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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS