AREVA BIDS FOR CHINA NUCLEAR REACTOR PLANTS
PARIS February 28, 2005 (AFP)

AREVA STILL CONTENDER FOR CHINESE NUCLEAR CONTRACT

PARIS March 15, 2006 (AFP) - The French nuclear group Areva is still in the running for a contract to provide four power stations to China, a source close to the matter said on Tuesday, dismissing a report that the deal had gone to its US rival Westinghouse.

CHIRAC TO TALK BUSINESS, N. KOREA, RIGHTS IN CHINA

PARIS October 24, 2006 (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac kicks off a four-day visit to China on Wednesday, aiming to boost economic and business cooperation, against a backdrop of the North Korean nuclear weapons crisis.

... "The partnership with China from now on is at the heart of France's foreign strategy because everyone knows that it's China that will play a large part in the future of the world," Chirac said.

And this.

France is ready to provide necessary technologies that China may need in its development.

Jack,
soaping China
October 24, 2006 (People's Daily/Xinhua)

That was Jack with his new best multipolar friend back in October. It was all love and outsourced French jobs to China. And as France loved China, she was sure China would love France back. France had found her indispensible multipolar buddy and she was ready to counterweigh America.

Ah, but l'amour, the love she iz fickle.

WESTINGHOUSE WINS HUGE CHINA NUKE DEAL

December 17, 2006 (The Age/Reuters) - US-based Westinghouse Electric has won a two-year battle for a multibillion-dollar [USD $8B] nuclear power deal with China.

FRANCE TRIES TO GAIN CHINA NUCLEAR FOOTHOLD
PARIS December 18, 2006 (MSNBC/FT)

AREVA GOING THROUGH DIFFICULT MOMENT - BRETON

December 18, 2006 (Forbes/AFX) - 'In addition to the industrial problems met by Areva in building its EPR (European pressurised water reactor) in Finland, it is undeniable that Areva, with this reverse in China, is going through a difficult moment,' [Thierry Breton, French finance minister] said.

'This has happened despite acceptance of a transfer of nuclear technology to the Chinese. All the more reason for the government to remain alongside Areva to help it get through this period,' he said.

... Earlier this month, France's Les Echos newspaper reported that Areva will take a charge of 500 mln eur this year for extra costs because work on the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland is 18 months behind schedule.

AREVA SHARES FALL AFTER U.S. RIVAL WINS CHINA DEAL

PARIS December 18, 2006 (Reuters) - Areva shares fell more than 4 percent on Monday after the French group lost out on a multibillion dollar Chinese nuclear power deal to U.S.-based rival Westinghouse Electric Co.

"It enhances Westinghouse's credibility: tomorrow's market for Western nuclear groups is the U.S. and not China, which is likely to build most of its nuclear plants itself," Oddo Securities analysts said in a note. "Westinghouse, by winning this contract, will be able to test its new technology reactor and then showcase it to potential future American clients."

There just isn't enough love in this bad old world.

PFFT (What is this?): Loving China 4 | China love 2½ | Pink pillow moment 4½ | Rayonnement français 0

Bonjour ,

Pauvres Chinois ...

Ils veulent vraiment un "three mile island" AT HOME ?

Le seul nucléaire sûr = le nucléaire FRANCAIS !!!!

Baker ! Baker ! Baker

Rayonnement français 0

Classic US foreign policy double $tandard: 10

M. Zmx,

I don't get it. What is the standard that has been classically doubled?

Also, the Pfft rating only goes up to 5. There is no 10 rating, just as there is no fourth Michelin star, but within a 3-star discipline Michelin manages nicely.

If you feel a point must be pressed further, try some wit, not reinventing the rating system. Show a little discipline.

Regards,
DGB

No double standard? Let's be serious, we know China is one of the most serious proliferators of nuclear technology, even assisting Pakistan (Lybia, North Korea and Iran's candy dispenser) as we speak, assisting in the building of a giant reactor (note that France has dropped plans to assist Pakistan before, for failure to comply with international compliencies). The US blinks while periodically reminding China of its horrible human-rights records for good measure, never mind it's utterly uncooperative in dealing with Iran (I wonder why). Oh, and let's keep boycotting these commies in Cuba. For good measure.

Bonjour,

C'est vrai cela Zoomerx.Nous sommes tellement abrutis par l' HYPOCRISIE YANKEE que l'on ne s'en rend même plus compte.
Ils nous saoulent avec le nucléaire Iranien , mais ils ne sont pas du tout embêtés de faire du commerce NUCLEAIRE avec ceux qu'ils dénoncent [Quand ils en ont besoin] comme les horribles staliniens Chinois.
Plus Tartuffe qu'un puritain américain cela n'existe pas !!

Baker ! Baker ! Baker !

Ah, M. Zmx, on you go.

