China’s indifference to suffering in Sri Lanka
http://transcurrents.com/
This should come as no surprise for a government that views human life (especially non-Chinese life on distant shores) as ultimately expendable in the pursuit of resources, regional strategic influence, and, dare I say, global dominance.
The latest in a long line of ‘pragmatic’ foreign policy initiatives that have impacted directly on the lives and deaths of countless thousands in Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Burma (to name a few prominent examples), has now been revealed as the underlying cause of the Sri Lankan government’s defiance in the face of international calls for humanitarian restraint in dealing with the Tamils: they have Beijing’s backing and they know it.
On the southern coast of Sri Lanka, ten miles from one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, a vast construction site is engulfing the once sleepy fishing town of Hambantota.
This is where China is building a $1 billion port that it plans to use as a refuelling and docking station for its navy, as it patrols the Indian Ocean and protects China’s supplies of Saudi oil. Ever since Sri Lanka agreed to the plan, in March 2007, China has given it all the aid, arms and diplomatic support it needs to defeat the Tigers, without worrying about the West.
It certainly seems that President Mahinda Rajapaksa is firmly in Beijing’s pocket given the alacrity with which he’s appeasing his benefactor’s regional goals by pursuing what appears increasingly like a cleansing policy. The CCP’s mouthpiece China Daily has the gall to talk of the unfolding humanitarian crisis and UN efforts to allow aid to the affected region:
A top UN official pressed Sri Lankan leaders yesterday to let aid into the northeastern war zone, as the ruling party won a sweeping victory in an election seen as a referendum on its fight against ethnic Tamil rebels.
The government has pushed deep into the Tamil Tigers’ strongholds in the north in recent months, surrounding the beleaguered rebels and vowing to end the quarter-century war. But reports have grown of starvation and casualties among the tens of thousands of civilians trapped by the fighting.
Well, isn’t that lovely! Beijing once again gives the appearance of having its finger on the humanitarian pulse while simultaneously applying enough pressure to squeeze the life out of thousands of suffering people.
Is there a whiff of hypocrisy about this recent wave of concern? This analysis certainly suggests as much:
None of this diplomatic posturing should be taken at face value. All of a sudden Washington has begun to express concern about the plight of tens of thousands of civilians caught in fighting as the Sri Lankan army closes in on the remaining pocket of territory held by the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Until recently, however, the US has quietly backed President Rajapakse, the war and the military’s gross abuse of democratic rights. But as the army made rapid advances into the LTTE’s remaining territory from early January and the defeat of the LTTE appeared likely, the US made a tactical shift.
These matters are invariably more nuanced than their face value, but it doesn’t excuse China’s disregard for human rights in the way it pursues its global goals, which, thus far, have little connection with its self-proclaimed ‘peaceful rise’.
To summarise the latest transgression of morality then, Chinese support via its seat at the UN and growing clout as the world’s financier has enabled Sri Lanka to laugh in the face of international criticism, and to look forward to a positive outcome to the $1.9 billion IMF loan the government is seeking. China is effectively saying to Sri Lanka, “give us our naval base and we’ll counter criticism when you start killing an ethnic minority indiscriminately; finish the job and we’ll make sure you get the funds to clean up the mess.”
It all sounds alarmingly familiar. Because it is.
Update
The bloodbath continues. And China’s role in the unfolding slaughter becomes clearer.
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 am
Someone thinks this story is fantastic…
This story was submitted to Hao Hao Report – a collection of China’s best stories and blog posts. If you like this story, be sure to go vote for it….
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 am
What an asshole you are, stuart. The whole accusation is based on a sentence written by a @#$%ing British reporter “Ever since Sri Lanka agreed to the plan, in March 2007, China has given it all the aid, arms and diplomatic support it needs to defeat the Tigers, without worrying about the West.”
Exactly how is China backing the Sri Lankan government to defy concerns from “the international community”?
I pity you stuart, you are probably reading all sort of BS everyday looking for some “good stuff” you can use on your never-ending rant about China.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 am
Pffefer, it’s clear to any two brain cells with a connection that China turns a blind eye to humanitarian concerns in the name of regional/global expansion. This is just one more example.
If I’m wrong, and I’m not, where is the outrage in the Chinese media about this and other humanitarian crises facilitated by China’s foreign policy? There is none, because self-criticism is not in their handbook.
Your perception is that I ‘rant’ because you don’t want to face up to the home truths of your country’s indifference to human suffering. And like so many that adopt China’s anti-western rhetoric your only refuge lies in misdirected anger at perceived ‘China-bashing’ rather than objectively examining the true impact of China’s policies.
Until the Chinese people themselves learn to question what their government is doing overseas (and I think we both know that’s a long, long way off) then the responsible thing to do is to keep such topics in the spotlight.
