China's involvement in Sudan stretches back more than a decade and has snowballed to the extent that it now supplies nearly a quarter of the African country's imports and accounts for about 70 percent of its exports, mostly oil.
But despite growing global criticism of Chinese blank checks written to the regime in Khartoum, Beijing has shifted its policy in the past 18 months.
Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Most significantly, analysts say, China backed security resolution 1769, which nearly tripled the size of the peacekeeping force in Darfur to 20,000 and brought in the UN alongside the African Union, which had led the mission. After successfully lobbying Bashir to accept the new force, China announced a US$10 million contribution to humanitarian aid in the country.
But many experts question how much pressure China is really exerting. Although the Chinese delegation at last month's African Union summit warned that the world was "running out of patience on Darfur," Sudan's government continues to hamper the new peacekeeping mission's deployment and last week launched the heaviest aerial attacks on villages in Darfur in more than a year.
"Sudan does listen and will continue to listen to what China says," said Sally Chin, Sudan analyst for the International Crisis Group. "There is so much more that it could be doing to put pressure on Khartoum to allow the peacekeepers into Darfur and to respect the ceasefire."
Egbert Wesselink, head of the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan, a research group, said China's "positive" influence did not appear to have had any real effect.
"It may be that it is giving a lot of good and wise advice to Sudan in private, but I have yet to see any tangible results in Darfur," he said.
So is this "new Chinese policy" meaningful?
"I would have to say not,"Wesselink said.
The relationship stretches back to 1994, when Khartoum's role in sponsoring terror and waging civil war in the south of the country severely limited its options for developing its petroleum industry. Eager to crack the western-dominated oil market, China dove in, helping Sudan become an oil exporter within five years by building a 1,600km pipeline and a refinery in the capital.
Along the way, the state-owned Chinese National Petroleum Co took 40 percent stakes in Sudan's two main oil consortiums. For China this proved extremely profitable as oil prices soared; in Sudan, human rights groups say, it helped fuel wars.
The Swiss-based Small Arms Survey says that up to 80 percent of Sudan's share of its early oil revenues was spent on weapons for the war in the south with the close assistance of China, which had previously sold it fighter jets and military helicopters.
By the beginning of the separate Darfur conflict in 2003, China had overtaken Iran as the country's main arms supplier and helped build weapons factories in Sudan. For Khartoum, which has also benefited from soft loans and Chinese expertise in building dams, bridges and rail networks, the partnership had another crucial upside.
As the war in Darfur attracted increasing international condemnation, China used its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to consistently stop strong action being taken against Sudan.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS