It comes as no surprise that the opportunistic, entirely corrupt group of thugs also known as the Chinese government would oppose UN intervention in Zimbabwe. After all democracy is a sham has to be controlled to generate a “harmonious society,” right? Of course we will have the usual group of Chinese xenophobes who think that their feces don’t stink extoll the virtues of their way of life, their government, their “achievements”, etc. while completely ignoring the the shameful nature of the Chinese regime. I no longer think that it’s a difference between the Chinese government and the Chinese people. I think a populace that tolerates ignorance, corruption, incompetence as the status quo is probably a willing accomplice. I will once again wonder why China is even allowed to participate in world forums. Why do Americans, in particular, continue to consume the mounds of junk produced there? Why aren’t Americans pursuing a national policy of energy independence that will keep the Chinese the third rate “power” they always have been? I have never liked the Chinese government and now I am wondering if the Chinese people has a whole have any redeeming qualities either.

July 12, 2008 @ 11:04 am | Comment

“If China has a policy of “non-intervention”, it should never use its vote on the United Nations Security Council. If it uses its vote, it is intervening.”

Exactly. The CCP’s non-intervention stance is one of their most laughable (and hypocritical) policies.

“Chinese politicians are viewed as attempting to spread the theory of economic success through a strong and autocratic central state, which could convince the leaders of poor states without strong rule of law to reverse fragile democratic laws and cement their rule with the excuse that it would make their economies better. This is probably not true, but whether China likes it or not every time it blocks or waters down sanctions against an aggressive or oppressive state that is exactly the impression it gives.”

Seeing the amount of CCP-funded economists that are currently trying to spread a “Chinese Model of Development” in academic circles around the world, I would tend to say that it IS most likely true. One of best ways to prove its legitimacy is to spread its doctrine to other states. America did it, the Soviet Union did it, and now China is doing it. Since the West won’t let them join the club on the CCP’s terms, they have decided to export their model to Third World dictators who can serve as examples and allies of the Chinese system (they used a similar tactic during Mao’s time). I guess we’ll see how that works out for them.

Interesting how far the CCP will go to legitimize itself…
http://www.danwei.org/the_thomas_crampton_channel/chinas_50cent_twitter_censors.php

July 12, 2008 @ 11:17 am | Comment

Oh right… because compared to China, America permanently thinks about the well-being of common africans. Everybody in the West knows that a travel-ban on Mugabe an crippling sanctions on his authoritarian regimes and will surely turn him a democrat and his country into a wealthy industrial power (It worked for Iraq, right??). Only the stupid chinese, russians and other Africans either don’t see this obvious fact.

July 12, 2008 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

Speaking of the thugs, at least the Chinese leaders didn’t make up excuses to invade another country and shed the innocent blood there. Is that for “democracy” or just for the “liquid gold”? I am just wondering how many times the “democracy” and “globalization” have been used as the legitimate reasons for advances to exploit and control of other countries for the sake of certain interests throughout the modern history.

While we point our fingers at others and call them “thugs”, think if we are really that righteous!

Why I haven’t heard anything regarding to Mozambique, but Zimbabwe! Or maybe there isn’t much to gain from Mozambique afterall. Hmmm.

July 12, 2008 @ 12:35 pm | Comment

How Zimbabwe got screwed by the US and the IMF.

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion119.13850.html

July 12, 2008 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

Right, we all know how much the Western world backs democracy.

I’m not a big fan of what’s happening in Zimbabwe, but 15 years after the United States and UN intervened in Haiti, it remains the same shit-hole it was before the intervention. Maybe it’s time to stop standing on soap-boxes waving M16s, and maybe it’s time to start offering a legitimate helping hand.

July 12, 2008 @ 1:34 pm | Comment

What a surprise….from the usual China apologists. Yes, the US is just as guilty in its meddling, backing the wrong regime, causing the deaths of innocents, but don’t make wild claims about the THUGS who are the the Chineses. Who do you think enables the Sudanese to behave the way they do? How about the jerks who make the junta in Mynamar? At least with elections we have the hope of getting rid of morons like Bush and the pure evil of Rove and Cheney. In China the people just have to deal with the same old crap. Tang Buxi why don’t you just wake up and take a step of that that pile of crap that is China and travel. As for the rest of the apologists and America haters on this board maybe you would be happier blogging in China….oh that’s right, you couldn’t because you would be thrown into van and disappear…..maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

July 12, 2008 @ 1:53 pm | Comment

CH will needs the resources of Africa, today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

The effects of the investment and deals of CH in Africa could have negative or positive effects.

I can understand the hunger with which CH seeks resources, and try to get them for every corner, outflanking the so called “west”….

For many years the EU has been trying to entice good governance policies in Africa, millions of Euros has been poured in Africa only to disappear in corruption and mismanagement. Without good governance, no matter what help Africa gets, it will go to waste.
We are very much aware of the problem, and we suffer it.
Just yesterday a boat loaded with subsaharian immigrants sank while trying to cross the straits between Morocco and Spain. 14 people died, including women and small children. And there is much more behind those stories than the sinking of boats, the northward trip towards the coast from their hometowns can be deadlier.
More will come, we can do not much to stop them, not much more to watch the sea to locate all that sink. Success rate of just crossing the strait seems to be 40-60%, success rate while doing the land trip to reach the coast no idea.

CH needs and CH actions could be either a great opportunity or the next rapacious colonial period for Africa.
If CH choose or cannot to give priority to get just raw materials instead of at the same time promoting good governance in Africa, it will in the end get none of it. Leaving behind a bad memory, and fewer opportunities to get what the resources they need in the future.
Due to the long need of resource CH needs, to keep their economic machine humming, I would not recommend a shortsighted policy.

July 12, 2008 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

For example, just yesterday.

http://tinyurl.com/6z5vmw

July 12, 2008 @ 2:41 pm | Comment

Tang Buxi

but 15 years after the United States and UN intervened in Haiti, it remains the same shit-hole it was before the intervention

Care to tell me what part of the proposed sanctions authorised a military invasion? Or does restricting Robert Mugabe’s ability to jet-set around the world undermine Zimbabwean military security?

—

pug_ster

I suggest you read the article.

This is not to suggest that the IMF has caused Zimbabwe’s economic problems. Far from it; Zimbabwe’s land and other poor economic policies have resulted in a 6 year economic recession, de-industrialisation, loss of skilled labour through emigrating and increasing impoverishment. In addition, political violence, erosion of the rule of law, and basic human rights has resulted in international isolation.

