Latest news with #TheArcticUniversityofNorway
France 24
13 hours ago
- Business
- France 24
Israel-Iran war undermines Beijing's Mideast diplomatic push
Beijing's muted response to the outbreak of war on June 12 between Israel and Iran speaks volumes about the awkward diplomatic position it finds itself in. Chinese President Xi Jinping waited four days before expressing his views, calling on both sides on Tuesday 'to de-escalate the conflict as soon as possible' while offering to 'play a constructive role' on the diplomatic front without adding much in the way of details. While China wants to present itself as a superpower with diplomatic clout on the international stage – capable of acting as a mediator that is an alternative to the United States – the current conflict is underscoring the limits of its international leverage. Iran, a strategic partner for China Beijing is economically very close to Tehran, principally because of Iran's energy resources. 'China is by far the largest importer of Iranian oil,' according to a State Department statement in March. Most of the Gulf states' oil exports to Asia – including Iran's – pass through the chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. If the strait were to be closed, that could have a big impact on China, says Andrea Ghiselli, a specialist in China's international relations at the University of Exeter in the UK. Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers 01:18 For now, 'the oil price hasn't gone up that much', Ghiselli says. 'But it can be a huge problem if Iranian exports are halted, or especially if the Strait of Hormuz is closed. That would be a real issue.' Iran has in the past threatened to close the Strait, through which some 20 percent of the world's global oil trade passes. China and Iran signed a 25-year partnership deal in 2021 that included an agreement for Iran to join China's giant New Silk Roads investment programme. Beijing is counting on its strengthened ties to Iran to extend its influence in the Middle East – and not just economically. The regime in Tehran 'opposes American hegemony, which, broadly speaking, is also one of the general goals of Chinese foreign policy', Ghiselli says. In forging ties with Iran, China wants to show neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are more allied to Washington, that Beijing can be an alternative to the United States. Iran, therefore, represents a gateway for Beijing into the region, says Marc Lanteigne, a China specialist at The Arctic University of Norway. The fall of the regime in Tehran 'would be a major blow to Beijing's Gulf diplomacy, as well as its plans to develop deeper trade relations with the region as a whole", Lanteigne says. 'Regime collapse in Iran would almost certainly spiral outwards to other parts of the region' to undermine the stability that Beijing has worked to foster. It is thanks to Beijing, for example, that arch foes Iran and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement to normalise relations in 2023. 'That is in danger of going up in smoke as a result of this war," says Lanteigne. China has every interest in the Iranian government surviving this war. And Xi made no secret of his displeasure with the Israeli offensive when he spoke on Tuesday: 'We oppose any actions that infringe upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries. Military conflict is not the solution to problems, and rising regional tensions do not align with the common interests of the international community,' state news agency Xinhua quoted him as saying. China condemns Israel's attack on Iran 03:53 Words, words, words But Xi's options in the region are limited. "At the moment, the Iranian authorities are looking around and wondering where their friends are,' Ghiselli says, noting that even Russia 'has decided to close its consulate in Tehran '. 'Iran doesn't need communiqués or declarations, but concrete help, like anti-aircraft systems or fighter jets," Ghiselli adds. Some analysts say, however, that it is unthinkable that Beijing would supply arms to Iran. 'Iran has never been seen as an ally,' by China, Ghiselli says. Tehran is 'an important partner, of course, but the Chinese are very clear that they don't want to be drawn into regional conflicts'. This is even more true as US President Donald Trump adopts an increasingly belligerent tone towards Iran. Against this backdrop, sending weapons to Tehran would run the risk of dragging China into a proxy conflict with the United States. Beijing is currently 'trying to stabilise relations with Washington', says Lanteigne, and doesn't want to 'clash with the Trump administration at this point'. This leaves Xi with the option of playing a 'constructive role" in diplomacy, as a possible mediator in future peace negotiations. Risk of loss of influence Beijing has had some notable successes as a diplomatic intermediary in the region. In addition to normalising ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, China also facilitated the 'national unity' agreement between Palestinian factions signed in July 2024. But this time, Israel would have to agree to Beijing's mediation. 'Beijing would be pleased to further its credentials as an alternative peacemaker to the West, but in this case there is little China can do directly because China's leverage on Israel is modest at best. Especially given Chinese criticism of Israeli operations in Gaza,' notes Lanteigne. 'It is unlikely that the Israeli government would accept China as a mediator, especially since the Trump government has de facto thrown its support behind Israel and has hinted that it may get more involved in the conflict,' he adds. China can try to intervene but not much more, which is 'probably a frustrating moment for them', Ghiselli says. 'It's definitely an important test for their diplomacy.' And any overt sign of weakness risks tarnishing Beijing's image in the region. China could lose allies or strengthen the China sceptics in key countries like Iran, where 'there is also a critical current of opinion that Beijing is, above all, taking advantage of Iran's international isolation to obtain cheap oil and flood the Iranian market with Chinese products', Ghiselli says.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump wants to buy Greenland — and how much it could cost
United States President Trump continues to raise another old flight of fancy from his first tenure in the White House — the possibility of purchasing Greenland. Leaders from Denmark and Greenland (an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark with self-government and its own parliament) have repeatedly asserted that the territory is not for sale. But why does Trump want Greenland so badly? Is it even to purchase sovereign territory in the 21st century, and if so, how much could it cost? While a precise valuation is hard to calculate, some experts offered insights into the Arctic island's worth. Rob Huebert, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, said he's scratching his head at Trump's possible motivations for purchasing Greenland. From a military standpoint, Huebert pointed out that the United States already has a military base on the northwest coast of Greenland, called Pituffik Space Base. And while there's been speculation about offshore oil (Greenland suspended exploration due to the climate crisis), Huebert feels this still doesn't fully explain Trump's fascination. 'You sit there, and you think, 'Is he truly only doing this because he's got some warped understanding of Manifest Destiny?'' Huebert said. 'He wants to attach his name to that the same way people like Theodore Roosevelt (did) — again, it almost seems like expansion for expansion's sake only.' Marc Lanteigne, a professor of political science at The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, suggested Trump is looking to create 'a good old fashioned 19th century buffer zone around American interest,' pointing to the president's interest in Canada, Gaza and the Panama Canal as well. 'It's very reminiscent of 19th century great power behaviour,' Lanteigne said. 'The idea that if you can surround yourself with occupied territories, you have a buffer zone against your enemies.' Lanteigne said Trump might want Greenland for the potential value of its critical minerals and resources. 'It has a great deal of raw materials, everything from oil, gas, base metals, precious metals, rare earths,' Lanteigne explained. 'A lot of which has been untapped because up until very recently, it was simply too expensive and unworkable to set up mines there — just because of floating ice off the coast and the difficulties involved with the local climate that is changing.' Trump has said that the United States needs to control Greenland to ensure international security and for the 'protection of the free world,' but Huebert noted that Denmark is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Greenland's surveillance systems are tied into the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) through the Pituffik Space Base. 'You can't think of a more fulsome participation in geopolitical security than what the Greenlanders and Danes are already doing.' In 1946, before the official onset of the Cold War, President Harry S. Truman quietly proposed to pay Denmark US$100 million in gold for the northern island after Senator Owen Brewster called it 'a military necessity.' Truman's advisors coveted Greenland for its geographic advantage, since it could help defend against Soviet bombers flying over the Arctic Circle to reach the U.S. Documents from the National Archives also show a proposed alternative: the U.S. could trade land in the Point Barrow district of Alaska for the portions of Greenland that were considered to hold military value. This plan, had it gone through, would have also provided the Danes with rights to any oil discovered in Point Barrow, which would then be sold to the United States. While Denmark ultimately declined the offer, the two countries established a defence treaty in 1951 to build Thule Air Base (since renamed Pituffik), displacing Thule's indigenous Inughuit community in the process. Three decades prior to that, the United States purchased the Virgin Islands for US$25 million in gold from Denmark due to fears that the German government might annex Denmark and use the islands as a naval base during the First World War. Secretary of State Robert Lansing reportedly suggested that if Denmark was unwilling to sell, the U.S. might forcibly occupy the islands to prevent its seizure by Germany. Placing a dollar value on a territory with its own economy, government and resources isn't an easy estimation, but some experts suggest using historical land deals as a reference. David Barker, a real estate developer and former economist at the New York Fed, told The New York Times that Greenland could be worth anywhere between US$12.5 billion and US$77 billion, based on some rough math. Barker used the Virgin Islands and Alaska purchases as comparison points (the U.S. bought Alaska for US$7.2 million in 1867). Barker adjusted these purchases based on the change in GDP for the U.S. or Denmark, to account for inflation and economic growth. So, for the lower end of the valuation, he adjusted the purchase price of the Virgin Islands for the growth in Denmark's GDP since 1917. For the higher end, he adjusted the Alaska purchase price for the growth in U.S. GDP since 1867. One of the most recent geopolitical land deals occurred in 2017, when Egypt ceded sovereignty of the mostly uninhabited islands of Tiran (80 square kilometres) and Sanafir (33 square kilometres) to Saudi Arabia. Arab Center Washington DC reported that the controversial transfer followed the nearly US$22 billion in economic, financial, and oil aid Saudi Arabia pledged to Egypt, leading some analysts to speculate the land transfer could have been part of the deal. It took another six years for Saudi Arabia to add the islands to its maps, with some reports suggesting Egypt was stalling the transfer. Greenland, the world's largest island, is of course, much more expansive at 2.166 million square kilometres and home to more than 56,000 people. And Lanteigne said it's difficult to even estimate Greenland's geological value, especially with mineral surveys still ongoing — although some estimates peg its natural resource wealth in the tens of billions of dollars. Lanteigne said Trump's offer to buy Greenland from Denmark (again) shows his lack of knowledge of the local situation in Greenland, the relationship between Denmark and Greenland and the issue of colonialism. Lanteigne pointed to the Self-Government Act, which was signed with Denmark in 2009, guaranteeing Greenland the right to self determination. Hypothetically, if Trump were to negotiate for Greenland, he would need to negotiate with Nuuk, Greenland's capital and seat of government. 'We're long past the period of colonialism, when you could buy and sell and exchange in that context,' agreed Huebert, who doesn't see any possible scenario in which Greenland could be bought. 'I think a more realistic scenario would be … the Americans start working on trying to sway the popular opinion within Greenland to move for independence,' Huebert suggested. 'In other words, maybe the Americans would get more control over a sympathetic government leader.' A recent opinion poll commissioned by the Danish newspaper Berlingske and Greenlandic daily Sermitsiaq revealed that 85 per cent of Greenlanders do not want their island to become a part of the United States, with nearly half saying they see President Trump's interest as a threat. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly said that Greenland is not for sale, but recently added, 'If this is about securing our part of the world, we can find a way forward.' Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede has also said the use of the territory's land was 'Greenland's business,' but expressed willingness to work more closely with the U.S. on defence and mining. Lanteigne said that Greenland's plans for independence mean it needs to seriously diversify its economy, noting that it primarily depends on the seafood, tourism and services industries, as well as an annual stipend from Copenhagen. The issue with mining in Greenland is the amount of money and material needed to set up even a single mine, he added, given its isolation and the fact that it's surrounded by ice. He said it could take 20 years for a mining operation to become profitable — a conservative estimate. Hey, Greenland! Join us, not the United States Two weeks shouldn't overturn a century of links Trump-fuelled trade fiascos are failing to swamp the markets In a January opinion piece for The Washington Post, Naaja H. Nathanielsen, minister of business, trade, mineral resources, justice and gender equality in the government of Greenland, wrote that while Greenland did not want to be part of the U.S., it is open to forming a business deal that could benefit both economies. Nathanielsen noted that Greenland possesses 39 of the 50 minerals the U.S. considers critical to national security and economic stability, such as zinc and nickel, and called for private investors to commit capital to grow Greenland's mining operations. 'Greenland has high hopes of signing a new agreement with the United States as soon as possible,' she wrote, adding that the U.S. currently holds just one mining license in the territory. 'There are existing, upcoming and as yet unknown possibilities available for investments.' • Email: slouis@
