Is International Pressure Affecting China's Stance on Darfur?

The other day I was talking about Darfur with my mother, who said that progress will remain out of reach until China changes its "immoral foreign policy."

"Amoral, you mean?" I asked.

"No," she replied. "I think immoral is the right word."

Thinking about it now, I believe we are both right. China's foreign policy is immoral in its effects, but largely amoral in its intent. And if that's the case, then it's susceptible to pressure from the outside.

Recent statements coming out of Beijing indicate that Chinese concern both for their pocketbook and for their prestige on the world stage (items which are, in many ways, connected) may be greater than many previously thought - great enough that threats to prestige or profit can change their foreign policy. The rupture with Spielberg, threats of further boycotts, and condemnation from organizations and leaders around the world, it seems, has pushed China to step up its disapproval of the Sudanese regime's actions.

Yesterday, Liu Guijin, China's special envoy to Darfur, gave a press conference in Beijing after returning from his fourth visit to Sudan, a trip that also included visits to refugee camps in Chad. At the conference, he took pains to downplay China's responsibility and reject the connections some have drawn between this year's Olympics and the genocide. But Liu also criticized the Sudanese government more vocally than in the past:

Departing from Beijing's usually vague language on Darfur, Liu called the violence there a "humanitarian disaster" that had "forced millions from their homes and, in particular, claimed the lives of tens of thousands".

Liu told a news conference that uncompromising rebel groups also bore blame, but said Sudan's government had top responsibility for stopping the killing. He also urged Khartoum to give ground on disputes holding up full deployment of UN-African Union peacekeepers.

Steven Spielberg's decision to withdraw from his position as an adviser for the Olympics, it seems, may have prompted some of this change in tone. Liu spent some time discussing Spielberg's position at the press conference, quibbling over details about whether Spielberg had been formally connected with the Games or not. The fact that he even brought the matter up, however, says to me that Beijing takes it very seriously. The LA Times notes that China's position on Spielberg has shifted even in the last month or so. At first, "the state-run media unleashed a torrent of insults, calling him naive, vain and childish." Now, however, China has launched a "charm offensive," which includes Liu's visit and press conference. But if Spielberg acting alone worried China's rulers, they may soon have even more reason to continue trying to charm the world: with Mia Farrow claiming responsibility for Spielberg's decision and taking aim at other celebrities like Quincy Jones and Gordon Brown, as well as corporate sponsors of the Games, China's celebrity woes are far from over.

If symbolic actions like Spielberg's can have such a large effect, the international community may have more power over China than activists previously thought. And maybe that's not such a surprise - if China's foreign policy, particularly in Africa, aims primarily to open markets for Chinese goods and increase China's profits, perhaps all activists need to do is increase the cost for China of doing business with Khartoum. As I said, I still believe that driving impulse behind China's foreign policy is simply amoral. And that means their loyalty is to their pocketbook, not to their buddy al-Bashir. Offer them a financial incentive to withdraw their support for his regime, and they might ditch him with lightning speed.

Unfortunately, the biggest potential source of pressure on China - our own government - has precious little credibility left in the field of human rights or the issue of global trafficking in small arms. At the press conference, Liu didn't hesitate to call us hypocrites:

Mr. Liu said that China could not control what happened to weapons that were legally sold to Sudan’s government. He noted that American weapons in Iraq had ended up in the hands of insurgents.

Additionally, Bush and some European leaders have insisted that the Olympics be viewed strictly as a sporting event, further undercutting the US' commitment to human rights. While I wouldn't go so far - yet - as to say flat out that the US should boycott the Olympics, I don't see why Bush couldn't phrase his attitude toward China and Darfur in stronger terms. Perhaps it's another sad indicator of our country's indifference to humanitarian issues that it is directors and actresses, not political leaders, who garner the most attention for their statements on Darfur. With China wavering on its formerly detached tone, I would hope that more leaders and celebrities would join in the call for Chinese action.

The Olympics are five months away. In an ideal world, that would be enough time for China to force its ally to make progress, and still hold the Games without the specter of bloodshed lurking in the background. But for the moment, let's examine the small victories, because they may portend the potential for larger ones later down the road.

Alex Thurston March 9, 2008 - 11:15pm

Alex Thurston's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Africa: Sub-Saharan | Analysis )

Give me a break!

The US should boycott the Olympics? The US, that outspends the combined spending of the rest of the world on armaments?? The US that has military bases in over 100 countries??? The US that is responsible for more arms proliferation than the Chinese military-industrial complex ever dreamed of??? The US that is responsible for much of the increase in Chinese military spending because it routinely holds military exercises off the Chinese coast and violates Chinese airspace in hopes of ginning up a conflict to justify even higher weapons spending than we already have already??? The US that is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis in the last 5 years alone???

I hope I'm not being abusive here. But you have some gaul, buddy. We're lucky they're letting us in!

