No logic in blaming China for Darfur? HRF Responds

At the China-Arab Media Forum in April, China’s Special Representative for Darfur Liu Guijin, laid out what he called his ‘coherent response’ to the question “why do events in Darfur have anything to do with the Olympics?”

Liu’s response contains several misconceptions about the intentions of NGOs, such as Human Rights First, that criticize China’s role in Sudan. We’d like to set the record straight. The following are quotes from Ambassador Liu’s speech, and our responses to him.

Liu: Our country adheres strictly to international regulations, and respects the United Nations' requirements with regard to transparency in the matter of small arms exports.
HRF: Given that international regulations and requirements for exporting small arms are notoriously weak, claiming adherence to them does little to strengthen China’s position. The U.N. maintains a ‘Register of Conventional Weapons’, but it doesn’t cover small arms. Both China and Sudan report small arms exports to the U.N. Comtrade Database, but China’s reported figures are much lower than Sudan’s. This suggests that China is under-reporting its exports.

Liu: … in 2006 the United States topped the world's weapons exports market … following them were Russia, Germany, France and Britain … China ranked just sixth.
HRF: The United States may be the world’s biggest weapons exporter overall, and we are certainly concerned about the global impact of small arms proliferation. But the U.S. and several other Western states have halted arms sales to some of the world’s most abusive regimes, including Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea. We urge China to do the same.

Liu: The Sudanese government issues an end-user statement on all small-arms imports from China, pledging that these weapons will not be used for any irregular purpose.
HRF: Chinese arms and ammunition have been documented in the hands of government-backed militias and rebel groups in Darfur. And the Sudanese government openly states that it continues to send arms into Darfur in spite of the U.N. arms embargo. Can anyone really have faith in end-user statements and pledges from the government of Sudan?

Liu: According to [Western non-governmental organizations and the Western media], the objective of China's assistance to Sudan in oil exploration and extraction … is to provide the government of Sudan with petrodollars which can in turn be used for the purchase of armaments from China. These will then be used to carry out the so-called massacres allegedly taking place in Darfur. Thus, the responsibility for these alleged massacres is China's.
HRF: We are under no illusions about China’s objective in Sudan – China needs to secure access to Sudanese oil resources to keep its economy booming. And we do not accuse China of direct responsibility for mass atrocities in Darfur: that responsibility lies squarely with the government of Sudan. But we do hold China responsible for turning a blind eye to those atrocities so as not to risk an economic partnership. China could use its economic leverage with Khartoum, could exert more robust diplomatic pressure, or could withdraw military support. Beijing has taken some small steps but they’re clearly not enough, especially while arms sales continue.

Liu: No Western media or non-governmental organizations hold that their own governments should … take responsibility for internal issues in those countries where they exploit oil. This is a clear case of double standards.
HRF: Western media and non-governmental organizations constantly push their own governments to address issues in countries where they exploit oil! Western governments are far from perfect in dealing with economic partners that abuse human rights. But when they have cut ties with the worst regimes (including Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and others), it has been largely in response to pressure from NGOs, the media, and ordinary citizens outraged at the abuses in those countries.

Liu: Sudan is also open to working with Western companies. For their own reasons they are reluctant to work with Sudan in this field.
HRF: Liu blithely dismisses Western companies as staying out of Sudan ‘for their own reasons’. But their reasons are often very good ones – for a start, Sudan was under U.N. sanctions until recently for supporting terrorism, and it’s still under U.S. sanctions for the atrocities in Darfur. But even when not restrained by sanctions, Western companies are unwilling to invest in places like Sudan because the instability and risk is too high. Western oil companies have also been forced to become highly conscious of their reputations: as a series of Western firms discovered when they tried to exploit Sudan’s oil resources during the 1980s and 90s, operations in regions plagued by conflict and human rights abuse invariably lead to public outcry, legal action and shareholder activism. It is only because they are state-owned that Chinese oil companies can afford to overlook of these concerns.

