Zimbabwe and China: partners in crime
Back in March I rather jumped the gun by declaring, joyously, that Zimbabwe’s rogue leader was political toast, and that these two authoritarian amigos (see picture) had signed their last arms deal.
Since then the already beleaguered people of Zimbabwe have suffered unimaginably as Mugabe and his thugs have sunk to new lows of atrocity. The appalling violence has drawn universal condemnation from the nations of the world. Well, almost.
China, no stranger to voicing its disapproval, has condemned such international outrages as the refueling of Chen Shui-bian’s plane on American soil in January (a crash landing would have been OK, I guess), foreign leaders’ meetings with the Dalai Lama, western media ‘bias’, the rights of non-Chinese peoples to protest in their own countries (torch relay fiasco), and the cultural price of a Starbucks in the Forbidden City. Weighty matters indeed.
Try googling ‘China condemns’, ’Chinese condemn’, ‘China blasts’, or, for those so inclined, ‘China defecates on’ and you’ll be left in no doubt that China is the world’s greatest producer of condemnations and surly rants. With so many issues to condemn it’s little wonder that one slips through the net from time to time. This particular escapee from China’s overseas axe grinding watchdog is a big fish: there is no condemnation of Zimbabwe’s brutal regime or the intimidation and bloodshed that has brought a nation to its knees. Let me know if you see this missing fish in a pond near you - answers to the name of ‘turn a blind eye’.
The Chinese government’s weak-assed, not to mention spurious, claim of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries isn’t good enough; China is a global player now and needs to stand up and start acting like it. If China can condemn a peaceful and respectful dialogue between a monk and, well, just about anyone, it should have the balls to denounce a humanitarian catastrophe of the first order.
Sadly, China appears to lack the necessary testicular fortitude, its state media content to run a smiling picture of Mugabe at the polling station in another benign refusal to acknowledge what’s really happening in Zimbabwe. If you want a snapshot of the ignorance forged by China’s sugar coated Sino-African coverage, read the first comment posted on that article. And why is this? Because African dictators are China’s best buddies and democratic elections threaten to undermine the lucrative deals behind all those totalitarian handshakes.
One particular deal, attention to which was conveniently (for China) buried by the earthquake in Sichuan, was the so called ‘ship of shame‘, a boat load of arms dispatched to Zhongnanhai’s despotic pal on the good ship An Yue Jiang in the midst of political turmoil in Zimbabwe. Interference? The pollution in Beijing clearly works wonders for those having problems with cognitive dissonance. Following widespread, and justifiable, condemnation the boat was apparently recalled, but with no intention of doing any such thing. From the article (24 April):
The Chinese ship carrying a controversial consignment of weapons for Zimbabwe is being recalled and the arms will no longer be delivered. News agencies reported today that this was confirmed at a news conference in Beijing by the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu.
The consignment was “part of the normal arms trade between China and Zimbabwe,” she said. “The relevant contract was signed last year and has nothing to do with the latest developments inside Zimbabwe.”
She added: “I’d like to stress that the Chinese Government always adopts a prudent and responsible attitude towards arms export and one of the important principles it adheres to is non-interference in the internal affairs of recipient countries.”
She lied. The vessel wandered around the waters of Africa until China could strong arm a government into allowing the boat to dock and unload its cargo. Read more here. The article (17 May) asserts that the shipment of weapons arrived in Harare about three weeks after Beijing’s economy with the truth. In the six weeks that have passed since more Chinese arms found there way into the hands of Mugabe’s supporters, not a day has gone by without stories like this one. How many more reasons does China need before it exercises its well-practised voice of condemnation?
African problems require African solutions is a great sound bite; but it can only happen if outside forces are responsible, honest, and unanimous in their condemnation of, and their intention to end, Zimbabwe’s living nightmare. As the non-African nation with the most leverage in Harare, it’s time for China to display a bit of global leadership and effect a foreign policy that will alleviate rather than facilitate human suffering.
China could begin by committing a few thousand troops (they have many in Africa already) as part of an overwhelming UN peace-keeping force under AU command that will oversee peaceful change in Zimbabwe. Logistically speaking the Chinese military are well ahead of the curve: their arms and munitions arrived some time ago.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
[...] stuart wrote an interesting post today on Zimbabwe and China: partners in crime. Here’s a quick excerpt: [...]
June 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“African problems require African solutions”
That line isn’t just a soundbite. Only Zimbabwe’s neighbour states can make the right decisions to stop the decline of Zimbabwe. Trade unions like COSATU, South African political parties including the ANC, and senior leaders from other Southern African countries are realising that Mugabe is no longer the Zimbabweans’ president. Zimbabwe’s future depends on what they decide, more than on what the United Nations decide.
As for China’s government, I believe it is inflicting much more damage upon China’s image, than on the Zimbabwean people. No pleasant sight, but what did you expect? Let’s hope for African solutions.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
justrecently - an African solution would be best, but any solution is compromised when the problem (Mugabe & co) is nurtured by outside support that cares more about making a fast buck and securing resources than people’s lives.
China are not the only guilty party here, but they lose any vestige of moral credibility when they pressure African governments to allow the delivery of an arms shipment that Beijing has told the world it has turned around.
Further, one of those links indicates the presence of Chinese troops in Harare - and I guarantee they’re not there to ensure a free and fair election. They are blatantly interfering in Zimbabwe in the most detrimental way imaginable.
