|
|
|
A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur
|
Thursday, 14 February 2008
We the undersigned Nobel laureates, Olympic athletes, current and former government officials, business leaders, human rights activists and public advocates, are writing to urge you to intensify your diplomatic engagement in support of a peaceful resolution to the situation in Darfur
As the primary economic, military and political partner of the government of Sudan, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, China has both the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to a just peace in Darfur. Ongoing failure to rise to this responsibility amounts, in our view, to support for a government that continues to carry out atrocities against its own people. As host of the 2008 Olympic Games, China has a special role to play in ensuring that its actions this year are commensurate with the Olympic ideals of peace and international co-operation
The atrocities in Darfur continue to intensify. Of the seven million inhabitants of Darfur, hundreds of thousands have already died due to the conflict and 2.5 million have been displaced. Rape and sexual violence have been and continue to be used as weapons of war against untold numbers of girls and women. The government of Sudan has also been involved in the forced relocation of people from refugee and internally displaced people's camps. Without homes to return to, those displaced are left vulnerable to further attack
We recognise some efforts by China in 2007 to increase diplomatic pressure on Sudan – notably through its support of the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1769, calling for the deployment of a UN-AU hybrid peacekeeping force (Unamid) to Darfur. At the same time, however, we note with dismay that the Chinese government worked to weaken the resolution before it passed. China also doubled its trade with Sudan in 2007, providing resources that make it easier for that government to continue to carry out its atrocities. China's military relationship with Sudan also continues. We have also been disheartened by your government's action since Resolution 1769 was passed. Your government has remained silent as Sudan continues to block the effective deployment of Unamid and engages in violent actions that violate the spirit of the mission. Given the severity of the crisis in Darfur, and the nature of the China-Sudan relationship, we are calling for more serious action by your government in support of the full, immediate and unimpeded deployment of Unamid
As the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games approach, we will continue to call on the Chinese government for action. We are aware of the tremendous potential for China to help bring an end to the conflict in Darfur. We will continue to watch for concerted and consistent Chinese action to ensure rapid deployment of UN-AU peacekeepers, progress in the peace talks, and an end to the use of rape as a weapon of war
The complete list of signatories
Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Nobel Peace Laureate, East Timor, 1996; Dr Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate, Iran, 2003; Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Laureate, Argentina, 1980; Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Nobel Peace Laureate, Guatemala, 1992; Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, South Africa, 1984; Professor Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Laureate, United States, 1986; Betty Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, Ireland, 1976; Professor Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, United States, 1997; Marcos Anastácio, Surfer, Portugal, 1995 National Champion; Carlos Arena, Swimmer, Mexico, 1996 Olympic Games; Marilyn Chua, Swimmer, Malaysia, 2000 Olympic Games; Marion Clignet, Cyclist, France, 1996, 2000 Olympic Games; Nikki Dryden, Swimmer, Canada, 1992, 1996 Olympic Games; Jimena Florit, Cyclist, Argentina, 2000, 2004 Olympic Games; Sabrina Kolker, Crew, Canada, 2004 Olympic Games; John Naber, Swimmer, United States, 1976 Olympic Games; Vince Poscente, Speed Skier, Canada, 1992 Olympic Games; Shannon Shakespeare, Swimmer, Canada, 1996, 2000 Olympic Games; Nikki Stone, Aerial Skier, United States, 1998 Olympic Games; Anna Van der Kamp, Crew, Canada, 1996 Olympic Games; Richard Vaughan, Badminton, United Kingdom, 2004 Olympic Games; Maria Bello, Actress, United States; Dave Eggers, Author, Pulitzer Prize Finalist, United States; Eve Ensler, Activist, Playwright, United States; Mia Farrow, Activist and Actor, United States; Angelique Kidjo, Artist, Benin; Joanna Lumley, Actress, United Kingdom; Hugh Masekela, Musician, South Africa; Ruth Messinger, Activist, United States; Tom Stoppard, Playwright and screenwriter, United Kingdom; Russell Simmons, Entrepreneur, Activist, United States; Emma Thompson, Actress, United Kingdom; Joana Vasconcelos, Artist, Portugal; Kerry Washington, Actress, United States; Baron Alton of Liverpool, House of Lords, United Kingdom; Robert Badinter, Senator, France; Gerhart Baum, Former Member of Parliament, Germany; Catherine Bell, Member of Parliament, Canada; John Bercow, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Bert Brown, Senator, Canada; José Ribeiro e Castro, Member of the European Parliament, Portugal; Chris Charlton, Member of Parliament, Canada; Olivia Chow, Member of Parliament, Canada; Nick Clegg, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Hon. Irwin Cotler, Member of Parliament, Canada; The Baroness Cox of Queensbury, House of Lords, United Kingdom; Jean Crowder, Member of Parliament, Canada; Libby Davies, Member of Parliament, Canada; Franziska Drohsel, Federal Chairwoman, Young Socialists, Germany; Lynne Featherstone, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Hon. Mabinty Forna, Member of Parliament, Sierra Leone; Sen. Bill Frist, Former Senate Majority Leader, United States; Brunhilde Irber, Member of Parliament, Germany; Glenys Kinnock, Member of European Parliament, United Kingdom; Hon. Yoine Goldstein, Senator, Canada; Ana Maria Gomes, Member of the European Parliament, Portugal; Sally Keeble, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Susan Kramer, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Irene Mathyssen, Member of Parliament, Canada; Alexa McDonough, Member of Parliament, Canada; Madeleine Moon, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Kerstin Müller, Member of Parliament, Germany; Chris Mullin, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Peggy Nash, Member of Parliament, Canada; Kerry Nettle, Senator, Australia; Baroness Northover of Cissbury, House of Lords, United Kingdom; Birgitta Ohlsson, Member of Parliament, Sweden; Baron Owen of Plymouth, House of Lords, United Kingdom; Cem Özdemir, Member of the European Parliament, Germany; Penny Priddy, Member of Parliament, Canada; Hon. Nancy Ruth, Senator, Canada; Denise Savoie, Member of Parliament, Canada; Jürgen Schröder, Member of the European Parliament, Germany; Marina Schuster, Member of Parliament, Germany; Natasha Stott Despoja, Senator, Australia; Christoph Strässer, Member of Parliament, Germany; Paddy Torsney, Former Member of Parliament, Canada; Judy Wasylycia-Leis, Member of Parliament, Canada; Anders Wijkman, Member of the European Parliament; Sweden; The Baroness Williams of Crosby, House of Lords, United Kingdom