Answer me this: how many Chinese citizens stop to question the humanitarian impact of their government’s foreign policy? How many give a damn? Compare that to the percentage who whole-heartedly believe in their country’s claims of a peaceful rise. The only information to the contrary in a land of tight media control, naturally, emanates from non-Chinese sources and is thus branded as ‘china bashing’ or the west attempting to ‘demonise’ China.
You just don’t seem to grasp the ramifications of this.
Btw, I’ve slightly edited your comment to remove the profanity.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The ability to single out one country (while others are also doing it) and beat it to death is amazing.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
“The ability to single out one country (while others are also doing it) and beat it to death is amazing.”
Yes, others are doing it (as I pointed out, btw), but, as is so often the case when Chinese citizens attempt to justify their country’s actions, you fall into this trap:
And this site, it is worth remembering, is about China
May 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Stuart, the reason why I said you are an asshole (by the way, why is asshole allowed, Shabi is not?) is that you are constantly, consistently, painstakingly looking for “evidence” to paint China as some sort of a dark, evil empire and that you are knowingly reading too much out of certain things and even resorting to blatant fabrication sometimes. Look, it is a fact that China has been supporting the Sri Lankan government. It is a fact that the Sri Lankan government has been pounding those Tamil Tigers. So you (and that pathetic british reporter) drew the hasty conclusion that China must be behind the move of defying international concerns? How pathetic is that? It is like me saying that Britain is behind every move of US simply because you are America’s little bitch.
The humanitarian impact of their government’s foreign policy? You are correct, most Chinese don’t give a damn, just like most British and most Americans, Japanese, French, Koreans don’t.
I don’t care about “China-bashing” or “demonizing China”, if you have got a good argument like the one about 6.4, I would care less. But a crappy argument like this one, based on one @#$ing sentence written by some crappy British reporter? And please stuart, are you capable of coming up with something NEW? It is the same old BS over and over again. No wonder only a few bored people (like me) care to visit your blog. I could probably write for your blog as I know exactly what you are pulling out of your hat.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
***harmonised***
May 4th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“why is asshole allowed, Shabi is not?”
For the same reason I take a different view of cannabis use versus heroin use.
“…you are constantly, consistently, painstakingly looking for “evidence” to paint China as some sort of a dark, evil empire ”
No. Absolutely I am NOT. That’s your perception of what I’m doing based on what appear to be anti-western leanings. In fact, I care deeply about China’s ‘progress’.
Left unchecked, uncriticised, a powerful China is not going to be the force for good in this world that she all too easily convinces her citizens she is. Yes, this could be said for a great number of countries, but China is, in so many ways, a case apart. And, if you hadn’t noticed, this site is about China.
The planet is entering unknown territory with a dominant China, and that means we all have a vested interest in getting Beijing to adopt more moral responsibility and to tone down the nationalism.
“…even resorting to blatant fabrication”
Get real. Of course I don’t.
“Look, it is a fact that China has been supporting the Sri Lankan government”
Yes, with arms and cash. Without that support they wouldn’t have defied the humanitarian calls of the international community. Fact. Where was China’s humanitarian voice?
“You are correct, most Chinese don’t give a damn”
I don’t think that’s because they care less than other people; I think it’s because they are not informed. Which is a problem, because responsible governance begins and ends with accountability to the concerns of a country’s citizens.
“But a crappy argument like this one”
It’s only a crappy argument if you can’t see this as part of a wider moral issue – one in which an increasingly confident and powerful China is indifferent to the suffering of people the world over.
I’ve deleted #7 because I couldn’t see the point, other than to insult me.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Look stuart,
(1) China is not going to be a dominant power, at least not as dominant as the US is and Britain was, its influence is over exaggerated and far-fetched
(2) China does have the moral responsibility though no matter how big or small its impact is; however, China shouldn’t be treated differently than any other countries. The same set of standards apply. That’s why I have been calling you a hypocrite.
(3) It is not really an issue of uninformed people. The majority of the very informed western people don’t care about these things either. It is always a small group of so-called “liberals” who do.
(4) I didn’t try to insult you (the “shabi” comment did that, actually), the point is you are not in a position to tell me how to behave if you are I are both crooks. Got it?
(3)
May 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“China is not going to be a dominant power”
For all our sakes let’s hope not. The planet will descend into further chaos if any country finds itself in such a position. It’s too early to say whether China will assume global dominance yet; but their actions, at least under the current regime, make it clear to me that it is what they are seeking. And, as an end point, current strategy (albeit morally questionable) is serving them very well.
Your second point makes no sense. We’re talking about China here. Please point out an instance where China has backed off from a potential economic, political, or military advantage on the grounds that their intended action will cause human suffering. Forget modern America and past colonialism – China is the country you should be focused on.
