China: Why did China veto sanctions against Zimbabwe?
Earlier this year China sent a boatload of weapons to Zimbabwe just following the country's controversial presidential election. Following accusations of political violence and then the re-election of President Mugabe, China teamed up with Russia at the United Nations Security Council last week to veto sanctions being placed against Mugabe and his supporters. [update below]
Indie blogger Ruan Yifeng has chosen to write about the veto on his blog, beginning with pointing out just how significant this incident has been internationally as evidenced by widespread Western media coverage, how the English-language news reports he was able to find were for the most part critical of China, and how unclear he is of just what it is that's happened, and what kind of place Zimbabwe even is.
Starting from there, he digs up some numbers on current inflation rates there, the cost of living, the economic situation, some background on President Mugabe, and a brief explanation of the reasons for the recent post-election violence, as well as posting a map:
不难判断，津巴布韦是一个很混乱很混乱的国家，事实上已经处在内战边缘了。
[…]
既然这个国家有内战，为什么中国不同意武器禁运呢？事实并不像外交部发言人说的那样简单，实际上，中国在津巴布韦有很深的利益存在。
[…]
Since the country has civil strife, why then would China not agree to ban arms shipments?
It's actually not as simple as the Foreign Ministry spokesperson puts it, because in fact China has very invested interests in Zimbabwe.
And further down:
由此可见，中国已经很深地卷入了津巴布韦内政，完全违背了“不干涉他国内政”的原则。北京在为穆加贝政府出钱、出枪、训练士兵。在这种情况下，否决联合国制裁决议，当然是再正常不过了。
[…]
在这里，我不去猜测，为什么北京会支持穆加贝。我只想引用Peking Duck的一段话，指出这两者之间有天然的吸引力。
[…]
Now, I'm not going to speculate why Beijing supports Mugabe. I'd only like to quote one bit from Peking Duck, which points out the natural mutual attraction these two sides share:
[Ruan's translation into Chinese]
中国越来越被看作，是对全世界民主自由的一种威胁。
Chinese politicians are viewed as attempting to spread the theory of economic success through a strong and autocratic central state, which could convince the leaders of poor states without strong rule of law to reverse fragile democratic laws and cement their rule with the excuse that it would make their economies better.
中国政治家好像正在尝试，散播一种理论，那就是如何在保持专制统治的前提下，取得经济成功。这使得那些穷国的领导人相信，不需要推行民主，并且以仿效中国经济成功为借口，来加强他们的独裁统治。
真的就是这样，独裁者都互相爱惜，专制政权都互相喜爱。我想，在心底里，北京可能更愿意与一个独裁者打交道，而不是与一个民主政府打交道。君不见这次奥运会火炬传递，所有民主国家都发生了抗议，所有专制国家都一切顺利。
更有甚者，北京可以通过扮演“独裁者的朋友”的角色，来与美国谈条件，为自己渔利。北韩核危机就是一个绝佳的例子。
《圣经》里说：“惟愿公平如大水滚滚，使公义如江河滔滔。”（But let justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream! ）中国这个国家，不仅自己国内没有公平和正义，还阻碍他国和世界上广大受压迫人民的公平和正义。我作为一个中国人，真的感到非常遗憾和无奈。
What's more, while Beijing plays the role of “friend to the dictators” in negotiations with the US, it also stands to gain from the spoils. The North Korean nuclear crisis is a perfect example.
It's written in the Bible: “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream!” China, this country, not only does lack fairness and justice domestically, but it even blocks fairness and justice in other countries and widely oppresses their people. As a Chinese, I feel extreme sorrow and helplessness.
Update:
Zhang wanted to see comments from the post translated, so:
Sanzomaldini:
希特勒和苏联还携手瓜分波兰呢……
…and Hitler and the USSR joined hands to carve up Poland.
atlas:
没法子啊，不能向美国或英国那样拿到好的势力范围，只能去津巴布韦这种烂地方了
No, we can't go forming good spheres of influence in places like the US or England, we have to go to a crappy place like Zimbabwe.
welco:
1，既然大家没有对武器禁运达成一致 那为什么中国不能卖武器？世界上第一大武器出口商是哪个国家 （你不会认为他既和平又民主吧），如果津巴布韦有能力购买武器的一方是亲美的，美国会投什么票
2 津巴布韦有自己国家决定自己国家命运的权利，如果没有武器斗争就结束了么，恐怕不会而且说不好还会持续更长的时间来决个胜负 死更多人 让一代人葬送在无畏的斗争里。如果你硬要这个国家按你的意志发展 不正是专制吗
1. Seeing as people weren't in unanimous agreement on banning arms shipments, why should China not be able to sell weapons? And which country is is that's the biggest arms exporter in the world? You don't think that it's peaceful and democratic now, do you? If those Zimbabweans with the ability to buy weapons were pro-American, which way would America vote?
2. Zimbabwe as a nation has the right to make the decisions for the fate of its own country. If there were no weapons, would the fighting then stop? I'm afraid not. This sounds bad, but if that were the case, things would just go on longer before either side won. More people would die and a generation would be lost to fighting. If you insist that this country go and do as you suggest, wouldn't that itself be totalitarian?
