Research Korner: International Relations

First Aid For Poor People In Afghanistan

HOW TO HELP POOR PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN       Afghanistan is a country in the Middle East of Asia, with a huge population of more than twenty nine million (29,000,000) people. The country of Afghanistan has a long history of war and as of this present they still suffer from threats and emerging struggle of political and socio-economic and religious conflicts between neighboring countries. This resulted in poverty, crimes and low economic performance and health problems that is still unresolved because usually the government focuses their attention more in defense and insurgency more than economic development and peace and order.       The result of this long history of war is suffering, famine and scarcity that this country has been considered as one of the poorest country of the world. Usually during war civilian people suffered, some of them are wounded in gunshots some died in air strikes while some hide in the villages like rats. Luckily there are also people who have been protected by the government but their lives are miserable, children do not to attend schools while parents usually cannot find a job. Some innocent children and women are also have been used and abused by soldiers to join military exercises and their minds are conditioned to use guns and military weapons preparing them to battle.       Afghan Government and American US forces has a very good military relationship during 2007 of September US launches Air strikes to protect the borders of their country from their enemies but according to news media, foreign and political leaders there are about 300 civilians who are killed in Kunar, western Farrah and other provinces, villagers should not be use as human shield people shouted and military forces should protect people and not destroy them. This is the usual cases during war in Afghanistan that it is the civilian who continue to suffer in deep poverty and starvation.       There are many ways to help Afghanistan in their condition of poverty, the government and people of Afghanistan is calling the aid of the world in the website; www.helpafghanistan.org doctors and medical practitioners are needed they are also open to people who have a desire to help their country including the children and the elderly who heavily needed the first aid to cure their diseases. Dr. Hassan Manawi is asking for the support to continue their program in giving at least first aid to people, they will highly appreciate donations in whatever means possible and 100% of the donations will go to AliAbaad Hospital, the victims of war and poor people. You can send your donations to 2807 Loma Vista Rd. Suite 101 Ventura CA 93003 USA.                 There are many other countries that have extended their help in providing basic services in Afghanistan and anyone in the entire world who wants to help them are open. Afghanistan still badly needed this help in order to experience an economic recovery for their people. If you want to donate you may visit the following websites; ·         World Food Program – www.wfg.org ·         Afghan Aid - www.afghanaid.org.uk ·         Help for the Afghan Children – www.htaci.com ·         Save the Children – www.savechildren.org ·         U.N Center for Human Settlements – www.unch.org ·         Afghan Women Association - http://wilbur.wellesley.edu/A-M/dhaya/AWAI.html       U.S. President Barrack Obama also responded to give more than first aid but also economic aids to the needs of the people of Afghanistan this program will help their country in severe conditions.  During 2010 the US Mission Program created a market based economic development in the poor people of Afghanistan that will improve the quality of life of those who are suffering. The program includes infrastructure development of roads, bridges, electricity and potable water. They will also help rebuild the construction of usually ruined schools and hospitals that will give them access that will support economic growth. Employment and livelihood has also been affected the U.S. response is agricultural development and livestock assistance to focus of land cultivation to increase job and provide food for the people.       USAID also focus on the strengthening local government unit; private and public sectors to strengthen their funds, improve their trading practices, promote livelihood through loans, small and medium enterprise development. Children are also included especially in education and literacy programs while women are also encouraged to participate in strengthening the civil society. The provision of healthcare which is primary important was also been initiated they have distributed medicines to hospitals and clinics who are highly affected by military insurgency. With the help of USAID and local government they have focused on poverty alleviation, health, education, infrastructure, livelihood and employment skills.

First Aid For Poor People In Afghanistan

HOW TO HELP POOR PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN Afghanistan is a country in the Middle East of Asia, with a huge population of more than ...