“China shouldn’t be treated differently than any other countries.”
I disagree. China’s lack of clarity regarding its regional and global goals mean exactly the opposite; their rise must be treated with caution until they prove themselves to be morally responsible. But even that might be insufficient.
The world is not going to be a better place with a globally dominant China led by a handful of technocrats in Beijing. Sadly, those technocrats control thinking and discourse to the extent that a fifth of the world’s population are staggeringly uninformed about the real consequences of their country’s foreign policy. And those that do have some idea wollow in the false justification that other nations have, or continue to, behave in the same way.
“It is always a small group of so-called “liberals” who do (care).”
Then it’s about time we saw the rise of a nation that could bring human compassion and morals to the majority of its citizenry, not just a small number of liberals. China under the CCP’s guidance falls woefully short.
“the point is you are not in a position to tell me how to behave”
Not sure what you’re talking about there, although I’ve heard worse ideas.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
stuart,
YOU are the one who is not making any sense. You kept saying “this blog is about China”, “we are talking about China here”, that has been your line of defense since day 1. What a hypocrite. Just because this blog is named “Found in China”, only China’s “sins ” can be talked about? What kind of logic is that? British logic? Just because this blog is about China, we can’t talk about other countries in the context of examing these “sins” of China? Do you know no shame, stuart?
China’s lack of clarity regarding its regional and global goals? Give me a break! Do we know the regional and global goals of the US? Those of your beloved UK? Japan? Sure, you are going to duck with that line “this is about China” again, what a hypocrite you are!
Again, I don’t know how thick your skin is and how retarded you are, the point is, if you and I are both crooks, you are not in any position to lecture me how to behave.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
For crying out loud, Pffefer!
We both know the US has plenty of demons (the UK’s regional goals amount to a holiday in France these days), but they have a system of checks and balances – albeit imperfect – that ultimately makes them accountable to citizens allowed a dissenting voice in a pluralist society. This is why the strongest criticism of American foreign policy comes from within.
If you can’t see the dangers, Pffefer, it’s because your mind is closed to them.
I’m looking for China to set an example, not follow the worst excesses of others’ global bullying. And there’s no hypocrisy in that.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Sorry, been away for a while. But I see not much has changed from Mr P. Maybe you should cut down on your daily caffeine intake a little, Pffef.
On the ‘dominant China’ point:
China aims to increasingly displace (and eventually replace) America as the dominant influence in East Asia and South Asia over the next 10 years or so.
China expects to surpass America’s economy within about 25 years (and that projection may be accelerated, given present conditions!).
China plans, in all earnestness, to be the world’s No. 1 power by the middle of the century.
I know this because I do a lot of academic editing for “foreign policy specialists” who report directly to the highest levels of the CCP.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Hey Froog,
Pffefer seems to be recuperating from his excesses – it has been quiet for a few days.
That’s interesting stuff about the academic editing for the top brass. I wish you could shed more light on that.
My own interpretation has always been that Beijing deliberately understates its global objectives and that rather too many smart people have jumped on board the ‘peaceful rise’ or ‘China threat myth’ bandwagon.
It may well be that China realises its goal of being the world’s No.1 power in the coming decades. My concern is that this will be achieved at a terrible human cost, although not necessarily – and probably not – through military means. Rather, this cost will be exacted indirectly through a continued policy of soft power, economic leverage, support for dictators, and the undermining of US objectives at every opportunity.
This concern is encapsulated in the phrase ‘responsible stakeholder’, something that Beijing pays frequent lip service to, but delivers little evidence of. Regionally, for example, China could – and should – have intervened to great humanitarian effect in North Korea, Burma, and Pakistan. Instead, in the case of the DPRK and Pakistan, a devastatingly effective game of chess is being played out that causes the US to spend precious time, money, and resources while China looks on from the sidelines.
Those boys at Zhangnanhai are certainly well schooled in the Art of War and America is the enemy they wish to supplant. What the current regime (or one from the same mould) might do with that kind of power is the stuff of nightmares.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Blah blah blah, it is a british love fest here?
Froog, even when China’s economy becomes the biggest, China is not going to be anywhere close to where the US is or where your country was, in terms of influence. Don’t know what “No.1″ power means. China IS and WILL REMAIN for the foreseeable future a developing country.
Now I will let stuart go back to his BS without any interruption.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Your interruptions are, for the most part, welcome.
To call China a developing country rather masks her current capabilities and the progress of the last two decades. The country already has an enormous global impact and questions remain as to the future direction of China’s development.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Almost every human development indicator indicates that China is still developing and lags far behind the developed world. China’s influence is overexaggerated (Bushism?) purposedly by the west to depict it as a threat.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Scaremongering exists where China is concerned for sure. But there should be questions as long as doubt remains. Could you honestly say with 100% certainty that China’s intentions are benign?