Zimbabwe has only itself to blame.

—

Ian

If China was so sure it was in the right, why didn’t it all the vote to progress without vetoes and get a majority of voting states to block it? Because it knew it would lose. Even in Africa there is support for action against Mugabe.

As for sanctions, you ignored the bit on arms sales. Of course you start with low-level sanctions to exert pressure. Mugabe and his cronies like travelling the world to get their luxuries, fun and massage their egoes. If they lost that many of them would much prefer to do a deal with the MDC and go live abroad with their stolen millions of dollars.

—

Obiwan, no one is proposing to invade Zimbabwe. It is China that is intervening by supporting Mugabe’s regime that is causing widespread devasation simply to stay in power.

As for Mozambique, are you trying to tell me that the situation is as bad there as in Zimbabwe?! Are women being burnt alive by government thugs because they’re married to opposition supporters? Or did you just pick it out of the air because it sounded good? Clearly we can only deal with one problem at a time and Zimbabwe’s rank pretty highly on the international crisis scale at the moment. Drop the “why you no deal with country X instead” routine - it’s old and tiresome. If we are to deal with country X we need to deal with country A first.

Indeed if anyone is to blame with problem nations around the world it is China (and to a lesser extend Russia), because it frequently indicates it will block sanctions and thus the only time they can be proposed is in a watered-down and ineffective version or when the crisis is so bad it affects China’s individual interests.

July 12, 2008 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

ecodelta, I’m glad to see that you understand the need for good governance in Africa. Clearly China is not promoting that and it is indicating that it will protect leaders who try to cheat at the ballot box or murder their people.

In Zambia the chief opponent of the incumbant in the presidential election was a fan of Robert Mugabe and an arch Sinophobe. He proposed some severe policies and, I think, he is just the start of a trend. African governments may be enthusiastic about China, but the people increasingly are not. Soon populism will drive many more politicians to bash China, whether there are elections or no. It is not surprising that the current president of Zambia, who is positive towards Chinese investment, is also a much better democrat than any of his opponents in the election were.

Sadly China, as usual, does not see this.

—

Andy, yes that is one reason to be suspicious of China’s activities. I’d like to remain optimistic at this point, but China has once again caused me reason to doubt. I only have so much good faith.

July 12, 2008 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

This is by no means to defend China’s record.

Every country or group has its own interest. By proposing or blocking the sanction is just an expression of that interest. How ironic that people here are so righteous that they think only their interests should be protected.

The reason I mention Mozambique is because there were great human disasters during the great flood in the last 2 years. Millions of the people are dislocated and in miserable condition. Many simply died due to hunger and diseases. I just wonder where were the righteous voices then?!

Is Mugabe responsible? Absolutely! Is sanction useful and effective? History has proven that common people will suffer greatly in due courses. Oh, the country’s economy will be totally ruined, BTW. By the time the sanction is over, it will be easier for the economic empires to come in and take over. It makes good business sense also to rebuild a ruined infrastructure, not to mention the rich resources under the surface. Need a reference? Iraq is a textbook example.

Maybe democracy is just a facade here. I dunno.

July 12, 2008 @ 6:46 pm | Comment

I have found this site very useful in confirming a number of opinions which I suspected be held regarding Chinese foreign policy. What grates on me a little is that this seems predominantly to be a forum for expressing opinions. I didn’t come here to see how vehemently you guys could demonstrate your views: I came here for a discussion of why China vetoed the UN sanctions. It seems a bit short-sighted to me to assume that China are this stupid parochial group of individuals living outside of the “real world” (whatever that is). Can we discuss whether the decision to veto might have been made on certain grounds? For instance, does China (I say “China” meaning the supposedly representational minority in government) agree on the extent of the problem in Zimbabwe? I have some reason to believe that it has been convenient for the western media to exaggerate this, possibly at the bequest of western political pressure…

July 12, 2008 @ 7:02 pm | Comment

Obiwan, I truly wonder how much you know about the situation with comments such as these:

Is sanction useful and effective? History has proven that common people will suffer greatly in due courses. Oh, the country’s economy will be totally ruined, BTW.

Sanctions are a necessary evil. Without them North Korea would not have come to the negotiating table. And more importantly the proposals were targetted against Mugabe and his cronies, as well as stopping weapons imports. That would have had zero affect on ordinary Zimbabweans only the elite. Stop dodging this key point rather than rolling out generic whinging about sanctions hurting people.

As for the economy, even if financial/economic sanctions had been proposed (which they were not) they wouldn’t make that much of a difference because the Zimbabwean economy is already trashed!

It makes good business sense also to rebuild a ruined infrastructure

Europe, America and Japan have offered unprecedented aid if Mugabe agrees to step down. Why should he be rewarded for stealing an election?

By proposing or blocking the sanction is just an expression of that interest.

So it is in China’s interest to support bad governance, mass rapings and murders and suppressing democracy? You’re only making Andy more certain that it is China’s foreign policy objective to beat down democracy across the world in order to insultate itself from criticism.

The reason I mention Mozambique is because there were great human disasters during the great flood in the last 2 years. Millions of the people are dislocated and in miserable condition.

And I suppose the Mozambique government deliberately turned off their weather-control machines to cause this misery, hmm? Your comparison is irrelevant. At most they failed to deal with the aftermath properly. In Zimbabwe they are causing economic and political strife deliberately in an attempt to stay in power. Do not mix apples with oranges.

—

Sam

Can we discuss whether the decision to veto might have been made on certain grounds?

According to reports from the UN China was not willing to discuss or analyse the package. It just said “veto”. The excuse is that it wouldn’t have helped matters, despite the fact that Mugabe will now take this as meaning he will be protected from any fallout by China (and Russia). Thus he will not take negotiations with the MDC seriously and dictate unreasonable grounds that will keep him in power - or indeed he will just carry on murdering people whilst paying lip service to negotiations.

I have some reason to believe that it has been convenient for the western media to exaggerate this, possibly at the bequest of western political pressure…

And your evidence of this is what? Two legs (Europe and North America) bad, four legs (everyone else) good? It is racist to lump all the governments of these regions together as if they all share the same views. Even countries that have not supported the US in Iraq and/or disagree with UK foreign policy in certain areas back sanctions in this case.

