Karabakh independence a fact though relative one

KARABAKH INDEPENDENCE A FACT THOUGH RELATIVE ONE

Pan Armenian News
21.05.2005 05:36

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The self-determination of Nagorno Karabakh is
a fact, Russian State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin stated in an
interview with Echo Baku newspaper. In his words, the independence
of Karabakh is a fact, though a relative one, as it is not recognized
internationally. “As of the self-determination, it can be recognized
or unrecognized, it is the unalienable right of the people and the
population of Nagorno Karabakh just like any other people,” Zatulin
accentuated. When commenting on the question whether it is true that
in his opinion Nagorno Karabakh can be considered one of those states
that demonstrate very high standards of democracy and transparency
of election, the MP answered, “undoubtedly.” In his words, after
the cease-fire in Nagorno Karabakh, democratic norms of election of
authorities and conveying the power operate there. He reminded that
parliamentary election will be held in Karabakh in June. “It is not
the first parliamentary election, the election of the Parliament
and the President were held there several times,” he noted. “In
contrast to many other states, where the election process is forged,
the electoral process in Karabakh is a fact,” Zatulin emphasized.

Armenian Foreign Minister visits Finland

Armenian Foreign Minister visits Finland

Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Finland
May 20 2005

Press release 168/2005
20 May, 2005

Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanjan will visit Finland on
25-27 May. During his visit Minister Oskanjan will discuss bilateral
relations, EU issues and international affairs with Foreign Minister
Erkki Tuomioja. Minister Oskanjan will also meet with Defence Minister
Seppo Kääriäinen and members of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs
Committee.

Further information: Director Antti Turunen, tel. 09 1605 6095, and
Researcher Eeva-Riitta Karhula, tel. 09 1605 5097, Unit for Eastern
Europe and Central Asia

–Boundary_(ID_Rcp1d13xcazdyrY+tZ3oYg)–

The Armenian Delegation To Participate In The 14th Annual Meeting Of

THE ARMENIAN DELEGATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 14TH ANNUAL MEETING OF
THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT OF THE EBRD IN BELGRADE ON MAY 22-23

YEREVAN, May 20. /ARKA/. The Armenian delegation will participate in
the 14th annual meeting of the senior management of the European Bank
of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in Belgrade on May 22-23.

According to RA Ministry of Finance and Economy Press Service,
the delegation will be headed by RA Minister of Finance and Economy
Vardan Khachatryan. It will also include CBA Chairman Tigran Sargsyan,
Minister of Trade and Economic Development Karen Chshmarityan and other
officials. Issues of cooperation between EBRD and member countries,
as well as further steps contributing to the creation of favorable
environment for the activation of their activity will be discussed
at the meeting. In the framework of it meetings of the Armenian
delegation with the President of EBRD Jan Lemier and delegations of
some countries will take place. A.H. -0–

PM Erdogan to sue states recognizing Armenian Genocide

PM ERDOGAN TO SUE STATES RECOGNIZING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

AZG Armenian Daily #090, 20/05/2005

Armenia-Turkey

First response of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Armenian
President Robert Kocharian’s speech during the Council of Europe summit in
Warsaw came on May 16 “unscheduled” press conference and the second one on
May 17. Upon his return from Warsaw, PM Erdogan gave his third response on
May 18, this time at the sitting of Justice and Prosperity Party.

In all of 3 retorts Erdogan repeats himself resisting Kocharian’s speech and
meanwhile threatening to sue the 15 states whose parliaments have taken
decision of recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Being asked by his party
members why he didn’t immediately come back at the Armenian President,
Erdogan said, “I was absent from the hall because of a bilateral meeting”.

Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister indirectly confirmed that the rumors about
Armenia’s readiness to withdraw from “7 regions of Nagorno Karabakh” are
false. “The borders are closed. Azerbaijan has problems with Armenia. There
are seven [occupied] territories. It’s uncertain which one of the 7 regions
they are going to leave”, he said.

