China’s Alarming Involvement in Sudan
View Comments | Print This Post Print This Post |

by Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr. | April 16th, 2006

Beijing's new Africa policy based upon the concept of “mutual fulfillment with no preconditions” is cause for alarm.

Sudan’s brutal Islamist President Omar al-Bashir and Chinese President Hu Jintao have become fast friends as of late, forging a Sino-Sudanese alliance that has serious implications for the Sudanese people and the future stability of the African continent. “China has burst on the African scene with a presence that has been frightening to many people who hadn’t realized how wide its reach is,” U.S. Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA), chairman of the new House China Caucus, noted in January.

The recent announcement by Beijing of a new Africa policy based upon the concept of “mutual fulfillment with no preconditions” has raised concerns in Washington by those who say that China’s Sudan foreign policy is manipulative and opportunistic; and that it ignores the displacement of an estimated 2 million Sudanese villagers and the murder of 180,000 others for its own economic gain.

In testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in late 2005, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) stated, “In Sudan, Chinese oil investments have helped to prop up a regime in Khartoum that our president and this Congress have accused of involvement in genocide.”

While humanitarian issues have little value in Beijing’s new Africa policy, energy interests — and the military means to protect those interests — play important roles in the Red Dragon’s actions on the continent, particularly in poverty-ravaged Sudan.

China currently imports 7 percent of its oil from Sudan; making Sino-Sudanese relations an extremely important part of China’s evolving energy strategy. As a result, Beijing has blanketed Sudan with over $4 billion in investment over the past several years, hoping to secure long-term energy agreements, while increasing its economic, political and military influence in Africa. “Chinese investment and development in Africa has strong potential because Africa is abundant in natural resources, which are urgently needed for China’s economic development,” noted Chinese Foreign Minister Li Guozeng recently.

Since 1996, numerous Chinese state-controlled enterprises have been hard at work in Sudan cultivating energy relationships. The state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which owns a 40 percent share in Sudan’s largest oil venture, the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, currently pumps 300,000 barrels per day, most of which is sent to mainland China. Sinopec, another energy enterprise, has completed an oil pipeline to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where Chinese tankers ferry oil to China’s developing industrial cities. China’s Petroleum Engineering Construction Group has also been instrumental in the construction of a large tanker terminal at Port Sudan, as well as roads, bridges and dams.

To protect its vast energy investments in Sudan and to secure additional lands for energy development and exploration, China has readily supplied weapons to the Bashir regime, delivering F-7 jet fighters, assault helicopters and armored vehicles to the country.

With the help of its Muslim “Janjaweed” militia groups and the blessing of Bashir, the Sudanese Air Force has used Chinese-made weapons against defenseless villagers in Darfur. There have also been persistent claims by independent aid groups that Sudanese government troops and rebels have used Chinese oil company airstrips to conduct bombing raids on villages and hospitals.

On more than one occasion, China has purposely blocked the U.N. from taking punitive action against the murderous Bashir regime. In 2004, strong Chinese opposition forced the U.N. Security Council to tone down a resolution that would have referred the Darfur matter to the International Criminal Court. Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha told the country’s cabinet he had Chinese assurances the resolution would not be passed, "He [Taha] was confident it would not get through and told them not to worry," a cabinet source said.

Since that disappointing vote, Beijing has continued to use its permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council to protect Khartoum, pledging to veto any U.N. bid to impose an oil embargo on Sudan. Serious questions concerning China’s intentions in Sudan surfaced again in February, when Beijing announced that it was indefinitely delaying the deployment of a critical Chinese medical unit to the conflict-stricken Darfur region.

The upcoming China-Africa Summit, scheduled for later this year in Beijing, is a perfect opportunity for the U.S. to regain its footing on the Africa issue. With U.S.-Africa trade at approximately $45 billion a year and numerous U.S.-sponsored humanitarian and investment projects evident throughout the continent; the U.S. is not merely an interested African observer – it is a committed partner.

One question remains for Sudan’s tyrant Bashir – what will the thousands of entrenched Chinese nationals do in Sudan once the oil disappears?

Labels: Foreign Affairs, National Defense

Frederick W. Stakelbeck, Jr. is a foreign affairs expert.
Frederick.Stakelbeck@verizon.net
Visit their website at:

Read more articles by Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr. on IntellectualConservative.com

 

Responses to "China’s Alarming Involvement in Sudan"

  1. You have told us something of what is going on in Sudan, but not why this should cause us particular alarm (over and above what normally goes on in faction riven Sudan).  Sudan has been a problem for a long time.  China is not the only player in Sudanese oil development, and I'd venture we have similar investment and political presence.  Others may be just as alarmed by our involvement in Sudanese oil production and draw links to Sudanese genocide and instability. So, what specifically is wrong with China investing in Sudanese oil?  You have noted China has failed the neutrality test.  Don't we regularly fail similar tests of neutrality when our interests are at stake.  Isn't that what the left is accusing us of in Iraq (after all, people are being killed there too).  The circumstance appears to make China party to atrocity carried out from commercial air strips they operate.  However, the strips are leased property and Sudan the rightful owner (unless, of course, the air strips are on embassy grounds).  Should China deny Sudan use of these air strips, they'd be evicted and the strips used anyway.  China has traded arms for oil, but so do we.  If we have no problem with us doing it, we come away the hippocrit accusing someone else of doing the same thing.  I agree they ought to have protested the misuse and called for sanctions, but that does not shift responsibility for actual acts to them. The F-7 is hardly advanced technology and, though it gives the Bashir regime greater capability for mischief within Sudan, is insufficient to make Sudan a threat to other countries or deter an armed humanitarian intervention. I am no friend of communists, but it is difficult to see what we can say against them trading for oil on terms little different than we, ourselves, employ.  We cannot argue one set of rules for them and another for us.  China is guilty, at best, of indifference to the use to which their armaments and air strips are put.  The real guilt falls on Bashir and his regime, and it is that regime we should hold to account.  Now, should the Chinese admit to sponsorship, prove to have instigated the events in Sudan, or undertake to interfere in humanitarian intervention, that will be a different matter altogether.  Much depends on the exact circumstances. China is no great participant to fair-dealings, but neither does it still qualify as a rogue nation.  Within reasonable limits, China has been playing by the rules of mutual security.  When Clinton sold technology to the Chinese (at their manipulation), it was not the fault of the Chinese that our president lacked the scrupples appropriate to his position.  Likewise, China is adhering to the letter of those rules governing lawful and unlawful trade; and until China does otherwise we can do little more than watch them warily. China's behavior is cause for concern, not alarm at this juncture.  If we cry wolf every time the Chinese behave differently than we think they should (as opposed to acting criminally), others begin to see us as hyperventilating old-women and ignore our concern.

    Comment by Bob Stapler | April 21, 2006

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







Latest Articles

The Republican Rules Of The Road, According To Colin Powell: (Jacking The GOP From Conservatives)
 by John Quayle
Twelve Years of Iranian Lobby
 by Hassan Daioleslam
Non Compos Mentis
 by Lisa Fabrizio
Obama’s Limited Intelligence
 by Aaron Goldstein
Why Panetta?
 by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Is Israeli Policy Crazy?
 by Ivan Eland
Military Keynesianism to the Rescue?
 by Robert Higgs
Conservative Reformation
 by Alan Roebuck
Thoughts: Young Camille Paglia’s Protest Letter, Coulter’s Invitations & Snowmen
 by Ben-Peter Terpstra



Book Reviews



Features







         Top 25