Thanks for posting this. I’ve always been interested in the Sudan, and obviously China’s relations with it, but I’ve found it hard to come across info.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:14 am | Comment

I thought that China’s relationship with the Sudan has attracted so much attention and so many raised eyebrows recently that it was worth a post summarizing what exactly is going on.

The article I linked to (and based the post on) is a lot more detailed. Practically all you ever wanted to know about China-Sudan relations but were afraid to ask…

In fact, today’s updated Jamestown Foundation is a veritable Dante’s Inferno of China-African coverage.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:24 am | Comment

Speaking of recommended reading, the Japan Focus website is also a treasure trove of heavyweight Asian-related articles. I only found it yesterday in a random Google search.

Davesgonechina, I think you’d definitely be interested in some of the stuff on there.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:27 am | Comment

Cheers, Martyn. That Inner Asia article is wordy, but looks interesting. The China soft power in Africa article at Jamestown is something I’ve been looking into also.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:51 am | Comment

Let me know if you post about any of those JF or Japan Focus articles.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:55 am | Comment

Interesting article, especially where it says “Beijing should be interested in continued unrest in Sudan, and even in human rights abuse that scare away more powerful competitors, primarily Western. The Chinese should realize that once Sudan’s internal conflicts are settled, Western companies—and governments—would return, at China’s expense. ”

October 14, 2005 @ 8:30 am | Comment

Interesting post, thank you. Thought you might be interested in a copy of these four posts from Sudan Watch blog archives. Please let me know if you post on the Sudan again and I will link to it when I next publish a post on oil and Sudan.

Friday, June 10, 2005
Friedhelm Eronat and Cliveden Sudan named as buyer of Darfur oil rights
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2005/06/friedhelm-eronat-and-cliveden-sudan.html

Thursday, June 09, 2005
Friedhelm Eronat is behind Cliveden Sudan and Darfur oil deal – It’s blood for oil in Southern Sudan
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2005/06/friedhelm-eronat-is-behind-cliveden.html

Friday, June 17, 2005
Chinese sign up with Eronat’s Cliveden and Canada’s Encana to explore oil in Chad
Cliveden’s oil deal with Chinese forces Canada’s EnCana out of Chad
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2005/06/chinese-sign-up-with-eronats-cliveden.html

Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Friedhelm Eronat’s oil deals in Darfur, Sudan
Following on from previous posts about Friedhelm Eronat (a Bavarian born US citizen, recently turned British citizen, doing deals with the Chinese and Sudanese governments on oil exploration in Darfur) here is a copy of a report by Adrian Gatton, one of Britain’s top investigative journalists, published in London’s Evening Standard:
Secret World of the Chelsea Oil Tycoon
By Adrian Gatton
26 May 2005
Evening Standard
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2005/07/friedhelm-eronats-oil-deals-in-darfur.html

October 14, 2005 @ 9:13 am | Comment

“practically participating in its human rights abuse by cooperating in the forced displacement of peasants”

Hey, you can’t knock a country for exporting its expertise. : )

You can criticize China for many things, but unfortunately a lack of experience with forceful displacements is certainly not one of them. Evicting peasants to build questionable infrastructure/megaprojects has been elevated to a near artform in the PRC.
Can we really blame them for trying to share that joy with the world?

October 14, 2005 @ 8:30 pm | Comment

Hmm…. could that really be the same China which furiously denounces interference in other countries domestic affairs, and has never forgiven the West for profiting from its own weakness and instability?

October 15, 2005 @ 3:30 am | Comment

Hmm…. could that really be the same China which furiously denounces interference in other countries domestic affairs, and has never forgiven the West for profiting from its own weakness and instability?

One could go further and say that China’s protection of countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan at the UN, etc, constitutes interference in their domestic affairs — in favour of the existing régime.

October 15, 2005 @ 8:18 am | Comment

What is happening in Sudan is a direct consequence of a severe lacking in basic resources. There is not enough for everyone, so the factions are squabbling over what little there is, and in the process killing a lot of people and wasting much of it.

What brought this about? The corrupt regime? The crippling sanctions that put them into power? Chicken or egg?

