Blood for Oil?
Paul A. Rahe ·
Nov 28, 2010 at 6:00am
In an interview that I read yesterday, Christopher Hitchens observed, “Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, anywhere that the concept of human rights doesn't exist, it's always the Chinese at backstop. And always for reasons that you could write down in three words: blood for oil.”
That last comment gave me a start, and I cannot get it out of my mind. To what extent is he right? And where it is in error, is the error merely technical? Could we simply substitute something else for oil?
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Blood for Oil?
It's certainly not entirely wrong.
Sep '10
Re: Blood for Oil?
Hitchens is entirely wrong. Blood works poorly as a substitute for oil. The engine in my 1965 Ford Falcon siezed up when I decided to try out the progressives' claim and poured in several quarts of B+ after an oil change. And don't even get me started on blood for land.
Nov '10
Re: Blood for Oil?
While pleasing to hear the "blood for oil" taunt applied to a totalitarian dictatorship for a change, the charge explains little. After all, China imports oil and coal from Canada and Australia too. Chinese policy of promoting the export of artificially cheap manufactured good requires the importation of large quantities of oil and coal from whatever source. China has underwritten the North Korean regime for decades, and surely that is better explained by the ideology of the rulers of China combined with a general will to power. If North Korea were stripped of all natural resources tomorrow, would China withdraw support? If Sudan magically became the Canada of Africa tomorrow, would China desire access to Sudanese oil any less?
Re: Blood for Oil?
The word that matters here is not oil or even blood but China. Meanwhile we are driven to fits by the formal status of Abkhazia and Russia's solemn flag-planting ceremony at the ocean floor of the North Pole.
May '10
Re: Blood for Oil?
The Chinese are playing a geo-political positioning game. Wherever the US presence is weak, capture that territory. I was in Tonga a few years ago and the Chinese ambassador was in Vava'u for the opening of the new Chinese-funded harbor facility. Fly to Nuku'alofa and see the huge new Chinese Embassy. Why there? The US presence is minor. Ripe for the picking. Does Tonga matter? It has fishing rights and one vote in the UN.
Sep '10
Re: Blood for Oil?
I believe that what Hitchens is getting at is that while the Left kept berating those of us who wanted regime change in Iraq by saying the effort was nothing more than "blood for oil" (as if oil were of some small human consequence), these same folks are unaffected by actual resource blackmail when it comes at the hands of China.
May '10
Re: Blood for Oil?
China is just one more large and powerful country with import needs, pursuing its own interests. They need some resource they lack? Go find it and make a deal, including any necessary sweeteners.
If they had a history- past or present- of military adventurism in trying to take over these countries, or steal, rather than buy, the resources, we could see it differently.
But what is the difference here between them and Brazil, Singapore, or France? Or the US, for that matter, when it comes to prospecting for the free flow of raw materials at market (or bargain) prices?
The internal authoritarianism is horrible, and we all want to see openness and democracy. But I still don't see foreign military adventurism away from their borders, which reflects a great difference from Russia, Iran, PRK, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.