# Reports say Chinese-made weapons used by Taliban



## kilekaldar (13 Sep 2007)

Reports say Chinese-made weapons used by Taliban

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070912/weapons_china_070912/20070912?hub=TopStories

Updated Wed. Sep. 12 2007 10:56 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite allegations that Chinese-made weapons are falling into Taliban hands and further endangering Canadian soldiers, Canada's foreign affairs minister never addressed the issue to his Chinese counterpart during the APEC summit last week, CTV News has learned.

Both U.S. and British officials have questioned China on the weapons, while Defence Minister Peter MacKay acknowledged Wednesday he's worried about the reports.

"We're concerned about any country -- neighbouring country or otherwise -- that embarks in the arming of the Taliban, a terrorist organization," said MacKay in Halifax.

Asked if he had spoken to China about the issue, he replied: "I have not personally spoken directly with the Chinese, but we know that officials are undertaking efforts to verify some of this information as we speak."

U.S. and British soldiers have recovered new armour-piercing roadside bombs, which they allege have been manufactured in China and sent into Afghanistan through Iran.

And just last month, Canadian soldiers say they discovered a Chinese-made mortar near the site of a roadside explosion that killed Pte. Simon Longtin.

In the past six months, 19 Canadian soldiers have died from roadside bombs.

"Unavoidably and unfortunately, Canadian soldiers might be falling victim to those weapons," said Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former CSIS intelligence officer now with the Northgate Group, a security firm.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier travelled with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Australia last week, to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation's leaders' summit in Sydney.

But sources told CTV News he never raised concerns about whether Chinese-made weapons were being used against Canadian troops in Afghanistan by insurgents.

"Why didn't Mr. Bernier take the time to ask that question, since Canada and our troops are on the front lines now?" asked Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre.

A former adviser to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said the government should be pressing the issue with China.

"We should be telling them they have a choice: they can either be friends with the Taliban or they can be friends with us," said Scott Newark.

Earlier this month, an unidentified senior Afghan official acknowledged the problem to the BBC, saying: "Chinese HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles are with the Taliban, we know this... and we are worried where the Taliban gets them. Some of these weapons have been made recently in Chinese factories."

But Lu Shumin, China's ambassador to Canada, denied the allegations.

"Clearly, this is groundless. China has very strict rules on selling our weapons," he said.

With a report by CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife


----------



## FullMetalParka (13 Sep 2007)

Chinese weapons are sold everywhere. You can find SKS copies, AK copies, all sorts of things. Fairly cheap as well.


----------



## GK .Dundas (13 Sep 2007)

diplomat ( Noun)
 a person sent abroad to lie for their country.
 But Lu Shumin, China's ambassador to Canada, denied the allegations.

"Clearly, this is groundless. China has very strict rules on selling our weapons," he said.
 I believe the definition first appeared in Ambrose Bierce's "the Devils Dictionary"


----------



## KevinB (13 Sep 2007)

fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> Chinese weapons are sold everywhere. You can find SKS copies, AK copies, all sorts of things. Fairly cheap as well.


 :

Yeah but we are talking about New In the Box weapons still with factory stickers on the box and packing in cosmoline.
  Additionaly - we also not just talking about the occassional AK varient.

 Surface to Air Missles, Anti-Tank missles, explosives, and both detonators and advanced triggering devices.

I've been mentioning this here since 2005 when I personally witnessed some seized stuff from China.   Don't be fooled, they are killing our troops and dont GAF what we think or say.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Sep 2007)

I am sure the Chi-Coms are as guilty as sin!

We had Chinese 107mm rockets, and 82mm HE mortars as guests many times.

...and to think they are having the Olympics next year. What a joke!

Wes


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I've been mentioning this here since 2005 when I personally witnessed some seized stuff from China.   Don't be fooled, they are killing our troops and dont GAF what we think or say.



And it appears the CHN-Taliban relationship may have gone back even further than that....