Click here to have your say
http://indyblogs.typepad.com/openhouse/have_your_say/index.html
(عدل بواسطة Mohamed Omer on 02-14-2008, 04:59 PM)
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Critics say that because it buys Sudan's oil and sells it weapons, China must share responsibility for the war in Darfur and its atrocities. In particular they point to Beijing's decision to block tougher action by the UN security council
China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil, an estimated 500,000 barrels a day, worth about £2bn a year. Amnesty International alleges that in return China sells millions of pounds' worth of arms to Khartoum in defiance of a UN embargo. Beijing denies such a breach
Several analysts suggest China has begun to exert more pressure on the regime. Last year it appointed a special envoy to Sudan and helped persuade the regime to accept a UN peacekeeping force, including a small number of Chinese soldiers. This week, nine Nobel peace prize laureates — including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel — wrote to China's president, Hu Jintao, urging his country to press Sudan harder
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
British Olympic Minister boycott would serve no purpose
Olympics minister Tessa Jowell said that calling for a boycott of this summer's Games over the Darfur crisis does not serve any purpose
Ms Jowell told The Times: "The world has known for the last seven years that Beijing would host the Olympics
"Most progressive governments accept that there are wholly unacceptable aspects of Chinese policy but that did not stop the International Olympics Committee (IOC) awarding them the Games.
"A call for a boycott doesn't serve any purpose and it would be a great pity
"This doesn't mean, however, we should we distracted from the urgency of Darfur."
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
The Nobel peace laureates who have signed the letter are Bishop Carlos Filipe, Dr Shirin Ebadi, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta Menchu, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor Elie Wiesel, Betty Williams and Professor Jody Williams
Former leader of the Catholic Church in East Timor, Nobel laureate Bishop Carlos Filipe
Shirin Ebadi is the the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize in the award's 102-year history. Ebadi, who presently lives in exile in France, was praised around the world as a courageous champion of political freedom after the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded her the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (born in Buenos Aires, Argentina) was the recipient of the 1980 Nobel Peace Prize. He is noted for leading protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas and for alleging that the Argentinean police are forming children into paramilitary squads, an operation he compares to the creation of Nazi Germany's Hitler Youth
Rigoberta Menchú Tum is an indigenous Guatemalan, of the Quiché-Maya ethnic group. Menchú has dedicated her life to publicizing the plight of Guatemala's indigenous peoples during and after the Guatemalan Civil War (1960-1996), and to promoting indigenous rights in the country. She was the recipient of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize and Prince of Asturias Award in 1998
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Desmond Mpilo Tutu is a South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and the Magubela prize for liberty in 1986. He is committed to stopping global AIDS and has served as the honorary chairman for the Global AIDS Alliance. In February 2007 he was awarded Gandhi Peace Prize by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, president of India
Elie Wiesel is a Hungarian-French-Jewish novelist, political activist, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor. He is the author of over 40 books, the best known of which is Night, a memoir that describes his experiences during the Holocaust and his imprisonment in several concentration camps
Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. The Norwegian Nobel Committee called him a "messenger to mankind," noting that through his struggle to come to terms with "his own personal experience of total humiliation and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler's death camps," as well as his "practical work in the cause of peace," Wiesel has delivered a powerful message "of peace, atonement and human dignity" to humanity
On November 30, 2006 Wiesel received an honorary knighthood in London in recognition of his work toward raising Holocaust education in the United Kingdom
Betty Williams was a co-recipient with Mairead Corrigan of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 (the prize for 1976) for her work as a cofounder of Community of Peace People, an organisation dedicated to promoting a peaceful resolution to The Troubles in Northern Ireland. She leads the Global Children's Foundation and is President of the World Centers of Compassion for Children International. She is also the Chair of Institute for Asian Democracy in Washington D.C. and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Nova Southeastern University
Jody Williams is an American teacher and aid worker who received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the campaign she led, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Some of the comments from the independent's website
(1)
Sports are not immune to politics. The Olympics have been boycotted in the past because of political concerns (the 1956, and 1980 summer Olympics are good examples).