Strategic relations between Pakistan and China and its implications on India

Strategic relations between Pakistan and China and its implications on India   Peiris (2010) have noted, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari's five-day visit to China, starting July 6, sought to strengthen economic and strategic relations between two countries. Zardari met Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and a number of other important political and business leaders. This is Zardari's fifth visit to China, including two official visits since he was elected as the country’s president in 2008. Besieged by deep economic and political crisis and continued tensions with India, Islamabad considers China as an important ally. In context of growing international power rivalry, including with India, Beijing is seeking to consolidate its relations with Islamabad. Several investment and trade agreements beneficial to Pakistan were signed during Zardari’s visit. However, there was no mention whether Zardari and Chinese leaders discussed plans for China to build two new nuclear reactors in energy-hungry Pakistan. This initiative has drawn concern among major powers, particularly the US and India. According to Pakistan's ambassador to China, Masood Khan, approximately 120 Chinese enterprises work in Pakistan. China has invested in Pakistani telecommunications, energy, infrastructure, heavy engineering, IT, mining, and defence industries. New agreements signed include building hydroelectric dams, transfer of hybrid seed technology, expanding banking operations, roads and communication networks, and cooperation in agriculture focusing on optimum utilization of irrigation water and development of new high yielding varieties of wheat and cotton. China also promised to provide 50 million Yuan as a grant to Pakistan for new projects. China is also funding the construction of Gwadar Port in Balochistan province. This is part of a strategic initiative to build naval positions dubbed the “string of pearls” by US analysts—a series of port installations on Indian Ocean sea lanes from Hong Kong to the Port of Sudan. As well as in Pakistan, Beijing is helping finance construction of port facilities in Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. For Pakistan, cooperation with China, its historic ally in the region, holds out the prospect of major economic benefits. The China National Energy Administration aims to work with Pakistani authorities to develop Pakistan's energy supply. Pakistan's severe economic crisis has been intensified by its massive electricity power shortage of 4,000-5,000 MW over its capacity of 16,500 MW. This has crippled the industrial sector, which is incapable of providing sufficient electricity for production, notably in the textile industry. Pakistan is under the influence of a dangerous cocktail. It at once faces a growing insurgency led by Taliban and al Qaeda militants, a domestic political system characterized by interminable infighting, and an economic meltdown. Inside the U.S. government, preventing against a Pakistani collapse has become the clarion call for inter-agency coordination. The antidote, however, is unclear. Pakistani officials have long considered the United States a fickle and unreliable partner. For the last sixty years U.S. policy toward Pakistan has oscillated wildly between two extremes: entrancement with Islamabad and an unquestioning embrace of its policies, or chastisement of the country for provoking wars or developing nuclear weapons. Today, Pakistani discontent with Washington stands at a record high. According to recent polls, only 16% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the U.S., while 68% look upon the United States unfavorably.1 From 2000 to 2008, America’s unfavorable ratings in Pakistan consistently exceeded 50%. Pakistanis believe the United States treats them as a disposable ally, convenient friend when fighting communism or al Qaeda, but one just as easily thrown away when core American interests are no longer at stake. Pakistan sits at the nexus of many of its most pressing concerns. Beijing has invested billions of dollars in highways, naval ports and energy conduits within Pakistan, all of which serve China’s strategic or economic security needs. In the wake of Uighur Chinese discontent in the Xinjiang province, concern in Beijing that militant Islamic ideology in Pakistan might actuate further domestic rioting in the mainland has intensified. And finally, while China’s border disputes with India remain unresolved, the two giant neighbors have established a mature framework for discussion that supplements a more robust interaction characterized by rapidly increasing trade and people-to-people exchanges. This rapprochement is indicative of China’s broadening agenda in South and Central Asia. The focus on the parallel development of the political, economic and security relationships between China and Pakistan, and the United States and Pakistan. It reviews the origins of those relationships and explains why Beijing, Islamabad and Washington have proved unable to cooperate in the past to achieve measurable security gains. It then analyzes the deteriorating situation in Pakistan today and highlights both the American and the Chinese interest in sustaining a stable Pakistan. This assessment is followed by recommendations on how the three countries can come together to achieve short-term security goals in Pakistan. Any Indian expectation that as part of the assurance of Prime Minister Wen of caring for India’s core interests and major concerns, China would reverse its policy of helping Pakistan in the development of its railway and road infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area bordering Xinjiang, which de jure is part of India’s Jammu and Kashmir, and developing the hydro-electric potential in the Gilgit-Baltistan area was belied when the two countries announced the formal signing of more agreements relating to Gilgit-Baltistan during Mr.Zardari’s stay in Beijing.   Reference Peiris V (2010) Zardari's visit strengthens Pakistan-China relations, 22 July 2010

Strategic relations between Pakistan and China and its implications on India

Strategic relations between Pakistan and China and its implications on India Peiris (2010) have noted, Pakistan President Asif Ali ...

