Noteworthy...

Posting here will likely be light(-ish) through the end of this month, as I'm currently in the process of moving back to Oxford after a year-long hiatus. As you might imagine, things are rather hectic, and I imagine that they will remain as such until I'm properly settled in the city of dreaming spires come the end of September/early October. Please do bear with me!

For now, some very noteworthy reads (now bulleted for your reading pleasure owing to their number. Slightly more optically pleasing, no?):

• Protests have again broken out in Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang province, two months after the initial turmoil. Thousands of Han Chinese have taken to the street touting the "uselessness" of the government and its failure to provide appropriate security protections in the region
• John Prendergast, co-chair of the ENOUGH Project, discusses the flaws in the Obama administration's Sudan policy and what should be done to remedy them. Mark Goldberg was right: Darfur activists appear to be losing their patience
• Gmail was down for a while this week, and it seems that the world nearly stood still. Why do we freak out over such seemingly insignificant technical glitches?
• It's no secret that the Chinese cook their books. What's perhaps less well known is that the cooking is done not by central CCP bureaucrats, but by local and provincial government officials. Such a reality speaks to the complexities of center-periphery relations in the country
• Is Kenya falling apart? It certainly appears that way, especially with the Kenyan state growing increasingly less visible and less relevant
• One-third of Chinese scientists want to switch careers and wouldn't recommend their profession to their children. Too little pay, too much work
• While I'm certainly no expert on Honduran politics, I nevertheless find it rather curious that the U.S. is threatening not to recognize the results of the Honduran elections to be held this November. This decision is based on the "current existing conditions" in the country, which have deteriorated since the June 28 coup. If this is indeed the sole guiding motive, surely the U.S. should not have recognized the Iranian election results either?
• Via Texas in Africa I learn of a brilliant series being run by Myles Estey over at The Esteyonage. The series, 'Gettin by,' looks at the micro-economy of Liberia and the means by which people outside the national statistics make a living. While the focus in solely on Liberia, the findings are indubitably applicable to other African states as well
• Amartya Sen's new book, The Idea of Justice, is 490-some pages of wise Sen-isms. Two themes predominate: economic rationality and social injustice. Occasional swings at John Rawls are also taken, which (depending on your guiding philosophy) make the book both witty and exceptionally informative. The Economist's review of the book may be found here

What's wrong with this picture?

Via Joshua Keating we learn that China's Economic Observer has put together the following map of overseas expansions by CNOOC, CNPC and Sinopec - China's three major oil giants. Click here to access the interactive version, which provides (only some) added information:

Now I don't know about you, but I find this map to be highly inaccurate, and not just because the African countries have been mislabeled. The map grossly under-represents China's oil ventures in Africa; it's quite laughable, really! As Keating aptly observes, Sudan, where CNPC has extensive and very controversial holdings is absent. So is Niger, Gabon, Ethiopia (Sinopec is especially active in both); my goodness, where is Angola? Or Chad, for that matter? Kenya, Equatorial Guinea, and Algeria are all conspicuously absent as well. I really could go on. And while I'm not especially well-versed in China's energy holdings and exploration activities in Latin America, I'd venture to guess that the map greatly underestimates its ventures there, as well.

To be perfectly honest I feel as though I must be missing something; as though the map is intended to highlight specific cases of China's overseas oil activities, for instance, or perhaps is otherwise well outdated. Unfortunately, neither appears to be the case. There's no indication of any singling out of countries, and the sentence which begins "With China's recent $7.2 billion acquisition of oil explorer Addax Petroleum...." indicates that this map is very recent (Sinopec bought Addax in June of this year). So why in the world would the Observer put together such a misguided map? Is the Chinese public so unaware of its country's overseas activities, or do they think we are?

Lending a new meaning to the term "south-south cooperation"

David Axe of the War is Boring blog has a column in Wednesday's World Politics Review in which he suggests that Kenya might be funneling arms to South Sudan. Excellent. Well done, Kenya (of course I say this with complete and utter sarcasm).

According to Axe, the Ukrainian-owned vessel, Fania, which was captured by Somali pirates and returned to the port in Mombassa in February, was bound for the breakaway region in southern Sudan. The ship carried 33 Soviet-designed T-72 main battle tanks, plus other arms and ammunition - all of somewhat dodgy origin and ownership:

The Faina shipment apparently represented the third and final installment of a large batch of heavy weaponry for South Sudan, sourced from Ukraine and brokered by Nairobi. In November, the German magazine Der Spiegel claimed it had records proving an earlier shipment of 42 tanks that had largely escaped international scrutiny [...]