It can be argued that supporting the Olympics this year is giving tactic support to China's human rights abuses. The recent arrest of human rights activists (such as Hu Jia) should be
protested strongly. Attending and supporting the Olympics gives implicit support to such actions
(2)
After so many years of inaction and indifference by the West, we suddenly want to blame Darfur on China? There are many countries to blame, starting with US support of the SPLA and John Garang 10 years ago
http://www.google.com/search?q=Darfur+CIA+early+involvement
At any rate the original Darfur mess has since been replaced with inter-tribal conflict and herdsmen fighting for territory. Neither Khartoum nor Beijing has much influence over that.
China is simply a scapegoat
(3)
I think he did the right thing, someone with backbone, this post can't be accessed in china, unless you know how so most chinese won't see it, but then most chinese don't see anything they don't want to see, living a dreamworld of mandopop and saving face, read bull####, this is a nationalististic state, but inhabited by cowards who will lie to your face to save theirs, grow up china, and get a backbone
(4)
Criticising China for inaction over Darfur, just like the earlier criticism over Burma, borders on the bizarre. Why, given China's appalling treatment of its own people, would it intervene on behalf of others?
(5)
This is not about sports. The Olympics are about money, politics and prestige. I personally am sickened by the corporate sponsored propaganda that this and earlier Olympics have tried to shove down our throats. Even the athletes are corrupted by drugs and money. The idea that the Chinese communists can get away with murder and achieve a propaganda triumph is unacceptable. I will be boycotting the coverage and the sponsors
(6)
Given that the government attacked an African Union column, given that the janjaweed have been organized by the government, and given the promotion of the person in charge of that effeort the Gvoernment of Sudan clearly has a role and has played it. To dismiss it all as "tribalism" suggests the usual rationalization for western/first world governments to do nothing "that's just the way they are."
Why focus on China? Because it has blocked UN resolutions to do more. Because it has a signifcant trade with Sudan. Because China always talked loudly about "self determination" and "people's struggles" and tut tutted about opressors--well, time the world --especially the third world, where it is now ever more present--saw it for what it is. It is now Stanlinist entrepreneurship, but it has no more respect for humnan rights now than when it took over Tibet and then moved to strip away Tibettan culture and make it thoroughly Chinese, so that in a few generations none will wish to go back
A boycott is hell for the athletes, but given the loss of face if it took place might be the card to play to get China to act.
However the posters raise a good point--those in favor of such tactics shouod ask why their countries haven't done more to answer the African Union's call for logistical aid
(7)
The criticism and barbs hurled at China have nothing to do with human rights but more to do with China’s growth and increasingly favourable acceptance by the developing world as an alternative to the West and its self-righteous meddling. The intent of all this criticism is to put China ‘in her place,’ since she challenges the hegemony of the West and is winning hearts and minds with little effort in the so-called Third world. China-bashing is part of a concentrated Western propaganda offensive to check China’s military, economic and political influence. Spielberg and Mia Farrow and all the other gold-plated celebrities wittingly or unwittingly are tools of this anti-China offensive. They would be better off addressing real problems like race and poverty in the ghettoes of the US or the well-known abuses of the Guantanamo Gulag or Israel’s daily butchering of the Palestinians. In any case Darfur is an African problem and Africans should be left to solve their own problems without the intervention of sanctimonious celebrities and Western strategic interests
(8)
Have all the good people forgotten BURMA whose poor souls have been sufferrring for more than 40 years (as against 4 in Darfur) ???
By its nature, China will only understand PRESSURE and THREAT of a serious BOYCOTT to 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2009 Shanghai ? EXPO
(9)
"China-bashing is part of a concentrated Western propaganda offensive to check China’s military, economic and political influence"
Nothing could be further from the truth. China gets a staggeringly easy ride in the press because every major media corporation is greedily eyeing up the biggest untapped market.
Do you really believe that Time Warner and Murdoch would allow a few pesky human rights abuses get in the way of profits? Dream on
(10)
The corporate greed-fest that is the Olympics will carry on regardless. Olympic ideals? What a sick joke! Sports = business = politics. The link is indissoluble. The whole world has been duped by the Chinese; like the people of China, we have one option: put up, shut up, & make some money if you can
Maybe the sportsmen/women should stop to think that their sports are being prostituted by big business & cheesy nationalism
I intend to ignore the whole obscene charade by going on holiday where there are no televisions
(11)
think it seems rather hypocritical, yet almost typical to target a developing country and its business ties. While developed countries sell 85% of the weapons to those in the developing world, and continue to profit directly from wars, developing and the third world cannot even open its mouth save from being criticized
China of course should be criticized, yet who else is giving business to Africa (it has deals not just with Sudan)? Also China needs oil, it has more than 1/6th of the world's population, developed countries would love to see China not get that oil (i.e. from Sudan) and struggle as a world power. Of course business and politics should mix, i.e. boycotting Israeli goods until they withdraw from the territories, boycott on apartheid South Africa, etc. Yet what about this phrase "regime change begins at home?" The US, NATO, and the UK are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. The US which has much more influence and money than China to stop the atrocity in Sudan is not getting any pressure? Must we put sanctions on Sudan until the people are starving like in Iraq?