Turkish Yeni Safaq newspaper informs in May 19 issue about the threats
Erdogan made to European states. According to the paper, Erdogan said,
“There are hitherto 15 parliaments that have taken decisions [on
recognition]. We will put those countries on the scale. There are countries
among them that have perpetuated genocides. We will counter those states
with facts but not basing on lobbyists’ activities and undercover talks and
we will take appropriate decisions in our parliament. Why? Because Turkey
has never been misled into committing a genocide. There is no way for it to
be accepted. There may possible be death cases during the deportation.
That’s true. But why were they deported? Documents give clear answer:
because a group of Armenians provoked by others revolted against the
Ottomans who were waging war at 3 fronts”.

Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul confirms the fact of Erdogan’s
threats. As Milliyet informs in May 19 issue, Gul was asked during a program
on Turkish private TV whether they are going to file a lawsuit against the
states that recognized the Genocide. Gul Answered, “Yes, we will take that
step against those countries. We are working in that direction. They should
give an answer why they cast slurs upon us and whether they have grounds for
that”.

Being asked whether there is such a court to apply, Gul said, “We have means
for that. I don’t want to go into details but scrupulous work is in
progress”.

It’s hard to say what the expectations of Turkish Prime Minister from
accusing the Genocide recognizing states of having carried out genocides,
moreover, from filing a lawsuit against them are. But it’s clear that RA
President Robert Kocharian left no chance for Erdogan to remove the issue of
Armenian Genocide from Turkey’s agenda by correspondence and by readiness
for a meeting.

By Hakob Chakrian

Lebanon facing unprecedented parliamentary elections

AZG Armenian Daily #090, 20/05/2005

Diaspora

LEBANON FACING UNPRECEDENTED PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Situation in Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution has got tense as
the country stands on threshold of parliamentary elections. As
it is known, revolution followed former Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri’s assassination. The Hariri family spearheading now the
Lebanese opposition managed to render the electoral law to the
resolution of 2000. According to the law, a person may be elected
deputy of the Lebanese Parliament by the votes of all communities
and confessions. That is the constituencies are to be formed
administratively without allowing for the location of national
communities. These days, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Dashnaktsutyun protested against this and decided to boycott elections
in Beirut constituency where ARF members Stepan Ter-Petrosian and
Jacques Chukhatrian are running. ARF Dashnaktsutyun having supervised
the elections of Armenian deputies for 50 years, by the law of 2000,
which allows Armenians to be elected by Muslims or Druze community,
is losing control in fact. Late Rafik Hariri’s electoral roll
including Armenian candidates Hakob Gasartchian, Yeghia Jerejian,
Jean Oghasabian, Serge Tursargisian and Antoine Nshanakian still has
high hopes to form majority in the parliament. Rafik Hariri himself
had irreconcilable relations with ARF.

Christian Maronite leader in the region of Metni, Nesib Lahud,
proposed communist Raffi Madeyan’s candidacy who is put to fight
candidate from Dashnaktsutyun minister Sepuh Hovnanian.

By Hamo Moskofian in Beirut

Armenian President met with Nikolay Ryzhkov

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT MET WITH NIKOLAY RYZHKOV

Pan Armenian News
19.05.2005 06:47

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today Armenian President Robert Kocharian met with
Russian Co-Chair of the Armenian-Russian Interparliamentary Commission
for Cooperation Nikolay Ryzhkov, reported the Press Service of the
Armenian leader. In the course of the meeting R. Kocharian noted
that by today the Commission has carried out a rather large amount of
work and time has come for summarization and outlining the new steps
of cooperation. The interlocutors discussed the possible terms of
prompt and efficient launching of the enterprises conveyed to Russia,
specifically Mars plant. Besides, the parties discussed questions
of development of inter-regional cooperation, the operation of the
Kavkaz-Poti ferry passage, increase of the goods turnover between
the two countries, as well as noted the importance of steps aimed
at involvement of small and medium enterprise into the investment
field of Armenia. In his turn N. Ryzhkov shared impressions of the
visit to the towns that had suffered from the earthquake, noting
these have changed unrecognizably and the question of increase of
employment opportunities became a priority task there. In his words,
the expansion of the economic cooperation between Russia and Armenia
will promote solution of that problem, too.

BAKU: Top CE official confirms Garabagh as integral part of Azerbaij

Top CE official confirms Garabagh as integral part of Azerbaijan

Baku, May 17, AssA-Irada

Upper Garabagh is an integral part of Azerbaijan, the Council of
Europe Secretary General Terry Davis told the third summit of CE
member states in Warsaw.

Speaking of conflicts in the Caucasus region, Davis said he does not
intend to dictate how the relations among the Council of Europe states
are maintained. “But as the Council of Europe Secretary General, I
repeat that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are integral parts of Georgia,
while Chechnya that of Russia and Upper Garabagh – that of Azerbaijan”,
Davis concluded* .

NKR: Kocharian And Aliev Parted In Good Mood

KOCHARIAN AND ALIEV PARTED IN GOOD MOOD

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
16 May 05

In the evening of May 15 the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met
in Warsaw, at the residence of the president of Poland. According to
the press secretary of the president of Armenia Victor Soghomonian,
in the first half of the meeting which lasted for three hours the
foreign ministers of Russia and France Sergey Lavrov and Michel
Barnien took part, too. Later the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Azerbaijan Vardan Oskanian and Elmar Mamediarov, as well as the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chairs joined the heads of states. The last hour of
the meeting the presidents talked tete-a-tete. However, after the
talks no details were released to press, except that the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan had discussed the issue of Nagorno Karabakh and
decided that the talks should be further conducted on a ministerial
level. Despite the confidentiality of the details of the meeting,
the foreign minister of Azerbaijan E. Mamediarov, commenting on
the meeting of the presidents, told the press that the parties
had discussed the principles of the Prague process on Karabakh and
“reached certain results”. The phrase of the press secretary of the
president of Armenia that “after the meeting the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan seemed to be in good mood” also testifies to this.

CHRISTINE MNATSAKANIAN.
19-05-2005

Armenia denies Azeri FM’s allegations about the return of regions

ARMENIA DENIES AZERI FM’s ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE RETURN OF REGIONS

Armenpress

YEREVAN, MAY 18, ARMENPRESS: Armenian foreign ministry has responded
today to Monday allegations by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar
Mamedyarov that Armenia was ready to give up seven regions of
Azerbaijan it occupied during an early 1990s war for the Nagorno
Karabagh. Mamedyarov told ATV on Monday that they (Armenians) have
agreed to give up all the regions, but they are thinking when they
should do this. Hamlet Gasparian, a foreign ministry spokesman,
told Armenpress Mamedyarov’s statement is “absolutely contrary to
the facts.”

Gasparian also said the Armenian side was positive about the latest
meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in Warsaw, who have
agreed to continue the talks over Nagorno Karabagh conflict regulation
on the level of foreign ministers, the so-called Prague process.

Gasparian also cited the positive assessment of the meeting by OSCE
Minsk group cochairmen, who he said are working now on preparing
another round of talks.

Energy First; China and the Middle East

Energy First: China and the Middle East
By Jin Liangxiang

Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2005

China’s Middle East policy is undergoing a major shift. Traditionally,
Beijing considered the region too distant for significant investment and
instead limited its efforts to convincing Arab capitals to sever their
ties to Taiwan and establish diplomatic relations with the People’s
Republic.[1] Beijing’s first diplomatic victory in the Arab world was
the formal establishment of relations with Egypt in 1956. The Chinese
Foreign Ministry completed its mission of establishing ties to each Arab
country when China and Saudi Arabia exchanged ambassadors in 1990. With
China’s economic boom, though, Beijing’s Middle East policy has taken on
new importance. While Washington’s Middle East policy has traditionally
been activist, Beijing’s policy was more restrained. But Chinese
passivity in the region may end in coming years, as the Chinese
government’s need to achieve energy security forces a more active policy.

China’s Quest for Energy

For decades after the 1949 establishment of the People’s Republic,
energy concerns were only a minor factor in Beijing’s national security
assessment. After all, the Daqing oil field, 600 miles northeast of
Beijing, discovered in 1959, had since 1962 produced enough oil to keep
the nation self-sufficient. This changed, however, as China’s economy
developed. Since the 1978 initiation of economic reforms, China has
enjoyed an almost 9 percent annual growth rate.In 1993, China became a
net importer of oil and, in 2003, with a daily demand of 5.5 million
barrels per day, Chinasurpassed Japan to become the second largest
international oil consumer after the United States.[2]

While China has boosted its own domestic production, demand is outpacing
domestic supply. By 2020, China might produce 3.65 million barrels per
day but will likely require more than twice that to meet its needs.
While Chinese scholars suggest that oil imports will account for 60
percent of Chinese energy needs, [3] the International Energy Agency
believes that the figure could behigher.[4] While analysts may quibble
over the actual figure, there is consensus that the Chinese thirst for
oil will only increase.

As China’s thirst for oil has grown, energy security has become a major
consideration of its Middle East policy. While the Middle East accounted
for less than 40 percent of China’s oil imports before 1994, since 1996,
the proportion has risen to over half. In a June 2004 lecture, Han
Wenke, deputy director of the Energy Research Institute of China’s
National Development and Reform Commission, argued that China should
“make full use of international influence and comprehensive national
strength to strengthen international cooperation with major oil
production countries and exporting countries in fields of politics,
economy and trade and diplomacy.”[5] In many ways, Han’s statement is
more a description of current Chinese policy rather than proscriptive
advice.As Table 1 (below) indicates, Iran and Saudi exports together now
represent almost two-thirds of China’s Middle East oil imports.

While China’s imports from smaller producer countries rise and fall, the
Chinese partnerships with major producers such as Saudi Arabia and Iran
have increased exponentially. Whereas in 1994, Iran accounted for just
one percent of China’s total imports, less than a decade later, Beijing
purchased $2 billion (US) of oil from Tehran, representing more than 15
percent of its total 2002 oil imports. Today, the figure is probably
larger still. In October 2004, the head of China’s National Reform and
Development Commission and Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh
signed a memorandum of understanding regarding bilateral energy
cooperation. According to the agreement, the Chinese government will buy
10 million tons of Iranian oil each year for the next twenty-five years.
In return, China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), the
nation’s second largest oil producer, may develop the Yadavaran oil
field in Iran’s western Kurdistan province, giving China a 50 percent in
terest in the field’s estimated 17 billion barrel reserve. Yadavaran
could be China’s biggest oil investment in the Middle East.[6]
Nevertheless, China-Iran trade should be kept in perspective. While the
China trade may be significant for Iran, the opposite is not true.
Bilateral Sino-Iranian trade accounts for only 0.6 percent of the
Chinese total.[7]

The recent growth in Chinese oil imports from Saudi Arabia has less to
do with politics than with technicalities. Saudi oil tended to have too
high a sulfur content for Chinese refining capability. The Chinese
government has turned the impediment into advantage, though, as it gives
Beijing an opportunity to engage the Saudis not only politically but
also economically. Both Beijing and Riyadh are working jointly to
establish capable oil refineries. The Chinese government has already
approved a joint Sino-Saudi petroleum and chemical project in China’s
eastern Fujian province, and the Chinese government included the joint
Qingdao refinery in China’s eastern Shandong province in its tenth
five-year plan (2001-05).[8]

Beijing’s strategy has not been limited to importing oil and increasing
China’s own refining capacity but has also included increasing bilateral
cooperation in Middle Eastern production. The China National Petroleum
Corporation, China’s largest energy company, began operating in Sudan in
1995. After a decade of continuous investment, the corporation was able
to boost Sudanese oil production to 250,000 barrels per day.[9] More
recently, on March 7, 2004, Sinopec, in partnership with Saudi ARAMCO,
signed a natural gas exploration and development agreement in Ar-Rub~Q
al-Khali, the so-called “Empty Quarter.” Sinopec maintains a four-fifths
share.[10]

Beijing views the Middle East not only in terms of its value as a source
of oil but also in the context of its huge potential as an oil services
market. Early in 1979, Chinese labor services companies entered the Gulf
Cooperation Council markets. By 2001, China had signed almost 3,000
contracts in all six Gulf Cooperation Council states for labor services
worth $2.7 billion. The overseas construction arm of China National
Petroleum Corporation moved into the Kuwaiti market in 1983, and a major
business expansion took place in 1995 when the group won an oil storage
reconstruction project in Kuwait. Since then China has expanded into oil
services in Egypt, Qatar, Oman and other parts of the Arab world.[11]