Liu: … the so-called massacres allegedly taking place in Darfur.
HRF: The atrocities in Darfur are neither ‘so-called’ nor ‘alleged’ – they have been widely documented and acknowledged, including in 14 separate resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. China holds a permanent seat on the council, yet Liu, a senior representative of the Chinese government, seems to doubt that the atrocities took place. Now that defies logic, and disrespects the victims of violence in Darfur.

Chinese Weapons Head Home - For the Moment

Too often the world fails to intervene in situations of mass atrocities or take measures to reduce the possibility of atrocities from occurring. The failure of the international community to scramble radio signals in Rwanda that were blasting recruiting messages to Hutus urging them to join the mass killing of Tutsis during the genocide is one such example.

However, today there is good news. Today a Chinese ship loaded with weapons bound for Zimbabwe was forced to return to China because it could not find a port in southern Africa to unload the arms and transport them to land-locked Zimbabwe. This success was the result of collective efforts by unionists, human rights activists, and religious leaders who urged both legal and political interventions to stop the shipment. The Durban High Court initially responded by barring the Chinese vessel from docking in South Africa which helped compel other states in southern Africa to prevent the vessel from docking in their territory. The U.S. government also had a role in mobilizing the quick response by dispatching its embassy staff in southern African nations to pressure governments to not allow the vessel to dock. U.S. intelligence agencies also helped track the vessel’s movements.

This success is an example of the emerging norm of “responsibility to protect” in action. Indeed, after refusing to release the results of the presidential election in Zimbabwe, the Mugabe government has mobilized its security forces and youth militias to terrorize the opposition. Human rights abuses have been widely reported across the country since the election and it was rightly thought that if the Chinese weapons made it to Zimbabwe they would be turned against civilians opponents to the Mugabe government, resulting in mass atrocities. Because the Mugabe government has neglected its responsibility to protect civilians in Zimbabwe, southern African governments (with U.S. involvement) intervened to prevent the Chinese made arms from reaching the country.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the weapons shipment is “normal military product trade between the two countries”. Such a statement speaks volumes for where China’s concerns apparently lie, especially since China is well aware of the Mugabe regime’s history of committing gross human rights violations and its increased abuses since the contested presidential elections were held.

This story is likely not over. After all, the weapons could easily be loaded on an aircraft in China and flown to Zimbabwe. The southern African countries that surround Zimbabwe should immediately send communiqués to the government of China stating that no aircraft is allowed to enter their airspace if it is carrying weapons bound for Zimbabwe. The situation has also compelled the UK government to say it will seek a Security Council arms embargo on Zimbabwe. If an embargo passed in the Council, it would obligate all governments to not ship arms to Zimbabwe, and, in turn, help prevent more bloodshed in a country that is already in a deep human rights crisis. However, China’s status as a powerful permanent member of the Security Council gives it the ability to veto any proposed arms embargo, greatly complicating the possibility to see such a measure passed.

The Zimbabwe arms shipment debacle is almost certain to intensify efforts to pressure China to reform its arms trade policies. China desperately wants to avoid more public embarrassment for its record of shipping arms to repressive governments around the world. But this is unlikely to happen unless it makes a public commitment to halt arms transfers to governments such as Zimbabwe and Sudan in addition to making its arms transfers records fully transparent.

China's Newest Arms Shipment

The latest chapter in Chinese arms shipments to regimes committing mass atrocities is unfolding off the coast of southern Africa, only this time the weapons might not actually reach their intended destination.

On Friday it was revealed that a Chinese vessel, the An Yue Jiang, loaded with weapons and ammunition that were bound for Zimbabwe was attempting to dock at the Port of Durbin in South Africa. There is good reason to believe the weapons and munitions would be turned against civilians as part of the Zimbabwean government’s attempt to assert its power after refusing to release the results from the presidential election three weeks ago. Already there are reports of increased government-sponsored violence against the opposition party and rumors that the violence could soon become widespread.

