No way to treat a friend: China kicks out Mugabe
I originally missed this in The Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago:
ZIMBABWE’S President, Robert Mugabe, has been forced to return home following intense political pressure from the Chinese Communist Party not to attend Friday night’s opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games.
The Herald understands high-powered lobbying from political leaders who will be attending the ceremony prompted the highest levels of the Chinese Government to convince him not to attend. It is understood he had arrived in Hong Kong on Sunday but could get no further.
After coming under considerable pressure from world leaders China had little choice but to send their good buddy packing, lest Hu Jintao found himself looking at a lot of empty seats in the emperor’s box tonight. Instead he gets to chat with Dubya, whose been saying nice things about China on his tour of Thailand.
While I applaud the act of refusing to allow Mugabe to get further than the men’s room at Hong Kong airport, I have to question why he was extended an invitation in the first place. That was not very savvy of face-conscious Beijing when their big show requires world leaders to show up by the dozen.
I wonder how many guns China promised the despot in return for not causing them embarrassment.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Let me ask you two questions:
(1) Do you expect your neighbor to intervene when you have some issues within your family?
(2) Do you want your neighbor to barge in and tell you that how you have been running your house is completely unacceptable?
August 8th, 2008 at 4:26 am
From what I understand, the invitation was sent by the Olympic organizatin in Zimbabwe, and not from the government of China. But the Chinese foreign ministry should have done better by talking Mugabe out of coming in the first place, instead of asking him to return after he has arrived on Chinese soil.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Pffefer – let me ask you this:
If the guy across the road is unjustifiably getting the crap beaten out of him, and you have some power or influence that might highlight or stop his suffering, do you choose to turn the other way and do nothing?
August 8th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Stuart,
I will call the police in that case.
The question is, are you sure he is getting beaten? And are you willing to knock down your neighbor’s door to intervene? Is that even legal?
August 9th, 2008 at 1:27 am
If I was strong enough to knock the door down, and sure enough that the act would alleviate suffering, absolutely I would do it.
Calling the police won’t help in China – if you’ve lived here for a reasonable length of time you’d appreciate that. They simply won’t get involved. The police are not public servants and protectors in China.
In this respect China and Zimbabwe have a lot in common (see how you’ve managed to stay on topic – I’m proud of you!).
August 10th, 2008 at 5:47 am
So I guess you are saying it is completely OK if somebody breaks down your door alleging that you are beating somebody? Where do you draw the line? Are you taking justice into your own hands?
Servant and protector? Where did you get such a cheesy line from? ‘Transformers”? You think just because it is on the police cruiser they mean it? WOW. And with brave and self-righteous model citizens like you, does Britain even need cops?
Your failure to understand the police analogy didn’t surprise me though.
Since the Chinese police doesn’t do a @#$%, you should either get a gun or get the hell out.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
@stuart and Pffefer,
I think the neighbor-house metaphor is a little bit pointless. As the discussion goes on, you have to put inside more and more realistic elements, including police, road, beating up, gun, etc. It’s a completely different situation and any simplification is just misleading.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Wang Linan,
The analogy is not pointless. If you don’t want to have your neighbor knock down your door and barge into your house simply because he thinks there is something going on, you will understand countries don’t simply want foreigners to come in to tell them how to run their own business.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:05 am
“…countries don’t simply want foreigners to come in to tell them how to run their own business.”
China speaks loudly of one world, one dream, a peaceful rise, and of being a responsible stakeholder.
The latter in particular refers to the formulation of international policy by powerful countries based on humanitarian grounds as opposed to self-interest. In other words, the ability to be morally responsible.
Hiding behind the deceptive cloak of ‘non-interference’ is not an option for any nation with aspirations to make this world a better place.
If you doubt me, ask the children of Burma, the dispossessed of Zimbabwe, or those looking down the barrel of Chinese guns in Sudan.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
@stuart,
I appreciate the morality you are promoting. But could you please give me a single instance in the history that foreign involvement led to a positive result? No matter how noble the original intention was, after millions of people (good and bad) got involved into the business of a remote foreign country, for their own sake people just didn’t come back with bare hands. Savior never comes from outside.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Too many, Linan – but here’s one (several, actually):
Without American involvement in both Europe and the East during WW2, the conflicts in those areas would have been prolonged at the cost of millions more lives.
I think you’ll find both the Germany and Japan of today are a touch more responsible and incomparably less aggressive than they were 70 years ago. And the people in those countries don’t have any issues with the USA on this point.
That’s not to say all involvement is OK. We only have to take a look at Iraq (direct/USA) or Sudan (indirect/China) to see exactly how morally bankrupt powerful governments are. I should add the present skirmish between Russia and Georgia.