Beto March 11, 2008 - 12:30pm

lol!

I think everyone should boycott the Olympics :) if only to keep the pressure on China. As China continues to rise they will find there are responsibilities, responsibilities we have forsaken as you have pointed out. Once the Olympics are over there will a lot less to press China on, so why not use whatever leverage there is to help out the Darfur people now.

Tina March 11, 2008 - 1:42pm

As I said in the article

"Unfortunately, the biggest potential source of pressure on China - our own government - has precious little credibility left in the field of human rights or the issue of global trafficking in small arms."

So we're on pretty much the same page, I would say.

However, people I know and respect have advocated for a US boycott, and I'm still making up my mind on that issue. Fair, or no?

www.theseminal.com

Alex Thurston March 11, 2008 - 2:12pm

I respectfully disagree

It would look too much like hypocracy - pointing out the speck in another's eye while ignoring the beam in ours,etc. If you can get enough people together to make a difference, it would be best to turn their attention to our own government.

We do have leverage with the Chinese government. Just because a government isn't democratic doesn't mean there aren't competing constituencies within it. The US, with its oversized, aggressive military-industrial complex, empowers the Chinese military-industrial complex at budget time. If we could reign in our military and stop them from trying to dominate the oil-producing areas of the world, the Chinese would be less likely to get involved places like Darfur. If the US could make a significant reduction in its oil consumption (say 50%) those in China who want to do something similar would be more likely to listened to.

Boycotting the Olympics would be seen as extremely disrespectful of Chinese civilization.

Beto March 11, 2008 - 3:53pm

I believe China

will go wherever they can get resources the cheapest. If we cut our oil consumption in half India and China would buy it up in a second, they would be stupid not to. Do you think they are trying frantically to clean up their air and waters because of the will or goodness of their people or because of the Olympics?

Tina March 11, 2008 - 4:18pm

There are people in China

There are people in China who wouldn't want to. And I don't think that would make them stupid. People would be impressed by such a significant effort on our part - and those who want to do something similar elsewhere would be empowered in policy struggles in their countries.

You may be right. But maybe you're not. Your economic determinism is nothing but cynicism, a self-fulfilling prophecy of resource wars on a scale not seen before.

Besides, if we cut our consumption in half and China bought all of it up they'd still be using less per capita than we would be.

Beto March 11, 2008 - 5:54pm

No doubt

there are forward thinking people in China, however I don't think they are the ones making the decisions. I am not saying that resource wars are a good thing at all. I am not pro oil or coal or war. I am saying that what you propose is based on countries working outside their immediate economic concerns and I don't see that happening. Cutting our consumption in half will do nothing to stop resource wars just the participants.

It would be stupid to not buy up the glut caused by our half consumption, it would be economically positive in the short term.

Tina March 11, 2008 - 6:34pm

Russia wants UN sanctions for Darfur rebels

very odd article, it doesn't mention China at all ~ tina

Russia wants UN sanctions for Darfur rebels
11 Mar 2008 22:28:11 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS, March 11 (Reuters) - Russia's U.N. ambassador on Tuesday backed Sudan's calls for U.N. sanctions against rebel groups in its war-wracked West Darfur region which Khartoum blames for the continued violence there.

After the Security Council heard a bleak U.N. report on Darfur, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said it was time to punish rebel groups with sanctions for not complying with a ceasefire agreement.

But U.S. and British envoys said that any new round of sanctions should target both Sudan's government and the rebels, since both were responsible for the violence.

"The Russian delegation was the only delegation that raised the need of finally contemplating sanctions against the rebel groups who are challenging the peace process and who are refusing to abide by the ceasefire," Churkin said.

This is something that Khartoum has demanded.

International experts estimate 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been forced to flee homes in Darfur since conflict erupted in 2003, when rebels took up arms against the central government. The government of Sudan has mobilized mainly Arab militias to quell the revolt.

U.N. deputy peacekeeping chief Edmond Mulet addressed the Security Council about Darfur. While he had little new information, he painted what several envoys described as a bleak and depressing picture of the situation in Darfur.

"The continued hostilities in Darfur serve as a stark reminder that urgent international engagement and concrete action is necessary to encourage and pressure the parties to the conflict to lay down their weapons and commit to the path of dialogue," Mulet said.

He also repeated that African Union-U.N. peacekeepers urgently needed helicopters in Darfur. So far, only Ethiopia has pledged four acceptable choppers, Mulet said.

'REALLY DEPRESSING'

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the rebels and government shared responsibility for violence against civilians in Darfur, so any new sanctions would have to target both.

British Ambassador John Sawers said Mulet's briefing was "really depressing." He agreed that the rebels and Khartoum shared the blame for the lack of progress toward peace.

"All parties have got responsibilities for the lack of progress on the ground, so if there's going to be a further round of sanctions it would have to be a balanced package," Sawers said.

