Guest Post: Understanding China’s Arctic Policies

Submitted by Arthur Guschin via The Diplomat,

Within the last seven years 11 countries (Poland (2006), Russia (2008), Finland (2009), France (2009), Sweden (2010), Iceland (2011), Spain (2011), Denmark (2012), Singapore (2012), Canada (2012) and Japan (2013) have realized the need to appoint their own Arctic ambassadors. These ambassadors are used for analysis and situational assessments in the emerging “grand Arctic game,” with the ultimate aim of exploiting mineral resources and using the Arctic route for shipping cargo from Europe to Asia. In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey released an assessment revealing that the Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent of its undiscovered natural gas liquids. In other words, 90 billion barrels of oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 44 billion barrels of natural gas.

The potential commercial benefits of cargo transportation through the Arctic in comparison to the Suez Canal also seem appealing. In August and September 2009 two German heavy-lift vessels, MV Beluga Foresight and MV Beluga Fraternity carried a cargo of steel pipes from Arkhangelsk (Russia) to Nigeria using the Northern Sea Route. The new passage shortened the distance for 3000 nautical miles and reduced fuel consumption by 200 tons per vessel, resulting in savings of 600 000 U.S. dollars. A year later, the Hong Kong vessel MV Nordic Barents transported iron ore from Kirkenes (Norway) to Shanghai using the same route and cut expenses on $180,000. In 2012, 46 vessels carried more than 1.2 million tonnes of cargo through the Northern Sea Route, up 53 percent compared with 2011. In 2010, only four vessels used the route. Some researchers predict that 30 million tones of cargo will be shipped via the Northern Sea Route to 2020

China is the largest consumer and importer of energy resources in the world but its vast geographical distance from the Arctic limits Beijing’s opportunity – at least in contrast to Arctic Council members (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S.) – to set the agenda and form a strategy for taking advantage of new Arctic opportunities. Nevertheless, China was the first Asian state to show interest and it has begun efforts to become a full member of the Arctic Council. Beijing argues that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea the Arctic Ocean is a shipping commons, and that climate change has negative consequences for Chinese food security, particularly with the flooding of its coastal regions.

In the meantime, China has stepped up Arctic and Antarctic research. Between 1985 and 2012, Beijing initiated five Arctic and 28 Antarctic expeditions. It has also built the state-owned Arctic Yellow River Station, and entered into an agreement with Finnish company Aker Arctic Technology to construct a second ice breaker by 2014, joining the MV Xu? Lóng that Beijing bought from Ukraine in 1993. Moreover, Chinese representatives take part in the Arctic Science Committee, Arctic Science Summit Week, Ny-Ålesund Science Managers Committee, and the International Polar Year project. However, “scientific” diplomacy alone will not seem to be helping China join the most influential and important Arctic organization ( the Arctic Council) as a permanent member state.

At present, China’s Arctic initiatives suggest that Beijing is eager to camouflage its true interests in the region with environmental monitoring, Arctic life protection and concerns about indigenous peoples. Beijing's rhetoric aims at defining the Arctic as an international zone where changes must make sense for all countries and climate change is a problem for the highest levels of diplomacy. Alongside France and Germany, China sees an oil spill in the Arctic similar to that which occurred in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico would have disastrous outcomes for global security. So it is spending around $60 million annually on polar research, is building a China-Nordic Arctic Research Center in Shanghai, and plans to increase the research staff by a factor of five, to 1000.

At the same time, Beijing is dropping hints that China is not satisfied with the current balance of power in the Arctic region. The most striking issue in the polemic that represents Beijing's ambitions in the Arctic race is the identification of China as a “near-Arctic” state. This concept has already become ingrained in the lexicon of Chinese scientists who are responsible for Arctic research.

In fact, this approach looks rather prudent and far-sighted given the U.S. and Canadian obsession with Russian deeds in the region, such as its announcement of a new Arctic strategy, the presence of Russian air and naval assets in the frontier zone, and the planting of a Russian flag at the North Pole in 2007. Beijing has left it to Moscow to convey the image of dangerous neighbor, while it maintains the pattern of a peaceful state focused on neutral topics: sponsoring expeditions, conducting climate changing surveys, supporting the development of indigenous peoples, preserving local cultures, promoting sustainable development, campaigning against environment pollution, and promoting tourism.? By developing strong positions in these areas, China will not only be able to tap the knowledge of the international scientific community and put forth arguments to support the theory of climate change influence on China; it will also be able to collaborate with six organizations (Arctic Athabaskan Council; Aleut International Association; Gwich’in Council International; Inuit Circumpolar Council; Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North; Saami Council) that represent indigenous peoples and have the status of permanent members of the Arctic Council. Thus, Beijing can lobby its interests in the Council not on a direct basis, but using a special channel that has already shown itself to be effective.

This scientific approach is a path for China to achieve its true goals in the Arctic, which lie in the economic realm. To start with, Beijing seeks a diversification of supply routes. The main route for China – the Strait of Malacca – is susceptible to piracy and terrorism. An Arctic Route would let China, first, reduce transportation expenses, second, diversify and secure its shipments, and third, diminish the risk of a U.S. Navy closure of the Strait in a conflict. Former chairman Hu Jintao was well aware of China’s supply vulnerabilities. According to Chinese analysts, by 2020 between 5 to 15 percent of Chin
ese foreign trade
will be transported through the Northern Sea Route. Experts at the Norwegian transport company Tschudi Shipping Company estimate that the route from Kirkenes or Murmansk to Shanghai will reduce total sailing time by 16 days.

Meanwhile rising consumption is forcing Chinese companies to invest heavily in oil exploration and shipment, for example, from Africa and Brazil. Assumptions about Arctic natural resource deposits are thus attractive to Beijing. China National Petroleum Corporation became the third Rosneft partner (with Eni and Statoil) in the exploration of Zapadno-Prinovozemelsky (the Barents Sea), Yuzhno-Russky and Medynsko-Varandeysky structures (the Pechora Sea). It is evident that China will seek not only to get access to new oil fields but also to acquire modern drilling technology it currently lacks.

The second strategic resource for China is iron ore. Sinosteel and China Communication Corporation are already investors in the Isua project in Greeland, which will mine 15 million tonnes per year of iron ore pellets from 2015.

The third element in the Chinese economic strategy in the Arctic is a share of maritime resources, especially fish.?The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has shown the region's potential in this regard. Access to fisheries is crucial for countries like Greenland and Iceland, which depend heavily on maritime resources for export earnings, and China has been very active in establishing bilateral economic contacts with these smaller members of the Arctic Council to ensure support for its permanent membership bid. These same tactics worked well in the Asia-Pacific, where China built strong investment relations with ASEAN members to help conclude a free trade agreement with ASEAN. In 2010, China provided Iceland with a $500 million-plus currency swap to support the struggling Iceland bank system. Also in 2010, Denmark signed deals with China worth $740 million in the areas of power, the green economy, agriculture and food security. In 2011, Denmark’s ambassador in China made a statement in support of a Chinese bid for permanent membership of the Arctic Council. The same position was expressed by the leaders of Greenland and Iceland. In January 2013, Swedish and even Norwegian (the spat of dissident Liu Xiaobo notwithstanding) representatives on the Arctic Council meeting in Tromsø declared a desire to start the process of discussing China's role in the Council.

In addition, China's financial aid to small countries will let Beijing participate in the Arctic infrastructure development that will be crucial for the year-round functioning of the Arctic Route. This encompasses port building, ship repair stations, transport hubs (for example, Ísafjörður in Iceland) and rescue centers.

Chinese international strategy in the Arctic will pursue solely pragmatic goals. Not only is economic prosperity as stake but also China's image as a potential global leader. While it talks up the impact of global warming on Chinese environment and food security, Beijing systematically and purposefully continues to encourage the economic dependence of small Artic states on China (such as the recent free trade agreement with Iceland) to earn support for a permanent member seat on the Arctic Council. Moreover, the high cost of projects to develop new oil infrastructure in the region force states to attract investors. This opens opportunities for China to develop influence and locks in future energy access. Next up, look for Beijing to begin negotiating route transit fees with Moscow.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/AmDjVurkz00/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Security Expert: “Buy American Doesn’t Sell Well Anymore Because It Means Give A Copy To The NSA”

We’ve previously noted that mass surveillance is killing American tech companies.

And Cisco just blamed its earnings slump on China’s disdain for NSA spying.

Security expert Bruce Schneier succinctly summed up the destruction of the American economy by the NSA’s surveillance yesterday:

Buy American doesn’t sell well anymore because it means give a copy to the NSA.

This is part of a bigger picture … the military-industrial complex (of which the NSA is a part) is killing the private sector economy. And see this.

Bonus:

World’s Most Dangerous Mission to Start In 3 Days

Removal of Fukushima Fuel Rods Hits a Bump … BEFORE It Even Starts

And if you need 2 seconds of comic relief:

Because … Dog


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/wR-N97Iu50o/story01.htm George Washington

Should We End The Fed?

With the market ebullient at the prospect of more “miracles” from Yellen, we thought it worth dusting off the following brief clip discussing what it would mean to “end the Fed.” In order to answer this question, we examine countries throughout history that did not have an established central bank. So who performs the functions of a central bank in these countries? Professor White cites private institutions, including clearing house systems, banks, and financial companies, as the main actors in the monetary systems of countries without a central bank. Ultimately, he concludes that the Federal Reserve is not necessary. Evidence shows that nations can survive without a central bank. What the Federal Reserve does well can be done even better by private institutions, and the institution is capable of serious errors.

 



    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/tLg40fEgTrA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

6 Things To Ponder This Weekend

Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/iiQ1dtpR-N0/story01.htm Tyler Durden

EPA Recommends Reducing Ethanol Demands

Expect lots of roadside corn stands to pop up suddenly.Earlier this week Ron
Bailey made note of the excellent investigation by the Associated
Press about the amount of environmental harm caused by the federal
government’s insistence on pushing forward with mandated
ethanol in gasoline
.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it wants to

scale back
the mandate that determines how much ethanol fuel
producers will be required to add to gasoline. Back to the
Associated Press:

The Obama administration on Friday proposed to reduce the amount
of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply for the first time,
acknowledging that the biofuel law championed by both parties in
2007 is not working as well as expected.

While the proposal highlights the government’s struggle to ramp
up production of homegrown biofuels that are cleaner-burning than
gasoline, it is unlikely to mean much for consumers at the
pump.

The change would reduce by almost 3 billion gallons the amounts
of ethanol and other biofuels blended into gasoline in 2014 than
the law requires.

Ethanol representatives are threatening to sue, of course. The
cynic in me theorizes some backdoor federal subsidy will reimburse
them of any losses should corn prices drop due to oversupply.

Read the whole story
here
.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7
.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the
widgets
here
. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at 
@reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/epa-recommends-reducing-ethanol-demands
via IFTTT

Cognitive Dissonance: Sell-Side Stock Analyst “Expectations” Edition

How many more quarters of this Einsteinian insanity will it take for investors to realize the sell-side analysts’ “forecasts” are worse than useless…?

 

The last six quarters have on average seen analyst forecasts for growth slide from 4% of hope-driven exuberance to a dead flatline reality… quarter-after-quarter…

 

(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/cm6z8ja6-lY/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Cognitive Dissonance: Sell-Side Stock Analyst "Expectations" Edition

How many more quarters of this Einsteinian insanity will it take for investors to realize the sell-side analysts’ “forecasts” are worse than useless…?

