US should not misinterpret Chavez's visit to ChinaBy Aleksander BoydLondon 29.08.06 | Chavez's latest trip to China has got many analysts talking. As a rule of thumb I tend to disregard MSM's articles and reports, especially when these have the sole purpose of duping public opinion about political topics. Take for instance these two examples: 1) Chavez's declarations with regards to the alleged support that he may have gotten from China in his bid for the UN Security Council's seat; 2) Rafael Ramirez's announcement that China is to invest $5 billion in Venezuela's energy sector. Aside from Hugo Chavez and his oil minister there is no verifiable evidence to support neither statement. The MSM merily reported it, however to this moment no Chinese official has confirmed any of it. Stratfor actually seems to have learned how to interpret the BS coming from Venezuelan officials when it reports "China can be described as aggressive. China can be described as hungry for commodities. China can even be described as focused on displacing the United States. But what China cannot be described as is stupid. China will not pay a premium of nearly $10 a barrel for the privilege of using the world's most-exposed energy transport route to consume some of the lowest-quality crude that has ever been discovered." Needless to say that where Stratfor got it awfully wrong was in identifying the party that will pick up the premium tab, for most certainly China is not paying a $10 a barrel premium for Venezuelan crude but rather Chavez offering a hefty discount in order to 'secure' China's support. But what are Chinese sources saying? The BBC Monitoring International Reports published the following on 24 August: US should not misinterpret Chavez's visit to China
Can one conclude then that China did Chavez? © by Vcrisis.com & the author |