The China-Darfur Connection.

[Anansasem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6665983.stm

Aside from the material resources, I truly doubt China cares about the region at all. I'd almost say they're worse than the United States in this regard.


China's balancing act over Darfur
By Dan Griffiths
BBC News, Beijing

The future of the war-torn region of Darfur is likely to be decided thousands of kilometres away from Sudan. But not at the United Nations in New York, or in Washington.

Displaced Sudanese woman with her son in Darfur - file photo
The situation in Darfur has long caused alarm abroad

This time it is China that holds the key - a reminder of Beijing's growing global influence.

China and Sudan have long had strong political, economic and military ties.

Chinese leaders have traditionally resisted international pressure to use that clout to bring peace to Darfur. But in the past few months there have been signs of a change in Beijing's approach to Sudan.

So, is this really a new beginning or just a public-relations exercise designed to placate China's critics?

Strong criticism

China and Sudan have a relationship that goes back decades, and the booming Chinese economy has strengthened those ties.

Beijing is now one of Sudan's main investors and trading partners. It has spent millions of dollars investing in Sudan's oil infrastructure. Khartoum now exports close to 500,000 barrels of oil per day with much of that going to China.

Hollywood actress Mia Farrow at a protest against Darfur violence in Washington on 29 April 2007
Celebrities such as actress Mia Farrow are piling on the pressure

China also has a long history of selling weapons and arms to Sudan. In fact, earlier this year Beijing offered to increase military co-operation with Khartoum.

So China has been reluctant to pressure Sudan over Darfur - fearing it might undermine the close relationship with Khartoum.

Beijing has even used its veto at the UN Security Council to block moves to impose sanctions on Sudan unless it stops the fighting in Darfur.

But in recent months international pressure on Beijing has been growing.

More than 100 US legislators signed a letter calling on Beijing to take immediate action to stop the violence in Darfur.

The London-based human rights organisation, Amnesty International, claimed that China was selling weapons to Sudan in violation of a UN arms embargo.

Hollywood stars like Stephen Spielberg and Mia Farrow have voiced their concerns about China's role in Sudan.

And human rights activists have called on countries to boycott the Beijing Olympics in 2008 because of China's close relationship with Sudan.

A change of heart?

On the surface, China appears to have got the point. This month Beijing appointed its first ever envoy for African affairs.

Liu Guijin is an experienced diplomat who knows Africa well, having served as ambassador to both Zimbabwe and South Africa. His work is expected to focus on Darfur.

African and Chinese delegates arrive for the African Development Bank meeting in Shanghai on 16 May 2007
China is having an increasingly large impact on Africa's economy

In April, China urged Sudan in unusually strong terms to show greater flexibility on the UN peace plan for Darfur.

Beijing has also announced it would send nearly 300 military engineers to help international peacekeeping forces in Darfur.

All that is a change from China's traditional foreign policy stance of not interfering in the internal affairs of another country.

So what's going on?

China wants to be seen as a responsible player on the world stage with a diplomatic stature to match its growing economic might.

Growing international criticism on Sudan could dent that strategy.

But there is another reason as well. China does not want anything to impact on the Olympic Games in 2008. Talk of a boycott is the last thing that Chinese politicians want to hear.

But at the same time China does not want to lose its relationship with Sudan.

So it is attempting a delicate balancing act - trying to manage the expectations of the international community while maintaining close ties with Khartoum.

China's leaders are pretty conservative in their outlook. They will not want to perform a major foreign policy u-turn, but these small moves are a sign that they are willing to be increasingly flexible in their approach towards the crisis in Darfur.

[Anansasem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6660341.stm


China defends its role in Africa
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (R) shakes hands with Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana.
China says it is among Africa's best friends
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has rejected criticism that his country is only interested in Africa because of its huge wealth of raw materials.

He told a meeting of the African Development Bank in Shanghai that China was committed to helping the continent develop socially and economically.

He also called on rich nations to do more to assist Africa, by helping with aid, trade and debt relief.

This is the first time the ADB's annual meeting has been held in Asia.

It is a sign of China's growing importance for the continent, say analysts.

'Reduce debt'

"We are truly sincere in helping Africa speed up economic and social development for the benefit of the African people and its nations," Wen Jiabao said.

This is an implicit rejection of criticism that China is only interested in Africa because of its resources, the BBC's Quentin Somerville in Shanghai says.

"Africa needs to rely on itself to sustain development but international support and systems are also indispensable," Mr Wen told delegates at the start of the two-day meeting.