China’s growing economic ties with the affluent Persian Gulf emirates
have not been unilateral. In July 2004, the six Gulf Cooperation Council
finance ministers visited China where they signed a “Framework Agreement
on Economic, Trade, Investment, and Technological Cooperation” with
China and agreed to negotiate a China-Gulf Cooperation Council free
trade zone.[12]

Iraq Policy: Symbol of New Activism

Beijing’s policy to pursue good relations with every Middle East
government has extended to Iraq. China and Iraq established diplomatic
relations on August 25, 1958, shortly after the July revolution ousted
the Iraqi monarchy and installed a republic. Over subsequent decades,
despite frequent and sometimes violent changes in the Iraqi government,
bilateral relations remained stable. Chinese companies were once very
active in the Iraqi labor services market. From 1979 to 1990, Chinese
companies signed 662 labor services contracts with Iraq amounting to
almost $2 billion. After the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Beijing
suspended its economic relations with Baghdad in accordance with the
relevant U.N. resolutions. While Beijing had donated humanitarian
assistance to Iraq through channels such as the International Red Cross,
Chinese firms suspended their investments in Iraq until the 1996
inauguration of the United Nation’s oil-for-food program.[13] Even after
the formal resumption of Iraqi oil exports under U.N. supervision,
Beijing’s purchases from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq never accounted for more
than 10 percent of China’s total Middle East oil imports and never
exceeded 5 percent of China’s total oil imports. Chinese economic
interests in Iraq have not dominated Beijing’s stance on political and
diplomatic questions regarding the troubled country.Consistent with the
Chinese foreign ministry’s stance on proliferation and the Iranian
nuclear issue, Beijing sought to resolve the Iraq issue within the
framework of the United Nations, a reflection of Beijing’s traditional
opposition to military intervention.[14] While Beijing opposed the
eventual war, its position was much more moderate than that of France
and Russia, both of whom threatened to wield their Security Council veto.

In recent months, and consistent with Beijing’s evolving Middle East
policy, Beijing has become more assertive on the Iraq issue. In May
2004, China’s United Nations mission raised a proposal to enhance the
Iraqi interim government’s real power by setting a date for a U.S.
military withdrawal. Russia, France, and Germany supported China’s
proposal, which was reflected in the final text of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1546.[15] While an American audience might simply see
Security Council members seeking to undercut U.S. power, veteran China
watchers found Beijing’s actions far more significant because China
seldom raises its own proposals on the Middle East.
Respecting American Concerns

In the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and especially after the
Bush administration showed its willingness to use military power against
Afghanistan and Iraq, many Arab governments expected that the Chinese
government would become a more assertive player in the Middle East as a
counterbalance to American dominance. In an interview with Renmin Ribao
(People’s Daily), China’s leading newspaper, Syrian president Bashar
al-Assad said, “China is now a superpower and is very important after
the absence of the Soviet Union. China’s role has expanded across the
world and has become more important especially for small countries
including Syria.”[16]

Assad sought the Chinese government’s support against increasing U.S.
pressure. On an emotional level, it is a plea that has resonance among
Chinese policymakers. Because the Chinese government feels that their
country was victimized by Western powers prior to the 1949 communist
revolution, Chinese diplomacy has long maintained the principle of
equality among nations big or small in international affairs.
Nevertheless, consideration of the U.S. position still matters. China
abstained on the vote for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which
demands a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.[17]

Within the corridors of Washington, Beijing’s outreach to the Arab world
may be cause for concern. In prepared testimony for a 2003 hearing
before theCongressionalU.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commissionon China’s energy needs and strategies, Roger W. Robinson,
chairman of the commission, and C. Richard D’Amato, vice chairman,
argued that China’s approach toward oil-rich countries “may also
encourage China to offer incentives to energy supplier nations, as it
has in the past, including missile and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]
components and technologies, for secure long-term access to energy
supplies.”[18] Other experts worry that China might transfer arms,
missile components, or conventional or unconventional technology to
countries sponsoring terrorism in order to safeguard its own energy
security.