If this is indeed discovered to be true, it "would finger the Kenyan government in a sanctions-skirting arms race that some worry could result in another bloody civil warfare in Sudan." Kenyan military support for South Sudan would also put Nairobi at great odds with the U.S., which is one of the country's closest allies.

The Stop Arms to Sudan program of Human Rights First has a database of various countries' arms sales to Sudan between 2004-2006 (if anyone happens upon an updated version, do please let me know!). Not surprisingly, China is the foremost supplier of arms, but if you scroll down a ways you see that Kenya has done its fair share as well. The database is a conservative estimate at best as the data collected is that which the countries have divulged voluntarily (*chuckle chuckle*). The database also fails to specify where in Sudan the arms are being shipped, though it really isn't too difficult to guess.

Perhaps it is somewhat foolish to single out Kenya in such a way, as it is highly plausible that other African states are engaged in similar antics, though perhaps do a better job of remaining under the radar. At the same time, the outing of the Kenya-South Sudan relationship may perhaps do well to serve as a warning to other African countries embroiled in similar engagements. A comment by an Economist reader puts the matter in plain terms: "Kenyan Govt is fishing in a muddy waters. Beware what you do in the neighborhood."

Noteworthy….

"The continent must not be like a beautiful fruit tree by the wayside. Every passer-by plucks a share and the fruit tree seems to forget that it could one day grow old.." Words of caution to Africans as both Russian and American leaders make trips to the continent

African leaders have denounced the ICC and refuse to extradite Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir, while others attempt to decipher what, exactly, this means

Niall Ferguson and James Fallows discuss the influence of China on the U.S. economy at the Aspen Ideas Festival

Win in China: a great documentary on the rise of entrepreneurship in China

My humanitarian crisis is bigger than your humanitarian crisis

Earlier this month I grumbled (ever so slightly) over the selective coverage of humanitarian crises in the mainstream press (I was then alluding to the dearth of coverage regarding Sri Lanka). Another case in point: Congo v. Darfur:

According to Julie Hollar of Fair and Accuracy in Reporting:

To put the death rate in perspective, at the peak of the Darfur crisis, the conflict-related death rate there was less than a third of the Congo’s, and by 2005 it had dropped to less than 4,000 per month. The United Nations has estimated some 300,000 may have died in total as a result of the years of conflict in Darfur; the same number die from the Congo conflict every six and a half months. 

And yet, in the New York Times, which covers the Congo more than most U.S. outlets, Darfur has consistently received more coverage since it emerged as a media story in 2004. The Times gave Darfur nearly four times the coverage it gave the Congo in 2006, while Congolese were dying of war-related causes at nearly 10 times the rate of those in Darfur. 

Hollar goes on to suggest several potential explanations underpinning such a media disparity, among them: journalist access to the conflict zone (or lack thereof); celebrity attention (or lack thereof, until recently); and U.S. political interests which, Hollar argues, are the foremost drivers of where the West happens to invest its attention. While there may be some merit to this claim, my understanding is that the crisis failed to attract much initial attention in the U.S. and beyond, which weakens her argument. Thoughts on this, anyone?

On a somewhat unrelated, albeit related note, Texas in Africa has a great post examining why the Congo remains an "anarchic war-zone" despite all humanitarian, Western, peacekeeping, democracy promotion, and celebrity awareness efforts. Definitely worth a read.

Noteworthy….

Chinese arms sales are on the uptick. The major markets?: the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Wonderful.

Can Catholicism help Africa? Africans express their views on the religion's impact.

Just say 'no': China's Ministry of Commerce blocks Coca Cola's proposed acquisition of China Huiyuan Juice Group.

Bringing Sudan's forgotten judiciary back into the picture: a review of Abdullahi Ibrahim's book, Rectifying the Neglect of Sudan's Judiciary

Oh, now this hits close to home: Northwestern professors Jeff Ely and Sandeep Baliga are blogging at http://cheeptalk.wordpress.com. I have fond memories of sitting in Professor Ely's (I can't bring myself to call him Jeff...) microecon class back in the day. Admittedly, his blog appears infinitely more interesting than the course (I'm allowed to say that now, right?)

