osumashi Kinyobe  – (6:26 PM)  

Peter, my response:

"Thank you for your comment, Peter.

Allow me to respond in perhaps a less than timely manner.

I did not write the article but am very congnisant of Asian nomenclature. Perhaps the article writer is not.

I
don't think any country not in the vicinity of the Arctic should have a
controlling interest in it. China will take oil from anywhere, even
Sudan where they are implicated in civil rest there. It's not surprising
that a Third World communist dictatorship should want its fingers in so
many pies, including the untapped gas/oil reserves to which Canada,
Russia or Denmark could lay claim. "Covets" is a perfectly good word to
use when speaking of China's reach, as many of its neighbours may
attest.

That China feels it deserves to have a place at the table
speaks volumes to its arrogance and is yet another thorn in one's side."

Allow me to add to it.

China has made all manner of claims, from the South China Sea to Mount Baekdusan in Korea (decide if one wishes to use North or South). They have a permanent seat on the UN security council which they have used to keep North Korea errant. The labour situation in their country is horrid and they are using North Korean labour, as well (one can imagine how that goes). With the Keystone pipeline nixed in the US, Harper has guaranteed oil to China so it's not like China (read the Party or the handful of tycoons) will be without this resource. China always has unfair trade/labour practices, as well as industrial espionage.

One isn't exactly being hyperbolic when one suggests that China wants the globe.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

  © Blogger template me by me 2010

Back to TOP