ASSESS THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF REALISM AS A THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Realism and International Relations   Realism             Realism is a theoretical approach to the study of international relations. Realism is believed to be around for a very long time. Considered one of the founding founders of Realism is       , the raconteur of the      wars. According to ,        the war between Athens and Sparta was caused by the increase in Athenian military power and the insecurity that it created among the Spartans. ,             are all considered as pioneers of Realism. Among the first scholars to use the term “Realism”  were       and       .          argued that states are inherently self-interested, power seeking rational actors, who aim to ensure security and their chances of survival. Both these writers claimed that there was no natural; harmony of interests among states and that it was foolish and even dangerous to hope that the struggle for power among states could be tamed by international law, democratization, and international commerce. All realists believe that the realm of interstate behavior is sufficient unto itself for the purposes of explanation and normative justification. Realism invokes a bleak picture of international politics. Within the territorial boundaries of the formally sovereign state, politics is an activity of potential moral progress through the social construction of constitutional government. Beyond the exclusionary borders of its sovereign presence, politics is essentially the realm of survival rather than progress. Any cooperation between two states is seen as functional, a move to ensure the security of each state ( 2002, pp. 261-263).             The Realist tradition rests upon three scientific presuppositions. First, there is the mechanistic view of international politics, which views relations among states in terms of balance and equilibrium – balance of power. Second, there is the biological theory associated with Darwin and the infamous struggle for survival. The third theory upon which Realism rests is a psychological one – egoism ( 1998).    Human Nature and International Anarchy                   Realism believes that there are two major constraints on politics – human nature and the absence of international government. Because of these two factors, international relations is considered  as a sphere of power and interest.  One realist,  (1985), states that human nature has not changed since the days of classical antiquity ( 2000, p. 9). Realists view human nature is primarily egoistic. Realists agree that human nature contains a permanent core of egoistic passions; that these passions define the central problem of politics; and that diplomacy is dominated by the need to control this side of human nature.              The absence of international government is also a constriction on politics. Realists believe that within the state, human nature can be curb and controlled by the political authority and rule. This changes outside the where anarchy seems to encourage the expression of worst sides of human nature. Realism, as an International Relations theory, suggests that states are always finding ways to gain power and will do anything to keep that power. States will always engage in conflicts and they will continue to challenge one another. As a mitigating factor, diplomacy is established.                Realism accepts three fundamental assumptions about international anarchy. First, that the world is composed of sovereign nation-states; second, that there is no world government; and third, that the absence of world government means that international politics is anarchical ( 2005, p. 15). Realists believe that the prevailing goal of states in an environment where anarchy is present is to survive. Survival is the overriding interest of each state. The only way that states can reasonably ensure their survival is to increase their power. Power protects states because states with less power might fear those with more power and therefore be less likely to attack them.             Additionally, realists believe that there is no way out of international anarchy. It is unrealistic to think that a world government could be formed because states would never be secure enough. Each state will continue to be suspicious toward other states and they will never give up their power to a world government. It is also the belief of realists that world politics will continue to be anarchical and conflict-laden because of the nature of man ( 2005).         Realism: Assumptions Centrality of the State             The group is considered as the essence of social reality. Human beings will always strive for group membership and groups challenge other groups. Realists believe the primary component of political organization from the beginning of civilization up until now is the nation state. The state is considered as the principal actor in the international arena and the nature of the state and way states deal with one another define the characteristic of the international relations (1997).   International Anarchy Realists also believe that that states co-exist in a world where there is international anarchy. According to proponents of realism, international anarchy exists and that states cannot appeal to any single international body regarding grievances and protection.   The State Realists work with a cluster of three interrelated assumptions about states. The first part of this cluster is the assumption that states are rational actors. State rationality, from a realist viewpoint, has at least three elements. <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="square"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Realists assume that states are goal oriented. Realists assume that states have such goals and devise strategies specifically aimed at their achievement.