"We call on the international community to deliver on aid pledges to Africa and reduce and cancel African debt."

Mr Wen also called for increased market access and technology transfers.

No strings

China gets about a third of its oil from African countries, as well as other natural resources, which have helped fuel the country's dramatic economic transformation.

More than 700 Chinese companies are active in Africa. China's trade with the continent has quadrupled in the past six years to $55bn (£28bn).

Beijing has already written off almost $1.5bn in debt to Africa and says it will write off a similar amount again.

However, it has been criticised for having a no-strings lending policy in Africa, which critics say supports repressive regimes and hinders good governance on the continent.

China was recently accused of breaching a UN embargo by continuing to supply arms to Sudan - a key supplier of its oil - to the troubled region of Darfur.

Although it rejected the claims, Beijing has since appointed a special envoy to focus on the Darfur situation.

[ZhuBaJie]

China should do what the US would do - send its military in and occupy the place for decades in the name of maintaining peace. and make sure to send in plenty of Chinese companies for the "reconstruction".

[Anansasem]

I'm not sure that would be any worse than their current stance of opposing any sanctions or measures taken to alleviate the strife in the country. And I doubt supplying munitions is of much help.

I'm just starting to wonder at China's response should the people of Sudan demand a reform, they seem to have had no hesitation with the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

By the way, what the U.S. would do is nothing. Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, The Congo, etc. The U.S. has it's material eyes set on the Middle East, China's is set on Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. Is there really any difference to a Superpower, except which country it is at the time? When their interests collide, will there be any difference in their actions and justifications?

Though, personally I continue to prefer the United States for nothing else than it's level of diversity and acceptance of egalitarian values which China falls centuries behind in context.

[Vahz]

Let me get this straight.

The US doesn't do squat but then bitches that someone else isn't doing squat?

[ZhuBaJie]

Let me get this straight.

The US doesn't do squat but then bitches that someone else isn't doing squat?

well, not exactly. the US's strategy (and i think that of the EU's) is to impose sanctions. <sarcasm>because that's such effective diplomacy.</sarcasm>

[Anansasem]

China is doing less than nothing, they're hindering relief efforts in the fear in will disturb their connections.

The U.S.A. does do nothing, except for several national aid services. It's the U.N. that attempts to provide direct aid and protection with their already policy tied hands, the U.S. supports most initiatives in aid. The problem here is that China is resisting attempts for sanctions against the government that supports the genocide, with their Security Council status they are vetoing plans of sanctions if the Sudanese government continues to allow this. They also face allegations of supplying weapons to the current government to insure it remains in power, and with it their continuing flow of resources.

It's a mess, though pressure from the U.S. has prompted them to take initiatives in their African policies. I think the U.S. has put pressure to quicken their reaction, to which the Chinese are supposed to make a definite outline of their intent or some such. Actually, the issue is being debated on CNN and the BBC as I type this.

[Dimeron]

By the way, what the U.S. would do is nothing. Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, The Congo, etc. The U.S. has it's material eyes set on the Middle East, China's is set on Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. Is there really any difference to a Superpower, except which country it is at the time? When their interests collide, will there be any difference in their actions and justifications?


You hit it right on the head. Every country do what's best for themselves.

And Israel anyone. While China abuses their veto power to protect their interest in Africa, US use their veto power to protect their interest in the Middle East.

China does have couple slightly good point over the US though.
1. China doesn’t hide their intensions behind pretense of democracy or freedom or human right or what ever catch phrase of the day is.
2. China is in it for the resources; they are not interested in spreading their ideology, their culture, or for military dominance of the region.

[zhangfei]

I don't know enough about Darfur to comment on the sanctions. I wonder what other African countries/non-Western nations think about the sanctions.

This guy says the US sanctions won't help.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6704203.stm

World renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs has condemned the US decision to impose fresh sanctions on Sudan over Darfur.

Mr Sachs said this would do little to address the underlying causes of the four-year conflict, which he said was a squeeze on natural resources.

The ban on companies trading or banking with the US would do little to achieve peace in "one of the most desperate places in the world", he said.

More than 200,000 people died in the conflict and 2m have fled their homes.

'No real resolution'

Mr Sachs made his attack on President George Bush's decision to impose tougher measures on Sudanese individuals and businesses doing trade with the US while on a visit to Nairobi.

The BBC's Karen Allen in Nairobi says Mr Sachs, a professor at Columbia University and an adviser to the UN secretary-general, has long been a critic of US foreign policy.

"Until we face up to the underlying reality that at the core, Darfur is a hungry, water-stressed, impoverished area that needs economic development as its real hope for finding long-term peace," he said.