In keeping with its policy of support for the government of Zimbabwe, South Africa initially said it would allow the weapons to pass through. However, dockworkers at the Port of Durban refused to unload the shipment. The Anglican archbishop of the province requested that Durbin's High Court block the arms from being transported across South Africa saying they would be used against civilians in Zimbabwe. The Court agreed and the vessel was forced to leave South African waters. A request by the vessel to dock in Mozambique was also rejected.

The Associated Press disclosed that the United States is involved in trying to prevent the arms and munitions from finding a port in southern Africa. US intelligence is tracking the vessel that holds the Chinese weapons and the State Department has launched a diplomatic offensive, warning countries in southern Africa that accepting the vessel for docking could damage relations with the US. The State Department’s top official on Africa, Jendayi Frazer, is reportedly planning a trip to southern Africa next week to ensure the vessel does not find a port in the region to offload the weapons.

Efforts to prevent the Chinese weapons from reaching Zimbabwe are encouraging. Until now, China has shipped weapons to regimes committing mass atrocities—such as Sudan, Burma, and Zimbabwe—with little or no public protest from other governments. Perhaps the quick reaction to the Chinese weapons bound for Zimbabwe is signaling a much-needed change.

Last month the spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced a report by Human Rights First that revealed China has provided some 90 percent of small arms to Sudan since 2004. The foreign minister said China’s weapons sales are “always highly prudent”. However, there is nothing “prudent” about shipping weapons to Khartoum when China knows those weapons are being used to kill, maim, rape and displace civilians in Darfur. There is also nothing “prudent” about shipping arms to the government of Zimbabwe, which has forcibly displaced hundreds of thousands of people and is now carrying out new violence against its political opponents.

It is past time for China to act responsibly when it comes to where it ships weapons. China’s image leading up to the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing has already been deeply damaged by its arms transfers to the government of Sudan. Attempting to ship weapons to Zimbabwe only further undermines China’s efforts to be perceived as a “peaceful” and “harmonious” rising world power.

Reflecting on Four Years of Security Council Action on Darfur

Last week marked the solemn four-year anniversary since the Security Council first took up the atrocities in Darfur. It provides a moment to contemplate actions taken by the Council and the international community to bring an end to the violence. U.N. agencies and humanitarian organizations have done impressive work, at great cost, to provide basic necessities to civilians caught in the midst of the conflict. However, achievement of a sustainable peace in Darfur has been marred by continued violence and multiple political setbacks orchestrated by the Sudanese government and supported within the Security Council by Sudan’s chief ally, China.

The Security Council can only be as effective as its powerful permanent five members—including China—allow it to be. There can be no question that to date China has been instrumental in ensuring that the Security Council has failed to do all it can to stop the violence in Darfur. After all, China has weakened nine out of fourteen resolutions addressing Darfur in the Council.

Reflecting on the four-year anniversary, the Secretary General said “The situation [in Darfur] remains grim today, as then, if not worse. Violence targeting civilians, including women and girls, continues at alarming levels with no accountability, or end, in sight.” The international community should meet such an observation with particular alarm, but instead it has come to be expected when discussing Darfur.

Privately, U.N. staff and diplomats who have worked to resolve crisis for four long years speak of “Darfur fatigue”. Even though billions of dollars have been invested in trying resolve the conflict, civilians continue to be killed and displaced from their homes by the thousands. “Shame” is perhaps a more apt term to describe the mood towards Darfur than “fatigue”. Once again the promise of “never again” is proving to be empty rhetoric as the government of Sudan continues—with the support of Janjaweed militia—to wreak havoc in Darfur while the international community is stalled from taking action.

Last July, the Security Council passed a legally binding resolution that authorized the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Slatted for 26,000 troops, UNAMID is meant to be the largest peacekeeping effort in the history of the U.N. But the latest Secretary General’s report on UNAMID reveals that only about one-third of the peacekeepers are actually operating in the region. This failure speaks more to the Sudanese government’s knack for obstructionism, and the Security Council’s failure to concretely respond to those obstructions, than to the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations’ inability to get boots on the ground in Darfur. And while the government of Sudan gets closer to securing UNAMID’s failure, China continues to ship weapons to Sudan that help sustain the violence in Darfur.