Such concerns are misplaced. Yitzhak Shichor, a professor of East Asian
studies at the University of Haifa and perhaps Israel’s foremost China
expert, argues that China has been a marginal, almost insignificant
player in the Middle East arms market, with the possible exception of
tactical missiles.[19] For more than a decade, China has made tremendous
improvements in its non-proliferation commitments. China is now a
signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, both the Chemical and
Biological Weapons conventions, as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and the Missile Technology Control Regime. In addition, the
Chinese legislature,the National People’s Congress of China, has passed
laws to administer export of both arms and military technologies. The
Chinese government has worked to demonstrate commitment to counter
proliferation efforts by training nineteen chemical weapons inspectors
for the U.N.’ s Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) in September 2002. China also seconded two of its own arms
experts to UNMOVIC when Iraq inspections resumed in November 2002.[20]

The Chinese involvement in UNMOVIC signals an aspect of broader Chinese
policy that remains applicable to the Middle East. Beijing’s policies
emphasize reliance on mediation through international bodies. This holds
true with regard to the Iranian nuclear issue.[21] The Chinese
government has encouraged the Iranian government to cooperate with the
International Atomic Energy Agency and ratify the additional protocol
that would avoid serious punishment.

While the economic motivations for China’s new activism in the Middle
East may be significant, the importance of security cannot be
underestimated. China shares a 20-mile border with Afghanistan.
Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, China gave strong support to the
U.S.-led war against the Taliban and has subsequently, both politically
and financially, supported the new government of Afghan president Hamid
Karzai.[22] Beijing’s support for U.S. actions in Afghanistan was in
part a reflection of its own security concerns. The Taliban cooperated
with Al-Qaeda, which in turn supported the East Turkistan terrorist
forces that threatened the stability of China’s northwestern Xinjiang
Uighur autonomous region. Between 1990 and 2001, East Turkistan
terrorist forces, based in western Xinjiang, staged more than 200
attacks in Xinjiang, killing 162 people of all ethnic groups, including
grassroots community le aders and religious personnel. Several hundred
more were wounded.[23]

Supporting an Arab-Israeli Resolution

While some Washington officials may be concerned about China’s new
outreach to the Middle East, both Chinese and U.S. concerns remain
remarkably consistent. The United States seeks energy security. So, too,
does China. The United States opposes terrorism. So, too, does China.
The United States supports Arab-Israeli peace. So, too, does China.

Israel was the first and, until 1956, the only country from the Middle
East to recognize the People’s Republic of China, even though the two
countries did not exchange ambassadors until 1992. Unlike many Arab
countries, Israel never recognized the government in Taipei although
Israel and Taiwan did pursue military ties.[24]

China’s new activism in the Middle East is also reflected by its recent
involvement in Arab-Israeli diplomacy. At a September 17,2002 press
conference, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman declared that Beijing
had decided, at the request of several Arab states, to appoint a special
envoy to the Middle East. The Foreign Ministry dispatched veteran
diplomat Wang Shijie, who had previously served as ambassador in
Bahrain, Jordan, and Iran, to the region.[25] When Wang returned to the
region in his new capacity two months later, he reiterated Beijing’s
positions: China both supported the concept of “land for peace” as the
basis of Arab-Israeli peace and recognized the need for an independent
Palestinian state. However, Wang emphasized that Israel’s security
should be guaranteed, a position the Chinese government first enunciated
in 1991.[26]

Wang has subsequently visited Israel and all of its neighbors and has
also consulted with the special envoys of the Quartet: the United
States, Russia, European Union, and United Nations. Beijing’s new
involvement reflects very practical concerns: peace can bring the
stability needed to ensure a stead flow of oil. As a possible future
mediator, China further needs to maintain its traditional relations with
Arab states and engage Israel as well. Israeli politicians seem to
recognize this. When meeting his Chinese counterpart, Tang Jiaxuan,
during his trip to Beijing in March 2002, Israeli foreign minister
Shimon Peres said that Israel appreciated Chinese diplomatic efforts and
suggested that China play a larger future role.[27] Peres reiterated the
message six months later when the two foreign ministers again met while
attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York.[28]

