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.