I'm not sure what the coverage of the African Union Summit has been like in the U.S. but China's CCTV has had quite a bit of coverage on it. I've also seen two political talk shows devote entire episodes to Sino-Sudan relations and Asian-African relations. I just want to share some of my observations on the Chinese media’s framing of Sino-African relations. Media and diplomacy go hand-in-hand. Governments frame (and/or spin) issues according to what will resonate with public opinion. I know that’s hard to grasp under the current U.S. administration's policies (since they have pursued unilateral policies and have consistently defied public opinion polls).
According to Chinese scholars who study international relations, China has helped Sudan reach high growth rates. China’s non-interference policy states that China will not get involved with a country’s domestic affairs and respect territorial integrity. This is in contrast to Western countries that place restrictions on development aid. China prides itself in not dictating or imposing its values on to other countries. This sounds rational right? However, after saying all this, the explanation given on the Darfur conflict is very interesting.
The experts claim that the Darfur conflict is greatly exaggerated by Western media. The Western media has “changed its tone” on the numbers of people killed. The Chinese experts argue that the number of those claimed to have died are “greatly exaggerated” and in fact it is unlikely that even 300,000 people have been killed let alone 100,000 because the region is so sparsely populated. Because of the low population density the numbers of those claimed to be killed is false. The “regional disputes” that are taking place in Darfur is between “blacks and Arabs” fighting over water during the dry season.
China’s interests in Sudan were barely mentioned during the show. It was mentioned once that China is Sudan’s largest trading partner. There were images of bridges and roads being built by the Chinese, but the picture that was painted was of Chinese generosity, not necessarily of mutual trade. Chinese oil companies are sending engineers to Sudan, to secure the uninterrupted flow of oil to China. China not only builds roads and bridges, but also sends small arms to the Khartoum government. Sudan is not at war with any external powers—right? Sudan’s government is at war with its own citizenry. Chinese manufactured weapons that are being used to terrorize civilians is indeed an interference. To whom? The lives of tens of thousands of refugees.
The Chinese experts claim that they want to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Sudan and argue sanctions are not the solution. The problem is that some Chinese politicians and scholars view the issue as a tribal conflict—not a serious human security issue. It’s as if China’s rhetoric means that they have the right to wipe their hands clean in the midst of bloodshed because their diplomatic principles state that the domestic issues of other states are not any of their concern. I personally think that any government that provides arms to the Khartoum regime is interfering in domestic affairs, especially since most of the international community has trade sanctions and the United Nations has a ban on arms trade.
China also argues that they must step-up their role in Africa because India and Japan are also gaining ground in the scramble for resources and allies. India and Japan have hosted summits—in India in March 2008 and Japan in May 2008. The issue of energy security appears to be the most important factor in the Asian scramble.
At the end of the day, Africans must forge an agenda that will best fit the interests of communities and individuals. What that looks like, I’m not sure—but we can no longer be passive reactants in the energy free-for-all. Unfortunately many of Africa’s heads of state are looking out for their individual interests not the interests of their citizenry. This situation will only lead to further exploitation. Our people were not sitting at the table at the 1884 Berlin Conference, let’s say never again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Anita, your insight on the Sino-African relations is fascinating. I look forward to reading more of your incredible analysis on this subject. Keep up the great work!
interesting.
I'm a Sudanese student ( I'm also interested in Sino-African relations). I usually disagree with the American perception( I don't want to generalize but the view that China should divest from Sudan and take more responsibility for the Darfur crises is usually expressed by Americans).
As a Sudanese, I see how the Chinese are helping develop Sudan and how they invested in alot of mutually-beneficial projects ( schools, roads etc,,). China is more appealing for us and for other Africans. Two years ago, China cancelled Africa's debt without any fuss ( remember how westerns hosted LIVEAID to convince their govts to cancel Africa's debt?) anyways, I think that the sudanese government should take responsibility for Darfur. We are literally at war with our own government. On the other hand, I don't see China as guilty in anyway, China's number onw priority is it's own interests ( just like other countries), they want our oil, the govt uses this money to buy arms and kill its own citizens. Even before we befriended
China and even before oil was discovered, the government was at war with its people ( Darfur is not Sudan's only conflict), the govt still found ways to fund Africa's longest-running civil war.
Post a Comment