The willingness of Beijing and Jerusalem to cooperate diplomatically in
pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace does not mean that the Sino-Israeli
relationship is without its bumps. Israel’s 1994 decision to receive the
Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader, briefly strained relations,[29]
as have occasional Chinese condemnations of Israeli operations in
Palestinian areas. Another case in point was Israel’s July 2000
decision~Wunder heavy U.S. pressure~Wto cancel the sale of the Phalcon
airborne early-warning radar system.[30]

The most recent contretemps in Sino-Israeli relations is also connected
to bilateral military cooperation. According to a report in Ha’aretz,
the United States demanded that Israel not return to China some of the
drones the Chinese military sent to Israel for upgrading, even though
these drones are Chinese property.[31] Regardless of the eventual
outcome of the dispute, in some ways the damage has been done. If Israel
does not meet its commitments to upgrade the drones, contractual terms
would lead Beijing to likely launch sanctions on Israeli enterprises not
only on the Chinese mainland but also in Hong Kong.[32]

High-level visits can repair some of the strain in relations. Every
Israeli president since Chaim Herzog, as well as prime ministers Yitzhak
Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu, has visited China. In June 2004, Israel’s
deputy prime minister Ehud Olmert visited Beijing. Several Chinese
officials have reciprocated the visits, most prominent among them
President Jiang Zemin and Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen
in April 2000. The latest high-level bilateral exchange was the visit on
December 28, 2004, by Chinese state councilor Tang Jiaxuan, former
Chinese foreign minister, to Israel following his visit to the
Palestinian Authority.
Conclusions

Although the changes are “slow and subtle,”[33] China’s foreign policy
is undergoing transformation. When interviewed by the Zhongguo Qingnian
Bao(China Youth Daily), one of China’s leading newspapers, Wu Jianmin,
former Chinese ambassador to France and currently president of the China
Foreign Affairs University, said that China’s diplomacy is transforming
from “responsive diplomacy” (fanying shi wwaijiao) to “proactive
diplomacy” (zhudong shi waijiao).”[34] American scholars have made
similar observations.[35]

The age of Chinese passivity in the Middle East is over. Beijing will
play an increasingly active role in the region with the goal of securing
its own energy security. This does not mean that Chinese and American
policies will necessarily be at odds. Beijing understands and, indeed,
shares U.S. concerns regarding proliferation and terrorism. Just as
Washington seeks to maintain good relations with both the Arab world and
Israel, so too will Beijing.

There will be differences of opinion, however. While Beijing supports
Arab domestic reform, consistent with its opposition to unilateral
action, the Chinese government will strongly oppose any outside attempts
to impose reform. China’s stance is closely linked to its sentiment of
national sovereignty and its up-to-now successful experience of reform.
Only through candid dialogue can better policy coordination be achieved.
But Washington would be mistaken if it expects that Beijing will
placidly revert to its past passivity. China’s new activism is a
reflection of Chinese interests~Wespecially in the energy sector. Beijing
and Washington can work together. But if U.S. strategic calculations in
the Middle East do not take Chinese interests into account, then they
will not reflect reality.

Jin Liangxiang is a research fellowat Shanghai Institute for
International Studies

NOTES

[1] Deng-ker Lee, “Peking’s Middle East Policy in the Post-Cold War
Era,” Issues and Studies, Aug. 1994, pp. 69-94.

[2] International Energy Agency (IEA), Oil Market Report, Mar. 11, 2004,
p. 12.

[3] Wu Lei, Zhongguo Shiyou Anquan(Beijing: China Social Science Press,
2003), pp. 121-6.

[4] IEA, China’s Worldwide Quest for Energy Security (Washington, D.C.:
IEA, 2000), p. 19.

[5] Han Wenke, “Energy Supply and Security Guaranteed by Strong Reliance
on Domestic Resource and Economic Introduction of International
Resource,” speech at the Seminar on International Energy Security and
Cooperat ion, Shanghai, June 24-25, 2004.