China trades with Sudan because it has oil. Its policy on everything else is ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. And when the Sudanese government wants as part of their payment weapons and training for their troops – well? What of it? These are things that a legitimate government should have. It is precisely because this one lacks them that they have to resort to militia, and thereby genocide.

Chinese involvement in Sudan is a kind of self-interested humanitarian initiative. Which is the only kind that works.

Not to say that the CCP actually cares about saving lives in Sudan. The oil is more important. But it is certainly not a disadvantage.

Incidentally, to those very few who remember me, I’m back. Mainly because of this:

“Note to commenters: All viewpoints are tolerated. Comments will never be deleted or edited except in cases of blatant disrespect or maliciousness as determined by the site owner. Thank you for commenting.”

October 15, 2005 @ 11:22 am | Comment

I’m sure Beijing is not too terribly upset over the human rights implications of their dealings with Sudan.

They have probably studied our “blind in one eye” relationship with Saudi Arabia as a model. 🙁

October 15, 2005 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

Martyn, with the greatest respect, I am going to quibble with you. You’ve pulled out and emphasized the statement: Beijing has a direct interest in the continuation of unrest and human rights abuses. What the original article says is:

In this respect, Beijing should be interested in continued unrest in Sudan, and even in human rights abuse that scare away more powerful competitors, primarily Western.

The emphasis on the qualification is mine. I consider it a pretty big qualification since, as you point out, the article also stresses that continuing instability is not in China’s longterm interest in Sudan. I read the article as suggesting that, despite first impressions, one should not infer that it is China’s interests to perpetuate instability.

There’s a substantial gap between profiting from investment in a regime that the West eschews (more for reasons of terrorism support than for any of the dismal, domestic atrocities of Darfur) and actively cooperating in perpetuating instability and human rights abuses in order to keep the country inaccessible to competitors, even at the potential expense of one’s own operations.

Nothing on Earth drives hard realpolitik like securing energy supplies. From that perspective, I don’t see what China is doing in Sudan as particularly all that different from what Western governments do in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other rights-challenged hellholes that are important for no other reason than oil.

That’s not to justify this often abhorrent approach. But I am wary of applying a double-standard to China.

October 15, 2005 @ 9:05 pm | Comment

I don’t see what’s so abhorrent about it.

Say you want to help the people in Sudan. What do you go for?

Regime change? We’ve seen how well that works.

Sanctions? Great. People starve. Faction war over what little they have left. Sanctions are what caused the humanitarian crisis in the first place.

You go for trade. With enough money and resources to go around, there would be no need to fight over them. Genocides are bad for business.

October 15, 2005 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

403201, I’d be more inclined to agree with you if I saw some sign that China uses their trade ties to nudge, rather than force, the Sudanese government to work with the international community for a solution. But as far as I know, they aren’t.

Sure, alot of Western countries are guilty of all that and a bag a chips too, but that doesn’t make it right. It also looks hypocritical when, as Peter pointed out, China has never let it drop about how they were exploited. So its ok now that they’re on the other side of the stick, huh?

Of course that’s common enough in realpolitik. But China is also trying to portray itself as a world power, and a friend of the developing world no less. It could be more profitable for China to actually do one better than the West, take the real moral high ground and shame the First World good and proper. If they took that kind of stand with Uzbekistan, Sudan, Myanmar – make your energy deals but throw something humanitarian into the deal. Not the high-handed holier-than-thou lecturing of the U.S., but open-handed peace and reform brokering. If they did even a little of that, it’d go a long way.

October 15, 2005 @ 11:51 pm | Comment

I never said that it was China’s intention to do some humanitarian stuff in Sudan. Just that it is a welcome side-effect. The main focus is, obviously, oil. China doesn’t need to broker peace in Sudan or bring Sudan into the international community to do this (even if it could, which is doubtful). It is wise and respectful enough to leave such work to the Sudanese government. All it does is invest in oil.

But this makes China a neutral player. There is nothing abhorrent in what China is doing – it is just business that the West is refusing to do. In the long term it will be good for Sudan, even if it is not their primary intent.

And since all this is overall beneficial and comes with no strings attached, China can do this and portray itself as a friend to the developing world just fine. It doesn’t ‘exploit’. It doesn’t make Sudan sign unequal treaties or demand anything else. It just does business.

Compared to the position the west have taken, that is still relatively moral highground. The Chinese will still get to say, aha, shame on you.

The west doesn’t get to say it back.

October 16, 2005 @ 12:32 am | Comment

President Al-Bashir officially denies equipping the Janjaweed in the first place. Sudanese army regulars were accused by the UN during the civil war and up until the present day of raping women and murdering children. Al-Bashir still continues to restrict humanitarian aid to Darfur. The UN just released a report saying that Al-Bashir has done nothing to stop the Janjaweed rebels.

The Security Council, which China sits on, just referred the Darfur atrocities to the Hague. Atrocities committed, according to the UN, by people armed, supported and not stopped by Al-Bashir. So China has basically agreed that the Sudanese government is complicit in atrocities.

And they do business with those same people.

I fail to see the neutrality. I fail to see the “welcome side effect” of humanitarianism. I fail to see “nothing abhorrent”. And I don’t see the relatively high moral ground.

I see hypocrisy. Especially for a “friend of the developing world”. The developing worlds brutal corrupt leaders. But not their people.

October 16, 2005 @ 12:56 am | Comment

Unlike the west, China does not use trade as a political weapon. That is why it still trades with Taiwan while not recognizing its government. That’s why it still trades with Japan despite political tensions. Its message to the developing world has always been that it is willing to trade long as they are not at war (and long as they do not recognize Taiwan).

Incidentally, China is using its security council powers to block actions aimed at Sudan, from what I have heard. Not sure about that particular referral, but I suspect that China had either voted against or abstained. It is looking after its business interests. Any Security Council actions would fall under the two broad categories of sanctions and regime change – not so efficient when all you want is the oil.

October 16, 2005 @ 1:27 am | Comment

Try to take what’s happening in Sudan with a grain of salt. Al-Bashir denies equipping the janjaweed – well, maybe he didn’t. Who knows? Maybe the army regulars’ raping of women were isolated cases like what happened a few years ago with American troops in Japan. Who knows?

Al-Bashir probably restricts UN aid because they act as a supply line for the rebels. I have certainly heard a few arguments to the effect that what the US is really doing is aiding the rebels in the guise of humanitarian aid.

What do we really know about what is happening in Sudan? I, personally, can’t even point out where it is on the world map. All I’ve got are third-hand accountings by western media. Neutrality is suspect. Even the term ‘Janjaweed’ is suspect, since it carries negative inflections and isn’t what the militia call themselves.

October 16, 2005 @ 1:39 am | Comment

Neutrality is suspect.

My point exactly. Chinese claims of neutrality are…

I, personally, can’t even point out where it is on the world map.

That is your rebuttal? Along with “how do we really know any of it is true”? Maybe we’re plugged into the Matrix or you’re just a disembodied mind being tricked by a Cartesian demon, right? Woah. Dude.

And Janjaweed means “man on a horse with a gun” in Arabic, and it is what they call themselves.

And the International Court claim, as well as the UN assessment is here on the BBC. The Security Council does do other things besides sanctions and regime change.

And I’m not talking about China using trade as a political weapon – which is a loaded and ridiculous statement, since all trade has political implications. To say “weapon” is to suggest that there is trade that has no political consequences. There’s no such thing. I’m talking about hypocrisy. And you’ve tried changing the subject several times now, unfortunately by saying things you admit yourself you don’t even know about.

October 16, 2005 @ 1:57 am | Comment

Oh Christ, that old Communist twist on “moral high ground” is SO familiar, so old, so worn out, so ridiculous, and so obvious:

It’s the old Leninist crap about how: “Since there is no real morality, AMORALITY is the moral high ground.”

October 16, 2005 @ 2:24 am | Comment

You’re right. We don’t. Whoa, dude. Rebutted my whole argument there.

How plausible is it, though, that Al-Bashir is telling the truth? A little more so than the Matrix, I would say. A little more so, too, than the western media would have you believe. My point is this: I personally do not know, and neither do you. In criminal law there is ‘innocent before proven guilty’, but when it goes international it always becomes trial by media. I am not willing to make my judgment because I have insufficient evidence. Can you say any different?