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Realists assume that states have consistent goals. That is, state preferences are ordered and transitive in the sense that outcome A is preferred to B, and B is proffered to C, then A is preferred to C.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Realists assume that states devise strategies to achieve their goals. These strategies take into account the rank ordering by states of these goals.</li> </ul>   Characteristics of States: Realist View 1. The main interest of every state, according to realists is security. It has been argued that security is the highest end of anarchy. States need to ensure their survival first before they commit to other goals such as tranquility, profit and power. States according to the realist theory are defensive actors. They are agents concerned first and foremost with their survival and security. 2. States according to realists are concerned about their relative capabilities. States seek power because it enables them to deal with actual or potential threats posed by other states. Power is considered relative. Because power is relative, states tend to be positional actors. States, as realists view them, compare themselves to others and assess their own actions, the actions of others and their relationships and interactions from the viewpoint of their effect on relative capabilities. 3. States, value security more than anything. In general, states seek to be free to employ strategies that will ensure security, increase their power and maintain their position in the international scene. States employ such strategies in order to ensure safety. Because of the absence of a single international government, states tend to give importance to autonomy of decision and independence of action. In addition, states, according to realist theory, seek in the self-help context of anarchy to retain a capacity to carry out those functions that are conducive to security, survival and maintenance of relative position.     Criticisms against Realism: Weaknesses of the Theory   The Issue of International Change One of the biggest criticism against Realism as an international relations theory is its inability to recognize and explain international change, especially the events that mark the end of the Cold War. Realism, according to its critics is not able to anticipate and explain the end of Cold War because of its too much focus on structural constants. Realism fails to recognize the importance of domestic change and the evolution of norms among nations. Realism comes short when it comes to explaining change especially when the change in propelled by world political economy or when change occurs due to changes in the structure of states. Another weakness of realism is its failure to explain how the interstate system developed from feudalism. According to the critics, realism is not able to explain these developments because of its ignorance of the progressive increases in domestic integration.       The Issue of Unit-Level Variables             Another criticism about realism is it fails to take into account the impact of domestic factors such as political, economic, and social processes, on the foreign behavior of states. One of the core assumptions of realism, is that states are rational entities. They are rational when it comes to their goals and policies. This is highly influenced by international anarchy. According to the Realist perspective, because of the danger posed by international anarchy, states are extremely hesitant to give importance to international institutions. States, according to realists will resist being controlled and constrained by international institutions.             According to  (1984) the realist tradition faced different challenges. One of the most prominent was the end of Cold War. The realist tradition, according to its critics, have failed, despite changes, to explain the emergence of problems that became prominent after the Cold War. These problems are ethnic tensions, nationality issues, religious fundamentalism, international drug trafficking, foreign investment, technology transfer, migration and refugee problems, environmental and demographic problems, international terrorism, hunger, poverty and debt ( 1990; 1991  1994, p. 82).             Realism according to  (2000) presents laws of international relations that are not timeless. Realism identifies constraints, not unbreakable barriers. There are also different processes, activities and developments that are happening in the international relations that are beyond the scope of realism. There are also some realists that admitted that some of their passages tend to be one-sided. Realism’s principal purpose is to warn against moralism, progressivism, and similar ‘optimistic’ orientations. It emphasizes what is unlikely or difficult in international relations, rather than what is worth striving for. Realism depicts international affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states and is generally pessimistic about the prospects of eliminating conflict and war. Realism is a continuing tradition of argument. However, the changes in social and political environment has led to the its declining prominence.       also added that realism is rooted in enduring insights into the constraints posed by human nature and international anarchy. Problems arise when they are allowed to squeeze out other no less important insights - which is especially likely when realism is treated as a general theory of international politics. Even among “realists” such as    ,  , and        we have seen the centrality of “non-realist” insights. Without that sense of balance - which is sorely lacking in leading figures such as           - realism's insights are more likely to create than to solve theoretical and practical problems (p. 195).   