ChinainAfrica

Against the wishes of those in Beijing who warn against awarding Chinese dissidents the Nobel Peace Prize, Hu Jia has found himself on this year’s shortlist. According to Forbes’ Tina Wang: 

Hu Jia has advocated, through political articles published online, in support of awareness of rural AIDS sufferers, democratic rights, religious freedom and Tibetan self-determination. He directs a U.S.-based organization that commemorates the “June Fourth Movement,” the protests in Tiananmen Square that resulted in the government crackdown of 1989. He also directs a health institute in Beijing and founded Loving Source, an AIDS nongovernmental organization.

The only other China-related honoree thus far is the Dalai Lama, who received the prize in 1989. The Nobel Committee’s choice of a Chinese activist would amount to a strong nod to critics of Beijing’s policies.

Sudanese president al-Bashir is among those in attendance at this week’s Turkey Africa Cooperation Summit being held in Istanbul. His presence has outraged many human rights activists, who feel that inviting al-Bashir signals Turkish complacency in the Darfur crisis. Among others, the New York based Human Rights Watch has called on Turkey to use the opportunity to support a court case against Bashir, who has been indicted on genocide charges by the ICC. There is little public evidence that such support has been given. 

At a private meeting, Turkish president Gul told Bashir that he should “work hard” to end the violence in Darfur, which is tantamount to telling a small child to ‘play nice’ in the sandbox, only for him to return to his previous antics as soon as no one is looking. Such requests are unlikely to shake Bashir, who has vowed never to turn any Sudanese over to the ICC, and does little in the way of ending the crisis in Darfur. 

Turkey’s human rights record is itself laden with violations, especially as regards military-civilian relations and Article 301 of its constitution which prohibits “denigrating Turkishness.” Nevertheless, the country is signatory to various human rights documents, among them the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As a country fervently seeking entry into the EU, it is moreover in Turkey’s interest to choose its friends and allies carefully, as any misstep may cost it that coveted EU seat.

Yet with China rising in the international arena despite its unwillingness to ‘save Darfur,’ it is not surprising that a country like Turkey might not express particular concern, either. China’s message is in many ways one of strategic and international success coupled with frequent disregard for the West and international doctrines. Under such an approach countries like China continue to gain international dominance and countries like Sudan are let off the hook. It’s a dangerous form of realist politics that the global community shouldn’t be too quick to tolerate.

The Olympics are underway in Beijing, with what no doubt was a spectacular opening ceremony. For the next 16 days the world (or at the very least this blogger) will sit glued to the television as the world’s top athletes battle for guts and glory. The Athenians definitely knew what they were doing. 

But does the world know what China is doing? Really? Sure everyone knows China is a Communist country and most people have some idea of what that means. China’s list of human rights violations - both with respect to its own people and others [insert African country of choice here] - is quite appalling, as is its foreign relations record quite generally, with few exceptions. But from my conversations with those not directly involved in researching China’s domestic and/or foreign relations, few fully grasp what’s at stake. 

An opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal goes some way in shedding some light on the issues, concluding with a rather optimistic tone that the Olympics may in the long term herald in a freer China. In a somewhat less optimistic fashion, Human Rights Watch argues that “the Chinese government and IOC wasted a historic opportunity for reform.” The New York-based Human Rights in China similarly issued a press release on the worsening human rights situation in China.  And in the recent edition of Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal write of China’s embarrassing coming-out party, set against a background of poor environmental standards, increased pressure over Sudan and its poor record of accountability and transparency - just to name a few. The list goes on and on. 

Sadly, the China the world will see for the next sixteen days is not China, per se, but China as the CCP would like for it to appear. Open. Free. Strong. Dare I say it - Liberal. Ironically, this vision may be among the few things China and its critics agree on. A crucial difference, though, is the means by which to attain it. 

Nevertheless, human rights violations aside, the Olympics promise to bring much phenomenal competition and countless spectacular performances - both on and off the fields. I, for one, am very much looking forward to it. Human rights violations aside.

Over the weekend Howard French had a piece in the New York Times in which he argued that, despite appearances to the contrary, China is gradually opening up. Rights have expanded - albeit ever so slightly - government oppression has weakened, and, despite the fact that judges don’t have the power to rule independently, the number of lawyers has increased. Pursuant to my previous post, it even appears that China has eased internet restrictions for foreign journalists in the run-up to the Olympics.

There is no denying that the China of today is not the China of yesterday. This holds for a variety of indicators. Yet, the foremost question as regards such extensions of liberty is to what extent they are truly genuine. Are Chinese citizens enjoying ‘more’ liberties because the CCP has finally decided to rectify its flawed ways, or is this but another instrumental move to further the government’s agenda? Arguments exist on both sides of the equation. 

On the topic of rights, I was saddened to hear that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn passed away this weekend. China could certainly use someone like him.

A front-page story of today’s International Herald Tribune reports that:

“Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have been unable to access scores of Web pages — among them those that discuss Tibetan issues, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown on the protests in Tiananmen Square and the Web sites of Amnesty International, the BBC’s Chinese-language news, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong newspapers known for their freewheeling political discourse”

As it turns out, earlier excitement over the ‘free reporting’ that was to allegedly occur during the Olympic Games was unwarranted: international journalists and spectators will be subject to the same blocks that China places on the Internet for its citizens. Fabulous.

Admittedly, I was among those who hoped the Olympics would open up the black-box that is China. Would, even in some small way, liberalize the country. From my time there and my correspondences with colleagues in Beijing and elsewhere, I’ve developed a distinct love of and fascination with the “awakened giant” and would like nothing more than for its citizens to enjoy the personal freedoms they rightly deserve. But, as more and more indiscretions surface, I can’t help but wonder if Anuradha Amrutesh from Bangalore, India was right: ”The Olympics should have never gone to China.”