People are being systematically hunted down and savagely murdered or beaten for standing in opposition to Mugabe. China is assisting in this process. For an African solution to work, China need to butt out.
I hope the Olympic delegation from Zimbabwe is made up of opposition supporters and that they make their feelings known to the Chinese people. How else can they end Chinese ambivalence and ignorance on this issue?
June 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I’m not principally against intervention - there are some international options. You never know - the security council, including China and Russia - have agreed to surprisingly efficient action before. But the heart of the matter is the SADC (Southern African Development Community). International decisions without their backing will only lead to more of the “racist-imperialists-against-us” argument, and it would make it much harder for Bishop Tutu, COSATU or Zambia’s president (just to name a few) to encourage Africans to address the problems head-on. You can say that race shouldn’t count, and that betting on African solutions alone would be kind of reverse-racisim. I wouldn’t disagree with that. But that’s the only way ic it will work. If Zimbabwe’s neighbours don’t declare Mugabe’s presidency illegal, international measures will be inefficient - both because of China, and because of these neighbouring countries. Sanctions against Iraq (as far as I can remember) weren’t really too efficient either.
As for China’s moral credibility: they mind their own business - literally. They certainly don’t take Africa’s interests into account. But there, too, Africans need to find out by themselves if and where they want Chinese “help”, and where they’d rather do without it. International intervention will only lead to good results with African support. I think what we’ve seen there in the past few months (just think of the unions who asked their wharfies not to unload the An Yue Jiang) is encouraging. Too much action from outside Africa would do more to discourage, than to encourage such acts of decency.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:50 am
just think of the unions who asked their wharfies not to unload the An Yue Jiang
I am thinking about that. I’m also thinking why the Chinese government failed to heed (and blatantly lied about) the wishes of Africans that the boat should go back to China with its cargo.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I’m also thinking why the Chinese government failed to heed (and blatantly lied about) the wishes of Africans that the boat should go back to China with its cargo.
I guess that isn’t surprising. Many CCP officials don’t respect their own people, so how could they respect the wishes of people overseas? They might listen - but only if they think it is in their very own interest.
A few thoughts about “how nations rise”. I don’t think that Western powers were sensitive about local wishes and values either during colonialism (and my uneducated guess is that colonialism is what China’s approach is about - under the smoke screen of “sovereignty and non-interference” which almost unconditionally recognises any government that be in power - and is open for cooperation with them). The point is that this isn’t the 1770s anymore, that the world has changed since, and that China’s rise (which shouldn’t be taken for granted anyway) happens under very different conditions than the West’s. It won’t be for us to define China’s values and face. But it will be for all of us - Westerners, Africans, and others - to look at their actions and to draw our conclusions as to how much business we want to do with them.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:50 am
One more thought: if Zimbabwe’s neighbours get to agree, there will be no way for more Chinese arms supplies to reach their destination.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
that could take a while
June 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
It could, yes. But action (whatever kind of) without their endorsement looks worse to me than inaction.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:17 am
The inaction and complacency at the AU summit yesterday leaves me speechless.
So yes, it could take a while.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:10 am
yep
stu ur right
Zimbabwe’s president is shit,and what shame on PRC!
July 1st, 2008 at 8:46 am
Hehe. How many of the AU’s 50-something leaders can say of themselves that they were elected in free and fair elections?
That said, probably none of them has brought his country as far down as Mugabe.
I’m betting on SADC, rather than on the AU. Always hopeful. But yes, it will probably take time.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
If this morning’s report in The Guardian is correct not one major African country is prepared to stand and condemn Mugabe, so it will take a long time if we are to wait for African action of any kind. Too many of the leaders have, themselves, been ‘elected’ in one-party states and other dubious circumstances. But abandonment of contact with Z by non-African nations or invasion from a white nation both have potentially disastrous percussions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/30/zimbabwe.unitednations
I’m unsure if there is an answer - there certainly isn’t a simple one.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 am
But abandonment of contact with Z by non-African nations or invasion from a white nation both have potentially disastrous percussions.
Agreed, Flotsam. But I think a good place to start would be to respect Africans’ wishes not to let any more arms in.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
This would be a start but again needs the agreement of all leaders in S. Africa. At the end of the AU summit there was no agreement on anything, only a compromise statement which suggested that Mugabe should form a national/coalition government of unity. In whose dreams?
Leaving everything to other African governments means that Zimbabwe is doomed.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 am
Leaving everything to other African governments means that Zimbabwe is doomed.
That is why we need responsible action from nations outside the continent. The Chinese government are in a strong position, but don’t have the moral capacity to act appropriately.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
If nations outside can find ways of action that make things better than worse: congratulations. But I think we should get used to the idea that the really critical weight in this lies matter with Zimbabwe’s neighbours - and with the people of Zimbabwe itself.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
When I’m having discussions with Africans overseas, they usually blame everything on colonial history, just as African government people do. My point is that Mr Tsvangirai may welcome any help he can get right now, and the people of Zimbabwe may welcome that, too. But once the worst is over, they will call any intervention opression again. Before you do something to help people, make sure that they actually want your help.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Before you do something to help people, make sure that they actually want your help.
In which case, again, Beijing should butt out. The vast majority of people in Zimbabwe certainly don’t want Mugabe supplied with Chinese guns. This was made clear to Beijing, who then made a false promise and delivered the cargo anyway.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:08 am
[...] wonder how many guns China promised the despot in return for not causing them [...]