"Until we face the development challenge and make clear that we're ready to help on the development challenge, I'm afraid we are not going to have real resolution to this crisis."

[Anansasem]

That has nothing to do with the base for this conflict. It's derived from tribal African peoples who were feeling isolated from the Islamic-regime. They attempted to speak up, which was taken as an act of rebellion. The Sudanese government then enforced the rival Janjaweed to put them down. The exact means of 'enforcement' have been traced to the Chinese to ensure the stability of the current government and keep their flow of resources intact.

For the people involved directly, it has nothing to do with the economy. The sanctions are meant to prevent the Sudanese government from assisting in the slaughter. China has repeatedly blocked these attempts, the U.S. didn't care until growing unrest in the American consensus forced them to begin initiatives. This has been going on for four years, and only now has the U.S. begun to pressure other countries, especially China, to begin initiatives themselves.

It's even being speculated that the main reason China is becoming more active in this conflict has more to do with the possibility of a boycott to their hosting the 2008 Olympics. I truly hope that's false, though it seems tragically in line.

[Ike]

China is doing a lot to improve its image for the Olympics. I wouldn't put it past them.

[zhangfei]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
Mahmood Mamdani

Mahmood Mamdani, one of the world's most prominent Africa scholars. He was born in Uganda, and now splits his time between Uganda and New York, where he teaches at Columbia University. He is the author of many books including, "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror."

[Anansasem]

Here, it seems there is a knee-jerk reaction to uphold China and criticize the U.S. I'm disappointed, I thought the posters here were above that.

The U.S. is probably attempting to use this as a vehicle to ridicule the Chinese. However, don't begin to attempt to avert the attention to the United State's motivation. China's hands are in this conflict.

It is ultimately China that needs to act on this conflict. That article focused on the hypocrisy and manipulation of the conflict with the context of the U.S. stance, it does nothing for the people dying in the conflict.

The U.S. isn't a paradigm of virtue when it comes to Africa. The almost hidden images of people throwing their dead at the gates of the U.S. embassy in Liberia, tell you this. It's known, now let it go here.

I started this thread to discuss the "China-Darfur" connection, do not fall into your 'herd-instinct' by trying to defend the 'Asian power' and deflect it to another.

ZhuBaJie, you have contributed nothing in this thread accept for trying to turn the criticism to the U.S. Enough, you don't even seem to realize you're doing this.

[wuwei]

Le'ts just get this straight, PEOPLE, American or Chinese, are garbage in general. Dont expect more.

Any distinction between these garbage is arbitrary and constitutes racism, because quite frankly, they are all just garbage.

[Dimeron]

Here, it seems there is a knee-jerk reaction to uphold China and criticize the U.S. I'm disappointed, I thought the posters here were above that.

The U.S. is probably attempting to use this as a vehicle to ridicule the Chinese. However, don't begin to attempt to avert the attention to the United State's motivation. China's hands are in this conflict.

It is ultimately China that needs to act on this conflict. That article focused on the hypocrisy and manipulation of the conflict with the context of the U.S. stance, it does nothing for the people dying in the conflict.

The U.S. isn't a paradigm of virtue when it comes to Africa. The almost hidden images of people throwing their dead at the gates of the U.S. embassy in Liberia, tell you this. It's known, now let it go here.

I started this thread to discuss the "China-Darfur" connection, do not fall into your 'herd-instinct' by trying to defend the 'Asian power' and deflect it to another.

ZhuBaJie, you have contributed nothing in this thread accept for trying to turn the criticism to the U.S. Enough, you don't even seem to realize you're doing this.

I think many of us already stated that China exploiting African resources is really no different from United States exploiting Middle east resources.

The only positive thing China (relative to the US) has going for them is that they are honest about their intention, and has no desire to spread their culture imperialism.
They haven't invaded any African country either (mostly because it would not be worth the hassle). So I guess that can be counted as a plus.

[Heyyu]

Le'ts just get this straight, PEOPLE, American or Chinese, are garbage in general. Dont expect more.

Any distinction between these garbage is arbitrary and constitutes racism, because quite frankly, they are all just garbage.

I agree with this. That's why I criticize both the United States and China and call them out on their shit.

Well, actually there's plenty of blame to go around for the Darfur tragedy: The government of Sudan for not giving a shit about their own people; the United States for not giving a shit about their people; China for not giving a shit about their people and the United Nations for being totally incompetent fools.

I agree with Wuwei: this whole world is garbage and one giant joke regardless of race or nationality or whatever.