It is also notable that there is support for tougher action even in Africa from some of Zimbabwe’s neighbours. It is a real shame that Mbeki is still in office - if Zuma had been in power we might have seen even more certified pressure from Africa.

July 12, 2008 @ 7:30 pm | Comment

The reason why china did this:

To undermine the west (as usual), because it is no fan of democracy, and because it believes that states should decide their own fate - unless it affects Chinas interests in some way.

I’m not suprised!

July 12, 2008 @ 7:38 pm | Comment

Raj, I wouldn’t argue to include it as objective evidence, but I have met a number of Zimbabweans, black and white, and all two-legged, who have said that the situation on the ground is a lot less extreme as organisations such as the BBC would have us believe. I have come across this regarding the problems in Israel and Palestine also: in that case, I found that journalists would all too often discover a localised event likely to provoke pathos in western readers and then use it as a symbol of a broader national crisis. I should like to know, from Zimbabweans now living outside the country, their view on this. I am for no minute trying to detract from the harrowing torment of tyranny, but I would much rather conduct a sensible discussion without too much melodrama.

July 12, 2008 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

I am for no minute trying to detract from the harrowing torment of tyranny, but I would much rather conduct a sensible discussion without too much melodrama.

There is no melodrama here - I am not a member of the press, nor is anyone else. If you want to address press “hype” please write to them on the matter.

But supposed exaggeration is not a reason for China to veto sanctions. Even if it is not quite so dire as has been implied, it is still extremely acute and sanctions on the regime itself are more-than justified. You have talked to Zimbabweans so you say, but somehow I doubt very much that you have been to Zimbabwe in the last month or two. We are dealing with the present, not the situation a year ago.

July 12, 2008 @ 8:31 pm | Comment

Regardless of the current Zimbabwe issue at hand, your understanding of the non-interventionist foreign policy is completely wrong: Non-intervention usually doesn’t mean “sit and watch”, but actively advocating non-intervention and trying to prevent others from messing with each other. In other words, your version of passive non-intervention is merely a naive caricature of the real active non-intervention practiced by many countries at different times in the world history.

July 12, 2008 @ 8:40 pm | Comment

@Raj

There is no point to get upset, my friend. There might be many ways to address the issue, whether intervention or non-intervention.

North Korea’s coming to the negotiation table is not all because of the sanction, it’s because Kim wants a legitimacy to remain in power and US has shown willingness to negotiate for that.

By offering financial aid to exchange for Mugabe’s resignation is not addressing the real issue. Mugabe is no fool. He knows the consequence if/when he steps down. Can sanction be effective here? I highly doubt it.

Obviously, I am not for intervention and that may bring me a “thug” status, I guess.

PS: Thanks for letting me express my opinion here. I am done with that and wishing you all have a good time!

July 12, 2008 @ 9:05 pm | Comment

Non-intervention usually doesn’t mean “sit and watch”, but actively advocating non-intervention and trying to prevent others from messing with each other.

That’s completely wrong. If you stop someone from intervening then you are intervening yourself to protect the status quo.

—

North Korea’s coming to the negotiation table is not all because of the sanction

It is primarily because of sanctions. For years the softly-softly approach was tried - only after China and Russia lost patience did anything change.

He knows the consequence if/when he steps down.

The MDC has indicated it would let him off if he did so - they couldn’t stop him flying off to a third country, for example.

July 12, 2008 @ 10:02 pm | Comment

The only two African nations on the U.N. Security Council, South Africa and Libya, also voted against the resolution.

The West should stop pretending that they represent justice and the interests of the African people. The fact is, they don’t!

July 13, 2008 @ 12:17 am | Comment

It is possible for all the states to be wrong on this issue. It is not possible for all the states to be on the right side. For starters, Britain facilitated Monster Mugabe into office. All have tolerated this monster through the years. One can be critical of the Chinese government’s actions at this time without being supportive of the U.S.’s at this time. The U.S. government has certainly supported enough of its own Monsters thru the years [many of them from Zimbabwe’s neighborhood. Any discussion regarding some rarified notion of “intervention” misses the point. It’s whether the intervention is principled.

July 13, 2008 @ 12:31 am | Comment

AC

The only two African nations on the U.N. Security Council, South Africa and Libya, also voted against the resolution.

So? Libya is a repressive dictatorship. Mbeki is trying to save his own skin because he’s embarrassed about the fact his diplomacy hasn’t done anything.

—

steve

For starters, Britain facilitated Monster Mugabe into office.

Yeah, by stopping a civil war. What would you have preferred us to do - back Ian Smith?

It’s whether the intervention is principled.

Wrong, it’s whether it’s necessary. And it is.

July 13, 2008 @ 1:03 am | Comment

China veto it, because it’s in line with her long term interests over there, she wants to be seen differenly than the West in Africa, specially when South Africa, the leading voice of that continent, is against it too. It has nothing to do with backing the honory knight Mugabe. A bunch of brits got their lands robbed doesnt concern China, sorry. Please dont use the D word as a front trying to remove another government you dont like, if fair election is that sacred, US should have kickd Mubarak out 25 yrs ago. China doesnt have an election at all, why dont you slap a sanction against China too.

July 13, 2008 @ 1:06 am | Comment

@ Raj

Wake up!

Didn’t you notice that Russia also rejected sanctions against Zimbabwe?

I don’t hear you making any noise about Russia.

What about Russia’s treatment of Chechnya?
What about the 1,000 troops Russia sent into Abkhazia for an attack on Georgia?

Zimbabwe and the Sudan are African countries run by Africans - for better or worse.
Why is China supposed to change their domestic policy?

The US and England doesn’t do a thing about changing Pakistan’s rule.
The US and England continue to suck up to Saudi Arabia.

These countries have some very serious “democracy” issues.

Raj, why are you always farting about China?

The problem with China is that it is too accommodating to Westerners.
China should look out for China and the Chinese people.
Damn the West and its hypocrisy.

The days of Western, white colonial rule is over.

Raj, wake up!

July 13, 2008 @ 1:06 am | Comment

I love the Chinese “non-intervention” line.

Because the Chinese totally believed in absolute national sovereignty and keeping out of other countries’ internal affairs when it came to NP-ruled South Africa, am I right?