 

The last six quarters have on average seen analyst forecasts for growth slide from 4% of hope-driven exuberance to a dead flatline reality… quarter-after-quarter…

 

(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/cm6z8ja6-lY/story01.htm Tyler Durden

No Inflation To See Here…

Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog,

One of the biggest lies in finance is this perpetual deception that inflation is good.

Ben Bernanke, the current high priest of US monetary policy, recently remarked that it’s “important to prevent US inflation from falling too low.”

Well of course, we wouldn’t want that, would we? Just imagine the chaos and devastation that would ensue if the cost of living actually remained… you know… the same.

One shudders at the mere thought of price stability.

Of course I jest. Fact is, inflation benefits those who are in debt up to their eyeballs at the expense of people who have been financially responsible.

Yet economists have somehow managed to convince people that inflation is just and necessary.  We all know inflation exists. But we’ve been programmed to shrug it off as if it’s a natural part of the system.

The even greater deceit is how they report the figures.

Governments all over the world lie about inflation; they do this because inflation has such a huge impact in monetary policy.

The playbook they all use is very simple– as long as inflation is ‘low’, then central bankers can print money. So they have a big incentive to underreport it.

Quoting a report from the US Department of Labor, for example, a recent headline from Reuters stated “U.S. consumer prices rise, but underlying inflation benign”.

I’m not entirely sure how inflation can be ‘benign’ while consumer prices are simultaneously rising.

Yet this is the modern day doublethink coming from the Ministry of Truth that we are all expected to unquestioningly believe.

Inflation does exist. I’ve seen it all over the world as I travel. In India right now, the reported inflation figure just hit 10% at a time when the economy is sagging.

In Bangladesh, workers are now rioting over rising cost of living, which far exceeds the proposed wage hikes that are on the table.

In the Land of the Free, the average price of a movie ticket is $8.38 earlier this year, another record high. Walnut farmers in California are now reaping record high prices on their crop.

And of course, McDonald’s is now killing their once popular dollar menu as they can no longer afford to sell anything at that price.

There are examples everywhere. And this also goes for asset price inflation.

We can see many stock and bond markets near their all-time highs. But then there are other asset classes… like farmland in Illinois, which is now selling for $13,600 per acre.

With an average yield of 160 bushels per acre, the net financial return after paying variable costs is less than 2%. It just doesn’t make any sense.

And in the art world, a Francis Bacon triptych just sold for a record $142 million at Christie’s in New York.

Everywhere you look, there’s overwhelming evidence of bubbles and price hikes. It’s simple. There’s too much money in the system.

Not only is this destructive, it’s the height of deceit to tell people that there’s no inflation.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/924SWS2pRy4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Albania Rejects US Request, Won't Host Destruction of Syria's Chemical Weapons

Albania has rejected an
American request to host the dismantling of the Assad regime’s
chemical weapons.

From the
BBC
:

Albania will not allow the destruction of Syrian chemical
weapons on its soil, the country’s prime minister says.

Edi Rama was responding to two days of protests in Tirana and
other cities.

The Balkan nation recently destroyed its own chemical stockpile,
and the US had requested that it host the dismantling of Syria’s
arsenal.

Under the deal brokered by Russia to remove Syria’s chemical
weapons, it was agreed that they should be destroyed outside the
country if possible.

Following protests in Tirana Prime Minister Edi Rama
said that
, “It is impossible for Albania to get involved in
this operation,” adding, “We lack the necessary capacities to get
involved in this operation.”

Today was the deadline for plan between the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Syrian government on
the destruction of the Assad regime’s chemical weapons. A source
from the OPCW told
Reuters
that U.S. has alternative countries where the stockpile
could be destroyed in mind. If the next country asked rejects the
American request to host the destruction of Syria’s chemical
weapons it will be the third to do so (Norway has already
rejected a request
to host the destruction of the weapons).

Read more from Reason.com on Syria here

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/albania-rejects-us-request-wont-host-des
via IFTTT