Sudan: Africa's Yugoslavia

An interesting interview with Talha Gibriel, among the most outspoken Sudanese intellectuals on the Darfur crisis, in which he argues for the self-determination of Darfur as the only way to peace: 

Should Darfur be declared independent, the region would be left to the African tribes, whereas the Arab tribes would move to the nearby region of Kordofan, with an Arab majority, or they could decide to live in Darfur as a minority. However, self-determination is not a solution just for Darfur. As I said before, Sudan is the “African Yugoslavia” and we should follow the example of former Yugoslavia, declaring the independence of the regions in our country where different ethnicities live. This is the only way to prevent future conflicts.  

Weren't we?... Wait a minute...

I think I missed something.

Wasn't it just not too long ago that divestment from Sudan was the issue? Celebrities from Spielberg to Clooney were making front-page news, urging U.S. firms to use their economic leverage to help halt the violence in Sudan. Berkshire Hathaway came under fire for rejecting the plan as did, naturally, the Chinese. Forty-two colleges and universities even restricted their holdings in companies somehow linked with the state. Divestment was a tour de force, at least for a time.

I recently did a news search for "divestment, Sudan." The most promising find was an article in today's Alaska Report noting the attempts of four Alaska legislators to stop the state from investing in foreign companies complicit in the Darfur genocide. So far so good. The second best find was a Washington Times feature piece, dated 1 January 2009, on the Genocide Intervention Network. Third best? An opinion piece in Payvand, an Iranian news network, on the rise of Hilary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State. The piece has nothing to do with Sudan, but the word is mentioned. Twice.

And, that's it. 

Well, sort of. The FT reports that U.S. businessman Philippe Heilberg has secured a huge piece of fertile land in southern Sudan from the family of a notorious warlord. This is post-colonial Africa's biggest private land deal (the area is the size of Dubai!).

I tried looking at this deal objectively, really, I did. But really? Really!? On the one hand Mr. Heilberg is a private citizen and entitled to do as he damn well pleases. If he wants to buy land in a country where the government is responsible for the slaughter of thousands and thousands of individuals (and from a warlord, no less!), sure, go right ahead.  I don't question his right, only his judgement. Moreover, I do recognize that such purchases may assist in Sudan's renewed development (and there is little deying that it it needed - and quite badly), but really?

This purchase seemingly comes as a backhanded slap in the face to countless investors and activists who have been hard at work, attempting to aid victims of the genocide and terminate it altogether. If this was some small land deal, I would perhaps be inclined to let it slide. But this is the continent's biggest private land deal since the end of the colonial period. Think about that. What kind of a message does this send? And what a fantastic example of the classic free-rider problem: Well, um, you guys go on ahead and divest. Me? I'm just going to buy myself here this nice plot of land... 

Maybe he never got the memo.

What happened to the zeal that defined early divestment efforts? Where is the outrage? Since when did concern over humanitarian crises become a passing fad? What did I miss?! Maybe we all need to sit down and re-watch The Devil Came on Horseback (in my humble opinion among the best documentaries on the subject) to remind ourselves of the ongoing terror. Maybe this isn't as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be. Or, maybe, it is. 

Rebels among us

Young, agitated Darfurians in Hamidiya Camp in West Darfur are making peace negotiations even more tangled, writes the NYTimes:

The youths are known collectively as the “shabab,” the Arabic word for young men. And they have become a vehemently pro-rebel political force in the camps for the 2.7 million people displaced by years of war between the Arab-dominated Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Increasingly angry and outspoken about their uncertain fate, the generation that came of age in the camps is challenging the traditional sheiks, upending the age-old authority structure of their tribal society and complicating efforts to achieve peace.

“They are much more extreme than the sheiks,” said the United Nations official who related the episode of the frightened sheik, speaking anonymously to avoid jeopardizing his own acceptance among the shabab. “And they are hotheaded.”

Slavery in Darfur

Strong evidence has emerged of children and adults being used as slaves in Sudan's Darfur region, a study says.

Kidnapped men have been forced to work on farmland controlled by Janjaweed militias, a coalition of African charities says.Eyewitnesses also say the Sudanese army has been involved in abducting women and children to be sex slaves and domestic staff for troops in Khartoum.

But Khartoum said the report was "very naive" and called the authors ignorant. "The government does not condone abductions and it is not government policy," a government spokesman told the BBC.

"We are working hard to stop such violations. The rebel factions are mostly to blame for abductions in Darfur.

From, BBC Africa

Is Turkey pulling a China regarding Darfur?