The Beijing Olympic torch is currently traversing the globe, carrying with it a message of peace and harmony. But there is nothing peaceful about China’s decision to continue to supply arms to Sudan when it knows those weapons are being used to commit atrocities in Darfur. This does not have to be the case, of course. China clearly has the power to stop its arms sales to Sudan and it can absolutely stop impeding the Security Council from taking robust action to end the atrocities in Darfur.

The Chinese government is unlikely to take such actions without strong, persistent pressure placed on it by governments like the United States and the United Kingdom, and by institutions such as the African Union and the European Union. The question remains whether these governments and institutions have the political will to pressure China. Meanwhile, there is no question that the government of Sudan will continue to take advantage of international political inertia around Darfur by continuing its campaign of death and destruction in the region.

Overcoming the Obstacles to Deploying UNAMID

Monday’s New York Times carried a front page article by Lydia Polgreen detailing the many obstacles that are compromising the full deployment of United Nations African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Meanwhile, renewed Sudanese government sponsored violence in West Darfur has left at least 115 people dead and rendered tens of thousands of people homeless. These are precisely the types of atrocities that UNAMID was created to prevent, but it continues to lack the troops and equipment to do its job.

Blame for the UNAMID deployment predicament does not rest in one place, it is a combination of factors including, importantly, Khartoum’s determination to see that the mission fails. However, the Security Council deserves special scrutiny as well because it authorized UNAMID, but has done little to ensure the mission’s expedited deployment since. This sends an implicate message to the Sudanese government that it can continue to orchestrate mass atrocities in Darfur, and signals to all governments around the world that contributing troops and equipment to UNAMID is not a priority.

There is no doubt that a central reason the Security Council has done little to ensure the deployment of UNAMID is China’s close relationship with the Sudanese government. As a powerful permanent member of the Security Council, China has already weakened nine out of fourteen resolutions in the Council that have addressed Darfur.

If history is any guide, Khartoum’s perpetual intransigence towards UNAMID combined with China’s veto power in the Security Council greatly diminishes the possibility of seeing UNAMID fully deploy. But not all hope is lost. One potentially encouraging sign is that China recently urged Khartoum to allow UNAMID to fully deploy, perhaps signaling a shift from its traditional support of Khartoum’s obstructionism. The international community should now see if China’s actions will match its rhetoric. China is known to have an aversion towards vetoing resolutions in the Security Council, so Council members should push forward a strong resolution aimed at speeding the deployment of UNAMID and force China to vote without first weakening the resolution. Such a vote will demonstrate in a very concrete way whether China is truly committed to achieving a sustainable peace in Darfur and the whole of Sudan.

U.N. Report Details Renewed Violence in Darfur

Yesterday the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in cooperation with the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur, issued a report on the renewed violence in Darfur. The report details attacks by the Sudanese Armed Forces in cooperation with Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, on the four West Darfur villages of Saraf Jidad, Sirba, Silea and Abu Suruj.

The report states, “As a result of the attacks, at least 115 persons were killed, including elderly people, women, and children, and more than 30,000 individuals forcibly displaced to other locations, including neighboring Chad. Civilian homes, NGO clinics and offices, community centers, water structures, schools, food storages, milling machines and shops were systematically pillaged, vandalized and/or set ablaze. Livestock were also looted.” The report also documents accounts of rape and other forms of sexual violence committed against women and girls—as young as the age of nine—by armed uniformed men in the village of Sirba. The report concludes that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Janjaweed committed serious violations to international human rights law and international humanitarian law (or the laws of war).