I don't see anything constructive except everyone pointing fingers. But at least the Chinese aren't selling machetes to the Sudanese like the French did right up and during the Rwandan genocide
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
CHINA’S INVOLVEMENT IN SUDAN: ARMS AND OIL
Allegations of Chinese prison labor used in the construction of Sudan’s oil pipeline
China’s need for oil reserves for its growing domestic economy has caused its government to pursue investments in many countries of marginal stability and democracy, but its greatest oil success abroad has been in Sudan
Although the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) had escaped the public relations hammering that Talisman was receiving, it was drawn into the controversy through the efforts of Sudan activists to bar the use of U.S. financial markets to raise money for anyone doing oil business in Sudan in late 1999
China’s first foray into the world of high finance—to open up its enormous government-owned corporations to foreign investment—was a controversial offer to sell stock in CNPC to the public on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Its offer, designed to raise a record U.S. $ 10 billion, had to be withdrawn and refashioned because of the negative publicity suggesting that the proceeds would be used to commit further human rights abuses in Sudan, Tibet, and elsewhere. Ultimately, the 90 percent-CNPC-owned subsidiary PetroChina, with a “firewall” to prevent any of the new capital from going to the Sudanese operations, proceeded with a stock offer to raise U.S. $ 10 billion. A broad-based coalition opposed to the PetroChina IPO ultimately succeeded in reducing the proceeds from the IPO by some 70% to only U.S. $ 2.89 billion. This reduced amount was raised with major participation from British Petroleum and a few other large companies. Questions about China’s financing of arms sales to Sudan and allegations of Chinese prison labor used in the construction of Sudan’s oil pipeline were never addressed
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Arms Trade between China and Sudan
China was not new to Sudan. By the time it invested in GNPOC in December 1996, it was already a familiar arms dealer to many Sudanese governments. The Nimeiri government (1969-85) bought weapons from China. But these purchases rose in the 1990s due to Sudan’s internal war and the promise of improved finances and enhanced international credit derived from its oil potential
Weapons deliveries from China to Sudan since 1995 have included ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft. China also became a major supplier of antipersonnel and antitank mines after 1980, according to a Sudanese government official. The SPLA in 1997 overran government garrison towns in the south, and in one town alone, Yei, a Human Rights Watch researcher saw eight Chinese 122 mm towed howitzers, five Chinese-made T-59 tanks, and one Chinese 37 mm anti-aircraft gun abandoned by the government army
Human Rights Watch concluded that while China’s motivation for this arms trade appeared to be primarily economic, China made available easy financing for some of these arms purchases
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
China’s Need to Acquire Foreign Oil Reserves
China invested in Sudan’s nascent oil industry because of its need to acquire foreign oil reserves. While China expected its industrial development to make increasing demands for more oil, the Chinese oilfields had, by the late 1990s, already passed their peak production. “China until recently relied on its vast northeastern Daqing oilfield to fuel its energy needs, but output is declining and it has yet to find new large domestic supplies,” according to the Chinese government news agency Xinhua
In the early 1990s, the Chinese government projected that it could have a shortfall of about 50 million tons of crude oil (30 percent of its oil needs) in 2000, while domestic crude output remained static at 160 million tons. China therefore had to rely on its ability to stake out oil reserves abroad. Oil analysts projected that China would become an oil importer—at the mercy of non-Chinese oil producing states and companies—within five years. China set about becoming a global player in the oil industry. Chinese officials wanted “to have a 10-million-ton-oil supply from overseas a year by 2000 and 50 million tons of oil and 50 billion cubic meters of gas by 2010
By 1997, according to CNPC’s then president, Zhou Yongkang, China was “very aggressive in buying foreign oil and gas fields.”1393 The CNPC brought its first shipment of foreign crude oil to China in 1997
CNPC, a government-owned corporation, acting through a wholly-owned subsidiary, took the largest share, 40 percent, in the GNPOC consortium on December 6, 1996, when Arakis sold 75 percent of its interest in the project to three other companies to form that consortium. The Sudanese project was expected to produce up to ten million tons of oil a year for China by 2000, which would by itself help meet China’s projected oil import target for 2000
In 1998, CNPC’s construction arm, China Petroleum Engineering & Construction (Group) Corporation (CPECC), participated in the construction of the 1,500-kilometer-long GNPOC pipeline from Blocks 1 and 2 to the Red Sea. It also built a refinery near Khartoum with a 2.5 million-ton processing capacity. It further engaged in “10 million tons oilfield surface engineering.” The Sudan project became “the first overseas large oilfield operated by China,” according to the Chinese