Seems to me the Chinese have been playing it all ways. They were perfectly happy to strengthen liberal worldwide efforts to overthrow the National Party in South Africa (since they knew that the new ANC government would be hostile to the West and serve their interest) despite the fact that it was, strictly speaking, a break from their policy of “non-intervention” in the internal affairs of other countries. Now that it is their friends in Africa that are at stake, they firmly believe in the principle of “non-intervention” despite the fact that their friends are infinitely more brutal than the Pretoria government ever was, and the case for intervention infinitely clearer…

Libbies, you’ve been had. Admit that the National Party was right, at least as far as their assessment of the ANC and the Zimbabwean “government” are concerned…

July 13, 2008 @ 1:12 am | Comment

coldblooded

specially when South Africa, the leading voice of that continent, is against it too

You guys don’t listen do you? Mbeki is against it. As soon as he leaves office South Africa’s policy will change. I suppose you think we should wait until then? How many more people will suffer in the mean time?

A bunch of brits got their lands robbed doesnt concern China, sorry

What about mass rapings, murders, persecution, etc of non-whites? Oh wait, they’re not Chinese so China doesn’t care either, right?

China doesnt have an election at all, why dont you slap a sanction against China too

It’s got nothing to do with having/not having elections you moron! If you knew what was happening in Zimbabwe you’d know that.

—

ari

Didn’t you notice that Russia also rejected sanctions against Zimbabwe?

Yes, after promising to the G7 nations that it wouldn’t.

I don’t hear you making any noise about Russia.

This is a blog about China and the US. The owner doesn’t like discussions that don’t involve either. And I regard Russia as a lost cause - China could be better.

Damn the West and its hypocrisy.

No, damn you and your apologist nonsense! Zimbabwe is in a far worse state than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Stop expecting us to fix the world at the same time. If China didn’t keep blocking sanctions all the time we might be able to get somewhere to rectifying the world.

July 13, 2008 @ 1:27 am | Comment

Seems to me the Nats were right about the rooi gevaar as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooi_gevaar

July 13, 2008 @ 1:37 am | Comment

As expected, a post critical of China attracts the usual list of thin-skinned patriots eager to defend China’s honor by pointing out the West’s own poor track record. A time-honored and pathetic strategy, if you ask me. In the end, such drivel is no defense at all. It is avoidance. What the hell does U.S. policy vis-a-vis Haiti have to do with China’s recent veto? Not a thing.

Perhaps we all expect too much from China. Are we wrong to think that China might learn from the West’s mistakes? Is it unfair to expect China to wield its power responsibly, or wrongheaded to think that China might agree on occasion that concern for human rights trumps respect for national borders? Is it wrong to hold China accountable?

Why is it that posts critical of U.S. foreign policy frequently produce legions of support from sympathetic Americans, but posts critical of China result in little more than anti-western counter criticism from people like Tang Buxi and his idiot brotherhood of fifty-centers?

What’s with all the zero-sum bullshit? Surely it is possible that the U.S. and China are both imperfect. How, then, would our Chinese friends like us to respond to the recent Chinese veto? Should we non-Chinese simply refrain from criticizing China out of shame for our own nations’ poor track records? I doubt very much that I am alone in possessing the ability to criticize both China and the U.S. Sadly, however, I don’t believe that many Chinese share this ability.

The truth is that China regularly interferes in the domestic affairs of other countries. North Korea, for example, would long ago have ceased to exist without China’s intervention. Do you imagine that the needs of the North Korean people had much to do with Chinese policy making? As close as lips and teeth? Fat chance. Rather, the preservation of the North Korean regime was determined to be in the best interests of China. Similarly, how should we view China’s status as chief arms supplier to Sudan? Disinterested trade? Good for the people of Sudan? Not exactly. Good for China.

Finally, was China’s veto really offered with the best interests of the people of Zimbabwe in mind? Does China really believe that continued negotiations are in order? If you believe that, then you probably also believe “One World, One Dream.”

July 13, 2008 @ 1:46 am | Comment

>You guys don’t listen do you? Mbeki is against it. As soon as he leaves office South Africa’s policy will change.

You must be joking, Raj. Sure, much of COSATU is against it, but let’s face it, most of the ANC is opposed to doing anything significant to hurt Mugabe. Mandela made a single statement regarding a “failure of leadership” in Zim, but significantly avoided mentioning ZANU-PF or Mugabe by name.

The ANC is in an unenviable position. They’ve stripped down the South African military and police to a point that they’re in no position to contain instability in Zim in the event of civil unrest or war breaking out across the Limpopo. Given their situation (for which their incompetent governance is responsible, granted), their fear of doing anything to change the status quo at all is sadly reasonable, in a way.

Their goal of achieving stability in the rest of South Africa (”quiet diplomacy”) is actually strangely reminiscent of the National Party’s former “good neighbor” policy (which essentially meant that the Nats were happy to be friendly to any southern African nation that refused to allow its territory to be used by the PAC, ANC and SWAPO for the purposes of attacking South Africa. Given that the ANC does not have the disciplined, powerful military power at its disposal that the pre-1994 government did, this tendency of seeking stability at all costs is only reinforced.

July 13, 2008 @ 1:58 am | Comment

Correction: That should be “Their goal of achieving stability in the rest of southern Africa”.

July 13, 2008 @ 1:59 am | Comment

You must be joking, Raj. Sure, much of COSATU is against it, but let’s face it, most of the ANC is opposed to doing anything significant to hurt Mugabe.

Zuma is going to replace Mbeki and is really against Mugabe. When he wins the election the ANC won’t cause trouble for him if he wants to take him on.

—

Hong, right as always. China inteferes all the time, just hates it when other countries do.

July 13, 2008 @ 2:17 am | Comment

@Raj:

Maybe you’re right, but I wouldn’t bet on it. At the same time, we also have to consider the possibility that the status quo is actually possibly not nearly as bad as the situation could get, especially as it could spiral into one of Africa’s innumerable tribal-fueled civil wars. There are countless millions of Zimbabweans in SA, many of whom would doubtless become involved in any major civil unrest in Zimbabwe (the Zimbabwean CIO already sends agents across the border to harass and even assassinate Harare’s enemies in South Africa, much as Pretoria in the ’70s and ’80s sent its forces into neighboring countries to eliminate its enemies in the Front Line States). I do not believe that the ANC is capable of keeping control of any spillover in violence if there is any true conflict in Zim (and I believe that it knows this, which is why it is desperate to ensure the continued existence of a powerful state in Zimbabwe). It knows that the forces it has at its disposal are a paper tiger compared to those available to its NP predecessors, and (wisely, it could be argued) has decided to keep out of the situation as long as this is possible.