The experience of one victim, who is reported to be about 80 years old, from the village of Saraf Jidad, captures the macabre nature of the Janjaweed attacks on villages in Darfur:

“I was in my house and Janjaweeds were in the village, looting and shooting at people. I could not run away because I am old. The attackers entered my house. They were four, in military uniforms. One of them hit my head with the butt of his gun. I fell down. He told me, ‘If you do not all move from here we will burn you alive.’ At that, they set my house on fire. I was inside, but managed to escape though I had my arms injured by the fire.” My two brothers died I the attack. One of them was shot in his head with a bullet. He was an old man. There were no Tora Boras [local term for rebels] in our village.”

The SAF maintains it attacked these West Darfur villages to retake them from the Justice and Equality Movement, a rebel group operating in Darfur that is also accused of committing serious human rights abuses. But the government denies that it coordinated its aerial and ground assaults with the Janjaweed, claiming that it is “…possible that tribal groups [Janjaweed] may have exploited the SAF attack in order act in their own interests and pursue their own agenda.” Such claims by the government of Sudan have been common during the six-year conflict in Darfur, but it is well known that the government of Sudan coordinates closely with Janjaweed and supplies them with the arms they need to carry out atrocities in Darfur.

While the violence in Darfur rages on, the government of China continues to deny the weapons it sales to the Sudanese government are used in Darfur. However, the latest public trading figures show that between 2004-2006 China was supplying approximately 90% of small arms purchased by Sudan, and Chinese made weapons have been spotted recently in Darfur.

China claims that through its diplomacy, it is working to champion peace in Darfur. While that may be true to an extent, China’s arms transfers are doing just the opposite: they are helping to enable continued atrocities in Darfur.

Boycott the Beijing Olympic Games?

Human Rights First is not calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games. However, the organization does think that the Beijing Olympics offer a unique opportunity to engage the government of China and pressure it to take concrete actions to improve its human rights record.

There are a growing number of communities and organizations that support a boycott of the Beijing Olympics due to China’s abysmal human rights record both at home and abroad. The Chinese government has been particularly sensitive about calls for an Olympics boycott. This is understandable; China has worked hard to engineer the Beijing Olympics as its grand entry onto the twenty-first century stage as a harmonious and peaceful emerging world power.

Chinese Special Representative on the Darfur Issue Liu Guijin recently struck out against calls to boycott the Beijing Olympics. At a press conference held earlier this month upon Mr. Liu’s return from his fourth trip to Sudan, a reporter asked him a question about calls for boycotting the Beijing Olympics because China was not doing enough to help end the violence in Darfur. Mr. Liu responded, “…for those few who attempt to tarnish the Olympic Games on the pretext of issues totally unrelated to the Olympics, like the Darfur issue, we are firmly opposed to such attempts.”

Similarly, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi maintains that China is opposed to the “politicization” of the Beijing Olympics by trying to link the Games with human rights abuses occurring in places such as Darfur and Tibet. An Associated Press reporter recently asked Mr. Yang about the Chinese government’s opposition to the politicization of the Beijing Olympics. Mr. Yang responded, “…not to politicize the Olympic Games is what is laid down in the Olympic Charter. Those people who attack China often talk about the importance of abiding by laws and regulations. Then why are they openly violating the relevant provisions of the Olympic Charter?” One implication Mr. Yang is apparently making in this statement is that China does not mix politics with the Olympics.

A look back in the history of Olympic boycotts is instructive in this case. As it turns out, China has actually boycotted the Olympic Games twice. The first instance was the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, Australia, to protest a decision allowing a delegation from Taiwan to participate in the Games. China also boycotted the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow in protest of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Given China’s past practice of engaging in Olympic boycotts, it seems disingenuous for China to claim that the current calls for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics are nothing more than attempts to politicize the Games. No doubt China views its boycotts of the Olympic Games in 1956 and 1980 as much more than political stunts.

It is time that China take seriously the human rights grievances that are being raised by its critics in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics and take concrete steps to resolve them. For instance, China should immediately halt its arms sales to Sudan and stop obstructing efforts in the United Nations Security Council to help resolve the crisis in Darfur. Such actions would contribute in helping to create a positive image of the Beijing Olympic Games that the government of China so desperate wants.