In Defence of Realism             Realism continues to exist because it regularly offers insights into recurrent sources and patterns of conflict rooted in anarchy, competition and diffidence. According to (2000) realism tells little about cooperation, which many analysts find a no less important part of international relations. This according to    cannot be considered as a failure. Realism, like other philosophies, traditions, or research programs, is an aid to understanding. Realism is a tool that works well for certain purposes and not at all for others.  Realism has been able to adapt to different developments and to give birth to different theories. According to  (1994) a modified realism emerged under the rubric of ‘structural realism’. Realists took up the challenge of adapting the theory to account for such phenomena as cooperation between states, arms control regimes, and the suppression of outward conflict between superpowers in the condition of systematic anarchy.             Realism can be applied to foreign policy making. Realism is not only an approach to the theory of foreign policymaking, but also to the study of the making of foreign policy. Realism as applied to policymaking is used as a tool that aids in the systematic analysis of foreign policy decisions. The key is the result of the policy, not the objectives or the intentions. The policy-makers evaluate alternatives according to their result. With the advantage of observation, the predicted result can be measured and the policymaking can be repeated to yield a more favorable policy. Realism cam also is used as a method in making foreign policy. Realism as a method for  foreign policy is established on basic assumptions about the conflicts that exists between nation states, their national interests, the relative balance of power, and the relationships between intentions and  capabilities.               The realistic approach to foreign policy recognizes that the world is an will the future will continue to be made up of individual nation states. The international relations arena will continue to be influenced by nation states. Despite competition for loyalties from regional alliances, international organizations and global economics, nation-states are here to stay. Realism proposes that nation-states will always prioritize their security above all. Every country has only one goal – that is to ensure security; to protect its territory and institutions. Secondary interests for nations of the world include such matters as peace and security elsewhere, the protection and promotion of democratic governments, the containment of aggressive ideologies and other expansionist governments, and the relief of poverty. These are not pursued at the expense of the primary interest of national security and can be pursued only within narrow limits of available power (2001).     References

ASSESS THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF REALISM AS A THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Realism and International Relations Realism Realism is a theoretical approach to the study of international relations. R...

CHINESE FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL

This paper will try to discuss the Chinese foreign policy with the government of Israel. It will attempt to discuss about the diverse aspects of diplomatic relationship between these two countries. It will also try to point out the different areas of interest and fields of knowledge in which these two nations are united. The paper will also state the different current issues and topics that are essential in contemporary China-Israel relations.             On Jan. 24, 1992, Israeli Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Levy visited China and signed a communiqué together with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and the two countries officially established diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level.[1] This joint communiqué stated that the government of the State of Israel officially recognizes that the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government representing the whole of China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.[2] Likewise, the two countries agreed to develop friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries and two peoples on the basis of the universally recognized principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence.[3]  To further strengthen the diplomatic ties between the two countries, Israel set up a consulate-general in Shanghai in August 1994. Visits between the two countries after the establishment of diplomatic relations increased gradually.[4] From the Chinese side, many high-level officials visited Israel. They were State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen (twice, the second time as Vice Premier and Foreign Minister), Vice Premier Zou Jiahua, Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Wu Yi, State Councilor and Minister of National Science and Technology Commission Song Jian, Vice Premier Li Lanqing, Ministerr of National Planning Commission Chen Jinhua, Member of the Central Political Bureau of Communist Party of China (CPC) and Member of the Secretariat of the Central Political Bureau of CPC Wen Jiabao, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, State Councilor and Defence Minister Chi Haotian, Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Peng Peiyun, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Li Peng and President Jiang Zemin.[5] From the Israeli side, there were President Herzog, Foreign Minister Peres, Prime Minister Rabin, Speaker of Knesset Dan Tichon (attending the 96th Inter-parliamentary Conference) ,Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Levy, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Environment Eitan, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Mordechai, President Weizman.