From Guardian Unlimited, via Crisis Group’s website:
In China, attitudes toward Darfur are evolving rapidly – so that instead of being part of the problem, it could play a significant role in the solution.
As the Darfur crisis drags into its fourth year, with President Omar al-Bashir’s regime in Khartoum continuing to stare down international concern, China has often been tagged the villain in the drama. Certainly Beijing has regularly blocked tougher action in the UN security council against its energy supplier and commercial partner, invoking the principle of non-interference in internal affairs which has for decades been at the core of its foreign policy.
But like so much in China, attitudes toward Darfur are evolving rapidly. This is not just because of Beijing’s concern about possible embarrassment at the 2008 Olympics, although this has certainly agitated policymakers. In fact, the Darfur crisis coincides with a fundamental reassessment of China’s entire approach to foreign policy. Meeting regularly, as we do, with Chinese officials and foreign policy experts, we find clear signs of at least four transitions now underway. [Full Text]
Gareth Evans is president of the International Crisis Group and former Australian Foreign Minister. Donald Steinberg is Crisis Group’s vice president for Multilateral Affairs and formerly served as special assistant for African Affairs to President Bill Clinton and US ambassador to Angola. Read also Special Representative of the Chinese Government on the Darfur Issue Holds a Briefing for Chinese and Foreign Journalists:
… Q: What is the comment of the Chinese government on Bush’s announcement of upcoming sanctions against Sudan? There are some people in Sudan saying that Sudan is China’s colony. What’s your comment?
A: Positive progress of solving the Darfur issue has emerged. The Sudanese government has declared a two-month cease-fire period and is communicating and coordinating actively with the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy on Darfur and the coordinator of the African Union (AU) on Darfur to promote the political process in the region. Under such circumstances, expanding sanctions or imposing greater pressure will not be helpful for the settlement of the issue. The international community should use its wisdom to push for a peaceful resolution by political means. China supports implementing the “double track” strategy in a balanced manner to address the issue, accelerating the implementation of Annan plan on the one hand and promoting the political process in the Darfur region on the other hand. Too much pressure or expanding sanctions will not be helpful for the settlement of the issue, but further complicate the situation. Many previous cases have already proved that even if a large number of military forces are sent to a country problems will never be properly addressed without the country’s internal political process.
The energy cooperation between China and Sudan started in 1996 and is transparent, mutually beneficial and non-exclusive. We believe that the root cause of Darfur issue is poverty and backwardness. Only by solving the problem of development can the issue be ultimately resolved. Therefore, for Sudan peace and development are closely linked with each other. The oil cooperation between China and Sudan is conducive to Sudan’s economic progress and helpful for fundamentally addressing war chaos and turmoil in Sudan. I wonder whether you know or not that China National Petroleum Cooperation (CNPC) holds certain equity in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Co., so do the oil companies from other countries. But I find it very strange only the Chinese company is questioned by some media. So China’s normal oil cooperation with Sudan is politicized.
Q: What’s your comment on the claim that “Sudan is China’s colony”?
A: Actually I have answered this question. China’s oil cooperation with Sudan is mutually beneficial, equal, transparent and non-exclusive. It is beneficial to peace and development of Sudan and consequently helpful for fundamentally solving the domestic conflict of Sudan in the long run. In fact as early as in 1996 some western companies have started exploring oil in Sudan. During my visit to Sudan I read a newspaper article saying a French company and a British company filed a lawsuit to the British court due to dispute on oil exploration right. Therefore to explore oil in a country is a normal business activity. Hence we oppose politicizing normal energy cooperation or making hype about it. It is groundless and against the fact.
Q: The U.S. is pushing for UN’s passing of new sanctions against Sudan. Will the Chinese government exercise its veto right? How long China will allow Sudan to consider whether or not to accept the three-phase plan? Will it allow Sudan to drag on endlessly?
A: We all know that the Abuja Peace Agreement on the Darfur issue was reached with the joint efforts of the international community including the U.S. and the AU. Later the three-phase Annan plan was raised. At present the Sudanese government, the UN and the AU are discussing how to start implementing the second-phase plan as soon as possible. On the third-phase plan related parties still have some differences mainly on the commanding right of the joint peacekeeping operations, but Sudan has expressed the will of further discussion. As a sound momentum of solving the Darfur issue emerges, to expand sanctions will only make it more difficult to find the solution. No matter the international community, the U.S. government or the UN, the basic objective of whatever we do is to solve the problem. If the issue is made more complex and hence more people become displaced and greater turmoil and violation of human rights occur, how can we achieve the objective? This is the basic consideration of the Chinese government on the settlement of the Darfur issue. [Full Text]
