Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s trip to Sudan and South Sudan is a symbolic indication of the careful balancing act China must play since the independence of South Sudan one month ago yesterday. It is also a reminder of the important role China will continue to play if true peace is to be realized in Sudan.

China has more leverage than any other country in influencing Khartoum and, as I told Radio France International in an interview yesterday,

[CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW CLIP (skip to about the 9/10 mark in the broadcast)]

China, with its immense oil investments, has a vested interest in stability in both Sudans. The question is whether the effect of that influence will be negative or positive.

China has played a positive role in the past, providing the first engineers for the peacekeeping mission in Darfur and helping to steer Sudan toward a peaceful referendum and recognition of South Sudan’s independence. However, China is also a leading supplier of weapons to Sudan, many of which have been used against civilians in Darfur, in violation of a UN Security Council arms embargo, and has acted to block UN Security Council statements and action against Sudan.

China’s red carpet reception of President Bashir, an indicted war criminal, was a sharp affront to international justice, but at least held the hope that China might be able to nudge Bashir on a less destructive path. The hundreds killed and more than 200,000 displaced in South Kordofan and Abyei since June and the continuing bombing of villages in Darfur show that any Chinese efforts to that effect clearly failed.

If China is truly interested in stability in Sudan, out of oil inspired self interest if not revulsion for the atrocities being committed, then it should stop coddling Khartoum and allow stronger action in the UN Security Council including a UN civilian protection force for South Kordofan and Blue Nile, an expanded arms embargo, a demand for humanitarian access, and an investigation into atrocities already committed in the Nuba Mountains.

The United States, for its part, should engage China, make protection of civilians in Sudan a priority in the face of ongoing atrocities, and make it clear that they have a mutual interest in peace in both Sudans, an interest to which Bashir is clearly an obstacle.


A Call To Action In South Kordofan

August 8, 2011

Syria: UN Resolution Reconsidered As Attacks Continue

August 25, 2011
  • Long-hwa Lee

    Genocide with Chinese Characteristics

    I was somewhat shocked to find only one post under China, and that involved China’s role in Sudan. I am appalled there is no discussion of China’s own commission of genocide, such as its deliberate efforts to commit cultural genocide against the Tibetan people. Is it possible this organization, United to End Genocide, is fearful of upsetting China, in other words interested in appeasing China in order to try to get China to help out in Sudan? It would not be the first. In fact, the greatest appeaser of China is the United Nations itself, and even the American president has done so these past few years, much to many Americans’ chagrin. But appeasement is a useless enterprise with the People’s Republic of China. China acts only in China’s interests. Always.

    I understand the strategy of not provoking China, since its ability to blackmail is legend, but complaining about China’s hand in Darfur and ignoring Tibet makes no sense. Contending that somehow Darfur is a verifiable genocide and Tibet somehow is not, to me is incredible. China does not commit genocide in the same way that the Nazis did, or the Khmer Rouge, or in the way in which is it being conducted in Darfur – as quickly as possible. China’s plan for Tibetan genocide has been carried out in the most deliberate way, in a continuous program that has lasted the past fifty years. That the U.N. has ignored it does not mean it is not a fact. In fact, the U.N.’s denial of genocide is usually the first confirmation of its existence.

    Communist China began its plan for genocide against Tibet as early as 1951, but full implementation awaited the invasion of Tibet in 1959. The plan involved the destruction of an overwhelming majority of Tibet’s 6,000 temples, (an integral part of the fabric of Tibetan society and culture), killing as many as 90,000 in Tibet, eugenically diluting Tibetan culture, ethnicity and language through immigration and immigration policies established by Communist China, and methodical and relentless destruction of the Dalai Lama’s government in Tibet, and his leadership of the Tibetan Buddhist community.

    But the most ruthless part of Communist China’s plan, invisible to most, involves waiting for almost the entire lifetime of the most famous and powerful Tibetan, the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibet. And that part of the intrigue and planning remains active today.

    This plan involved the destruction of the Tibetan religion from within by kidnapping the 6 year old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who is the genuine Panchen Lama, and replacing him with a communist puppet, Gyachain Norbu, who now calls himself the Panchen Lama. Since the Panchen Lama’s primary function is to select the next Dalai Lama, China, will attempt to control the next Dalai Lama, whenever that occurs, and Norbu will select a communist puppet to serve as the next Dalai Lama. It is a long, painstaking plan, and has taken almost 50 years. This is one of the primary examples of “genocide with Chinese characteristics”.

    While it is true that Tibetan monks are no longer being taken out and shot in the great numbers in the past (though China’s blackout of most information coming out of Tibet prevents the world from really knowing what is going on there), the Tibetan people and their culture have been almost completely destroyed by China with premeditation and ruthlessness. Nor is the plan fully executed, because the Dalai Lama and his appointed Panchen Lama still live. Only when the Dalai Lama has died, and China sees to it that its own communist party stand-in the fake Panchen Lama picks the next Dalai Lama will the fifty year plan be nearing its end.

    I understand and support fully the work you are doing about Darfur. But I can’t help wonder why complain about what China is doing indirectly, and not accuse it for what it has done and is doing directly? I submit that the fight against genocide has become just another political football. Totalitarian governments need to be confronted, not coddled. We need people against genocide with the courage to confront, not coddle, pet projects notwithstanding.

    Sudan is an atrocity. The genocide there is reaching frightening proportions, and political correctness is preventing confrontation of the guilty. The post seems to infer that China is a positive influence in Darfur, but far from it, China is in fact an abettor and facilitator of genocide, by supplying arms, succor and support to those committing genocide. And as we well know, China will go to great lengths to protect tyranny and tyrants (Iran, North Korea, Burma, Syria, Sudan, need I go on?) because it serves its interests in continuing to block all inquiries about China’s own genocidal tactics against its own people, including Catholics, Uighurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong and others.

    In Tibet, the overwhelming response to fifty years of patient genocide has been utter silence, in particular in the United Nations. Why do people and leaders honor the Dalai Lama with such fervor, and ignore his people dying at home? How can this organization in good faith not include Tibet as the target of genocide? Appeasement? Fear of upsetting the apple cart? Quid pro quo on Darfur? Trading Tibetan lives for Sudanese? Shame.

    Long-hwa Lee