[6] In May 1993, the two countries signed an agreement on cultural exchanges.[7] And in November 1998, the implementation plan of Sino-Israeli cultural exchanges from1999 to2001 was signed.[8] From 1993, the two governments started to exchange 5 students in each direction every year.[9] In March 1992, the two countries' civil aviation administrations signed a memorandum of understanding and agreed for Israeli airlines to operate chartered planes from Tel Aviv directly to Beijing.[10] In October 1993,the two sides signed a civil aviation agreement. In June 1994, agreement on tourist cooperation was signed between the two countries.[11] There have also been a lot of state visits between the leaders and prominent authorities of both China and Israel to further boost the relationship between these two countries. Notable of these visits is the official trip made by then President Jiang Zemin in Israel during the year 2000. He met with Israeli President Ezer Weizman, Prime Minister Ehud Barak, parliamentary leaders as well as other senior officials.[12] The two countries are also signed two agreements on economy and education respectively. President Jiang also made a trip to see the Holocaust Memorial Center and the high- tech industries and factories in Israel’s agricultural sector. Other notable officials that have visited Israel are the Chinese legislator Li Peng, the Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian and Dai Bingguo, head of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee.[13] These acts of diplomacy were reciprocated when Israeli President Weizman visited China following the then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to China in 1998.[14] The President of Israel, Mr. Moshe Katsav and his wife went on a state visit December 14, 2003 on a State Visit to China.[15]  The President and his wife were invited on the State Visit, which will last approximately one week, by the President of China, Hu Jintao. The President’s delegation were composed of the President of the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, Professor Jacob Ziv, the Chairman of the Likud faction, M.K. Gideon Saar,  the Chairman of the Labour faction, M.K. Dalia Itzik,  the Managing Director of the Manufacturers Association of Israel, Mr. Yoram Blizovski, and the Chairman of the Israel Export and International Corporation Institute, Mr. Shraga Brosh.[16] During the visit, the President met with the President, Hu Jintao, with the Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao and with the Chairman of the 10th National People’s Congress (NPC), Wu Bangguo. Economic agreement signing ceremonies of private companies, with the participation of the President with their Chinese counterparts are completed during the state visit.[17] During his visit, the President inaugurated the new building of the Israeli Embassy, “Beit Yisrael,” which includes living quarters, in the capital of China, and he also participated in a Chanukah candle lighting ceremony which were be attended by some of the Israeli community in China and Jewish diplomats of the Diplomatic Corps serving in China.[18] Diplomatic relations between these two countries are not limited to state visits and other formal diplomatic responses, there also has been diplomatic exchange that are viewed militarily although both nations are silent in explicitly stating that they are having arms and weapons deals and negotiations for fear of antagonizing one of the Allies of Israel which is the United States.[19] Based on researches, studies and opinions made by respectable defense organizations and websites, the arms deal and weapon exchange that is being made between China and Israel is definitely one sided and imbalanced with the Israeli defense companies supplying a large part of weapons, defense technology and other military hardwares to China.[20]  This transfer of technology of Israel to China has produced diplomatic friction between Israel and the United States since Israel is transferring weapon technologies that are made and are incorporated to the U.S. military.[21]  United States officials and defense analysts perceived that a Chinese military equipped with the third party U.S. military technology and weapons from Israel will be a potential threat to the stability and equilibrium in Asia.[22] What worries US strategic planners is that, as a consequence of these apparently warm ties, high-technology weaponry that leaks from Israel to China could, in turn, find its way to what the US regards as rogue states in the Middle East.[23] Despite the pressure exerted by the United States to Israel, the Israeli government and defense contractors are silently supplying and developing weapons and military equipments for China.[24] Israel is China's second-largest arms supplier (the first being Russia) and although diplomatic relations between Israel and China were established only in 1992, military ties go back to the early 1980s.[25] Until formal diplomatic ties were established, the military relationship was covert. Israel sold about US$4 billion worth of arms to China before the establishment of diplomatic relations.[26] In the 1990s, the Sino-Israel military relationship grew rapidly. In fact, arms sales contributed to the strengthening of diplomatic engagement.[27] Recent concerns have centered on the transfer of laser weapons technology. In early 1999, the Washington Times said the Defense Intelligence Agency suspected Israel had shared with the Chinese restricted technology obtained during a joint US-Israeli effort – the Tactical High-Energy Laser (Thel) program - to build a battlefield laser gun.[28] The evidence was said to have come from US contractors in Israel who had seen Chinese technicians working with one of the Israeli companies involved in the laser project.