Sudanese president al-Bashir is among those in attendance at this week's Turkey Africa Cooperation Summit being held in Istanbul. His presence has outraged many human rights activists, who feel that inviting al-Bashir signals Turkish complacency in the Darfur crisis. Among others, the New York based Human Rights Watch has called on Turkey to use the opportunity to support a court case against Bashir, who has been indicted on genocide charges by the ICC. There is little public evidence that such support has been given. 

At a private meeting, Turkish president Gul told Bashir that he should "work hard" to end the violence in Darfur, which is tantamount to telling a small child to 'play nice' in the sandbox, only for him to return to his previous antics as soon as no one is looking. Such requests are unlikely to shake Bashir, who has vowed never to turn any Sudanese over to the ICC, and does little in the way of ending the crisis in Darfur. 

Turkey's human rights record is itself laden with violations, especially as regards military-civilian relations and Article 301 of its constitution which prohibits "denigrating Turkishness." Nevertheless, the country is signatory to various human rights documents, among them the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As a country fervently seeking entry into the EU, it is moreover in Turkey's interest to choose its friends and allies carefully, as any misstep may cost it that coveted EU seat.

Yet with China rising in the international arena despite its unwillingness to 'save Darfur,' it is not surprising that a country like Turkey might not express particular concern, either. China's message is in many ways one of strategic and international success coupled with frequent disregard for the West and international doctrines. Under such an approach countries like China continue to gain international dominance and countries like Sudan are let off the hook. It's a dangerous form of realist politics that the global community shouldn't be too quick to tolerate.

The “Genocide Olympics:” Not China’s Alone?

Today's online issue of The Guardian had a rather interesting article on China's role in Darfur. In it, Patrick Smith argues that if we are to point fingers at the Chinese for their failings in Darfur, we should equally point fingers at Russia and the West. 

While the argument itself lacks any sort of novelty, it touches on a point that is worth recalling. I certainly do not care to condone China's Africa policy, as I find in it many faults, but I do think it behooves us to remember that the Chinese are not the only ones entangled with the Sudanese government. One need not look any further than France, Malaysia, Russia, and even the United States, to discover similar instances of government relations. Of course the nature of engagement of each state varies, but the point remains the same: they are all there. 

Last week Steven Spielberg withdrew as the artistic adviser to the upcoming Beijing Olympics on the grounds that he could not reconcile himself to aiding perpetrators of gross crimes against humanity (i.e. Darfur). According to Peter Apps, Spielberg's snub is a sign of things to come. Spielberg's decision is certainly noteworthy and a brilliant exercise of the kind of soft power that may ultimately impact on China's Darfur policy, but to expect this to bring about such profound changes as many hope is to engage in nothing but wishful thinking. 

So long as other states continue to maintain relations with Khartoum - in whatever capacity - it is highly unlikely that the Chinese will make any significant changes to their Darfur - and indeed African - policy. In discussions with my Chinese colleagues, I continuously encounter two comments on the Darfur issue: (1) China is not doing anything that is not being done by other international actors; (2) There is a difference between business and government. The businessmen in Sudan do business, they do not engage in government activity. Whether or not they believe the latter is open to debate, but it is the former comment that is most salient.

The Olympics will go on without Spielberg, even without the assistance of others should they withdraw. Moreover, the Olympics will be the most fantastic spectacle of "East meets West" and "East doesn't need/need to be like the West" propaganda the world has seen in some time. My brief visit to Beijing this past September convinced me of the fact.  If we follow Smith's argument to it's logical conclusion, however, it appears that the "Genocide Olympics" don't belong to China alone. If we accept the international doctrine of responsibility, then to some extent the burden of the "Genocide Olympics" falls on all of us. In our failure to effectively aid the people of Darfur we are all in some measure responsible. Some, of course, more than others. 

Non-interference? Please.

The Chinese government recently released a statement saying that democracy hurts Kenya; this statement coming in light of the recent post-election violence in the country. The irony of this statement is quite fantastic when one considers Chinese claims of "non-interference" in the domestic politics of African - and indeed all other - states.

Curiously, the Chinese appear to be doing anything but not interfering. Beijing continues to sustain despotic regimes in Sudan and Zimbabwe; African states signing bilateral agreements with China are required to renounce their allegiance to Taiwan and support the "One China" policy (Malawi is a recent case in point); the 2006 Zambian election hinged on the 'China question,' which Chinese officials threatening to cut diplomatic ties with the country if the opposition candidate, Michael Sata, was elected (he ultimately wasn't); and now the Chinese are making pronouncements on the disadvantage of democracy in Kenya! Non-interference? Please.