China and Unocal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]hedo wrote:
coloradosteve wrote:
It doesn’t take alot of sense to see this is a very bad idea. If anything, we should not allow this to happen because of China’s labor practices, and we should not allow a country that has nukes pointed at us to purchase a stratigec national industry. We have an agreement with Taiwan that we will help them when China attacks them. Military News and Opinion Articles | Military.com. I don’t even know how the hell we’ll have a chance at defeating China either considering they have cornered the steel market, and have manufacturing tech just as good as ours (because it is ours).

China’s economy survives because of the indulgence of the US Navy.

China is a continental power. Although they have a small capable coastal fleet it would be swept from the sea in less then a week by the US.

If a blockade was set up China’s import of material and export of finished product would cease within 10 days. The closing of factories would create enonormous domestic unrest and likely undermine the present regime.

The real danger militarily from China lies in the future. At it’s present economic growth rate fueling a growing military will make China a superpower within 10 years or so. The naval advantage we have now is overwhelming. It will not be for ever if we let it lag.

I am not suggesting a blockade, simply pointing out that it is a strategic concern of China that is very real. All of the actions they are taking are designed to make China a superpower in the future.

[/quote]

I agree with these statements and would like to add what I’ve seen (I’m teaching English out here), but I think is common knowledge.

Currently the military in China has over 250,000,000 able-aged people (if China ever decided to force it’s people to serve). That’s a hella lotta people. In 10 years that number will increase. And lets not forget that they are breeding MANY fanatics…due to political programming perpetuated through the media and love for a dead leader (most will consider him with MARTYR/Hero status…Mao…)…even though he was a murderer and corrupt.

You have no idea how many misconceptions I’ve had to discuss/correct with people out here. Expecially when it comse to Taiwan and the US and Japan. Misinformation/strategically placed information is rampant…

an army of 250,000,000+ fanatics can be a dangerous thing…the rest of the world can be justified for being concerned about the future of an evil empire…

My experienced/continuing to learn 2 cents…

22

oh yeah…slightly off topic: Taiwan

the majority of the brainwashed people I run into (Not everyone is brainwashed, for the record) believe that Taiwan will be back into the “motherland” for the olympic games in Beijing in 2008.

They say: “China is the vase…and Taiwan is the flower…what good is the vase without the flower?” seriously. Not sure exactly where they heard it, but I’m sure it was from some media source cuz too many people said it the exact same way.

What a load of crap.

23

I say we let Red China buy Unocal and then when the check clears, nationalize Unocal. We get our cash back, plus we get to stick it in the Reds without firing a shot.

24

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I say we let Red China buy Unocal and then when the check clears, nationalize Unocal. We get our cash back, plus we get to stick it in the Reds without firing a shot.[/quote]

I like that idea…no joke!

25

The problem we have with blocking this purchase is China holds an F load of our Treasuries.

26

Chevron will win.

Anyone want to count the ways?

Condi was a board member of Chevron up until she accepted Bush’s job offer and Chevron had an oil tanker named after Condi.

The tanker was renamed to the Alistair Voyager.

My firm actually held the bonds in many of our clients account that backed the purchase of this tanker.

27

Interestine article on the strategic value of Unocal.

Curious why a Communist Government feels it can lecture the US on Captialism?

Unocal 101
by:Terence Jeffrey

July 6, 2005 |

You don’t need to be Carl von Clausewitz to figure out that it could damage U.S. security interests if the communists in Beijing defeat Chevron in their competing bids to purchase Unocal, the ninth-largest U.S. oil-and-gas company.

Just as Clausewitz, the 19th-century Prussian strategist, argued that war is the continuation of politics by other means, the People’s Republic of China has discovered that acquiring certain assets on the world market is politics by other means.

It does not matter whether the asset the regime seeks is state-of-the-art missile technology or old-fashioned crude, the ultimate question is whether the acquisition increases the PRC’s likelihood of controlling the outcome in a matter of contention with one or more rival nations.

Consider this scenario: The PRC buys Unocal, the majority of whose energy reserves are in Asia, closer to China than to the United States. With the U.S. military stretched thin by the conflict in Iraq, the PRC mobilizes to invade Taiwan, a democratic island over which the PRC still claims sovereignty and which the PRC has repeatedly asserted it has a right to seize by force. Following up on President Bush’s 2001 statement that we would do “(w)hatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself,” the United States takes steps to deter the imminent invasion and prevent a catastrophic war.

Would the United States be in a stronger or weaker position to deter the PRC from invading Taiwan if it no longer had the power – short of using force – to shut down the sale of Unocal oil and gas to the PRC?

To which army would the PRC-controlled Unocal sell its petroleum: the U.S. Army or the People’s Liberation Army?

If war did break out, whose troops would Unocal gasoline help kill? Ours? Or theirs?

Consider a second scenario: Crude is hovering near $60 per barrel; in parts of the United States, gasoline is selling at well over $2 a gallon. A revolution erupts in Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden-types overthrow the royal family. The new regime in Riyadh orders an oil embargo on Western nations. As crude skyrockets, the PRC devotes all Unocal production to Chinese consumption.

What would that do to the cost of gas at the pump in U.S. suburbs? Would it help trigger or deepen a U.S. economic crisis?

Last month, CNOOC, an oil company 70.6 percent owned by the PRC government, announced an offer to buy Unocal for $67 dollars per share (or $18.5 billion) in cash.