From "Inside the Ring" column, 21 Jun 2002:  "China's military provided training for Afghanistan's Taliban militia and its al Qaeda supporters, according to a U.S. intelligence report.  The intelligence was obtained from anti-Taliban Afghan sources. It was surprising to U.S. analysts because China is a target of Islamic separatists, who are known to have been trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan.  The training of the Taliban forces took place before September 11. It was carried out in cooperation with Pakistan's ISI intelligence service, defense officials told us.  The report, and others like it, was unwelcome news for some of the pro-China analysts within the U.S. government who are pushing the Bush administration to adopt a more conciliatory posture toward the communist government in Beijing. These officials point to China's cooperation in the war on terrorism, which has included intelligence sharing of limited value.  U.S. intelligence officials do not know why the Chinese provided the military training to Islamic radicals. But some analysts believe it was an attempt to gain influence over the Taliban and al Qaeda ...."

From Harvinder Sahota, "China's Taliban Connection", BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR (now known as the "Security Research Review" of India), Volume 4(3), November-December 2001 
".... Ever pragmatic, the People’s Republic of China sought to nip the Uighur separatist movement in the bud by engaging its sponsors in Afghanistan. With the escalation of separatist violence across Xinjinag in 1998, China pressurized its Pakistani clients to rein in Islamic terrorists based in Afghanistan. Consequently, Pakistan facilitated contact between the two sides. Five senior Chinese diplomats arrived in Kabul for talks with the ruling Taliban in February 1999, the first of a series of interactions ...."


----------



## MG34 (13 Sep 2007)

Gee that must be why the 82mm RCL's we found all had Chinese markings on them, come to think of it so did the ammo, and the Chinese bounding Anti-Pers RPG rounds, and the 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm PKM ammo, 107 rockets,82mm Mortar rounds, and wait PKMs and Type 56 AKs. Not much of a scoop here by the intrepid reporters. Heck half of the ANA's kit is made in China from the weapons to the body armour some wear.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I am sure the Chi-Coms are as guilty as sin!
> 
> We had Chinese 107mm rockets, and 82mm HE mortars as guests many times.
> 
> ...



But we've participated in Olympics in the USA, Russia and France - all of whom export more weapons to equally (or even more) unsavoury regimes.  Why is China different?  Canada sells arms to less than squeaky clean countries, ditto Australia.  Arms are products - generally the 'finished' product with 'embedded' technologies and assemblies from a dozen different suppliers/countries, including _goody-two-shoes_ Canada and Australia.

Oh hypocrisy! Thy name is nationalism.


----------



## Jacqueline (13 Sep 2007)

> Both U.S. and British officials have questioned China on the weapons, while Defence Minister Peter MacKay acknowledged Wednesday he's worried about the reports.



If the Defence Minister is worried so am I. (a little)  :-\


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2007)

Miss J said:
			
		

> If the Defence Minister is worried so am I. (a little)  :-\



Yeah, but you don't have to deal with the MSM, he does....that's what he's really worried about.


----------



## Jacqueline (13 Sep 2007)

Oh, I see. He should be worried about future supplies of weapons being distributed to the Taliban. No?


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2007)

Miss J said:
			
		

> Oh, I see. He should be worried about future supplies of weapons being distributed to the Taliban. No?



It's always an issue where they get their supplies, but see ER Cambell's reply above, that about sums it up


----------



## geo (13 Sep 2007)

+1 Edward


----------



## KevinB (13 Sep 2007)

Well I will agree in some point to Edward -- however typically the US and Aussie gov't are not exporting to people trying to kill us.

I'd liken it more to the good ole French shipping Exocets to the Argentinians while the Brits where at war with them...


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (13 Sep 2007)

> Well I will agree in some point to Edward -- however typically the US and Aussie gov't are not exporting to people trying to kill us.



Not yet, but wait for it.

Here's a good article on how it how it was implemented during the Reagan years starting in the 80's with Iraq.



> Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.



http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

 Things like the sales of weapons almost always come back to haunt.


----------



## geo (13 Sep 2007)

Remember... the US used to ship weapons to Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Different times but....


----------



## KevinB (13 Sep 2007)

I'm fully aware of that -- life sucks wear a helmet (I do)...

  However there is a HUGE MOTHER FUCKING DIFFERENCE in supplying allies of convenience at a point in time, and supplying our current enemies.  Those who cant figure that out really need to give their head a shake.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'm fully aware of that -- life sucks wear a helmet (I do)...
> 
> However there is a HUGE MOTHER FUCKING DIFFERENCE in supplying allies of convenience at a point in time, and supplying our current enemies.  Those who cant figure that out really need to give their head a shake.