[zhangfei]

Who is Sudan's largest current trading partner? Japan.

Who have refused to agree to strong condemnatory language against Sudan in the Security Council? China and Russia.

China is a convenient whipping boy.


.................................................. .......................

http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook09232006.html

Is Humanitarian Interventionism Humane?
The Darfur Smokescreen

By CARL G. ESTABROOK

Democracy Now! reported this week that

"tens of thousands of protesters rallied around the world on Sunday in a global day against genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan ... In New York, organizers said over 30,000 people gathered in Central Park. Speakers included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright [sic] ... Demonstrations and vigils were also held on Sunday in Berlin, Dubai, Dublin, London, Melbourne, Paris, Seoul and Stockholm and dozens of other cities. The global day of protests was organized to coincide with the start of the United Nations General Assembly debate this week on Sudan. Late last week the actor George Clooney testified before the United Nations Security Council."

What might be called the liberal position on Darfur can be stated as follows:

"The people of Darfur have suffered unspeakable violence, and America has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."

The liberal position is hardly distinguishable from

(a) the Bush administration's position on Darfur, and

(b) the Clinton administration's position on Kosovo.

In both cases the cry of genocide and "humanitarian" intervention is used to cover the USG's imperial machinations to reduce a state (respectively Sudan and Serbia) that was unreliable from the US/Israeli POV.

For Clinton, "NATO must act" -- and the situation of Kosovo got worse, but Serbia was brought to heel. For Bush, "the United Nations must act" (with NATO providing logistics and "other support") -- and the wretched situation in Darfur will probably get worse, but Sudan, an oil-producing state (much of its production goes to China) will be put under increasing pressure.

Of major media, only the BBC has said at all clearly that Khartoum's resistance to "peacekeepers" was based on "well-founded fears of the designs of Western governments on Sudan." Meanwhile self-styled US peace groups and the Israeli lobby urge "Out of Iraq and into Darfur!"

People honestly concerned about Darfur should listen to the calm common sense of Alex de Waal, a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard, an advisor to the African Union, and author of "Darfur: A Short History of a Long War":

"I don't believe there is a military solution. It will not defeat the holdout rebel groups. What it will do is, it will kill more people, create more hunger, create more displacement and make the situation even more intractable ... I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the solution to Darfur is a political solution. No solution can be imposed by any amount of arm twisting, any amount of bluster, any amount of military force. Even if we sent 100,000 NATO troops, we would not be able to impose a solution. The solution has to come through political negotiation."

But by mobilizing the cover story of humanitarian intervention, the Bush administration should be able to introduce a military solution to its real problem: how to attack another country on the Neocon hit list, another country (like Serbia) on the concentric circle around the cynosure of US foreign policy, Middle East energy resources.

President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has frequently expressed the bipartisan consensus of the US foreign policy elite. "America has major strategic and economic interests in the Middle East that are dictated by the region's vast energy supplies," he wrote two years ago in The National Interest. "Not only does America benefit economically from the relatively low costs of Middle Eastern oil, but America's security role in the region gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region."

And how is Sudan related to this long-term US strategy? We have it from no less a figure than the official hero of Kosovo, Wesley Clark: "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."

Note: what was called the liberal position above is taken from Bush's address to the U.N. on Tuesday.

C. G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and the co-host of the community radio program "News from Neptune". He can be reached at: galliher@uiuc.edu

[Anansasem]

Wow, you truly don't realize your trying to defend China in every way, and even trying to deflect everything to the U.S.

I don't know how you managed to make the conclusion that Japan is Sudan's largest trader:
Exports - partners:
Definition Field Listing
China 71.1%, Japan 12%, Saudi Arabia 2.8% (2005)

Imports - partners:
Definition Field Listing
China 20.7%, Saudi Arabia 9.4%, UAE 5.9%, Egypt 5.5%, Japan 5.1%, India 4.8% (2005)
Oh, maybe you meant a specific product. Well I'm sure Japan may export more of something than China, though overall China is number one here. [/quote]

Oh, another outstanding article to explain the U.S. position. I see no mention of China, except the poor whipping boy who's just trying to do some good business, so sad.

zhangfei, are you even Chinese? I'm guessing Asian American, though I don't assume to know for certain.