[29] Such reports help explain the motivation behind the setting up of a House of Representatives sub-committee to investigate the relationship under the chairmanship of the Republican, , which made its findings partially public in May 1999. The  report noted that recent years had been marked by increased Sino-Israeli co-operation on military and security matters. It also noted that Israel had given China "significant technology co-operation" in aircraft and missile development, most notably in developing the F-10 fighter and airborne early warning aircraft.[30] The F-10 is closely modeled on Israel's Lavi fighter, a project dropped in 1987 after it had been funded by the US to the tune of some $1.5billion.[31] Israel also tried to sell its IAI Phalcon Airborne Early Warning and Control  (AEW & C) radar system to China which was developed by Israeli Aircraft Industries and Elta Electronic Industries. This military hardware is considered to be the most sophisticated and advanced AEW & C system in the world capable of tracking high maneuvering targets and low flying objects from hundreds of kilometers away under all weather conditions in both day and night.[32] When the United States found out about the purchase, Pentagon officials pressured the Israeli companies involved to rescind from the business deal saying that this military technology would give Beijing a strategic edge in any Taiwan conflict in the future.[33] As a result, Israel ultimately had to pay China $350 million in compensation, and there were no known arms sales through 2003.[34] Western military attachés in Beijing said that cooperation between Israel and China in the defense field runs deep. They stated that aircraft industries of Israel are involved in Chinese projects covering fighter development and airborne early warning technology.[35] They believed that Israel’s military industries are providing cruise missile related technology to China and stated that Rafael – the Israeli Defense Research and Development Agency for air launched weapons --- has sold Python 3 air to air missiles to the Chinese and is seeking to sell them the more advanced Python 4.[36] U.S. naval intelligence has long assumed that Israel has passed American provided technology to the Chinese for China’s -10 fighter program.[37] This problem on weapons transfer was highlighted during the diplomatic crisis regarding the China U.S. spy plane debacle that happened in April 1, 2001 where a United States Navy EP-3E was intercepted by a People’s Liberation Army Air Force J-8 fighter jet near the island of Hainan. One of the Chinese jets bumped the wing of the EP-3E forcing it to make an emergency landing on Hainan.[38] U.S. released pictures of the Chinese F-8 fighter plane that collided with the American EP-3E surveillance jet, in an attempt to show that the Chinese jet was in fact at fault.[39] But the real news was that attached to the wings of the F-8 plane were Israeli Python missiles, built under license in China.[40] Israel designed the Pythons by studying the technology of U.S. Sidewinder missiles, sold to Israel many years earlier. So like a boomerang, U.S. arms exports to a trusted ally came back to threaten U.S. military forces in a most unexpected place.           Military hardwares and weapons technology are also not the only things that are being transferred by Israel to China. Training and personnel equipments exchange are also part of the ongoing military relationship between the two countries.[41] Training programs for People’s Liberation Army representatives and police at the Israel Military Industries Academy for Advanced Security and Anti-Terror Training are currently under discussion.[42] Another possible area of future cooperation involves the leasing of Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle services.[43] Ministry of Defense Director-General Yaron reiterated these two projects, citing homeland security and counter-terrorism as potential areas for expanding Israeli-Chinese cooperation.[44] The active participation of Israeli security experts in the preparation for the forthcoming 2008 Olympic Games can be seen as one notable example of this type of cooperation.[45]           After viewing this growing military relationship and cooperation between China and Israel, Chinese policy also dictates that it establishes military relations with Middle East countries that are foes and enemies of Israel. This is necessary to court and to get preferential price for the oil that countries in the Middle East produce. Iran, a zealously anti Israel nation has initiated its nuclear enrichment program for humanitarian purposes but Western nations and the European Community view this movement as a step on making Iran a nuclear power capable of mass producing nuclear bombs and missiles. China is definitely helped Iran in it becoming a nuclear capable nation since it provides equipments, parts, guidance systems, components and other technical tools that are helpful in using nuclear power for electricity and for building a nuclear tipped missile.[46] China has also provided Iran with two 300 MWe (Megawatt) nuclear reactor units possibly located at Darkhovin, Iran during the administration of then President Khatami.[47]             China has also provided Iran with ship-borne longer range cruise type missiles called C-802, which are at the top of the line in terms of Chinese production capability.[48] These missiles have a range of between 60 and 90 kilometers and they are classified as sea skimming missiles making them harder to intercept and destroy. China has also helped Iran in developing the propulsion and guidance system of its Shahab 3 missile which is an identical copy of the No Dong missile developed by North Korea. The Shahab-3 is capable of carrying a one-metric-ton warhead over 800 miles. Tehran announced that the Shahab-3's main target is Israel. Six Shahab-3 missiles were put on display in September 2003 during a parade in Tehran celebrating the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war. One of the missiles carried a banner declaring "We will wipe Israel off the map." [49]             This double dealing made by China with regards to the nature of its diplomatic relationship with Israel while supporting and helping the enemies of this same country to develop and to manufacture weapons that would grievously harm Israel is part of a compromise that is related to the oil industry and the continuing supply of fuel to Chinese industries. If China wants to acquire oil and other petroleum based products that are needed by its growing industry and economy, it must acquire these essential products at a much lower price to lessen the impact of these purchases on its dollar reserves. The military aid and equipments that is being funneled by the Chinese government serves to act as an leverage and a “carrot” in this diplomatic dance. Military hardwares and weapon systems are the “products” that are needed by these Middle East nations while China needs oil for its economy. To be able to strike a deal, cooperation and symbiosis of this kind is necessary from the point of view of the Chinese policymakers.             Petroleum industry studies indicate that China uses about 600 000 barrels of oil per day and if the Chinese economy continues to grow at the present rate, this demand is expected to increase to about 1 000 000 barrels per day by the year 2000 and to 3 000 000 barrels by 2010.[50] The friendship and goodwill that will be extended by China by using military hardwares and equipments as bargaining chips will have a direct impact on the future supply of oil for the country’s development. Beginning from 1993, China has changed from a pure oil exporter to a pure oil importer. In 2001, China's pure import of oil reached as high as 64.9 million tons.[51] As early as the 1980s, China had already had such anxiety with regards to its constant supply of oil. Oil is a limited resource, although China is a large oil producer ranking fifth in the world, it is at the same time a large oil consumer, oil output lags behind the rapid economic growth demand for oil. Since 1984, the average annual growth of crude oil output has come to 1.7 percent, but the average annual growth of oil consumption has reached 4.9 percent in the same period. In 2000, the import of oil and oil products reached 70 million tons, an all-time high (a slight drop in 2001), accounting for 30 percent of the amount of the nation's consumption in that year.[52] Based on such a rate, by 2010, China will need to import 40 percent oil from abroad, and this proportion will reach as high as 50 percent by 2020. Any sign of disturbance in the international oil market and conflict with the Middle East will immediately exert negative effect on the economy of China with so high a degree of dependence on imported oil. While China's imports from smaller oil producing 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.[53] 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 (), the nation's second largest oil producer, may develop the Yadavaran oil field in Iran's western Kurdistan province, giving China a 50 percent interest in the field's estimated 17 billion barrel reserve.[54] Yadavaran could be China's biggest oil investment in the Middle East. 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. 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.[55] 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 China is also not only focusing on the Middle East countries for its oil. The China National Petroleum Corp. has developed oil cooperation with the Sudan, bringing in 5 million tons of share oil from the country through the Straits of Malacca. China's largest energy company in Sudan is pumping crude oil, sending it 1,000 miles upcountry through a Chinese-made pipeline to the Red Sea, where tankers wait to ferry it to China's industrial cities. In October 1992, Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Shi Guangsheng visited Israel and signed a trade agreement between the two governments. Afterwards, the two sides also signed agreements on avoiding double taxation and investment protection. The total trade volume between the two countries in 2000 amounted to $1,050 million, of which China exported $720 million and imported $330 million. The trade volume between the two countries in 2001 was US$1,310,000,000, of which the Chinese export was US$830,000,000, and import US$480,000,000.[56] In 1993, China and Israel signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries' Ministry of Agriculture, and successively built a Sino-Israeli Agricultural Training Center in Beijing Agriculture Engineering University and a Sino-Israeli Model Farm in the suburb of Beijing.[57] Some projects such as a demonstration farm and the cooperative research on water resources, biology, and nano-technology have become good examples of Sino-Israeli cooperation. Israel also hosts today approximately 20,000 Chinese workers. Most of them are employed in construction; the rest in agriculture, nursing, and services. Although security is pretty tight in inside Israel, Chinese laborers and workers are sometimes the victims with regards to suicide bombings and mortar attacks aimed at Israeli civilians. On June 8, 2005, a Chinese named Bi Shude from the Jilin Province of China was killed in a Palestinian mortar attack in the Jewish settlement of Ganei-Tal located in the Gaza Strip.[58] The spokesman of the Chinese embassy meanwhile stated that eight Chinese have been killed and more than 20 wounded in the past five years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.[59]             REFERENCES

CHINESE FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL

This paper will try to discuss the Chinese foreign policy with the government of Israel. It will attempt to discuss about the ...