 For Edward, Kevin has the the point I was trying to communicate. 

As for the Olympics, in post WW2 times, LA in 96, and Russia in 1980, which Canada boycotted due to AFG. 

Paris has not had the Olympics since the 1920's.

Even with China trying to brighten up its image with the Olympics, its a regime which is crooked, bet, and still an enemy in many ways well beyond the deliberate supply of weapons to our current enemies, who are trying to kill us.  Recently they tried to hack into many countries defence sites. A much as I admire their people, I don't trust their government or any of their innocent intentions. China can simply NOT be trusted.

Wes


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> ...
> Paris has not had the Olympics since the 1920's.
> ...



Right, Wes, but France has hosted the Olympics since then: the Winter Olympics.  You remember, Wes, the ones which have *real* hockey and are, therefore, the Olympics that matter.  

Seriously: China is neither our friend nor our enemy and *neither is France*. France, in fact, is one of the few nations to have taken active, hostile action against Canada in the past 50 years - in 1967 when the President of France gave his personal aid and comfort to violent separatist groups aimed at destroying Canada.

They - China and France and Russia and the USA - do what they do for their own purpose. China has no interest in doing anything to help the USA (or it allies) to strengthen its position in the Middle East and West Asia. Selling weapons to terrorists is all part of the _competition_. America is (reported to be, on the rumour net) supporting Uighur separatists in Xinjiang province - it wouldn't surprise me, the CIA's strategic judgement has never been much good.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (14 Sep 2007)

> However there is a HUGE MOTHER ******* DIFFERENCE in supplying allies of convenience at a point in time, and supplying our current enemies.  Those who cant figure that out really need to give their head a shake.



Sorry Infadel, but it doesn't matter when you sold the weapons. Its like you sold a gun to a person down the street, 2 years later that person sells that gun another person, this second buyer uses that same gun to kill 2 kids on the block. Are you going to say, hell times were different back then, when I sold the gun to the first buyer?

It's no different when nations sell weapons, there is always a chance, down the road, that those very same weapons will find there way into and enemies hands and be used against you, who sold them to the person, who then sold them to your enemy. 

Anytime weapons are sold to whoever the seller always stands the chance of being the victim to those very same weapons at any time in the future. History has proven that time and again.


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Sorry Infadel, but it doesn't matter when you sold the weapons. Its like you sold a gun to a person down the street, 2 years later that person sells that gun another person, this second buyer uses that same gun to kill 2 kids on the block. Are you going to say, hell times were different back then, when I sold the gun to the first buyer?
> 
> It's no different when nations sell weapons, there is always a chance, down the road, that those very same weapons will find there way into and enemies hands and be used against you, who sold them to the person, who then sold them to your enemy.
> 
> Anytime weapons are sold to whoever the seller always stands the chance of being the victim to those very same weapons at any time in the future. History has proven that time and again.



:
Yeah and Germany was out Enemy in WWI and WWII -- maybe we should burn them out today - just on the off chance they may do something in the future.

  There is a chance of a lot of things, but by your comments we should stop training the ANA and giving them weapons...  :blotto:
Your missing the other side of the coin.
SO I'm sorry your comment is RTFO.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Sep 2007)

The Chinese arent too happy about their weapons getting into the hands of the taliban. The weapons were sold to Iran/Pakistan which were then given to the taliban.Samething happened to us in Iraq.Iran bought Austrian sniper rifles which then were given to the insurgency.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (14 Sep 2007)

> The Chinese aren't too happy about their weapons getting into the hands of the taliban. The weapons were sold to Iran/Pakistan which were then given to the taliban.Samething happened to us in Iraq.Iran bought Austrian sniper rifles which then were given to the insurgency.



My point exactly. 

 Sorry Infadel, but you have to get your head out of the sand. This happens all the time. As for your comment on Germany I think after been defeated in two world wars they know better. 

I think your RTFO if you think it doesn't happen. Happens all the time. And if you think it doesn't, educate yourself, you'll be surprised what you find. And no I'm not saying stop training the ANA, you did. What I'am saying is yes there is always a chance those very same weapons will be used against us some day, if you think otherwise, then keep those blinders on.