The Chinese government-run news agency was effusive about China’s participation in the Sudan project, characterizing it as CNPC’s biggest overseas project to date.1398 The agency termed the oilfield, the long oil pipeline, and the oil refinery China built in Sudan “a major breakthrough in China’s overseas oil work. The news agency likewise claimed, “China has made a series of technological breakthroughs in undertaking the huge [Sudan] oil project, including in the sectors of oil engineering technology, geological prospecting and oil drilling
Yet, China claimed it did not make any profit on the pipeline, refinery, and two oil well projects in Sudan. The vice president of CPECC said, “A Western company couldn’t have done what we did . . . Sudan wanted it done in 18 months and we did it, even though we knew we wouldn’t make any money
China admitted that it brought in a team of 10,000 Chinese laborers so the GNPOC project could be completed by the NIF’s tenth anniversary (June 30, 1999). Its labor costs were low: Our workers are used to eating bitterness . . . they can work 13 to 14 hours a day for very little. Similarly, the Chinese subcontractor (also a Chinese government enterprise) brought in two Chinese crews for the seismic phase of the Lundin operation in Block 5A. They were new, straight from Beijing. Some did not know how to drive a vehicle
It was widely rumored in the oil business in Sudan that the Chinese planned to bring in prisoners to build the pipelines, which was allegedly how they underbid others to get the pipeline contract. Still, it is difficult to see how Chinese laborers brought to Sudan could live and work for less than southern Sudanese laborers, even Chinese prisoners, because of the transportation cost—even if the transport was one-way for many who may have perished from disease in the inhospitable swamps and baked savannahs. China also admitted that the Sudanese army had to protect the Chinese workers from rebel attacks
The Chinese companies’ failure to hire local staff led to copious complaints from southerners. In Block 5A, Lundin and its Chinese subcontractor had a crew of sixty people in the “highland” location (Ryer/Thar Jath), forty-five of whom were (northern) Sudanese, the rest Chinese. On the “swamp crew” of sixty (on the White Nile), thirty to forty were Sudanese, the rest Chinese. The Chinese spoke no English and translations were done by the Chinese party chief, who spoke rudimentary English
The Chinese subcontractor had recruited in the north and hired northern Sudanese to work on this Block 5A project, though they did not have any technical expertise and had to be trained on the job. The Rappaport security consultant to Lundin advised Lundin and the Chinese that it was not a good idea to take northerners to the south to work. Everyone from the Bentiu area, from the governor to the local hires, complained that there were not enough locals on the job, he reported. The Chinese subcontractor insisted on bringing in these northern workers, however. After some incidents, the security company put its foot down on hiring northern Sudanese, and the Chinese subcontractor relented
The Chinese companies involved in GNPOC did all this work, their spokesman said, for no profit—for valuable experience overseas—which, as China omitted to mention, was gained mostly under Talisman as project manager. The Wall Street Journal nevertheless reported in 1999 that the Sudan project accounted for U.S. $ 500 million of a record $ 710 million in revenues (unaudited) for China Petroleum Engineering & Construction (Group) Corporation
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
China can't make it rain
China can do some good in Darfur but we need to be realistic about what can actually be achieved
Daniel Davies
As far as the timing goes, Steven Spielberg's decision to pick this precise moment to make a big high-profile protest about Darfur is pretty good. There are no currently active peace talks, and there are a number of areas in which China could do some good by telling the al-Bashir gang to knock it off
For one thing, the Chadian government's claims that the rebels there are Sudan-backed is looking quite credible, given that the attacks there were so very conveniently timed to tie up the Eufor peacekeeping force that Sudan doesn't want deployed on its borders. For another, although the recent assault into West Darfur has been less murderous than the run rate for the Darfur conflict to date, the Sudanese army are still burning villages and claiming that rebel troops were "sheltering" there; I did not like this tactic when Israel used it against Hizbullah and I don't like it any better when it's used in Darfur
China has a little bit of influence in these matters through the special envoy they appointed, and did manage in the past to pressure al-Bashir into agreeing to the deployment of Unamid (the UN/African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur). I can conceivably see how they could, for example, make it clear that the People's Republic has an interest in maintaining stability in the region and that attempting to spread the Darfur civil war outside the western border is a total no-no. But I think people need to be realistic about what can actually be achieved here. Let's think of some of the things that China can't do
