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.