July 13, 2008 @ 2:27 am | Comment

At the same time, we also have to consider the possibility that the status quo is actually possibly not nearly as bad as the situation could get

By the time it got to the stage of civil war it would be too late to do anything about it. And stopping Mugabe and his cronies going on holiday in Barbados will not lead to the sort of situation you describe - but allowing them to continue their rampaging and pillaging just might.

July 13, 2008 @ 2:33 am | Comment

>And stopping Mugabe and his cronies going on holiday in Barbados will not lead to the sort of situation you describe

No, but the ANC taking part in a public effort to stop “Mugabe and his cronies going on holiday in Barbados” (amongst other objectives) might, if it would significantly weaken the position of the Zimbabwean government. Hell, Eskom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskom ) pulling the plug on the electricity it delivers to Zimbabwe (at a subsidised rate) alone would do just that.

July 13, 2008 @ 2:40 am | Comment

Thank you Hong!

July 13, 2008 @ 2:55 am | Comment

“No, but the ANC taking part in a public effort to stop “Mugabe and his cronies going on holiday in Barbados” (amongst other objectives) might, if it would significantly weaken the position of the Zimbabwean government.

Do you know how ludicrous that suggestion is? How does a travel ban and the other limited options weaken the government and provoke a civil war. Is Zimbabwean security based on the supply of Gucci handbags to Mugabe’s wife and foreign holidays?

July 13, 2008 @ 3:02 am | Comment

Raj: and stopping Mugabe and his cronies going on holiday in Barbados will not lead to the sort of situation you describe

Raj, Barbados isnt under the jurisdiction of CCP. Why doesnt the Barbado or the West just sanction Mugbe by themselve? When USA asked for UN resolution to liberate IRAQ, China vetoed it, and we went to IRAQ anyway. Why do we care if China is against sanctioning Mugbe now?

July 13, 2008 @ 3:10 am | Comment

No, but you can’t deny that the ANC being seen not to back up ZANU-PF when it counts would leave Harare feeling more isolated. Just as the sanctions leveled by the UN against Pretoria (along with the symbolic demonstrations of disapproval of minority rule and apartheid from South Africa’s neighbors), while not directly contributing to the collapse of the NP government, did reduce their power and increase the clout of the UDF.

July 13, 2008 @ 3:11 am | Comment

Zuma is going to replace Mbeki and is really against Mugabe. When he wins the election the ANC won’t cause trouble for him if he wants to take him on.
As if you know and can predict everything.

China does not seem to understand why countries want sanctions on Zimbabwe.

China understands very well why the sanctions are being proposed. It’s because of the land reforms which led to the UK-initiated sactions which in turn led to China given priority on the access to the vast natural resources in Zimbabwe.

All the hype on Zimbabwe is very much fanned up by the West, specifically the UK, just as how they played up the Tibetan rioting this year.

July 13, 2008 @ 3:15 am | Comment

>As if you know and can predict everything.

I agree with you here, Bing.

>All the hype on Zimbabwe is very much fanned up by the West, specifically the UK, just as how they played up the Tibetan rioting this year.

I don’t entirely agree with you here. I think much of the attention being paid to Zim is very much a result of the British government (particularly under Labour)’s initial support for ZANU-PF against Salisbury in the 1960’s and the inevitable dismay over how hard expectations that ZANU-PF would govern Zim responsibly have been dashed (as well as the discovery on the part of Westerners that the ANC displays a curious double standard when it comes to oppression, having welcomed Western pressure against the admittedly brutal but relatively competent National Party government in South Africa, yet opposing any efforts to put pressure on ZANU-PF as “interference”).

July 13, 2008 @ 3:27 am | Comment

Can we discuss whether the decision to veto might have been made on certain grounds? For instance, does China (I say “China” meaning the supposedly representational minority in government) agree on the extent of the problem in Zimbabwe?

Two reasons that China vetoed the sactions:
1. China does not intervene others’ internal affair.
2. China has vested interests in Zim and the proposed sanctions will certainly do no good to them.

If it weren’t for the second reason, China would have only abstained as usual.

July 13, 2008 @ 4:25 am | Comment

>1. China does not intervene others’ internal affair.

Did Beijing’s support for sanctions against South Africa in the past not constitute intervention in the affairs of others?

July 13, 2008 @ 5:14 am | Comment

Did Beijing’s support for sanctions against South Africa in the past not constitute intervention in the affairs of others?

Did South Africa have diplomatic relationship with China in the past?

3. The above two only apply to countries friendly to China.

July 13, 2008 @ 5:24 am | Comment

>3. The above two only apply to countries friendly to China.

So let me get this straight: China doesn’t interfere in the internal affairs of countries friendly to it, only countries hostile to it? In which case, aren’t the United States and other Western countries entitled to intervene in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe (not to mention China) since they are not friendly countries?

It’s only fair, no?

July 13, 2008 @ 5:41 am | Comment

Raj, Barbados isnt under the jurisdiction of CCP.

Sigh, I was making an example with Barbados - it could be anywhere.

Why doesnt the Barbado or the West just sanction Mugbe by themselve?

Because then he will go to wherever the sanctions aren’t in place.

Why do we care if China is against sanctioning Mugbe now?

Because the only way of getting him to negotiate without harsh sanctions that might hurt ordinary people is for the world to be seen to stand together. North Korea only came to the table with a serious attitude for compromise when ALL its neighbours said they had had enough. When China was still dragging its feet it carried on doing what it had done.

Same with Zimbabwe. If China and Russia protect it Mugabe will think he will be ok because they’ll look after him.

July 13, 2008 @ 6:55 am | Comment

Bing

2. China has vested interests in Zim and the proposed sanctions will certainly do no good to them.

Why will it do China no good? It won’t do it any harm. And in the long run it might do good if it brings a more responsible government to power than can improve the economy, bring stability to the region and improve trade.

Or does China want to prey on weak African states that it can loan into subservience?

July 13, 2008 @ 6:58 am | Comment

“If China has a policy of “non-intervention”, it should never use its vote on the United Nations Security Council. If it uses its vote, it is intervening.”