China can't make it rain. The Darfur war has become ethnicised, but the root of it is a resource conflict between semi-nomadic herders and farmers. The Darfur rebellion ignited because the rebel groups felt that Darfur was not getting its fair share of transfer payments from Khartoum, which is a problem that has its roots in the fact that farming in Darfur is less profitable than it used to be, because of the rain. Meanwhile, Khartoum was able to bribe the Arab-speaking nomads to form militias and turn on neighbours who they'd formerly got along with, and this is a problem that has its roots in the fact that being a nomad in Darfur is also less profitable than it used to be, because of the rain
China can't make the Sudanese state commit suicide. The one priority of the Sudanese state is to keep a fragile, fissiparous state together. The al-Bashir government has spent the last 10 years trying to cut deals with anyone who would make them (he was trying to be a pal of the US before Darfur made him politically radioactive, and remains an embarrassing ally in the war on terror). His priority is to keep the money flowing from the oilfields in the south of Sudan, to the commercial centre in Khartoum. For this reason, he lashes out with horrific violence at any secession movement
This is a life or death issue for the Sudanese state, and is massively more important to them than any single minerals deal. It is possible that the only long-term solution to the problems of the region is a partition of Sudan (albeit that this would hardly be good news for the Darfurians as it would leave them with a state with hardly any assets at all, a rapidly dwindling water supply and an unstable Chad on their western border). But something as huge as that can hardly be carried out by a quiet word from the Chinese
China can't use any influence on the rebels. As Alan Kuperman has regularly pointed out, it is hard to escape the conclusion that for at least some of the Darfur rebel movements, the civilian deaths are part of the plan. Ever since the Balkan wars of the 1990s, there has been a trend for secession movements all over the world to attempt to provoke genocidal violence, in the hope that this will draw a humanitarian intervention from western powers and give them the state they want. The rebel groups have behaved absolutely scandalously - they have committed atrocities against civilians, fired on aid vehicles, used child soldiers and turned the refugee camps into hell on earth (at one point, they were actually preventing refugees from returning to their farms in parts of south Darfur where fighting had ended; as far as the rebels were concerned, the refugees' patriotic duty was to stay and die of cholera in front of some cameras)
But worse than all of this, they have constantly sabotaged the peace process. The reason that there are no peace talks going on at present is that the rebel groups can't form a coherent negotiating body. This is, obviously, not something that China can do anything about, and it is the really worrying thing about Darfur - as bad as things are there, they're not as bad as Northern Uganda or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, yet. The general pattern of African civil wars is that getting really bad in DRC when the rebel armies stop caring about the war and just turn into roaming bandits, and there are distinct signs that some of the Darfur rebel groups are heading that way
Finally, China won't make its entire national interest subject to the Olympic Games. We're on the ground in Iraq, which is a conflict in which at least as many civilians have died as there have in Darfur, and we're going to be hosting the Olympic Games in 2012. What do you think would happen if somebody started a campaign to create bad publicity for the London games as an effective policy lever to make us change our policy in Iraq? Frankly, I don't think that they'd be taken very seriously. China is a massive economy with next to no hydrocarbons of its own. It is not as if our track record is really good in regions of the world in which we have mineral interests, so we need to be realistic about how virtuous a standard we can expect from China
Basically, as this rather good article in Foreign Policy makes clear, the Sudanese government doesn't have a magic off-switch for the Darfur crisis, and the Chinese government doesn't have a magic off-switch on the Sudanese government. This is everyone's problem, not just China's, and the main focus of protests going forward ought to be the continued scandal of the underfunding of the Unamid
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Why blame China?
It's gratifying to have a new focus on Darfur but China's role in halting the country's conflict is no bigger than anyone else's
Jonathan Steele
The excitement over Steven Spielberg's withdrawal of support for the Beijing Olympics has helped to re-focus attention on Darfur. That is all to the good, especially if it leads his fellow-protesters to look more clearly at what is actually happening there and what moral responsibility China really has in allegedly failing to stop the war in Darfur. Brian Brivati wrote on this blog yesterday that "China is the key", but is that really the case?