I fail to see how ‘not using trade as weapon’ is so loaded and ridiculous. It is China’s stated policy that its trade would largely come with no strings attached – that is a simple statement of fact. I am sure you can find sources that confirm this. Whether or not you agree with this policy, it is the way it is.

Nor do I find this policy hypocritical. Politics takes a long time and mightn’t work out at all, but business benefits everyone. So in the time it takes to find a suitable political solution, you might as well do business. Why is it China’s duty to force Sudan to do anything? China has problems of its own. It has no American aspirations of being Globalcop.

October 16, 2005 @ 2:39 am | Comment

Amorality is the relative moral highground when compared to colonialism and imperialism, yes. If some other superpower comes along and actually does humanitarian work with the sole interest of third-world countries in mind, then I suppose the highground goes to them. I don’t see that happening, though, and nor do I see it happening in the forseeable future.

October 16, 2005 @ 2:42 am | Comment

“Amorality is the relative moral high ground when compared to colonialism and imperialism….”

QED, 403201, you’re a Leninist robot who has never had an original idea.

Or, to put it in a more “intellectual” way, you are a master of Logical Fallacies:

1. “colonialism and imperialism” are vacant abstractions

2. Even if it is true that various Western countries such as the US HAVE been guilty of “colonialism and imperialism”, it does NOT folllow that they have ever abandoned all morality. Again, this is typical Leninist shit, devoid of logic: The standard Leninist logical fallacy is to point to the flaws of the identified “enemy” and then extrapolate a conclusion of moral bankruptcy, which then “justifies” all of the evils of the Communist Party.

October 16, 2005 @ 3:01 am | Comment

Or to put the Leninist logical fallacy another way:

1. All morality other than Leninist morality is a “false consciousness”
(false premise, assumes facts not in evidence)

therefore,

2. We Communists are more moral than anyone else, because at least we admit that there is no such thing as morality.

And so they go on and on in circles, repeating charges of “hypocricy” every now and then. (By which they mean “false consciousness”, rephrased a bit so as not to sound so rigidly Marxist)

October 16, 2005 @ 3:08 am | Comment

PS, 402whatever,

It’s obvious to me that you’re a relatively young wannabe “intellectual”. Evidence?
You work too hard at trying to sound “intellectual”, and you underestimate the power of simplicity.

Also, you don’t realize when you’re dealing with real scholars. You’ll tend to find that the older, more established and more seasoned “intllectuals” gave up trying to sound intellectual a long time ago – because they don’t have to prove anything to themselves anymore……… 🙂 🙂

October 16, 2005 @ 3:14 am | Comment

I write how I speak. If I refuse to sound like a buffoon, then please, do not let that bother you.

I see that you are proficient with the use of labels and strawmen. Do you actually have anything to say, other than to call me a Leninist and to put words in my mouth?

October 16, 2005 @ 3:24 am | Comment

Al-Bashir denies equipping the janjaweed – well, maybe he didn’t. Who knows?

Well, um, you said you did:

And when the Sudanese government wants as part of their payment weapons and training for their troops – well? What of it? These are things that a legitimate government should have. It is precisely because this one lacks them that they have to resort to militia, and thereby genocide.

Well done. You called your own bulls**t.

October 16, 2005 @ 3:31 am | Comment

Comrade Ivan, pass the Stoli, will you?

October 16, 2005 @ 3:32 am | Comment

Or do you prefer Moskovskaya?

October 16, 2005 @ 3:32 am | Comment

Not quite. My suspicions are that Al-Bashir does indeed fund, or at least give tacit consent to the Janjaweed. However, I do not know for sure.

Do you?

October 16, 2005 @ 3:34 am | Comment

Gee, it sounded like you were sure: “It is precisely because this [government] lacks [weapons] that they have to resort to militia, and thereby genocide.”

By the way, love the way you blame genocide on a lack of weapons. Priceless. That makes it all better.

October 16, 2005 @ 3:48 am | Comment

It does sound ridiculous if you skip out all the steps in reasoning in between, yes.