[zhangfei]

1. All three articles I cited are written by American college professors. It seems to me that the conflict in Darfur is not as simple as the mainstream media has portrayed. Instead of focusing on my ethnicity and nationality, I think you need to ask why the world renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs would condemn the US decision to impose fresh sanctions on Sudan over Darfur, and why Mahmood Mamdani, a prominent African scholar, an African himself, would make those charges, and why Alex de Waal, a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard, an adviser to the African Union, would say “no solution can be imposed by any amount of arm twisting, any amount of bluster, any amount of military force.” If what they said is true, then what do you think it is the best solution? Just like our sanction against Iraq( caused the death of between 400 000 and 800 000), not doing business with Darfur would probably end up hurting innocent people. As other posters have pointed out, China is not guilt-free. But you want to understand the whole pictures, and not trying to reduce the complicated situation into one thing. I said China is a convenient whipping boy, not whipping boy. It implies "complicity". There is a big difference.

2. Wesley Clark: "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."

I actually watched that interview a while back. I didn’t understand why Sudan was on that list. What do those countries have in common? It makes more sense now as I learn more about Sudan.

3. Japan-Darfur trading total: $3 billion last year, 1.8 billion the year before(64% increase). If you don’t believe me, you can contact info@thesullivanfoundation.org, or call 202-736-2239. It is an African American organization. Maybe you can trust them more than me? since you made such a big deal out of my ethnicity and nationality. By the way, the information you provided is the 2005 data. I posted the 2006 data, which is the latest. (2007 data is not out yet.) Japan is #1 in $$$$ total.

[Hadouken]

The fact that other countries are also responsible does not lessen China's role in the matter or justify its current stance. The fact that Japan may be Darfur's biggest trading partner does not lessen China's responsibility or wash its hands of this mess. The fact that U.S. sanctions may not be a viable alternative does not make the status quo any more acceptable. I hate to say it, but in this situation, China is fucking up. And no, it does not make it any better in any sense that China is being "honest" about it because this will forever be a taint on its rise to prominence, and will affect its relationship with other countries in the future. The people in Africa will not forget. Think of the long term.

[zhangfei]

The fact that other countries are also responsible does not lessen China's role in the matter or justify its current stance. The fact that Japan may be Darfur's biggest trading partner does not lessen China's responsibility or wash its hands of this mess. The fact that U.S. sanctions may not be a viable alternative does not make the status quo any more acceptable. I hate to say it, but in this situation, China is fucking up. And no, it does not make it any better in any sense that China is being "honest" about it because this will forever be a taint on its rise to prominence, and will affect its relationship with other countries in the future. The people in Africa will not forget. Think of the long term.

I don't disagree with you. But does China has that kind of influence to stop the war? War is not good for the country's oil export.(2/3 of which goes to China) The fact is China wants the war to stop. China has been trying to persuade the Khartoum regime to cooperate with the international community and to pursue a peace settlement, and Beijing has full-time envoy tasked with assisting in resolving the Darfur crisis. My point all along is that the issue is not black and white as some people would like us to believe.

Another thing is the refugees question. Nobody really wants to take them.

[Anansasem]

zhangfei, obviously, the reason I asked if you were Chinese was in relation to your nationality, not ethnicity.

I think you are the one who doesn't understand the whole picture. You paint a picture as though it is those, shouting for an end to the conflict, are the ones who are disillusioned. In reality, it is those who drag their feet who are hindering any sense of resolution and progression. Simply allowing Sudan to trade does nothing, when nearly 2/3rds of the profit go back to China as they supply weapons to Khartoum.

Here are the facts laid out distinctly for you: http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/china_sudan_and_the_darfur_conflict_fact_sheet

You asked, "But does China has that kind of influence to stop the war?" China could stop the war with a small flick of political pressure and influence.

As for the trade issue, I couldn't see that link you posted. I just arrived at a yahoo e-mail page about registering. I don't know where you get your facts from, though even if Japan increased trade 64%, 12% plus an additional 64% of that 12 would still amount to nothing compared to China. Also, that's assuming China's trade isn't increasing itself, which it is.
Trade: China is Sudan’s largest trading partner in the world – purchasing 71% of Sudan’s global exports, and providing 21% of its global imports. Sudan, in turn, is China’s third largest trading partner in Africa. Sudan accounts for 13% of China’s total trade with Africa.

[wuwei]

Wow, you are all idiots with zero knowledge of history, international relations, and politics.

The main reason why China does not want to do much in Darfur is its LONG LONG time establish doctrine of "NON-interference". This policy was established mostly to deal with the Taiwan issue, because China classifies the Taiwan issue as a domestic issue, therefore it cites its doctrine of "non-interference" whenever the U.S. or whatever has diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

For China to meddle in another country's politics would be like going back on its words, and it would lose a huge bargaining tool that it has used for years in the Taiwan issue. There is NO way China will compromise in anyway on Taiwan, thanks to the U.S. and Japan.

Conclusion, the U.S. is still responsible. In fact, the hegemon is ALWAYS responsible for the large scale wrongs in this world, simple as that.

[zhangfei]

UN Secretary-General says it is "unfortunate" that African Union has problems with joint AU-U.N. force for Darfur
The Associated Press
Published: June 1, 2007

UNITED NATIONS: The African Union has objected to a proposal for a 23,000-strong AU-U.N. force to help end the bloodshed in Darfur because it would give the United Nations command and control, U.N. diplomats said Friday.

The African Union wants joint control of the force, the final phase of a three-stage U.N. plan to bolster the beleaguered 7,000-strong AU force currently on the ground in Darfur, U.N. diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations to resolve the dispute are private.

The United Nations announced on May 24 that the AU and U.N. had agreed on the proposal for the hybrid force, and it was handed to Sudan's U.N. Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad the following day. But on Friday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was forced to backtrack.

He told reporters after briefing the Security Council that it was "unfortunate" that the African Union has problems with the hybrid force proposal. He did not disclose the problems.

"There was very close consultation between the African Union and the United Nations on this joint proposal," Ban said. "We are now working to have clarifications on some elements of the draft."

"It was unfortunate that the African Union has come back with some changes after the Security Council has adopted and issued a presidential statement. But I think on the basis of a spirit of cooperation and unity in working and addressing this Darfur situation, I am quite confident that the African Union and the U.N. will find common understanding on this issue," he said.

The presidential statement adopted last Friday by the council welcomed the transmission of the proposal for the hybrid force to Sudan and urged all parties to meet their obligations.

Ban has called for technical talks on the hybrid proposal on June 5-6 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and on Thursday, Sudan's Mohamad said his country would attend. U.N. officials said Friday they expect the meeting to go ahead.

Last November, Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir agreed to the three-stage package to strengthen the AU force. Al-Bashir has since backtracked on accepting U.N. troops and approval of the hybrid force remains a question mark.

The four-year conflict between ethnic African rebels and pro-government janjaweed militia in the vast western Darfur region has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million Darfurians. A beleaguered, 7,000-strong African Union force has been unable to stop the fighting, and neither has a peace agreement signed a year ago by the government and one rebel group.

After five months of stalling, the Sudanese president gave the go-ahead for the second phase in mid-April — a "heavy support package" with 3,000 U.N. troops, police and civilian personnel along with six attack helicopters and other equipment.

Ban said the entire international community "has been frustrated many times over the lack of progress" in ending the Darfur conflict.

But he said that since taking over as secretary-general in January, he believes he has made "some progress, even though slow," including agreement on the heavy support package and preparing the hybrid proposal.

Ban said he spoke to Al-Bashir in the past few days and "he is also committed to see early resolution of this issue."

On the political front, the secretary-general said, U.N. envoy Jan Eliasson is trying to arrange a "pre-negotiation phase" with rebel groups in June and July, "and I hope that before August we will be able to enter into the negotiation phase in political dialogue."

Ban also pointed to a new agreement on humanitarian access between Sudan and the United Nations.

"This process may be slow, painful, but I think we are moving towards early resolution of this issue," he said.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil and has close commercial ties with Khartoum and some campaigners for an end to the Darfur conflict have called for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics if there is no solution — but Ban disagreed.

"The Chinese government has also been exerting their utmost efforts," he said, pointing to a new Chinese envoy for Darfur, the Chinese president's visit in February, and other Chinese diplomatic efforts.

"I appreciate such a Chinese government role," Ban said. "It is helpful."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/02/news/UN-GEN-UN-Sudan-Darfur.php

Anansasem, it seems to me that your view is heavily influenced by, and reflective of, the mainstream political opinion in the US, but you have to realize that America's opinion doesn't equate to the world's opinion.

Again, I am not saying China is an angel. It is not. I am not defending everything the Chinese government has ever done. China is not blameless in Darfur. But there is a lot of misinformation about China which is sheer agitprop. You have to recognize what is fact and what is fiction. It is politically convenient to blame China for every Darfur's problem.

[minbo]

The situation in Sudan is far more complex than the simplistic "genocide" which is presented by the Media. It has issues with ethnicity, religion, culture, class, wealth and economic opportunities. In regards to this discussion, most importantly it is a conflict that is internally generated, and a conflict that requires the people Sudan to resolve. China cannot impose upon Sudan and the people of Darfur a resolution, nor can the US or the UN.

