BY AISHA ANSARI
In 2008, China held the world’s attention, and opulently hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics. The country’s hosting of the Olympics was symbolic of its newly asserted global leadership. As Chinese performers dazzled viewers from around the world, leaders and diplomats scrambled to take a stance on growing concerns over China’s business and political ties with Sudan. Soon, high profile activists—from actress Mia Farrow to director Steven Spielberg—described the events of the summer as the “genocide Olympics,” linking Chinese business exchanges with Sudan as explicit complacency over the Sudanese government’s hostile actions towards its own people. Anti-China protests erupted across Europe and North America, often obstructing the ceremonial journey of the torch.
At issue are lucrative Chinese business contracts with the Sudanese government. Chinese firms have invested millions of dollars in China in exchange for Sudanese oil. As China’s productive capacity increases, its need for oil resources are expected to increase and Sudanese oil presents itself as a viable, new market for oil.
Aside from the financial exchange between the two nations, critics have slammed China’s diplomatic tiptoeing around the issue of Darfur. Adding to a marred domestic human rights record, China’s complacency towards the government-sponsored genocide in Darfur has sparked outrage around the world. What began as objection to Chinese oil contracts, which provided monetary support for the oppressive regime, has turned into global outrage over the country’s global human rights abuses as well as the complacent attitude of Chinese officials towards Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s government.
In 2005, in a groundbreaking move, the United States declared the atrocities of Darfur to be “a genocide,” and called upon the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on Sudan. In an uncharacteristic move, the American stance on the humanitarian disaster in Darfur was more aggressive than that of the United Nations. The latter had previously issued a report on genocide concluding, “no genocidal activity has been pursued or implemented in Darfur by the government.” As an ensuing bureaucratic debate over semantics unfolded, the Chinese government increased its economic, political and military ties with Sudan, and stalled UN action in Darfur.
To Chinese officials, UN intervention in Sudan is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, China’s economic oil contracts with Sudan could be jeopardized in a UN embargo scenario. Secondly, intervention in Sudan could create a dangerous precedent for China. China’s human rights record at home is far from perfect. With state-owned media and contentious ties with Taiwan, Myanmar and Tibet, China would much rather prefer that the world stay out of its backyard.
China’s inaction at the United Nations is not the first time a Security Council member has voted strategically in accordance with its political and economic interests. However, in 2008, the British Broadcasting Corporation uncovered conclusive evidence of China’s ties to the government-funded Janjaweed, armed gunmen in Darfur, which directed international attention to the human costs associated with China’s involvement in Sudan. As death tolls rose towards 300,000, exported Chinese army Lorries were found in Darfur, in the hands of rebel leaders. In addition, sources told the BBC that China has been involved in militarily training Sudanese pilots for Chinese Fantan jets, importing “K8” fighter trainers designed to train Sudanese personnel for Fantan jets supplied by Chinese authorities.
A regional and global superpower, China’s record with the United Nations on the issue of Darfur is troubling to say the least. Chinese involvement in Darfur directly contravenes a UN arms embargo that stipulates all foreign nations should take measures to ensure they do not militarily assist anyone in the conflict. China has been reluctant to use its political clout to bring about change in Darfur, specifically in its capacity as a member of the Security Council on the United Nations. China has repeatedly used its UN veto to block international intervention and the imposition of sanctions on Darfur.
The negative press associated with the BBC’s discoveries did not translate into a change in Chinese policy, and were largely denied by Chinese authorities. The BBC’s findings came on the heels of a visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Sudan in which he forgave millions of dollars of Sudanese debt, and provided al-Bashir’s government with a multi-billion pound interest-free loan to be spent on a Presidential palace. China is now one of Khartoum’s largest investors, and has spent millions in developing Sudanese oil infrastructure. Hu also offered Khartoum an increase in military co-operation, solidifying ties between the two nations.
Global spectators have not let Chinese actions in Darfur go unnoticed. In 2007, some 100 US legislators wrote letters calling on Beijing to take immediate action, adding another voice to the growing Darfur relief lobby. As global attention honed in on China during the lead up to the Olympics, Chinese authorities showed some signs of a change of course. Chinese officials put forth strongly-worded diplomatic pressure on Khartoum, urging Sudan to show increased flexibility towards the United Nations. China also pledged to a delegation of engineers to the UN that it would assist any peacekeeping operations in the nation.
For both western and Chinese authorities, reacting to Chinese ties with Darfur presents itself as a challenge. China has become one of the world’s most formidable economic and political powers, and is the world’s most populous country. Diplomatic tensions with China runs the risk of an extensive financial fallout, and in the face of a global economic crisis, there is little incentive on the part of leaders to anger the world’s largest holder of American dollars. A recent World Bank report described growing Chinese economic partnerships with Africa as an “encouraging trend,” drawing international attention to Chinese involvement in the continent. To date, Sudan has received 1.3 billion dollars from China. Only 7% of this finance is related to resource extraction projects.
As China exerts political and economic leadership in other realms of international affairs, the need to be known as a responsible, trustworthy power is imperative to foster solid political and economic alliances. In addition, China’s official ties with the Khartoum government implicate it with associating with a government accused of slaughtering its own citizens. Sudan has repeatedly resisted UN pressures to intervene within Sudanese borders by claiming such measures would constitute an affront to Sudanese sovereignty. With China as a key ally, the Sudanese position is safeguarded from further international scrutiny, placing China in the problematic role of potential benefactor of Sudan—a role from which China wants to distance itself. China’s inaction at the United Nations also creates a troubling precedent for its behaviour as a UN Security Council member. As its global profile rises, how will China react to future conflicts? Moreover, Chinese stalling on the Darfur issue packs another punch to the UN’s already waning global reputation and legitimacy as an instrument of change, and champion of human security.
The global community is at a pivotal point in time. Although China’s economic engine shows little signs of slowing, its political and economic prowess is not unrivalled. World leaders could, in theory, exert pressure on Chinese authorities to cease all operations in Darfur until there is an ending of hostilities by retracting business contracts and trade missions with the nation. Its seat on the Security Council and global economic power make its actions difficult to ignore. The onus now lies on Chinese and world leaders to understand the ramifications of continued Chinese interaction with the hostile Sudanese government. In an age of the Responsibility to Protect, and a universal pledge to “never again” permit genocide, China faces a moral and economic dilemma that it must address clearly. If China seeks future positions of global leadership, its actions in Sudan will undoubtedly slow its journey. As outcry continues over Chinese presence in the region, Chinese action on the issue will determine the outcome of one its first international diplomatic tests.
Aisha Ansari is a 4th-year Trinity College student, double majoring in International Relations and Political Science.