Great post, Raj. I am also enjoying the way it has brought out the Tu Quoque Crowd.

“Look at how China’s stance on Zimbabwe is interventionist and retrograde.”
“Oh yeah? Well blah blah US blah blah….”

If we can’t fight for change until the west is perfect, we may as well cease to exist. Sanctions in this case are a good and necessary thing.

What did the sanctions call for?

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL12146282.html
“Nine countries voted for the resolution to impose an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and financial and travel restrictions on President Robert Mugabe and 13 other officials, and authorise a United Nations special envoy for the southern African nation. One country abstained from the vote.”

Whoa. No weapons, and no Gucci bags for Mrs. Mugabe. The horror! Apparently that was just too harsh for both China and Russia. The EU, by contrasst, has had sanctions for years, and the US also has some controls on interaction with Zimbabwe. According to the Beeb…

“Russia and China said they opposed the resolution because the situation in Zimbabwe did not threaten international stability.”

Neither did the sanctions. They only affected 13 people. And yes, the situation there, with widespread political violence, is spilling across international borders.

The PRC trolls, in their haste to defend by attacking, missed the deeper lesson of Raj’s post: if China wants to be perceived in the west in positive ways, and shape public opinion in its own favor, and to learn to horse trade favors with the western powers, it needs to stop doing things like this. What the Zimbabwe vote shows is that not only is China venal, it does not appear to understand the way it looks. And that sign of PR ineptitude ought to be sending chills down the spines of the PRC trolls.

Looking forward to another round of Tu Quoque Posting!

Michael

July 13, 2008 @ 9:46 am | Comment

@Raj,

Seriously, have you guys and gals thought how this has happened in the first place? Mugabe has been elected in 1980 and has been to Western Nation’s good side until 2000 when he decide to redistribute the land by taken it away from the White people to the blacks. Afterwards, the US enacted the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, and other laws enacted by the British and the EU essentially put Zimbabwe to financial isolation. Since Zimbabwe has very little natural resources or produce anything, they have to pay everything using foreign currency since the Zimbabwe currency is ‘no good’ anymore. This results in a slow economic death due to hyperinflation. I’m not saying that it is totally Western Nation’s fault as Mugabe has something to do with this crisis in the first place.

I understand this thread is about China’s inability to sanction Zimbabwe, but I thought I want to bring up how this mess came up in the first place. You also didn’t mention that Russia also vetoed the resolution and other countries like South Africa, Vietnam and libya also voted against.

July 13, 2008 @ 11:43 am | Comment

@pug_star
“You also didn’t mention that Russia also vetoed the resolution and other countries like South Africa, Vietnam and libya also voted against.”

You must live in a different world. Didn’t you know Brits are full of prejudices?I’ve never met even a single exception on this.

July 13, 2008 @ 12:39 pm | Comment

That’s completely wrong. If you stop someone from intervening then you are intervening yourself to protect the status quo.

That may be what your “common sense” tells you, but “non-intervention foreign policy” has a specific meaning that is not necessarily defined by the “common sense” meaning of the words, but by how it is practiced in reality throughout the world history.

Just because you think “non-intervention” should be interpreted in your way doesn’t mean it is commonly so.

July 13, 2008 @ 1:25 pm | Comment

In which case, aren’t the United States and other Western countries entitled to intervene in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe (not to mention China) since they are not friendly countries?

It’s only fair, no?

It has never been about fairness or entitlement. Power speaks. Every country protects its own interests at the expense of others’ (especially non-friendly ones). That’s exactly what the US and UK led west have been doing for the last 50 years. China has only gained enough strength recently to follow suit.

Whatever you say, you just can’t igore/not take into account/play down the fact that all the mess in africa (and many other places) was created by the West and they still have a big hand in keeping it going on.

Africa may just do well in the long run without all the aids and accompanying interference from the West. China’s involvement in africa is an alternative to that of the West and time will tell if it’s a better one.

July 13, 2008 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

if China wants to be perceived in the west in positive ways, and shape public opinion in its own favor, and to learn to horse trade favors with the western powers, it needs to stop doing things like this.

If the US, UK led West want to be perceived in the rest of the world in positive ways, and shape public opinion in their own favour, and to learn to horse trade favours with the people who labour to support their luxuries, they need to stop doing things like this (and others like sponsoring all various colours of revolution or conflits across the world).

What the Zimbabwe vote shows is that not only is China venal, it does not appear to understand the way it looks.

China fully understands whatever she does to cater the West on international politics, they will not reciprocate by stopping grabbing every chance to stab her in the back.

And that sign of PR ineptitude ought to be sending chills down the spines of the PRC trolls.

How could you interpret that as a PR ineptitude of China? It’s marked as a major blow to the UK foreign policy in your media. China knows all the well what she is doing and any dire consequences out of this won’t fall on China’s head.

July 13, 2008 @ 3:34 pm | Comment

Here’s another juicy bit of news.

The BBC is reporting that it has found the “first evidence that China is helping Sudan’s government militarily in Darfur.” Specifically, the BBC reports that Chinese-made Dong Fang army lorries (trucks) found recently in Darfur were manufactured AFTER the embargo was put in place. Importantly, the UN has determined that the lorries were delivered DIRECTLY from China to the Sudanese defense ministry. At least some of the lorries are now equipped with anti-aircraft guns.

It is worth noting that the UN has searched for these Chinese-made military lorries for the better part of three years. The BBC has apparently found them.

The BBC is also reporting that China is training Sudanese pilots to fly the Chinese-made A5 Fantan fighter jet.

More non-interference? Don’t kid yourself.

Think this story will appear in the Global Times (環球時報)?

“Genocide Olympics” anyone?

You can read the article for yourself at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503428.stm

July 13, 2008 @ 4:20 pm | Comment

“Genocide Olympics”

We might as well add Genocide to every event that happens in the US and UK because what they did in Iraq.

And has anyone, especially BBC, asked the question: who is supplying arms to the rebels? Why don’t BBC spend half of the time tracing the weapons of the rebels?

July 13, 2008 @ 4:58 pm | Comment

Wow! Raj posts are always so .. lively!

July 13, 2008 @ 5:18 pm | Comment

“…maybe it’s time to start offering a legitimate helping hand.”

A couple of weeks ago I highlighted the kind of helping hand China has in mind.

As for the efficacy of sanctions Simon Jenkins in today’s times argues the case against.