Here’s my full reasoning and speculations:

The Sudanese government does not set out to massacre people. It is bad for their international image, it causes dissent, it is just a bad idea.

The Sudanese army is fighting a war with the rebels, which is going badly for them. They’re not necessarily losing, but a stalemate can hurt as bad.

So they encourage the formation of militia. Unfortunately, these militia have scores to settle with the rebels. So they raze their villages and causes genocide, etc, tec.

Now, if the Sudanese army was better-trained and equipped, the rebellion would have been put down quickly and far less messily. It would still be a corrupt and dictatorial government, but it would not be a corrupt and dictatorial government that massacres its people.

This is all if Al-Bashir actually funded/encouraged militia, etc, etc. It could be just that the army is so depleted that he is powerless to stop them. In that case my theory still stands.

October 16, 2005 @ 4:03 am | Comment

“The Sudanese government does not set out to massacre people.”

Since when do massacres have to be pre-planned? The fact that they occurred and the fact that they continue to occur is a responsibility of the Sudanese government.

“It is bad for their international image, it causes dissent, it is just a bad idea.”

I’m sure Sudan has been really concerned with its international image all these years.

“So they encourage the formation of militia. Unfortunately, these militia have scores to settle with the rebels. So they raze their villages and causes genocide, etc, tec.”

The fact that the militia were formed with authorization or encouragement from the Sudanese government, aside from any other direct Sudanese government involvement, means that the government has a humanitarian and legal responsibility (to its own citizens) to prevent such attacks. Aside from alleged active participation, this delegation of authority also directly implicates the Sudanese government in the genocide.

“Now, if the Sudanese army was better-trained and equipped, the rebellion would have been put down quickly and far less messily. It would still be a corrupt and dictatorial government, but it would not be a corrupt and dictatorial government that massacres its people.”

Well whoop-de-doo, that isn’t the case now is it? Now if China wasn’t corrupt…. But anyways, every since the end of WW2 as the world has become a more globalized community, humanitarian aspirations such as respect for human rights embody a vision of what the future should be. Indifference to the suffering in Sudan, while coyly playing business partner to its government, without criticism, doesn’t speak very well of China’s aspirational vision of the future.

October 16, 2005 @ 4:47 am | Comment

everlasting:

I admire your logic but you’re wasting your breath on this wanker. Occam’s razor isn’t enough; you need Occam’s chain-saw to cut through all of his nonsense.

October 16, 2005 @ 4:56 am | Comment

In an ideal world, certainly, there would be no massacres. But in a place such as Sudan, international law has little part to play except in laying the blame after the massacres have already occured.

I have already outlined the chain of events that likely lead to the massacres.

An important thing to remember is that nobody is stupid. Everyone acts best they could in their own self-interest. It is not in the interest of the Sudanese government to massacre their own people. It occured anyway, but to say that it is their intention is illogical.

The formation of the militias is probably an act of desperation in the part of the Sudanese government. They do so because they realize they cannot win with the military they have, old and rusted from crippling sanctions. Now that the genie is out the bottle, they can’t put it back because their army is depleted by the rebels.

Sudan is in total chaos right now. The government doesn’t have the strength to enforce the rule of law on the militia, whether or not they actually want to. And I suspect that if they actually pit what’s left of their army against them, they’d lose the way America is losing in Iraq.

Sure, globalization and human rights is what the future should be. Should. In actual fact the international community can’t do shit but sit around and wring their hands a lot.

What ever China is doing, it’s not making the situation any worse. Over the long run, it might even make it better.

October 16, 2005 @ 5:12 am | Comment

“In an ideal world, certainly, there would be no massacres. But in a place such as Sudan, international law has little part to play except in laying the blame after the massacres have already occured.”

I would have thought international prohibitions against genocide, such as the UN Convention Against Genocide, would provide support for actions to prevent genocide. Laws possess deterrent power, not just retroactive punishment.

“An important thing to remember is that nobody is stupid. Everyone acts best they could in their own self-interest. It is not in the interest of the Sudanese government to massacre their own people. It occured anyway, but to say that it is their intention is illogical.”