Wars always have at least two sides, and in the Darfur case that is an underestimate. There are around a dozen different rebel groups currently fighting the government. To put the blame on only one party makes no moral or political sense. The best way to stop the fighting and the humanitarian emergency that flows from it is to have an organised ceasefire and hold talks. This is what the Sudanese government did last October on the eve of the peace conference that the UN and the African Union held in Libya. Only a minority of the rebel groups reciprocated the ceasefire offer or attended the conference. They preferred to go on fighting, in part because they feel the one-sided approach of much of the outside world, with its exclusive pressure on the Khartoum government, helps their cause
The point is slowly being accepted by many of the so-called Darfur support groups. Compared with three years ago, when the campaign started, their statements now show a greater willingness to recognise the rebels' negative role in attacking aid workers, stealing humanitarian supplies, and raiding government-held villages and towns. The latest atrocity in early February when Khartoum-backed militias burnt down two towns in Western Darfur was provoked by attacks by the Justice and Equality Movement, one of the main groups which rejects peace talks. The pattern is depressingly familiar from almost every counterinsurgency campaign in history - rebel raids, which produce a government over-reaction. But who is to blame? If the rebels went to the peace table, there would have been no impulse for the government to respond with force
The support groups still seem not to appreciate that the humanitarian situation has changed. Claims of genocide were never accepted by the UN, but the events that gave rise to them occurred in 2003 and 2004. Today's Darfur is still appalling but not so bloody a place. In any case, the death rates of those years are heavily disputed, as is their cause. The victims of hunger and disease exacerbated by forced displacement are one-sidedly, and often deliberately, described by lobby groups as having been killed by government forces or their militias, as though they were executed
Subsequent years have seen a huge deployment to Darfur of UN and other international aid agencies. They eliminated starvation and massively reduced death from disease. Displacement in overcrowded camps is no longterm solution and people need confidence and security to go home. But the need to bring in a more powerful UN peacekeeping force to help to ensure that should not obscure the fact that the humanitarian effort has already been one of the UN's most successful interventions anywhere
Getting governments to fulfil their promises of troops for the new hybrid UN/AU force in Darfur, trying to obtain more helicopters, and building the peacekeepers' bases more quickly are important tasks. But, however well-equipped its force is, the UN cannot impose peace. That can only be done through a ceasefire and political talks. As Ban Ki-moon rightly said last week, "the deployment of Unamid will only be as effective as the political process it is mandated to support"
How does China relate to this? It helped to pass the UN resolution to set up Unamid. It has contributed several hundred military engineers to Unamid. What more can it realistically do? The idea that it can pressure Khartoum "to stop the killing", as Brivati wrote yesterday, is too simple. The killing is more likely to stop when the rebels come to the peace table that the AU and the UN (with China's help) have laid out for them
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
The power of protest
Independent.co.uk
The Chinese foreign ministry argued that "it is understandable if some people do not understand the Chinese government policy on Darfur", and went on to urge America to stop its "Cold War thinking", accusing some of its detractors of harbouring "ulterior motives"
But the problem is not that we do not understand the Chinese policy on Darfur, it is that we understand it all too well. China buys some 60 per cent of the African nation's oil and sells arms to the regime with no questions asked. The weapons have been used to help suppress the inhabitants of the Darfur region, where 200,000 people have died and a further two million have been forced from their homes in the past five years. Turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing would be one thing. But China goes further, and uses its influence in the United Nations Security Council to protect its Sudanese client. China has helped to water down resolution 1769, which calls for the deployment of a joint United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force to protect the inhabitants of Darfur
It has been suggested that pressurising the Chinese government in this manner is unlikely to be productive. If China treats its own inhabitants so badly, goes the argument, is it really likely to yield to foreign pressure for the sake of the welfare of Africans? But, on the contrary, this is a perfect time to demand a change from Beijing. These Olympics are designed to be China's international "coming out" ceremony. China does not need economic favours from the international community. It is growing at such a rate that it is on course to become the world's largest economy by the middle of the century. But what China wants is the esteem of the wider world. If this respect is seen to be withheld, it is not naïve to imagine that China will modify its behaviour. All of this makes the run-up to these Olympics a unique window in which to put pressure on Beijing over Darfur
The Chinese embassy in Washington claims it is "irresponsible and unfair" to link the Olympics to foreign policy issues. No one disputes that the Olympics are – at heart – about sporting competition. But in fact the irresponsible course of action in this instance would have been to fail to link the games to China's unsavoury relationship with Khartoum
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Bush rules out an Olympic boycott
Independent.co.uk
By Rupert Cornwell
Friday, 15 February 2008
The strains were evident in Beijing's claim yesterday that "ulterior motives" were at play behind the withdrawal of the Hollywood director Steven Spielberg as an artistic adviser for the Games, which begin on 8 August, in protest at China's policy on Darfur. Spielberg's move came just days after two more spy cases, to add to the long series of such controversies between the two countries
But while rhetoric may sharpen in the coming months, in the heat of the presidential campaign and as the Olympics approach, President Bush ruled out an official boycott of the Games, which he is scheduled to attend. "I'm going to the Olympics. I view them as a sporting event," he told the BBC, adding, however, that he would meet Hu Jintao, the Chinese President, and "remind him that he can do more to relieve the suffering in Darfur"
Specialists on US-China relations said current frictions should not be exaggerated. "Steven Spielberg is just a private citizen," said Jeffrey Bader, the National Security Council director for Asian affairs at the Clinton White House, and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
"What he said will add to the pressures on China over Darfur, which is no bad thing. But a stampede in that direction? I don't think so."
In fact, for all the outrage over Darfur, there has been no talk here of a US boycott of the 2008 Games to match 1980, when President Carter ordered a US boycott of the Moscow Games that year in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Nor have the spy cases generated much anger – in good measure because such incidents are so common. "In the last six months, we have filed charges in half a dozen cases," said a senior US Justice Department official this week
More broadly, Washington has a host of reasons to avoid a showdown that would upset what is the world's most important geostrategic relationship. On the diplomatic front, China is a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council, whose co-operation is essential not only for strong UN action on Darfur, but also to keep up the diplomatic pressure on Iran over its uranium enrichment programme
Any dislocation of trade and financial ties could be more damaging still. If Beijing decided to dump a significant part of its US dollar reserves, it would depress the currency, boost inflation and possibly force a rise in US interest rates, just as recession looms
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A letter from the world's Nobel laureates to China: You must act on Darfur (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
The great wall of indifference
Lobbying China on a diplomatic level is notoriously difficult
Yesterday, The Independent announced a global campaign to shame China into doing more to help Darfur. And the reaction from those who could actually change things? President Bush rules out boycott and says 'I'm going to the Olympics'. Major Games sponsors refuse to raise the issue with the Chinese
Independent.co.uk
By Jonathan Brown, Amol Rajan and Ben Russell
Friday, 15 February 2008
As international condemnation mounted over China's reluctance to censure Khartoum for its conduct in Darfur, campaigners pressured multinational companies including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Adidas, to end their "silent complicity" with the regime
The new focus came after a letter that demanded China to use its extensive links with oil-exporting Sudan to press for peace in Darfur was sent to President Hu Jintao by a coalition of Nobel laureates, athletes, celebrities and politicians. The trenchant text, printed on the front page of The Independent, yesterday made further headlines around the world but received a cold welcome among those leaders best positioned to act on its message
President Bush distanced himself from the letter, as well as the decision of the film director Steven Spielberg to stand down in his role as the Games' artistic director. Mr Bush said he regarded the Olympics as a "sporting event"
China broke its silence over the issue, saying it regretted the Hollywood star's resignation
The country's state-owned media accused Western countries of exploitation, insisting the Chinese public were "disgusted" and "baffled" by attempts to influence policy ahead of the Olympics. A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said the country would not be deterred in its mission to make the Games a success
Sudan also leapt to the defence of its key trading partner and political ally. Ali al-Sadig, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, praised Beijing's role in the peacekeeping operation and claimed Spielberg's decision had been based on "wrong information"
But despite the apparent indifference to the Nobel laureates' letter in Beijing, Washington and Khartoum, the signs are that, between now and August, when the Games commence, the pressure on China and those companies and individuals associated with the Olympics will not let up
The New York-based Olympic Dream For Darfur (ODFD), backed by the actress Mia Farrow, has launched a campaign to target sponsor companies hoping to use this summer's global sporting jamboree to promote themselves to China's booming domestic market
ODFD's director, Jill Savitt, said it was focusing on 19 Western-owned firms from among the 64 corporate backers who have signed deals as Olympic partners, sponsors or suppliers
The pressure group has drawn up a report card looking at efforts each company has made to raise concerns over China's Africa policy. It asked them to use their influence with the International Olympic Committee and the 2008 host nation to bring peace on the ground to Darfur
Among the actions it recommended were co-signing a letter to President Hu warning that the crisis could tarnish the Olympic ideal as well as making a direct appeal for Beijing to intervene to stop the killing. None did so
Only two – General Electric and McDonald's – were prepared to contact the Olympic movement about the issue, though others – Adidas, Coca-Cola and Johnson & Johnson - earned credit for either giving aid to Darfur or taking other "responsible" steps
"We are not asking them to make a crazy gesture or boycott the Games, we are simply asking them to speak up," Ms Savitt said. "Each of these companies is very afraid of China of incurring its wrath or that of its 1.3 billion consumers so we thought we would try to get them to act in concert. As a world community, we said one of the reasons that China got the Games was to open up to the outside world, so for that reason why won't these companies, especially those based in countries that respect human rights do anything?"
The Independent contacted 18 of the corporate sponsors with British links yesterday. The overwhelming majority failed to return the calls or declined to comment while six issued statements defending their support for the Beijing Olympics. None indicated a willingnessto voice concerns directly to the Chinese government
Coca-Cola said it preferred to give aid directly to the troubled region saying it felt it was not its role to "give governments suggestions about the foreign policy their country should follow"
The computer firm Lenovo expressed "great empathy for the people of Darfur" but declined to comment on the political situation. Adidas, the Sportswear manufacturer, and McDonald's both said the conflict could only be solved at a government level, while Panasonic insisted its support for the Olympic ideal was "independent of local contingencies"
A statement by Johnson & Johnson said: "Johnson & Johnson is dedicated to improving the health and well-being of people around the world. We do that best by developing products that help people live healthier lives."
In Britain, Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister, said it was "reasonable" to use the publicity generated by the Games to push for Beijing to cut ties with the Sudanese regime. She praised the "eloquent" plea for action by the eight Nobel laureates but rejected calls for a boycott
Darfur: the facts
* The conflict has affected more than three million people in Darfur and eastern Chad (US govt, EU, UN)
* 2.2 million people are displaced within Darfur (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs)
* 15,000 people die each month (Coalition for International Justice)
* 400,000 have fled to refugee camps in neighbouring Chad (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)
* More than 20 per cent of children under five are suffering from severe malnutrition and many are dying each day (UN World Food Programme)
* Crude oil exports from Sudan to China more than doubled last year to top 200,000 barrels a day, with data showing that China now takes 40 per cent of the country's total output
* Only 50 per cent of people in need are receiving food assistance (UN World Food Programme)
* Critics accuse China of abetting mass killing in Darfur by using its power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to stall or dilute bids to deal with the conflict. They also continue military relations with the Sudanese government
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Mohamed Omer
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست