USA To India, China: Dont Buy Syrian Oil Field

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Jan 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From the Gulf Times:

    NEW DELHI: Washington has asked New Delhi to reconsider its decision to buy a Syrian oilfield with China, a report said yesterday.

    The demand was made earlier this month and a note with Washington’s objections was handed over to Indian foreign ministry officials, The Hindu newspaper reported.

    Washington’s objections to the Syrian deal stem from its allegations that Damascus is fostering terrorism and a UN report charging Syria played a leading role in the assassination of Lebanon’s former premier, the newspaper said.

    “The United States strongly opposes such investments in Syrian resources,” The Hindu newspaper quoted the note as saying.

    “The Syrian regime will seek to exploit news of any investment at the moment as evidence that it is not isolated and therefore not comply with its UN Security Council obligations,” the note reportedly said.

    "Reconsider Syrian deal: Washington" Sunday, 29 January, 2006
  2. Translation: 'Please remember that your aspiration for permanent membership of the UNSCR depends upon the US not vetoing the proposal, not just the Chinese.'
  3. Have they made the same demand of China? And if so, does anyone know the Chines for "Bring it on, Round-eye."
  4. Those two together would make a worthy adversary for the US. I hope they do buy into the Syrian Oil. The change in economic and sy situation would be enormous
  5. So as for Petro-Canada then no problem to have such a huge investments in Syria. As for India then it is 'not good'. Not good for whom?

    For Israel of course. India keeps very good relations with Israel but in the case of purchase Indian policy in ME conflict would be at least very, very balansed.

    So we see just another example then Israel uses USA in its own interests. Nothing new.
  6. The Americans have also offered to share with the Indians civilian nuclear technology. India has another problems in that it can't really compete with China for primary access to energy. However if it came up to a toss up between Iran and Syria, I would think that to appease the Americans, India would give up the Syrian oil field as after all they have a more valuable pipeline deal riding on Iran. But remarks like that won't help the Indian Congress party, especially in light of the resurgence of BJP nationalist rhetoric which in its self plays on the old Indian values of non-alignment.
  7. I have heard that American proposal about 'nuclear technology' to India was made in attepmt to stop construction of the pipeline. Btw, Russian Gazprom was allowed to take part in the project.
  8. Leverage.

    An imperial/hegemon state that has to resort to (offensive) violence is recognised to be at its weakest morally and ideologically; it can only 'win' the argument by force.

    Have you not noticed how everybody seems to be nibbling away at its periphery. It cannot be defeated militarily - yet - but its downfall is slowly being planned and prepared.

    The 'defeated' superpower flexes its gaseous muscles to remind its neighbour where 'good christian' energy can be found. The 'silent' superpower builds its economic base and influence and invades the imperial treasury by hordeing currency and T-bills. The 'unspoken' superpower, known in public for its domination of call-centres and flat boring wickets, slowly but surely, builds its arsenal, its economy and its independance.

    It is surely in the latter two's national interest to secure independant access to crude oil, the life-blood of their economic dream. It is no wonder that these two states are cooperating with each other, with the the 'defeated' and with the 'axis' (of evil) ....

    India is in a win-win situation with the US over the joint-purchase (with China) of a Syrian oilfield. If it goes ahead, it enjoys a (relatively) independant supply of crude. If it finds itself 'obliged' to back-out of the deal, it can expect significant remuneration for its trouble....


    Oh, to be the mighty - so strong but so blind.
    merkator, 2006.