Whether or not it was the intention of the Sudanese government to create a genocide is besides the point. The fact that a genocide is alleged to occur, with ample proof, means that the responsibility and duty is squarely on the Sudanese government, and those parties directly or indirectly assisting it.

“Sudan is in total chaos right now. The government doesn’t have the strength to enforce the rule of law on the militia, whether or not they actually want to. And I suspect that if they actually pit what’s left of their army against them, they’d lose the way America is losing in Iraq.”

And this … hardly matters, as it does not change the scope of their responsibilities. Their duty to protect their citizens would entail facilitating whatever means necessary in the process, including foreign assistance in preventing such harm.

“Sure, globalization and human rights is what the future should be. Should. In actual fact the international community can’t do shit but sit around and wring their hands a lot.”

Flowing from your scenario, this future will never come about.

“What ever China is doing, it’s not making the situation any worse. Over the long run, it might even make it better.”

You mean not condemning, let alone criticizing, and actively enriching the current Sudanese government isn’t of any consequence? To be fair, it has abstained in the latest UN vote regarding the current crisis.

October 16, 2005 @ 6:04 am | Comment

Another ahistorical bit from 203etc, assuming facts not in evidence:

“An important thing to remember is that nobody is stupid. Everybody acts best they could according to their self-interest.”

Utter bullshit, entirely contrary to all history. Willful stupidity is the rule, rather than the exception. For starters, refer to “The March of Folly” by Barbara Tuchman, and her three major examples of “pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest”:

1. The Renaissance Popes provoke the Reformation

2. The British lose the American colonies, entirely unnecessarily and contrary to British self-interest

3. America in Viet Nam

Just for starters. WILLful stupidity is the rule, in history.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:04 am | Comment

“I would have thought international prohibitions against genocide, such as the UN Convention Against Genocide, would provide support for actions to prevent genocide. Laws possess deterrent power, not just retroactive punishment.”

The deterrence power of laws come from the threat of punishment. But this is beside the point, here, which is this: the Sudanese government is powerless to stop the genocides. Certainly it is their responsibility as government, but they are powerless to carry it out. You can lay the blame wherever you want, but the Sudanese government would not change its course of action because it is not capable of doing so. I suppose it COULD call for the peacekeepers – if it weren’t worried that US-lead peacekeepers would secretly aid the rebels. This is why only the South-Africans are over there right now.

“You mean not condemning, let alone criticizing, and actively enriching the current Sudanese government isn’t of any consequence?”

The CCP doesn’t like to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. So you’ll likely never hear them criticizing any regime, except when it comes to Taiwan. As for enriching, as I have said – business is business.

What would criticism do? It would probably make the Sudanese government abandon China and seek markets elsewhere. I suppose that is an acceptable result from the US point of view, but hardly so for China.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:05 am | Comment

No, Ivan. All those people thought that they were doing the right thing at the time. Vietnam, for example, was to ‘stop the spread of communism’ and ‘bring democracy to asia’ and whatnot. Something like the rationale for war in Iraq. The thing is at the time, people actually believed in it.

So they turned out wrong. Hindsight is 20-20. But they were acting in what they thought were their best interests.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:08 am | Comment

No, 203etc, it was NOT just “hindsight”. AT THE TIME, they HAD all the evidence to know that they were acting contrary to self-interest.

It’s WILLful stupidity. It’s UNWILLINGNESS to think!

Like you. Perfect example of willful stupidity.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:12 am | Comment

They also had evidence otherwise. History is… complicated.

You should stick to, idunno, Pacman.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:15 am | Comment

BINGO! Standard Leninist response to confrontation with actual history (versus abstract ideology): Change the subject and launch an ad hominem attack.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:27 am | Comment

“Like you. Perfect example of willful stupidity.”

The above is an example of ad hominem.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:51 am | Comment

p.s. 403201 got banned. So, eh, you won, I suppose.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:55 am | Comment

“slaan”,

you are “example” and 403whatever.

You are a f—ing sociopath.