According to a recent article in the Nigerian “This Day,” it appears that the Beijing Olympics may have several fewer Africans than expected.

According the the article, Chinese embassies in Nigeria and other African states are making it difficult for Africans - including heads of state and sports federation leaders- to obtain the necessary documentation to travel to China for the event. Applicants are required to present evidence of ticket purchases, accommodation arrangements, and other pieces of information that some do not yet have or are unable to prove through paperwork. 

If this is indeed the case, such actions, coupled with the 11 July Chinese veto of a UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe put China in a rather curious position vis-a-vis its African colleagues. Especially in the eyes of ordinary Africans, China is increasingly assuming the role of villain. For many Zimbabweans, for instance, the outlook is now one of “us” versus “them,” where “them” means Mugabe and his Chinese cronies. 

When China first won the bid for the Olympics, there was much enthusiasm that the games would begin to change the face of Chinese policies. As the Telegraph’s Richard Spencer observes, there is little sign of it so far.

Hello all! First, I am most pleased to announce that I have finally emerged from the depths of dissertation writing and, as of yesterday afternoon, am more or less a free woman. This, I hope will translate to more consistent and frequent blog updates. Indeed, many developments have taken place during my absence. I surely cannot even so much as begin to do them all justice in this one entry, so I’ll begin with my personal favorite: the Chinese arms shipment to Zimbabwe.

Earlier this month, a shipment of ammunition, rockets and mortar bombs was denied access through South Africa. The weapons were en route to Zimbabwe, and it is believed that they would be used to crush the Zimbabwean opposition following the 29 March 2008 election. On 22 April Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu noted that the shipment is “normal” and that it is common in international trade to transport goods inland to African countries through the port in Durban, South Africa. 

So many questions can be asked of this one comment that it’s actually quite phenomenal. The first that comes to mind is: who in the Chinese government allows for such statements to be made? Anyone who has been tracking African politics in the past month or so can very quickly gauge that the uproar has little to do with the shipment’s entry point. It has to do with the shipment itself, and the political situation in its destination state. If nothing else, China’s position on the matter is indicative of a seeming ignorance of foreign affairs, which is quickly damaging China’s international standing.

But, of course, the Chinese are not ignorant and are well aware of the Zimbabwean plight. By continuing with business as usual they are likely trying to live up to their ‘non-interference’ policy, which has long fallen by the wayside. As Christopher Clapman observes in his new book (written together with Chris Alden and Ricardo Soares de Oliveira), “In the longer term, no external power with long-term interests in Africa can escape the issue of ‘governance’, because this is the essential precondition for maintaining stable economic relationships.” In case the Chinese haven’t yet reconciled themselves to this reality, it’s high time they do so - and fast. 

Indeed, there is much speculation over China’s motives behind such a shipment, at such a time. Some blame political alliances, enmeshed as they are in unthinkable levels of corruption. Others point to economics and international trade between the two countries. Yet no one, it seems, has the gall to suggest another, more likely, alternative: the Chinese simply don’t care. 

Despite their claims of foreign aid assistance, concern for human rights, etc., etc. there is very little proving that the Chinese actually have any interest in such matters. As in Darfur before, the Chinese are little concerned with assisting the people of Zimbabwe or helping to alleviate the situation. To the extent that any assistance will be given, it will be nothing more than a token gesture that will have little to no tangible impact. The arms deal with Zimbabwe is, above all else, profitable for the Chinese. Profit aside, little else matters. China isn’t going to be a hero for the African people. Not now, not ever. And with this recent arms shipment the proof, it seems, is in the pudding.

Today’s online issue of The Guardian had a rather interesting article on China’s role in Darfur. In it, Patrick Smith argues that if we are to point fingers at the Chinese for their failings in Darfur, we should equally point fingers at Russia and the West. 

While the argument itself lacks any sort of novelty, it touches on a point that is worth recalling. I certainly do not care to condone China’s Africa policy, as I find in it many faults, but I do think it behooves us to remember that the Chinese are not the only ones entangled with the Sudanese government. One need not look any further than France, Malaysia, Russia, and even the United States, to discover similar instances of government relations. Of course the nature of engagement of each state varies, but the point remains the same: they are all there. 

Last week Steven Spielberg withdrew as the artistic adviser to the upcoming Beijing Olympics on the grounds that he could not reconcile himself to aiding perpetrators of gross crimes against humanity (i.e. Darfur). According to Peter Apps, Spielberg’s snub is a sign of things to come. Spielberg’s decision is certainly noteworthy and a brilliant exercise of the kind of soft power that may ultimately impact on China’s Darfur policy, but to expect this to bring about such profound changes as many hope is to engage in nothing but wishful thinking. 

So long as other states continue to maintain relations with Khartoum - in whatever capacity - it is highly unlikely that the Chinese will make any significant changes to their Darfur - and indeed African - policy. In discussions with my Chinese colleagues, I continuously encounter two comments on the Darfur issue: (1) China is not doing anything that is not being done by other international actors; (2) There is a difference between business and government. The businessmen in Sudan do business, they do not engage in government activity. Whether or not they believe the latter is open to debate, but it is the former comment that is most salient.

The Olympics will go on without Spielberg, even without the assistance of others should they withdraw. Moreover, the Olympics will be the most fantastic spectacle of “East meets West” and “East doesn’t need/need to be like the West” propaganda the world has seen in some time. My brief visit to Beijing this past September convinced me of the fact.  If we follow Smith’s argument to it’s logical conclusion, however, it appears that the “Genocide Olympics” don’t belong to China alone. If we accept the international doctrine of responsibility, then to some extent the burden of the “Genocide Olympics” falls on all of us. In our failure to effectively aid the people of Darfur we are all in some measure responsible. Some, of course, more than others.