我不知道一个社会到底怎么发展是好，我不想讨论意识形态的问题 我压根就不关心 但是如果你真的关心津巴布韦 那你就去多了解一下他去真正做些能帮助他们的事 如果你只是google一下 把它当作一个论据 这并不能增加任何说服力 反而让你的那种知识分子的冷漠彰显无遗 真的意识形态挺没劲的 文化大革命在这上面浪费的时间还不够吗 有了一本圣经就能改变世界么 改革开放20年能有这样的成绩你还有什么不满足的 是吧
42 comments
The China versus India example is not exactly good; India started with a lower base, as its literacy rates were not as good as China’s. On the pro side, China has been more efficient at building infrastructure than India, but on the against side, China has been far less efficient at making efficient use of its FDI (requires 3 times the investment for the same amount of GDP growth), but this could be a saturation thing.
You could take a look at authoritarian regimes in East Asia; most of the greatest growth in the Asian tigers occured while they were under dictatorial or military rule. And the LDP has historically played quite dirty in Japanese politics, with the hiring of ultranationalist thugs and others to mess up the political system…
@seomnoe
It is not hypocrisy to criticise China for trading with countries that have bad government, but that have bad government.
It would be hypocrisy if the same people didn’t criticise their own countries. But there is a LOT of criticism in Western countries. Of course governments won’t criticise themselves, but people are free to criticise their govenrments for what they perceive as unfair. That doesn’t happen in China.
They are criticising the government, not the people nor the culture. But when Chinese people defend certain actions by their Government, they put themselves in the line of fire.
I know that there is a cultural difference there. Chinese people are constantly reminding the world that their “culture is different”. But this is the culture of the world, and if China wants to be a part of the International Society, it should adapt to the World, and not the other way around.
On the China vs India debate, there are other sides to it. India’s political advances are ages ahead of China’s.
Naturally, in a democracy, where you have to listen to other voices before you can act, things tend to happen slowllier.
Then I come and ask: Is money everything?
Zictor,
Can you elaborated on your view on ““culture is different”. But this is the culture of the world,” ???
What is the Culture of the World in your view ?
@wgj,
Actually, Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize in Economics for proving that famines do not happen in functioning democracies. Further, it was his experiences in India’s illiberal representative government which sparked his interest. While the continuing food crisis may test his point, the fact remains that true democracies do not have famine.
As for this issue of India vs. China / democracy vs. authoritarian growth, you should check out FP’s cover story this month (sub. required): http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=4345&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4345
“Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said sanctions would have taken the U.N. beyond its mandate by having it interfere in a country’s domestic political disputes and “artificially elevating them to the level of a threat” to international peace and security. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya, whose nation is one of Zimbabwe’s major trading partners, also expressed fears of nation-tinkering and said Zimbabwe should be left to conduct its own talks on how to resolve its political crisis.
“The development of the situation in Zimbabwe until now has not exceeded the context of domestic affairs,” said Mr. Wang. “It will unavoidably interfere with the negotiation process,” he added ”
msnbc news-July 11, 2008
UNITED NATIONS – Zimbabwe warned the U.N. Security Council Thursday that the sanctions it is considering could push the African nation toward civil war.
Zimbabwe’s U.N. mission also said in a letter to the council that the punitive measures proposed by the U.S. and Britain against President Robert Mugabe’s government could turn Zimbabwe into another Somalia, a Horn of Africa nation where warring factions have clashed for the past 17 years.
The letter, which was released to the media, said the sanctions would lead to the removal of Zimbabwe’s “effective government and, most probably, start a civil war.”
This shown that sanction is not a good measures at all.
China is playing a very destructive, retrogressive role in the world. While others sell arms China and Russia are focused on supporting the worst dictators of them all (Burma, Zimbabwe etc).
I see no difference with the US/British prooping up the dictator in Pakistan who hijacked the elections a couple of months ago.
Chinese government seems to repeat the mistake which it had made thirty or forty years ago. The government officials supported North vietnam but the result is the armed conflict happened in 1980s.
And the payment for this kind of supportment only comes from the public finance.When so many people are forced to face the pressure of inflation,the expense looks such big.Especially,it’s hard to see the benifit from this deal will contribute to a usual chinese one.
@chan
It’s not me. The Chinese are the ones constantly poiting to cultural difference as the eternal and perfect justifier for any critique. They always say that things in China are different. They will invoque Chinese law, but will also say that the law in China wasn’t written to be respected, if a foreigner invoques it.
Russia’s and China’s speech claiming that it’s still a domestic matter is the utmost BS. Just the other day a Chinese ship was trying to find port in Africa to take weapons to Zimbabwe. It isn’t just a political dispute, it’s a massacre. Even other African countries are criticising Zimbabwe.
@Jay
Sayin that China plays a retrogressive role in the world is unfair. Although China’s role in Zimbabwe is terrible. In the world, as a whole, China is a good player. If it weren’t for China, the world would be suffering terribly because of the American crisis. OK, China is not doing it all, but a good part…