Again what is the standard that has been doubled? Are you saying that America being awarded the Chinese contract is a ruse to give China nuclear weapons technology? Well, I guess you hadn't heard, that cat has been out of the bag since day one of nuclear fission. As regards nuclear weapons techonolgy, China had already stolen that from America on Mr. Clinton's watch.

The American government stands guarantor to the necessary safeguards of a nuclear technology transfer ("NTT"). As did the French government for Areva's pitch. But of course, here you are pretending to complain when had straight-dealing single-standard France been awarded the deal all would be jake. Well, that seems a standard that is doubled over.

As for Iran, what are you complaining about there? A NTT to China, a recognized nuclear state already bristling with weapons wherewithal but bereft of civilian energy know-how, is hardly the same thing as a NTT to Iran, a minatory and belligerent state jerry-rigging a nuclear weaponizing project. It's not clear from your huff. Are you suggesting that America should be cooperating with Iran's weaponized uranium program -- like enabling France has for the past three years? Or are you congratulating America on its unwavering opposition to Iran's weaponized uranium program in contrast to the French tea-parties-and-hope-for-the-best approach? We can't tell.

You are upset. How sad during holidays, when Pave only wishes you to be happy. But just what have you worked yourself up about?

America awaits your rectifying instruction. Perhaps with a clearer, less sputtering presentation of your complains everything can be smoothed out by Christmas.

DGB

.

Thanks, your deep felt sincerity is heart-warming, especially in this season!

(I'll just pretend it's true).

Or are you congratulating America on its unwavering opposition to Iran's weaponized uranium program in contrast to the French tea-parties-and-hope-for-the-best approach?

Ah, Mr. Bennett is now an expert international diplomat of impeccable credentials. Tell me, what has the US "unwaveringly" done exactly in slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions, except for "unwaveringly" opposing it (just like France has)? Iran has continuously taunted the US and the west in the past decades without any retributions and you know it. And as a matter of fact, Iran remains the main benefactor of the current mess in Irak and unfortunately for us, we don't need shady intelligence to see the evidence today.

M. Zmx pretends to more than just our sincerity. He here pretends that France has "unwaveringly" opposed Iran's nuclear ambitions.

M. Zmx is a regular visitor to Pave but obviously not a regular reader of Pave. We have posted on France's history of deliberating sandbagging the United States in its negotiations with Iran. Don't worry, France knows what it's doing. Then when the EU3 -- Ah, remember that tripartite powerhouse of diplomacy? -- are skunked and skunked again by Iran, France continues with muzzy talks and pleadings and faint-aways. Finally the failed French effort begrudgingly welcomes America to the forefront, adding muscle and credibility to the threat of sanctions.

And even then the French continue with mixed signals at the highest levels of state.

But of course if M. Zmx is contesting our opinions, he presumes he knows better. We would remind him of his shabby history of being in command of the facts, ignoring and inventing facts thinking to score points. We suggest he go and review the French position before pretending to talk knowledgeably about it. He can start here. Then have a look here and here.

DGB

"Scoring points" on Pave is the least of my concerns, dear Damian.

Like a seasoned diplomat, you've skillfully avoided the question: What has the US "unwaverlingly" done differently to stop Iran's ambitions (not to mention being responsible for the killing of US citizens), except for "unwaverlingly" opposing a regime it won't even speak face to face with?

If Mr Baker was French, can we deduct from your "logic" he is "sandbagging" the US?

M. Zmx has decided to spend Christmas with Pave.

Alas, he will not be spending his Christmas here making any sense.

M. Zmx's answer to his question is above, in our previous post. He can't seem to find it.

Yet not finding it, he pretends to apply "its logic" to the Baker report. He obviously does not understand the term "sandbagging".

First, there is nothing proprietary about our logic. Unlike M. Zmx's eccentric thinking, our logic is just a syllogistic cascade. Second, M. Zmx in his recent post has asked a different question from his earlier post.

M. Zmx of course is here being cute. He wishes to obfuscate the failed French policy of endless tea parties with Iranian diplomats. What America did and did differently was to push for sanctions from the onset. Ah, but the everything-is-under-control French would have none of it.

And if scoring points at Pave were the least -- we do not for a moment pretend it is paramount -- of his concerns then three possibilities can be drawn: 1) it explains the poor quality of argument and thinking displayed in his posts, and/or 2) M. Zmx has so few concerns that, though the least, Pave still looms large, and/or 3) M. Zmx ignores and invents facts for the pleasures of personal delusion.

The truth is anyone who sustains an argument is trying to win that argument. M. Zmx is being disingenuous by saying he is not concerned to score points, that is, to win his arguments. Or perhaps M. Zmx is tacitly admitting what specious arguments he puts forth: shallow, bereft of factual support, and poorly structured with little-to-no hang.

No argument from us there.

DGB