July 13, 2008 @ 5:31 pm | Comment

Both China and Russia are not interested on supporting sactions against countries, not because of any high principles. They are afraid of the precedences it may set for the future.

In the case of Russian, their action is Chechenia comes to mind.

In the case of China, their own internal issues; Tibet, Xinjian etc; their conveniently authoritarian “buffer” states like North Korea and Myanmar; and taking advantages of resource rich “pariah” states to :

a)Outflanking the “west” in resource access and political influences. In some cases they have no other option, in other they just take advantage of a good opportunity (though morally questionable.. at least for “west” eyes)
b)easier exploitation of country resources with little or control no matter how they damage the people and their environment there.
(they do also in CH itself, they just applied similar policies, no surprises here. I do not consider they do it out of evil, just business as usual… like at home.. )

July 13, 2008 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

pug_ster

You also didn’t mention that Russia also vetoed the resolution and other countries like South Africa, Vietnam and libya also voted against.

No, because for reasons I have already explained in the comments section. I’ll re-post them one more time assuming that you failed to spot them.

Russia - Richard doesn’t like discussions that aren’t related to China, and I see Russia as a lost cause that isn’t worth discussing. I have more hope for China.

As for “other countries like”, I think you mean JUST those countries.

South Africa - Mbeki trying to save his own skin, rather than be replaced and shamed in the process. Goes to show he cares more about his own image than the people of Zimbabwe.

Vietnam/Libya - An autocracy and a dictatorship who do their best to back up fellow oppressive regimes when they get into trouble.

—

ecodelta

They are afraid of the precedences it may set for the future.

How can they be similarly affected? They have vetoes for God’s sake. And no one is going to even propose sanctions external to the UN if they’re co-operative partners. The best way to provoke some sort of action against them is to keep blocking sanctions when other countries think they are necessary.

July 13, 2008 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

And in the long run it might do good if it brings a more responsible government to power than can improve the economy, bring stability to the region and improve trade.

Has that ever happened in any African country or any other poor countries in world with a puppet government brought in by the West?

Or does China want to prey on weak African states that it can loan into subservience?

Yes, maybe. But do you actually think there is ever a poor but natural-resources-abundant country that’s not subservient to some powers? At least what China is doing in Africa is much better than what the West did and are doing there.

If only you could show me a single example of successful west supported democracy built on a poor country that becomes less corrupt, more prosperous and not subservient to super powers.

China’s approach to economic development, not the quasi-democracy promoted by the Neocolonial west, is the only way for the poor countries to success in the world.

July 13, 2008 @ 6:08 pm | Comment

@raf
“How can they be similarly affected? They have vetoes for God’s sake. ”

If they voted yes for the sanctions, they would put themselves in a bad position in a similar situation where they would be affected.

They could veto it, yes. But it would be a very awkward position.

July 13, 2008 @ 6:16 pm | Comment

If they voted yes for the sanctions, they would put themselves in a bad position in a similar situation where they would be affected.

Why?

They could veto it, yes. But it would be a very awkward position.

Why? It affects them - they have more of a right to a veto on those grounds (that’s what it’s for, after all).

July 13, 2008 @ 6:21 pm | Comment

@Bing(病)

Read my first post (#29) to understand how I and many others feel about your repeated attempts to steer the discussion away from the issue at hand - i.e., China’s recent veto.

If you have substantive disagreements with the criticism you see here, then express them. Otherwise, just sit this one out. Countering criticism of China by alluding to U.S. failures in Iraq is a cowardly and ineffective defense. In any case, I think you’ll find that many of the people here who criticize China most vociferously would agree with you about President George W. Bush. Similarly, my criticism of recent Chinese policy in Zimbabwe and Tibet in no way diminishes my willingness to admit that U.S. policies vis-a-vis Iraq, native Americans, black slavery, and the anti-Chinese exclusion laws - just to name a few - were all dark crimes. In short, I’m capable of finding fault everywhere I look. Are you? And if you can’t admit that a problem exists, how can you ever hope to solve it?

Sadly, the lack of speech freedoms in China has rendered its people a thin-skinned, angry, insecure, and intolerant bunch. Congrats to all of you on your impressive patriotism.

Note: For those of you interested in the China/Tibet issue, there is a good article in The Sunday Times entitled “Olympic Crackdown: China’s secret plot to tame Tibet”. The article quotes “secret” internal Party documents. Find it at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4322538.ece

July 13, 2008 @ 6:25 pm | Comment

@Hong,

@Bing(病)

You are the most narrow-minded and perverted I have ever seen on this board.

You really made good use of Chinese in insulting others.

July 13, 2008 @ 6:33 pm | Comment

Here’s another juicy bit of news.

The BBC is reporting that it has found the “first evidence that China is helping Sudan’s government militarily in Darfur.”

…your repeated attempts to steer the discussion away from the issue at hand - i.e., China’s recent veto.

If you have substantive disagreements with the criticism you see here, then express them. Otherwise, just sit this one out.

July 13, 2008 @ 6:35 pm | Comment

@病

Sadly, you haven’t taken my advice.

1. The immediate topic is China’s recent veto of UN sanctions against Zimbabwe.

2. The broader subject is China’s defense of its veto as consistent with its policy of non-interference in the affairs of other nations.

My link to the article on China’s military aid to Sudan is in keeping with this second subject. That is, like many others here, I find China’s policy of non-interference a joke. Got it?

July 13, 2008 @ 6:50 pm | Comment

Who cares about your narrow minded advice?
1. China has every right to protect her own interests just like the US and UK do.
2. Tibet is part of China, under Chinese rule and will always be, no matter what it was in the past, and no matter how bigots like you argue about it.
3. I don’t give a *** about what perverts like you think of.

July 13, 2008 @ 7:04 pm | Comment

@bing
“2. Tibet is part of China, under Chinese rule and will always be, no matter what it was in the past, and no matter how bigots like you argue about it.”
So in the end it all boils down to that. Truthfulness is welcome.

July 13, 2008 @ 7:25 pm | Comment

@病

One thing’s for sure, you are as predictable as my Swiss watch. Whoever coined the term “Sick man of Asia” must have been thinking of you.