“And to finance its offer,” reports the Los Angeles Times, “CNOOC’s state-owned parent company, Beijing-based China National Offshore Oil Corp., committed to providing $7 billion in loans, with an additional $6 billion coming from a state-owned bank.” This bettered the offer by U.S.-based Chevron to buy Unocal for $62 per share (about $16.6 billion) to be paid in both Chevron stock and cash.

On June 30, the U.S. House, responding to the PRC’s Unocal bid, voted 398 to 15 to express its sense “that a Chinese state-owned energy company could take action that would threaten the United States.” Citing the Defense Procurement Act, the resolution says the president already has legal authority “to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a United States corporation that threatens the national security of the United States.”

The communists in Beijing reacted indignantly, condemning Congress for interfering in the workings of capitalism. “We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the two countries,” said the PRC’s foreign ministry. “CNOOC’s bid to take over the U.S. Unocal company is a normal commercial activity between enterprises and should not fall victim to political interference.”

Who do they think they are fooling?

When a communist regime using government money tries “to take over” a U.S. company with large Asian oil and gas reserves, it is not a “normal commercial activity.” It is a strategic maneuver to gain advantage over the United States and other would-be rivals in future contingencies and crises.

If the PRC’s bid for Unocal goes forward, President Bush should use his legal authority to stop it.

?

28

I told you China sucked. I think we should blockade them. For fun. The radical fanatic idea doesn’t sound too crazy to me because the Chinese I have met seem conforming and easily molded. They seem to want to just fit in, work, and not be different or outstanding. I think they stick to their dogma pretty hard too. The ones I worked with were jerks who couldn’t or wouldn’t see that they were being idiots. They thought China was the best. They talked about products from China being the best products not even realizing they were American products ripped off and copied by the Chinese. I think the brainwashing by their government made them this way, but I also think they are ripe for brainwashing. I read somthing Mao said about the Chinese people being blank canvasses and being able to writes something beutiful on them. I don’t feel communism is beautiful, but the blank canvass part seems right. I mean look at Chinese restaraunts. They are all exactly the same. It’s like they come from a kit or something.

29

I have to say this because it’s true: I’ve been treated VERY well by the chinese people here. It has something to do with a confucian statement to the effect of “A guest from afar is an honorable affair” or something like that. I’ve met some wonderful people…a lot of assholes, but many many wonderful people nonetheless.

The thing is that, the people are innocent, for the most part. The GOVERNMENT (and it’s people) are fucked up (in the western view).

They are taking EVERY advantage and playing dumb (read: “I didn’t know that”…or…"Oh, okay, we’ll try to change…or “Okay, we’ll TRY to make our currency more fair in regard to the world market”…blah blah blah) when in fact they know EXACTLY what they are doing. Then they play innocent afterward. And do it again and again and again…will the rest of the world ever learn? I hope so…truly.

Corruption (as recognized in western terms) is rampant. You gotta “grease the palms” if you have a business here. I went with the hightest attorney in this city, and everywere we went everything was free. And this is only the beginning of the stories…and man, do I have some…lol

About the Communist party making comments on Capitalism. Actually, IMHO, China is becoming more Capitalist every day…technically it’s nowhere closes to Communism (in terms of economics). There are more “fat cats” today than ever (especially now that HK is back and Shanghai is a HUGE economic center)…and they have sold out some of their ancient treasures to monetary gains (Shaolin Temple and MANY other ancient sites, to tell the truth). When Mao came to power…he demanded that everyone share equally…if the rich didn’t do as he said, they were executed…but he sure as hell got rich and powerful. Nowadays…well, let’s just say that the country is more Capitalistic than ever…IMHO, it will continue to become so. But they will always play the “innocent” game…

Control, my friends…the power is in the control (and it’s the biggest damn poplulation in the world)…and if they control Unocal, they will have a enormous chance to gain more control…and when the people are “led to believe” things, it is EASY to control them.

(…maybe it’s just all the SOY these people eat…they look at me like I’m crazy when I refuse any kind of soy or tofu. Hmmm…government control through soy manipulation…)

sorry off topic somewhat…let’s just say I oppose the acquisition…

30

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The problem we have with blocking this purchase is China holds an F load of our Treasuries.[/quote]

Will you please explain this statement? I’d like to know what you mean.

31

Well…not sure if they would be good corporate stewards of Unocal. Denying navigation is an act of war.

This to me is a test to guage reaction but who knows?

Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

?If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,? said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China’s definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

?If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,? said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China’s National Defence University.

?We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.?

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged ?hawk? who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People’s Liberation Army view.

?He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,? said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. ?Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,? he added.

Gen Zhu’s comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China’s military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on ?hypothetical scenarios?.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat ?is a new addition to China’s public discourse?. China’s official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA’s deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing

32

[quote]Trailblazer wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The problem we have with blocking this purchase is China holds an F load of our Treasuries.

Will you please explain this statement? I’d like to know what you mean.[/quote]

America does not have much choice when it comes to China’s currency fixing or their blocking of our imports into their country.

China holds $230 billion worth of our treasuries. Japan holds $685 billion worth of our treasuries.

China could tell us they plan on dumping all $230 billion now. They would be chopping off their nose to spite their face but that could be a problem.

We need China to keep purchasing our treasuries.

Unocal will sell to Chevron. One word Condi (she had a Chevron oil tanker named after her when she was on Chevron’s board of directors. A position she held until Bush offered her a job in his cabinet).