Btw, criticising another country’s human rights record is NOT interfering. If it’s justified, it’s the right thing to do.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
About US in WW2, it’s a little bit tricky. Since it was the Japanese attacked USA in the first place, the involvement of USA is not just inference with noble wills.
But I accept this case. What can I say, “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under”.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“The latter in particular refers to the formulation of international policy by powerful countries based on humanitarian grounds as opposed to self-interest. In other words, the ability to be morally responsible.”
The concept of “responsible stakeholder” came out the State Department, not the Chinese government. You might be an idealist (there is nothing wrong with that), but I am not. I do not believe countries genuinely base their policies on the humanitarian grounds, it has always been about their own interests, like it or not. And often we see countries (especially western countries) blatantly pursing their interests under the banner of “freedom” and “democracy” (Iraq is a case in point). There must be a line somewhere. You can’t simply barge into my house simply because you don’t like how I run my household. Otherwise things like privacy, sovereignty and independence etc. will be thrown out the window and you will see total chaos.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:50 am
“You can’t simply barge into my house simply because you don’t like how I run my household.”
If you’re a crazy despot fueled by greed and the love of power, such that the people in your house are living insufferable lives without a shred of dignity or hope, then you deserve to have your door kicked in.
Beijing works its magic from inside the house by being the despot’s friend. In this way China props up several desperate regimes on this planet, because democratic reform in those countries would undermine China’s grip on their resources. This is every bit as contemptible as American policy in Iraq.
The difference is, Americans have the right to criticise their government’s foreign policy and have knowledge of that policy.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“If you’re a crazy despot fueled by greed and the love of power, such that the people in your house are living insufferable lives without a shred of dignity or hope, then you deserve to have your door kicked in.”
So where is the line drawn? Do you want some neighbor to knock down your door? Do you want some foreigners to “liberate” you Brits by invading your country if one day you have a despot ruling Britain?
“Beijing works its magic from inside the house by being the despot’s friend. In this way China props up several desperate regimes on this planet, because democratic reform in those countries would undermine China’s grip on their resources. This is every bit as contemptible as American policy in Iraq.”
Nah. I don’t think democratic reform will necessarily under China’s grip on the resources, after all China’s biggest trade partners are all democracies (including your own country). And by no means are the Chinese underpaying the Africans for these resources, unlike what your ancestors did to them a couple of centuries ago. It is not that the Chinese hate democratic reforms, they don’t really care whether you are a democracy or not, they simply want to do business with you and leave your own business to you. Essentially the Chinese are saying, everyone should be entitled to determining their own destiny (if the peoples in those countries hate the regimes so much they can topple them) and their own way of running their country, we are not here to judge and force our values, beliefs and systems upon you. You people on the other hand are saying, everyone should be just like us (the west) and there is no other way to it. Our way is the only way. You are either with us or against us.
“The difference is, Americans have the right to criticise their government’s foreign policy and have knowledge of that policy.”
And what difference does it make? The Americans and your Brits would still invade and kill, despite how “knowledgable” your people are.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:33 am
“Do you want some foreigners to “liberate” you Brits by invading your country if one day you have a despot ruling Britain? ”
Absolutely; so long as it’s not another despot.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Woohoo! What a riot, someone actually wasting their time arguing with Pffefer! No disrespect, Stuart, but if you have been around China blogosphere for any length of time, you would know this troll for what he is: a twat.
Bye bye, Pffefer, it sure feels good to be taken seriously, doesn’t it? Enjoy while it lasts…
August 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Neddy,
At least Stuart and I are trying to have a conversation here. What have you done? Your own act defines trolling.
Try to come up with something more intelligent, otherwise, get lost.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Neddy. I’m happy that you stopped by and would welcome a contribution, but I can’t be doing with the insults.
I have had exchanges with pffefer on several sites, and believe that he defends the motherland rather too quickly and takes counter stabs at the ‘west’ too readily.
At the end of the day, I suspect we just have different opinions and are both guilty of wasting a bit of time going back and forth over the same ground. But if we can continue to argue without offending I see that as a good thing.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I’m a bit disappointed with China on this one. They turned away Mugabe in order to please the West.
Mugabe has dedicated his whole life to the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle. He is not allowed in but George W Bush, the world’s number one terrorist is? What a f@#$#$ up world.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:29 am
The main reason things in Zimbabwe have taken a dive is Western strangling of that country. The West got angry with Mugabe because Mugabe started to redistribute white farmers land to the theretofore landless black peasantry.
It is the sanctions that are killing Zimbabwe, not Mugabe. And in any case China and Russia did the right thing by vetoing those meddling hypocrictical sanctions proposed by the West. Mugabe is currently is negotiating with the opposition leader. Those negotiations would have been derailed if those sanctions had passed.