Say what you want about Tibet, China’s handling of the situation there is an embarrassment. Furthermore, as is true for all nations, there is nothing permanent about China’s territory. It remains, as always, highly conditional, the subject of constant negotiation and renegotiation. If it makes you feel better to believe otherwise, so be it? On the other hand, to deny the very complex truth about China’s claim to Tibet is yet another of your evasions. In the end, your’s is an inferior and timid intellect. Congrats again.

The part where you called me a pervert was funny, if a bit confusing. I expect no less from you.

你有病。快去看病吧。

July 13, 2008 @ 7:41 pm | Comment

yah-ha!
i do want to know what so called d-countries did in the past 160 years,
what they bring,what they offer
bloody screw
now it is the time.
ring them back.

July 13, 2008 @ 8:53 pm | Comment

Bing, there is no need to start personal attacks and call people names like “perverts”, seeing pictures of little African kids with there arms and legs blown off, is about as perverted as it gets.

btw, i’m from Iceland, so the evil west thing doesn’t work on me. 2 or a million wrongs don’t make a right.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

Broadsword

Bing, there is no need to start personal attacks and call people names like “perverts”

If only you knew a little Chinese, you would know it wasn’t me who started personal attacks. I had never said anything like what I did today before.

seeing pictures of little African kids with there arms and legs blown off, is about as perverted as it gets.

Africans have been killing each other for such a long time, regardless of Chinese presence. In the long run, what China is doing in Africa won’t be any worse than what the West have been doing there, if not much better.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:13 pm | Comment

This thread is about Sudan in the 21st century, Sudan NOW, at this moment. That has nothing to do with people’s knowledge of Chinese. Stick to the subject.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

This thread is about Sudan in the 21st century, Sudan NOW, at this moment. That has nothing to do with people’s knowledge of Chinese. Stick to the subject.

You don’t get it do you? How do you stick to the subject when somebody insults you in Chinese in what they post?

July 13, 2008 @ 10:23 pm | Comment

Well its actually about Zimbabwe, you were too tied up in defense, you missed.

point proved, good night!

July 13, 2008 @ 10:26 pm | Comment

@bing
“How do you stick to the subject when somebody insults you in Chinese in what they post?”
If someone insults you, just ignore it, he has already lost the argument by doing it.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:27 pm | Comment

Well its actually about Zimbabwe, you were too tied up in defense, you missed.

Sorry, I didn’t know I’m only supposed to concur with others here.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

If someone insults you, just ignore it, he has already lost the argument by doing it.

Yes, that’s what I’m about to do.

Actually everytime somebody does something like that I know they are desperate. They feel so indignant about something but can’t do anything to change anything except whining and swearing. Not really good for health.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

>China’s approach to economic development, not the quasi-democracy promoted by the Neocolonial west, is the only way for the poor countries to success in the world.

Just like it’s succeeding in Zim at the moment, amirite?

God damn, everything I’m reading here confirms what the NP leaders said about Western liberals being used by the USSR and China back in the ’60s and ’70s.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

To be honest, I agree with absolutely everything Bing here is saying about realpolitik and the fact that Western governments, as well as China, have always acted in their own best interests. The key difference, as I see it, is that *majority public opinion in the West* was not aligned with doing the same. Most Westerners throughout the 1960’s and ’70s (unlike their Chinese counterparts today) supported both ZANU-PF and the ANC despite the fact that the aims of both would seriously damage the interests of both the West in general (and local whites) simply because they believed that it was the right thing to do. They swallowed the insincere rhetoric of human rights and non-racialism being peddled at the time by both parties hook, line and sinker, while the USSR and China could hardly believe the West’s naivite.

July 13, 2008 @ 10:56 pm | Comment

[...] 在这里，我不去猜测，为什么北京会支持穆加贝。我只想引用Peking Duck的一段话，指出这两者之间有天然的吸引力。 [...]

July 13, 2008 @ 11:09 pm | Pingback

More of Bad China’s shame. The BBC produces proof of China contributing to the slaughter in Darfur.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503428.stm

China is a dark stain on humanity.

July 13, 2008 @ 11:29 pm | Comment

Most Westerners throughout the 1960’s and ’70s (unlike their Chinese counterparts today) supported both ZANU-PF and the ANC despite the fact that the aims of both would seriously damage the interests of both the West in general (and local whites) simply because they believed that it was the right thing to do.

I agree with the difference, but a more appropriate comparison would be between the westerners from the Victorian era to pre-WWII and their Chinese counterparts today.

Chinese nowadays don’t yet have the luxury to be as civilised as their western counterparts. We shouldn’t and can’t be. We will one day have democracy and as much symphathy, and responsiblity to others, but not before we hold the same symphathy and responsibility to our own people and are as strong economically, socially and politically.

Is China a threat to the existing world order? Certainly. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or an idiot.
Is China to be a responsible player? Certainly not. And anyone in the West with a sound judgement shouldn’t expect China to be as responsible for the next twenty years by their definition.

July 14, 2008 @ 12:14 am | Comment

ITT we discover how the KP and verkrampte Nats were right.

They knew that African “comrades” would f*ck their own people over and allow the Chinese to exploit them infinitely harder than they ever did. They knew that Western liberals would be the fellow travelers of dictatorship and economic ruin across sub-Saharan Africa. They knew that Africans would be easily led into all of this without being stopped by those who knew better than they did (the “System”). They knew that the ANC and ZANU-PF would reinforce one another.

Damn this sh*t is depressing.

July 14, 2008 @ 12:38 am | Comment

…allow the Chinese to exploit them infinitely harder than they ever did.

I don’t completely agree with you on this though. China does take away resources from Africa but the way China invests in Africa in essence is no difference from how Japanese, Taiwanese, British, Europeans or anyone else do their business in China.

If Chinese could learn from their investors (sometimes steal if you like), work hard (for many of them 12 hours a day for 6 days a week), accumulate wealth, keep a reletively stable society, despite all kinds of issues present, under a corrupt authoritarian government, to build a world factory and improve the average living standard, the Africans should be able to do that as well.

If they couldn’t, that’s their own problem.

July 14, 2008 @ 1:36 am | Comment

I was referring to the SA government, not foreign governments and capital.

July 14, 2008 @ 1:58 am | Comment

Not only is china supporting its fellow dictator friends like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, they are also supporting the war in Darfur by supplying military weapons and equipment to the bloodthirsty janjaweed in Sudan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7503428.stm

China is a shameless and hypocritical country and they are quickly taking over America as the no.1 purveyor of fundamentalist extremist capitalism.