Tina March 11, 2008 - 7:56pm

Darfur's return to hell

Darfur's return to hell

Children raped. Homes looted. Villages torched. And thousands forced to flee aerial bombings– three months after UN took over peacekeeping

By Steve Bloomfield and Katherine Butler
Wednesday, 12 March 2008

The conflict in Darfur has entered a violent and deadly new phase. Another "scorched earth" policy is being unleashed, reminiscent of the worst waves of government-backed violence that brought the Sudanese region to world attention five years ago and led the US to declare that what was happening there constituted genocide.

Internal reports by humanitarian agencies operating in the region, and seen by The Independent, reveal that the active Sudanese government-backed military phase of the conflict, thought to have ended early in 2005, has resumed, with horrifying consequences.

The brutal new onslaught is centred on western Darfur where clusters of villages have been aerially bombed and, in co-ordinated ground attacks, homes have been looted and burnt to the ground. Hundreds of people are believed to have been killed and tens of thousands forced to flee into neighbouring Chad.

"The tactics are exactly the same as those the government pursued right at the start of this conflict: aerial bombings, followed by sending in the militias to loot, kill and rape," said one source in Sudan. "It is as ruthless as in 2003."

The village of Sileah, with a population of 20,000, is among those attacked. When UN officials reached it last week, they found just 300 people left. "These places had been scorched," said Orla Clinton, a spokeswoman for the UN's humanitarian operations. "People pleaded with us for protection. They feel like it has been five years and nothing has changed for them. They are losing hope in our ability to protect them." The UN team said health clinics, schools, water systems and aid agencies' compounds were looted or destroyed.

In another offensive, five bombs were dropped on the village of Aro Sharow and the nearby village of Korlingo. Shortly afterwards, Sudanese troops raided the villages with Janjaweed Arab militia, burning homes and looting. At the end of last week, helicopter gunships bombarded three villages close to Jebel Moon in an attack that lasted several hours.

Witnesses said girls as young as 10 were mass-raped by government soldiers and militia fighters. Families have also been split up in the chaos and countless children are missing. Of those who have fled to Chad, the internal reports noted, "Most fled with nothing and are sheltering under trees and in dry river beds".

Attacks of the kind now being unleashed have been rare since the start of 2005. "There had been occasional bombing of villages, but rarely so well co-ordinated and on such a large scale affecting so many people as now" said one senior humanitarian official.

Diplomats fear that the Sudanese government, buoyed by the "success" of its attacks in West Darfur, may try to launch fresh bombing raids against other rebel-held areas, such as the mountainous Jebel Marra region. The big worry is that it will intensify its scorched earth tactics in a bid to recover territory it had lost to rebels. "Over the past week, there has been more military build-up in the area: several hundred government army vehicles including tanks have arrived in El Geneina [capital of West Darfur]" the internal reports state.

Tina March 11, 2008 - 9:59pm

U.S. report links China arms sales to Darfur carnage

U.S. report links China arms sales to Darfur carnage
By Paul Eckert, Asia Correspondent
Reuters
Thursday, March 13, 2008

WASHINGTON: Chinese sales of assault rifles and other small arms to its ally Sudan have grown rapidly during the Darfur conflict despite a U.N. arms embargo, a human rights group said on Thursday.

Human Rights First, a U.S.-based nonprofit group, said a detailed study of Sudanese and U.N. trade data showed that China was virtually the sole supplier of small arms to Sudan, which pays for the weapons with its growing oil revenues.

"The people of Sudan's Darfur region will endure more death, disease and dislocation, and this will be due in no small part to China's callousness," said the report, which called on Beijing to stop all arms sales to Sudan and urged the world to link that campaign to the Beijing Olympics.

...

China sold Sudan $55 million worth of small arms from 2003-2006 and provided 90 percent of Sudan's small arms since 2004 when a U.N. arms embargo took effect, the report said.

Chinese-made AK-47 assault rifles, grenade launchers and ammunition for rifles and heavy machine guns have all flowed into Darfur, said the report.

...

China's embassy in Washington said in a statement that China, "in line with relevant U.N. resolutions and China's own policies regarding arms sales, requires normal defensive usage by the buyer country."

Sudan's refusal to obey U.N. Security Council resolutions banning arms transfers to Darfur undercut China's assertions it could not affect Sudan's behaviour there, the group said.

"China can exercise absolute control over its own actions and can stop shipping arms to the Sudanese government which has publicly stated that it will ignore the U.N. arms embargo," said Betsy Apple, representing the group.

But Human Rights First was not advocating a boycott of the Beijing Olympics as some Darfur activists have called for.

"We believe that China is particularly vulnerable in the lead up to the Olympics, Apple told reporters. "We want to see China's concrete action that matches its rhetoric."

Tina March 13, 2008 - 5:22pm

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Is International Pressure Affecting China's Stance on Darfur?

Comment viewing options