Sudan has been in fairly constant civil war since 1952, with momentary lapses of relative peace. When it has not had armed conflict domestically, it has exported men to fight in conflicts in it's immediate area, such as the civil war in Chad. To put it bluntly, fighting and killing, reprisals against the civilian population is standard operating practice in Sudan. Mass killings have been performed by the Janjaweed and by the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Rapes have been performed by all irregular armed parties also. Certainly, the Janjaweed, having the upper hand and being better armed, are doing the majority of atrocities now, but their actions initially were far from one sided.

The Dafur region is populated by two different cultures. An agricultural society that mainly speaks "African" languages, and a nomadic society that mainly speaks "Arabic". In Darfur, the "Arab" and "African" populations are ethnically very similar. Their differences are almost entirely cultural. If you took an a dozen "Arab" men or women and a dozen "African" people from Dafur, dressed them similarly in western clothes and made them stand silently side by side, you would be very hard pressed to accurately identify who belonged to which group. "Arab" vs "African" linguistic and cultural dichotomy has existed for a long time, but really was not a major issue. It's modern incarnation is a product of external making, when Muammar Gaddafi envisioned making a band of Arab states across the Sahel. This was then exacerbated when the agricultural "African" population started to grow and gain economic success, causing conflict with the the poorer "Arabs" over land rights for planting vs grazing.

While there are many issues, the main underlying issue is, of course, economic and property issues. In Sudan, unquestionably the majority of economic investment and devleopment happens in the Nile Valley. Dafur has long been a neglected second hand region. As such, several rebel groups have emerged claiming neglect and oppression of non-"Arabs".

The current conflict is commonly held to have started in ernest in 2003, when Darfur Liberation Front (DAF, now known as the SLA/SLM) publicly claimed responsibility for an attack on the town of Golo in 2003. Later, rebels also attacked and siezed Tiene, a garrison town, seizing supplies and weapons. The army, being tied up on the South, Sudan only recently having settled the second Sudanese Civil War in the south, and in the East fighting rebels sponsered by Eritrea, were not able to effectvely fight the rebels using hit and run tactics. Later, the SLM and JEM mounted a raid on al-Fashir, destroying four (or seven) helicopter gunships, kiling 75 soldiers/technicians/pilots and capturing 32, including the commander of the air base, a Major General. Following this, the rebels mounted many more military raids, winning 34 out of 38 military engagements and killing thousands of Government soldiers. The army realized that due to troop commitments in the south and east as well as the issues of a "regular" fighting force vs an "irregular" fighting force, they simply were not going to win if they continued down that track. Their response was to exploit the culture and economic differences between the farmers and the nomads by organizing and arming the "Arab" nomadic tribes, creating the Janjaweed.

Which brings us to the current situation. We have more than three "irregular" (The SLA/SLM being a confederation with different factions and sometimes different opinions) factions fighting each other, though mostly everyone vs the Army and Janjaweed. Each side does not adhere to rules of conventional warfare, nor do they follow any rules on human rights. The Janjaweed are armed and supported by the Sudan Government. The Sudan government believes that if they cut off support for the militia, then the SLA and JEM will again gain the upper hand, defeat the Sudan Army and succeed. It is not unpredictable that they are reluctant to cut off their support. On the other hand, the Sudan government is not entirely enthused about the human rights abuse. If the rest of the country believed that the government was behind organized rapes, it would probably loose power. Unfortunately for the government, they have very little influence over the Janjaweed outside of cutting off their support, which we have already discovered they feel is impossible. The SLA/SLM and JEM are not unified and do not agree on all key issues. What one group may be willing to negotiate away to gain concessions on other points, the other groups may hold as a central issue that they are not willing to concede, nor do they always care about the central issues of the other group.

If the Sudanese Government falls, then the civil war in the South and East will flare up. If no one buys the Oil from Sudan, then the south will become impoverished and may easily break status quo, possibly causing a resurgence of the civil war in the south. So, how can America, China or the UN interceed to resolve the issue? Sanctions, military force, diplomacy? Is it so simple to say that either China or the US are at fault and have their hands washed in blood for inaction or buying oil? Is the UN at fault for taking it's time to determine a path to resolve the complex situation at hand? Should fools rush in?

[Anansasem]

Appreciate it, Minbo. Yours are the type of responses I'm looking for.

By the way, China nearly offsets any profit Sudan makes as two thirds of the profit is returned to China as Khartoum purchases Chinese weapons. That is one part of the 'hands-off' policy, doing business without concerns for humanitarianism.