October 16, 2005 @ 10:11 am | Comment

“I would have thought international prohibitions against genocide, such as the UN Convention Against Genocide, would provide support for actions to prevent genocide. Laws possess deterrent power, not just retroactive punishment. ”

In fact, international laws – whether you’re talking about treaty law such as the UN conventions or customary law – possess on average little deterrent power and almost nil mechanisms for enforcement. States obey international law when it is in their best interest to do so; when it is not, they ignore the law, because they know they can get away with it with impugnity, opinio juris or not.

October 16, 2005 @ 11:56 am | Comment

Nausicaa

I slightly disagree with your statement. International law (public) is of course a complicated, and interwoven body of treaties/conventions, jus cogen norms, and custom. Yet these factors do not simply come about, constant change in the international environment establishes new international law. One method of establishing international law is through custom, one basis of which, may be enforcement of international treaties or conventions.

In recent years the trend has been for greater efforts to translate treaty laws and UN conventions into customary law. This is especially so for aspirational laws, such as those concerning human rights. For instance, the past instances of ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, the Eastern Europe, etc, have increasingly led to attempts and calls for humanitarian intervention, due to violations of UN conventions on human rights and genocide.

Humanitarian intervention however, has been a very hotly debated topic among legal analysts, due to its presumption against state sovereignty, and the question of whether such must be carried on with a UN mandate and a coalition, or whether the UN mechanisms allowing such should be by-passed. Yet as I mentioned in my previous post however, the Sudanese government has a legal right to protect all of its citizens, and has the obligation to facilitate the most effective means by which to do so. This may include allowing, and not interfering with, international conventions which underlie humanitarian intervention to stop the genocide, even if this is interference in state sovereignty.

October 16, 2005 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

The number guy said: “The CCP doesn’t like to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. So you’ll likely never hear them criticizing any regime, except when it comes to Taiwan. As for enriching, as I have said – business is business.”

Hmm… China never critizised Japan? Besides the CCP has a long tradition of interfering with the internal affairs of other countries..

October 16, 2005 @ 9:23 pm | Comment

“In recent years the trend has been for greater efforts to translate treaty laws and UN conventions into customary law. This is especially so for aspirational laws, such as those concerning human rights. For instance, the past instances of ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, the Eastern Europe, etc, have increasingly led to attempts and calls for humanitarian intervention, due to violations of UN conventions on human rights and genocide. ”

The question is, how does one make treaty law into customary law if no one chooses to follow it on a regular basis? The powers that be may have cried “never again” at Rwanda and Kosovo, but isn’t there irony in the fact that Darfur is often described as “Rwanda Redux”? That illustrates the cruel fact that though there is often a lot of footstamping and moral indignation and rhetorical bombast by state leaders at international human rights crises, often little gets done (especially in Africa, a geopolitical “cold spot”), because it’s not in their best interest to do so.

Darfur is a classic example. Yeah, everyone declared solemnly that the situation there was a violation of human rights, that it was ethnic cleansing or genocide, and everyone promised intervention and relief. But what came of it? Or of the proposed UN sanctions on Sudan, which the countries that had oil/arms interests (France, Russia, China) then proceeded to hem and haw on?

Case in point: the Bush administration’s interpretivist attitude towards the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (whew! long name) – citing the fact that it does not make detailed provisions for enforcing punishment after genocide has been discovered as an excuse not to take any action in Darfur.

In summary, I think aspirational laws, as they currently stand, are nearly useless(a la the infamous Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928), because they’re too vaguely-worded and because they hold their ratifiers up to a high standard of morality, but as the old adage will tell you, there’s no morality in politics. Only self-interest.

(Also, I think the commonly-held (mis)perception that international law somehow takes away from state sovereignty is quite funny. on the contrary, any authority international law has is derived from state sovereignty, I think. Public international law is still very much the bastard child of the legal realm.)

October 16, 2005 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

nausicaa:

You’re just parroting from standard “International Relations” textbooks:

“The question is, how does one make treaty law into customary law, if no one chooses to follow it on a regular basis?”

Oh for God’s sake, this is Sophomoric stuff. You’re begging the question of how ANY law – including domestic law – has efficacy. The simple fact is that ALL law depends principally on voluntary cooperation – including domestic laws. NO police power in the world is comprehensive enough to enforce the law without the consensus and cooperation of the majority.