A typical strategy among Chinese is to downplay their influence and to emphasise (rather too loudly) a ‘peaceful rise’. We only have to look at the way Chinese ‘strategic’ support emboldens nasty regimes to thwart humanitarian efforts to see that this isn’t true.
More recently, China is flexing its economic muscle by issuing ultimatums to countries that don’t toe the party line (e.g. France, South Africa), and has fueled resentment in those African countries from whom she needs resources by flooding their economies with cheap immigrant labour and goods (e.g. Angola, Zambia, Congo).
The human development indicators don’t really enter into the equation. Given the influence China already has (UNSC, WTO, IMF, forex reserves) and the way it is being misused, without a radical policy shift (see Froog’s #13) further suffering and conflict seems inevitable.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Pffef, I would agree that China outstripping America – in economic or military terms, or in diplomatic influence – is still a long way off, and maybe not realistic within the relatively short timeframes I quoted. But those timeframes are being set by the Chinese government itself, not by paranoid Western analysts.
I’m not sure what “No 1″ is supposed to mean either. It’s a nebulous concept of prestige and influence; however, I rather fear it rests primarily on military capability.
It’s curious that China’s leadership expects to attain the world’s largest economy a decade or two ahead of becoming the “leading power”. Perhaps that’s partly because of all the structural problems of being a ‘developing country’ that you allude to. Perhaps it’s also because military build-up will lag behind economic development, particularly in the more hi-tech end of weapons technology.
And it takes a while for a dominant nation to start fully exerting its dominance – partly a matter of growing self-confidence, partly a matter of the gradual acceptance of that status from others. America had become one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world by the 1880s, but didn’t really start to assert itself as an imperial power until the Spanish-American War at the end of the century – and didn’t emerge as a dominant world power until Europe had torn itself apart in WWI.
There’s no doubt, though, that China is already extremely influential in its foreign policy, particularly with ASEAN and in Africa.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:20 am
As Froog is watching, please note that I’ve changed ‘tow the party line’ to ‘toe the party line’ in #18.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
So I should hope, S.
I never like to brandish the blue pencil in the comment threads, but that is one that niggles.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Benign? Explain that to me please. Whose intentions are benign these days anyway? Who does not put his self-interest above everything else? The US? The UK? Can you name any country who puts the greater good ahead of its own interest? That’s why I have been calling you a hypocrite: You judge China by one set of standards (not necessarily wrong), however you don’t judge the rest of the world, especially your own and your western buddies by the same set of standards. You lead by example, really. For the 100th time, two crooks are together, A is telling B how to behave, how ridiculous is that??
May 13th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Jeez, Pffef, change the record. Is this really your only comeback, again and again and again and again and again?
No-one claims the US or UK – or any other country – is flawless, or attains the moral heights we might wish. But we in the West are just as critical of our own countries as of others. And just because our countries’ governments may be hypocritical at times, doesn’t make us hypocrites.
Outside observers may analyse and comment upon a country’s behaviour, measured against ideal moral standards. Nothing hypocritical about that.
All countries are going to fall some way short of the ideal.
Problem is, China falls further short than most. In fact, China doesn’t even try. It just pretends to occasionally. That’s hypocrisy.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
You beat me to the keyboard, Froog.
Pffefer – of course I hold them to the same standard, but the UK is no longer in the running for empire building. That cannot be said with certainty of China’s leaders. No hypocrisy.
Two crooks together? Yours truly is no crook, and I’m speaking for myself, not on behalf of the British government (although I contest that this would be a good idea on Sino-UK relations).
May 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Geez froog, why is it so hard for you to get it??
stuart for one is not just as critical of the uk as he is of China, he argues that China’s policies are not benign, yet he doesn’t say Brittain’s or America’s should be benign. THAT, is hypocrisy.
Why wouldn’t you two just answer my questions? “Whose intentions are benign these days anyway? Who does not put his self-interest above everything else? The US? The UK? Can you name any country who puts the greater good ahead of its own interest?” Huh? Stop dodging!
China doesn’t even try? Does Britain try? Does the US try?
stuart,
Britain is “no longer in the running for empire building”? Is China?
Geez, how expliciti do I have to be? Two crooks: The west and China. Crying out loud!!!!
May 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“…yet he doesn’t say Brittain’s or America’s should be benign”
I think you’re smart enough to know that that’s a pretty lousy argument.
“Is China?”
There is certainly room for doubt, particularly in Africa.
The point is it’s not clear whether China is covertly engaging in colonialism or not. Until such time as it is clear, I think the responsible thing to do is to highlight the possible dangers.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Whatever, I quit