[6] Wang Yichao and Zhang Fan, “Zhongyi Dadan Yi Shichang Huan Shiyou,”
Caijing, Nov. 15, 2004.

[7] “2003 nian 1-12 yue Jinchukou Shangpin Guojia Zongzhi Biao,”Ministry
of Commerceof the People’s Republic of China, Feb. 11, 2004.

[8] “Zhongsha Jingmao Hezuo Xianzhuang,”Economic and Commercial
Counsellor’s Office of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in
Saudi Arabia, accessed Jan. 31, 2005.

[9] “Zhongguo Sudan Jingmao Hezuo Gaikuang,”Ministry of Commerce of the
People’s Republic of China, May 2003.

[10] “Natural Gas Exploration and Development Agreement upon Section B
in Ar-Rub’ al-Khali signed among Sinopec, Saudi Arabia ARAMCO Petroleum
Co. and the Ministry of Petroleum of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia,”Sinopec Corporation, accessed Jan. 31, 2005.

[11] Anwar Yusuf Abdullar, director, Department of Energy, Gulf
Cooperation Council General Secretariat, “Sino-Arab Energy Cooperation:
Problems, Approach and Outlook,” speech at the Seminar on International
Energy Security and Cooperation, Shanghai, June 24-25, 2004.

[12] “The Joint Press Communiqué between the People’s Republic of China
and The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC),”
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Re public of China, July 7,
2004.

[13] “Shuangbian Guanxi,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s
Republic of China, updated on July 28, 2004.

[14] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, news
conference, Mar. 18, 2003; idem, “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu
Jianchao’s Comment on the Establishment of the Iraqi Interim
Government,” June 2, 2004.

[15] “The Situation between Iraq and Kuwait,” Security Council
Resolution 1546, June 8, 2004.

[16] Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), June 21, 2004.The report of the
interview was not carried in the Chinese media.

[17] “Security Council Declares Support for Free, Fair Presidential
Election in Lebanon,” U.N. news release, Feb. 9, 2004.

[18] Roger W. Robinson and C. Richard D’Amato, statement before the
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, U.S. Congress, Oct.
30, 2003, p. 3.

[19] Yitzhak Shichor, “Mountains out of Mole hills: Arms Transfers in
Sino-Middle Eastern Relations,” Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA), Fall 2000, p. 73.

[20] He Hongze and Xu Xueliang, “Zhongguo Hecha Zhuanjia Zai Yilake,”
HuanQiu Shibao(Beijing), Dec. 2, 2002.

[21] “Statement by Ambassador Zhang Yan on Iranian Nuclear Issue,”
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Sept. 30,
2004; “Spokesperson’s Remarks on Iran’s Strengthening of Its Cooperation
with IAEA,” idem, Oct. 22, 2003.

[22] Renmin Ribao (Bejing), Jan. 25, 2002.

[23] Ibid., Jan. 21, 2002.

[24] P. R. Kumaraswamy, Israel’s China Odyssey (New Delhi: Institute for
Defense and Studies and Analyses, 1994), pp. 67-70; idem, “China and
Israel: Normalization and After,” China Report, vol. 34, no. 3-4, pp.
265-86.

[25] Chinese Foreign Ministry news conference, Sept. 17, 2002.

[26] Wen Hui Bao (Shanghai), Mar. 22, 1991.

[27] Renmin Ribao, Mar. 26, 2002.

[28] Ibid., Sept. 17, 2002.

[29] The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 21, 1994.

[30] Jonathan Adelman, “The Phalcon Sale to China: The Lessons for
Israel,” The Jerusalem Letter, Mar. 1, 2002; Shichor, “Mountains out of
Molehills,” p. 73.

[31] Ha’aretz, Dec. 22, 2004.

[32] Guoji Xianqu Daobao (Beijing), Jan. 7, 2005.

[33] Evan S. Medeiros and M. Taylor Fravel, “China’s New Diplomacy,”
Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2003.

[34] Zhongguo Qingnian Bao (Beijing), Feb. 18, 2004.

[35] Medeiros and Fravel, “China’s New Diplomacy.”

This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at

–Boundary_(ID_TOorPIAKW0S98Isxleflfw)–

http://www.meforum.org/article/694