Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy & international
politics.
Saturday's
Lagniappe
Realism
and Dafur
By
James
Forsyth
John
Bolton is nothing if not direct. So it was unsurprising that when
Time magazine asked him recently whether genocide is "the
right term for what's happening" in Darfur, he gave a blunt
response: "Sounds right to me."
Bolton is
a fervent defender of the American national interest, with little
appetite for liberal idealism. So his comment reveals something
important about the Darfur debate: Even those who are generally
skeptical of humanitarian intervention are prepared to admit that
genocide is taking place in Darfur. But while almost everyone
agrees that a genocide is happening, there is little agreement
as to how the United States should respond, if at all. This is
where advocates of intervention have failed. They have portrayed
intervention in Darfur as a moral imperative--which it is--but
have focused little on winning over foreign-policy realists to
their cause.
In
fact, there is a strong national-interest case to be made for
intervention in Darfur. The failure to act is weakening the U.S.
position on a continent of increasing importance to American energy
needs and the fight against terrorism. How? By demonstrating that
being under the Chinese umbrella guarantees you impunity. Given
the Bush administration's passionate, noble rhetoric on human
rights and its decision to label Darfur a genocide, the world
is wondering why a supposedly intervention-happy U.S. government
is treading so softly. To many African governments the answer
probably appears obvious: Khartoum has a powerful patron in China,
whose seat on the Security Council stymies American efforts to
deal with the situation.
Arecent
survey published in Foreign Policy magazine (where I work) revealed
that sub-Saharan Africa was the principal area of research for
only 6 percent of American international relations scholars. Only
one percent of academics thought the region was of greatest importance
to the United States now and only two percent thought it would
be in 20 years time. In contrast, the Chinese diplomatic establishment
has long paid close attention to the continent. Its interest dates
to the Bandung conference in 1955 and China's quest for recognition
at the United Nations. Recently, though, Beijing has stepped up
its outreach to Africa as it seeks to build a global supply chain
and secure access to energy and mineral resources.
Chinese trade
with Africa increased from $10 billion in 2003 to $20 billion
in 2004; the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that in 2005
it increased by another $10 billion. China is not only building
trade links with Africa, though. It has set up a ministerial level
China-Africa cooperation forum, and since the turn of the millennium
40 agreements have been inked between Beijing and African nations.
China is also moving aggressively to plug any gaps left by the
United States. Yesterday, a headline in the Financial Times read:
"Nigeria shifts to China arms." The Nigerian vice president
told the newspaper that U.S. cooperation was not "moving
as fast as the situation is unfolding." So, rather than waiting,
Nigeria is obtaining patrol boats to protect oil installations
in the Niger delta from China. The deal is a microcosmic example
of the Chinese advantage: The United States, the paper reported,
was moving slowly because of concerns over corruption and human
rights abuses by Nigerian forces; the Chinese had no such qualms.
The Chinese
deputy foreign minister boasted to The New York Times in 2004
that for China in Africa, "Business is business. We try to
separate politics from business." But this isn't quite true.
China might not make the aid it offers conditional on human rights
and good governance. But it does offer, according to a recent
Council on Foreign Relations report, a "total package: cash,
technology, and political protection from international pressures."
The most enthusiastic client of this "total package"
is Sudan. Sudan supplies China with 7 percent of its oil; in exchange,
China is the largest foreign investor in Sudan and gums up moves
in the Security Council to punish the Khartoum government for
perpetrating the Darfur genocide. (It also supplies military equipment
used by government-backed militias in their genocidal raids.)
If the Khartoum
government succeeds in completing the Darfur genocide without
international intervention, other African pariahs will marvel
at the benefits of coming under the Chinese umbrella. Indeed,
it seems that Robert Mugabe has already learned this lesson. Last
year, he traveled to China to sign a trade deal as part of his
"Look East" policy. While he was there, the Chinese
helped to head off a U.N. debate over his brutal slum clearance
policy.
Some realists
dismiss Mugabe's embrace of China as the action of a desperate
despot that shouldn't overly bother the United States. "Mugabe
doesn't have a lot of friends. So, he takes them where he can
get them," retorted Christopher Preble, a founding member
of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, when I raised
this point with him. But as the Council on Foreign Relations report
notes, "China offers an alternative source of support, even
for some of the United States' closest allies when they chafe
under Western pressure for economic or political reform."
Ethiopia, Kenya, and Angola have all availed themselves of this
assistance recently.
The problem,
then, with Chinese influence is that it presents African governments
with an alternative to greater political and economic liberalization.
As Ian Taylor, an Africa specialist at the University of St. Andrews,
pointed out to me, growing Chinese influence will have a "huge
impact on [the West's] leverage over dictatorships and autocrats
on the continent."
Realists might
respond that greater political and economic liberalization--i.e.,
good governance--in Africa would be nice but is not a compelling
U.S. interest. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of the twentieth century--the
American century--was bad governance in Africa. But this attitude
ignores the fact that poorly governed states offer a haven for
terrorist groups--wittingly or unwittingly. Realists scoffed at
the idea that the United States should intervene in Liberia in
2003. But Charles Taylor's regime both provided sanctuary to Al
Qaeda members and helped them launder money through the illegal
diamond trade. Another cause for concern is the potential for
Christian-Muslim conflict in many African countries--most notably
Nigeria, which is also the continent's largest oil exporter. (Indeed,
unrest in the Niger delta--where the equipment that the Chinese
just sold the Nigerians will be used--could be the trigger for
such conflict.) The continuing failure of the West to act in Darfur
will make it far more likely that groups, and governments, will
believe they can slaughter with impunity, especially if they have
protection from the Chinese. Even the most cold-hearted realist
must acknowledge that the last thing the United States needs now
is a wave of Christian-Muslim violence for Osama Bin Laden to
exploit.
The
United States must push harder at Turtle Bay for a meaningful
military response to Darfur: not just to save the lives of innocents,
to atone for sitting on its hands during the Rwandan genocide,
and to live up to its ideals, but also to thwart the rise of its
strategic competitor in Africa--an ascendance that could undermine
U.S. interests on the continent. There is evidence that China
will buckle if pushed. In the face of concerted international
pressure, China did not block last spring's Security Council resolution
referring the Darfur genocide to the International Criminal Court.
As Ian Taylor argues, real action to stop the genocide "would
send a signal that China's ability to protect autocrats has its
limitations." Sound right to you, Ambassador Bolton?
James
Forsyth is
assistant editor at Foreign Policy. Petroleumworld not necessarily
share these views.
Editor's
Note: This commentary was originally published by TNR
Online | Post date 03.01.06 . Petroleumworld reprint this article
in the interest of our readers.Petroleumworld reprint this article
in the interest of our readers.
All comments
posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect either
for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement
of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed are private comments
and do not necessary reflect the view of this website. All comments
are posted and published without liability to Petroleumworld.
Fair use Notice:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding
of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All works
published by Petroleumworld are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. Petroleumworld
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article
nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Petroleumworld encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast
Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction identify
the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com or else and
it is done within the fair use as provided for in section 107
of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Internet
web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated.
Petroleumworld 03/04/ 06
Copyright©2006
James
Forsyth.
All Rights Reserved.
Your
feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us
their views and comments about this article.
Write
to: editor@petroleumworld.com
