'The Guardian' is picking up on the fact that China might, and probably will, use its veto in the UN Security Council to block any attempt to arrest Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, on genocide charges. Of course, China being a leading supplier of weapons and one of the main investors in the country has a lot to lose in what is, in fact, a cynical game being played by the so-called "international community". An indictment for genocide might lead to direct western involvement in a country where the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation has its largest overseas engagement.
Where does China then go? The multi-nationals that dominate the industry are already consolidating their hegemony from Kazakhstan to the Middle East. The writing is on the wall for China and is evidenced by the return of the "big four" to Iraq and that country's subsequent binning of 49 understandings with other countries including China. It might even be the the CNPC's existing contracts in Sudan can become vulnerable and we need look no further than the Russian company Lukoil, which had to terminate all of their projects in Iraq to see how this might happen.
With reference to the killings in Dafur, William Schabas, of the rights centre at the National University of Ireland, said: "Genocide is reserved for the physical extermination of ethnic groups, and I think most observers would agree that's not what we're seeing here."1 It is not and, while there is a lot that we might find obnoxious in the person of Omar al-Bashir, let us at least be aware of the so-called "international community's" true motives and let us least try to understand the Chinese and Russian positions on Iran, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and elsewhere when they invest in those places and use their vetoes in the UN to protect those investments.
1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/sudan.africanunion
2 comments:
"international community's" true motives.
I think that you are somewhat wrong about this chap. There is little to do with China and Russia here. al Bashir should go to court for crimes against humanity and this is very clear. In 1998 he invaded South Sudan and stopped the humanitarian aid for people there. Tens of thousands died. He systematically expatriates people from rich petrol lands. In 1991-1996 he sheltered Osama bin Laden and his terror allies.
In 2003 his militiamen killed hundred of thousands in Darfur.
He is not better than Slobo Miloshevich and if Slobo went to court he should end as well. Not much to do with China and Russia.
if the post were read properly, it can be seen that nobody is denying that al Bashir is an extremely nasty fellow, as too were saadam, milosovic and quite a few others, who the west has no problem talking to when they need them - see dayton - and even helping when necessary; the west supplied saadam with his weapons during the iran-iraq war. It is when we don't need them that is when we indict them. the hypocrisy is unbelievable!
in the case of the sudan it is all about china in particular and in the case of this indictment it is about more than just war crimes; he is being indicted for genoicide. now, whatever interpretation you might want to put on the crimes in dafur all experts appear to agree that genoicide just did not happen. should al bashir be brought to trial for genoicide this would open a door for the west to move into the sudan, a country from which china receives some 10% of its oil. this is, indeed, all about geo-politics and i suggest that the reader click on the link 'geopolitics-geoeconomics on the left hand of the page.
of course, even on the crime of war crimes there is a very strong case in both international and local law for george w bush, dick cheney, tony blair and a few others being indicted. that, however, is another story.
Post a Comment