Sudan produces oil and China, with its dizzying rate of industrialization, needs lots and lots of oil. Many of the western oil producers, such as Canada, are reluctant to supply China’s needs for fear of offending the U.S. or because of a basic dislike of China’s repressive Communist government. Sudan’s government in Khartoum has no such scruples and has been willing to sell oil to the greedy economy. In return, China has supplied money and weapons to the Sudanese government, resources which it has used to carry out the slaughter and destruction in the Darfur region.
The West has put pressure on China to stop supplying Sudan with guns and money, and China has responded – somewhat. In a recent press conference in Beijing, covered by Richard Spencer of the Daily Telegraph, Liu Guijin, China’s special envoy to Africa, stated that China’s position on Darfur was “fundamentally the same” as that of the West. He also agreed that the situation in Darfur is a “humanitarian disaster,” and that “Darfur is the focus on international attention, and many western nations want China to play a bigger role. This is why I have been appointed as the special envoy of the Chinese government on the Darfur issue.”
This attitude was very evident on March 27th when the United Nations Human Rights Council tabled a motion asking Sudan to deal with human rights violations within its borders and to bring to justice those who were responsible. African and Islamic countries, along with Russia, China, and Cuba, hold the majority on this council, which should indicate that any resolution that it passed would have some effect, not only on Chinese policy, but on Sudan, itself. In proposing the resolution on behalf of the African members, Egypt acknowledged that Sudan had taken “measures to improve human rights even though they had not yet had the desired effect.” (Reuters, March 27, 2008) The purpose behind Egypt’s wishy-washy stance was to prevent a vote that would divide the council. Sudan’s answer to the vote was:
There has been an acknowledgement of the improvement in the situation of human rights in Darfur and of the steps taken by the government of the Sudan and calling upon the Sudan to expedite our endeavors in the field, and this is what we promise to do during the forthcoming period. (Reuters, March 27, 2008)
Nothing was said in this statement other than to recognize that a resolution had been passed. Canada’s representative admitted that the resolution did not address the seriousness of the situation, but Canada would not block its passing.
It is this lack of action that greatly concerns the ENOUGH Project and the Save Darfur Coalition. In their report, 'Creating a Peace to Keep in Darfur. A Joint Report by the ENOUGH Project and the Save Darfur Coalition', John Pendergast and Jerry Fowler state that an end to the horror of Darfur involves four things from the international community: international protection for civilians, a peace agreement that ends the underlying political problems of the country, accountability for the myriad human rights abuses that have taken place, and assurance of complete humanitarian access. In order to accomplish these goals, the two organizations are calling for the appointment of a single, experienced, empowered mediator, rather than the two special envoys from the AU and the UN, so that responsibility and effectiveness are centered in one person. Secondly, the report demands that this negotiator be supported with co-ordinated international leverage. Finally, Pendergast and Fowler insist that the Darfur conflict be examined in both its local and national contexts.
The report is too long to be fully cited in this column, but its point is clear. The international community must do more than stand around and point fingers at China. People are dying in Darfur and, until the world admits that it possesses the power and resources to end the horror, the responsibility for the chaos rests at all our doors.