What I was getting at, was that the U.S., China, and the overall U.N. can't agree on the initiatives to take. Over-generalizing this, the U.S. would like to intervene and merely put a stop to the violence now without acknowledging the long-terms and secular affects this could have while China supports allowing the country to solve the issue themselves as they continue to keep the current regime in power with weapons ensuring their continued flow of resources. The point I was initially trying to make, before it was diverted into a blame-fest, is that China has far more influence in the area though it's policies conflict with those of the U.N. As they veto and support the current regime they, and the U.S., are creating a divide in the U.N. that prevents any initiatives to be taken.

Their investment into the continent is undoubtedly having positive effects. Some long terms effects that will indefinitely improve the conditions in Africa. The negative effects come from the no-strings attached policy. African leaders are now free to do as they wish in their governments without accepting the previous U.S. and European demands that they abide by Humanitarian rights and attempt to reform their countries to bring an end to inner turmoil. When they no longer have to follow these initiatives and are allowed free-reign without worrying about sanctions or lack of supplies, they will have more power to suppress divergent groups without worrying if their regime will be toppled when the U.N. cuts off supplies.

Sudan is the shining example of the conflict of policies. Earlier, I tried to explain the conflicts in Sudan while trying to keep it depoliticized. I see now it can't be done. China and the U.N., mostly the U.S., will have to reach an agreement before anything can be done. Sadly the deaths and conflict is dependent on the decisions that the U.S. and China can reach, if any. Those who protest and demonize China in the west, probably don't grasp the larger issues which are the divergent policies of China and the U.S.


*Edit* I'm still amazed by the way the contention between two Super Powers become the defining factor in almost every conflict.

[zhangfei]

By the way, China nearly offsets any profit Sudan makes as two thirds of the profit is returned to China as Khartoum purchases Chinese weapons. That is one part of the 'hands-off' policy, doing business without concerns for humanitarianism.




This is that kind of disinformation that I was talking about. You accept it as true without question or proof.

[Anansasem]

zhangfei, I'm truly tired of you. If you're not Chinese than you have some warped herd-instinctual attachment to the country, especially if you're American.

You come out swinging that I believe that line without facts when you obviously have no clue about them at all.

Here is a site far more dedicated to the issue than any of us. The level of intelligence and insight is comparable to the fighting 44s. http://www.darfur-awareness.org/

I'm not going to bother to answer your senseless denials for nothing else than uplifting the integrity of China.

[wuwei]

zhangfei, I'm truly tired of you. If you're not Chinese than you have some warped herd-instinctual attachment to the country, especially if you're American.

You come out swinging that I believe that line without facts when you obviously have no clue about them at all.

Here is a site far more dedicated to the issue than any of us. The level of intelligence and insight is comparable to the fighting 44s. http://www.darfur-awareness.org/

I'm not going to bother to answer your senseless denials for nothing else than uplifting the integrity of China.


LOL, I dont read English sites about things happening in Non-English speaking countries.

[Anansasem]

Wuwei, read up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/in_depth/2004/sudan_-_darfur/default.stm

[zhangfei]

zhangfei, I'm truly tired of you. If you're not Chinese than you have some warped herd-instinctual attachment to the country, especially if you're American.

You come out swinging that I believe that line without facts when you obviously have no clue about them at all.

Here is a site far more dedicated to the issue than any of us. The level of intelligence and insight is comparable to the fighting 44s. http://www.darfur-awareness.org/

I'm not going to bother to answer your senseless denials for nothing else than uplifting the integrity of China.


Some website say the Americans NEVER landed on the moon, so it must be true.

Because http://www.darfur-awareness.org/ says“China nearly offsets any profit Sudan makes as two thirds of the profit is returned to China as Khartoum purchases Chinese weapons.” , it must be true.

Let’s say you believe it to be true, what is the $ amount? 1 dollar? 1 million dollars? 1 billion dollars? You must have a figure, no?

Did you crosscheck your # with other sources?

It is not that difficult. For example, human rights organization Amnesty International has the information. (I checked.)

Why don't you tell me what " two thirds of the profit" is?

[Anansasem]

zhangfei, this is done. I truly don't care to argue with you any further.

Minbo, anything more to add, or anyone else with constructive input?

[zhangfei]

Is truth important to you?

Haven’t we learned anything from this Iraq war mess? The WMDs, the Al Qaeda-Hussein Link, and other lies?

Shouldn’t we be more inquisitive and critical about the world we live in?

In order to have an opinion on Darfur, you're going to occasionally have to remove your head from your ass.