Your profile says your in Iraq, then you should know better than any of us that it does happen. 

Enlighten yourself. http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-arms01.html This is just one example.


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2007)

Reading is fundemental,not only is it Infidel, but I also point out life sucks wear a helmet...
  I am very aware that there is indeed a chance that we are arming people that could come back to bite us.  However we are given a choice of accepting that possibility, or not helping them defeat the insurgents.

Your the one living in a rose coloured sky, I am in fact on the ground in Iraq - so I live the the choices others hypothsize about.


----------



## edgar (14 Sep 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But we've participated in Olympics in the USA, Russia and France - all of whom export more weapons to equally (or even more) unsavoury regimes.  Why is China different?  Canada sells arms to less than squeaky clean countries, ditto Australia.  Arms are products - generally the 'finished' product with 'embedded' technologies and assemblies from a dozen different suppliers/countries, including _goody-two-shoes_ Canada and Australia.
> 
> Oh hypocrisy! Thy name is nationalism.


Which weapons? Who? What do you mean less than squeaky clean? Not saying your wrong but I thought we were careful. If we sell weapons to thugs, why haven't I heard of this from the NDP and the other anticapitalist wingnuts. Granted, I don't read the papers anymore, but I should be able to hear them screaming from here. I think also we should distinguish between hypocrisy and SNAFU.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Chinese arent too happy about their weapons getting into the hands of the taliban. The weapons were sold to Iran/Pakistan which were then given to the taliban.



At least lately, anyway...

*Afghanistan: U.S. Worried Iran Sending Chinese Weapons To Taliban*
Ron Synovitz, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 14 Sept 07
Article link

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte says Washington has complained to Beijing about Chinese weapons shipments to Iran that appear to be turning up in the hands of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

Negroponte confirmed the U.S. concerns over China's weapons deals with Tehran after a 10-ton weapons cache was discovered in the western Afghan province of Herat.

The cache found in Ghurian district, near the border with Iran, included artillery shells, land mines, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers with Chinese, Russian, and Persian markings on them.

Britain's Foreign Office has also confirmed that it has complained to Beijing about Chinese-made HN-5 antiaircraft missiles confiscated from Taliban fighters who were captured or killed by British Royal Marines in Helmand Province. Beijing has said that it would investigate allegations that the weapons were forwarded to the Taliban through Iran.

When asked in Kabul on September 11 about the Taliban's use of sophisticated new Chinese weapons, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte also suggested that Iran has been a transit point for Chinese arms deliveries to the Taliban.

"A subject that I have discussed with the Chinese in the past is the fact of their weapons sales to the country of Iran and our concern," Negroponte said. "We have tried to discourage the Chinese from signing any new weapons contracts with Iran. We are concerned by reports -- which we consider to be reliable -- of explosively formed projectiles and other kinds of military equipment coming from Iran across the border and coming into the hands of the Taliban."

In June, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Washington had no evidence proving a direct role by the Iranian government in smuggling weapons to the Taliban. But Gates said Washington suspects Tehran is involved.

"I haven't seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities we are seeing, it is difficult to believe that it is associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it is taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government," Gates said.

Not Without Tehran's Knowledge?

Alex Vatanka is the Washington-based Iran analyst for Jane's Information Group, which publishes "Jane's Defence Weekly" and other journals about the weapons industry and global security issues. Vatanka says it will remain unclear whether the Ghurian weapons cache is linked to the Taliban until Afghan or U.S. authorities announce details of their joint investigation.

But the presence of Chinese weapons so close to the Iranian border is the strongest evidence to date suggesting Tehran has had at least an indirect role in arms shipments to Afghanistan, Vatanka said. "Whether the government or somebody in Iran could be buying arms from China and, without Tehran's knowledge, ship it over to Afghanistan -- on that volume of weapons -- I find that extremely unlikely," he said. "I can only see that happening if somebody pretty senior and in an influential political position in Iran decided to facilitate that without letting everybody in the system know about it. But they still had to be involved somewhere in the state machinery. We're not talking about rogue elements [in Iran]. Baluchi drug traffickers can't pull that kind of thing off."

Many analysts have noted that Shi'ite Iran and the Sunni Taliban had been firm enemies since 1998, when the Taliban regime controlled most of Afghanistan and executed nine Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e Sharif.

But Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, an expert on Islamic militancy in the region and author of the book "Taliban," told RFE/RL that times appear to have changed. Now, with U.S. forces deployed some 60 kilometers from the Iranian border at Shindad Airfield in Herat Province, Rashid says Tehran and the Taliban have a common enemy.

"I have no doubt that Iran has been involved in channeling money and arms to various elements in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, for the last few years. They have long-running relations with many of the commanders and small-time warlords in western Afghanistan," Rashid said. He continued: "I think Iran is playing all sides in the Afghan conflict. And there are Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns who are being funded by Iran who are active in western Afghanistan. If the Iranians are convinced that the Americans are undermining them through western Afghanistan, then it is very likely that these agents of theirs have been activated."

Political Backlash

Still, Vatanka says it would be "almost irrational behavior" for Tehran to supply the Taliban with weapons. He says such a move would almost certainly lead to a negative domestic political backlash for Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's government.

For that reason, Vatanka says he is eagerly awaiting the assessment of Afghan and U.S. investigators about whether the arms in the Ghurian cache were stashed away by the Taliban or by one of several rival militia factions in Herat Province.

"The question is, what would get even a faction within Iran to make that type of a decision? Maybe you have excellent business ties between the Iranians and the Afghans on the other side -- not necesarily the central government in Kabul -- but local leaders in Herat who turn around saying, 'You Iranians are building roads and infrastructure here. You are setting up shops and factories. But for us to be able to guarantee that we can protect your business interests, we'll need to receive some arms.' That's an argument that one could put out: that the Iranians are essentially supplying not the Taliban, but Afghan partners to secure Iranian businesses and interests in western Afghanistan," Vatanka said.

To date, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to publicly support allegations of a direct link between Tehran and weapons shipments to the Taliban.

"We don't have any such evidence so far of the involvement of the Iranian government in supplying the Taliban. We have a very good relationship with the Iranian government. Iran and Afghanistan have never been as friendly as they are today," Karzai said.

Vatanka says that as long as Karzai maintains that position, skeptics around the world will dismiss suggestions from Washington that Tehran is supplying Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

"From a U.S. point of view, if the insurgency in Afghanistan is essentially escalating based on Iranian assistance, then what Washington really needs to do is to provide far more evidence that points to that -- and get Mr. Hamid Karzai in Kabul and the regional governments in Afghanistan to back the U.S. up when it makes these claims against Iran," Vatanka said.

After the U.S. military failed to find the weapons of mass destruction allegedly being stockpiled in Iraq, Vatanka said, "the skeptics out there are saying 'These [new allegations] are being made up by the U.S. to justify another war with Iran' -- which might not actually be the case. Iran might be involved. But because of the lack of evidence, the Iranians are saying, 'Who else is backing up the U.S. allegations?'"


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Sep 2007)

The only way the Chinese government will react is when there is solid proof that *they* directly sold said weapons to the Taliban (sails invoice/receipt etc.)  

On an other note, depending on the age of the weapons they maybe are selling, they could be selling said weapons to see how they work in the environment, against our armor etc.  IMO this may be the case, as the Chinese Government may be still be planning something.

If I remember correctly, the Russians have done this in the past.


----------



## Flip (16 Sep 2007)

> The only way the Chinese government will react is when there is solid proof that they directly sold said weapons to the Taliban (sails invoice/receipt etc.)



The question is, how would they react?

Some food coming out of China is found to be contaminated.
Just like that, some food imports to China are turned back.
Trade rules don't matter.

Supplying the Taliban is good way to end an R&D cycle.
The downsides for China are minimal.
Iran does "irrational" things anyway.

This is a lose - lose situation for our side I think. 
Accusations won't amount to anything.


----------



## Cannonfodder (17 Sep 2007)

The bottom line is the bottom line ,China  does not care who buys our uses there weapons . Look at there business dealings in Africa they are apathetic to a governments policies or practises they simply just want there resources . China is definitely raising the bar on immoral foreign policy .


----------