It’s a very childish – or again, better to say “sophomoric” (Greek: “Fool Playing At Wisdom”) – to assume Human Nature is essentially anarchic.
The opposite is true. Humans are essentially legalistic creatures, and so are human states and the relations between them.

October 17, 2005 @ 12:55 am | Comment

PS, another detail, nausicaa:

You asked how treaty law can be made into customary law. You got it backwards. Treaties are one species of customary law: The laws of treaties derive FROM custom.

October 17, 2005 @ 12:59 am | Comment

Alright, I willingly own up to being a lobotomized sophomoric drone who has no original thought of my own other than what pathetically little I managed to glean from dubious IR textbooks. Sus Minervam docet –the pig (me) was obviously trying to teach Minerva (you, everlasting, and whoever else with whom you share similar views.) 😉

Okay, now that we’ve established that, onto my actual response: how much empirical evidence do we have that international treaty laws on human rights are actually efficacious? That they’re rarely if never violated? That therefore they are credible sources of power in governing state behaviour and state relations? If, it is as you say, that all treaties are based on established state practice and customs, and that cooperation is the driving force behind legal compliance, then why is it that treaties such as the UN Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide have shown such little efficacy?

And just to clarify, I never said human nature is essentially anarchic or conflict-driven; I do believe however that humans and
states usually cooperate when it is in their interest to do so (including when threat of negative reinforcement, military or economic or otherwise, is higher than benefits gained from not cooperating), and reject cooperation when it is not – not that they cooperate out of a sense of obligation to cooperate or because of natural law. And from what I’ve seen, states often have little incentive to obey international human rights laws because they are very seldom penalized for breaking them. And a great example of impunity from such laws would be, of course, China.

Also, municipal law has more efficacy than international law, I believe, primarily because of this: municipal law is enforced by the government, but who enforces international law? International organizations like the UN and international courts like the ICJ and ICC? But international organizations and courts solely derive their power from states, and so if there is a conflict of interest among states, as there often is (i.e. UN Security Council), what are the chances of the law being enforced?

October 17, 2005 @ 3:07 am | Comment

It can be argued that state sovereignty should not be considered something absolute singular and isolated. Rather, the concept of state sovereignty should be considered an evolving normative concept, one becoming more subject to an international community of norms and laws, as the individual states which make up the international community become more interconnected and interdependent due to their increasing participation on the world stage. Nations submit to, and delegate some sovereignty in joining and participating in such international organizations as the WTO, UN, etc. As the prominence of international bodies grow, participation in many of them deemed essential, and their functions increasingly become more important, so too do these international bodies become sources of international law and authority. It is not simply the state which enforces and energizes international law, it also now the collective group. Some states, such as China, Russia (and to a certain extent Bush USA), still cling to an older concept of state sovereignty as being absolute in the fact of international law. The argument is still up in the air and heavily debated.

International law reflects the state of international world affairs. It would hardly be efficacious during the Cold War for instance, given the fractious nature of the world then. But to require that it be efficacious is to mistakenly liken it to municipal law, which is enforced and operates under entirely different circumstances. International law becomes more of a reference, carries more weight, when the world is more interconnected and interdependent, as states increasingly require more common ground with which to interact. Following the end of the Cold War, there has been an increase in the use for instance of violations of the UN Convention on Genocide or Human Rights, to pressure change or to validate sanctions. You hardly ever saw the UN or other states citing to violations of human rights or of genocide during the Cold War. You instead see such being referenced afterwards, within the last two or three decades. Again, international law reflects international affairs in use. A violation of these conventions does not necessarily result in an immediate punishment in the vein of municipal law. That is not how international law works. It works through both actual sanctions imposed by a community of states (such as the EU), through individual states, through international bodies (UN), and through incrementally evolving normative pressure to conform to a set of standards.

Despite much debate, certain peremptory norms nonetheless have begun to take root, such as those concerning human rights and genocide. It is this gradual process of jus cogens recognition that also exerts normative pressure on individual states to conform. China does not react positively to allegations of human rights violations, and it may not be fully “punished” for them. Yet the ever increasing prominence and recognition of such has forced China to improve its human rights record, and to acknowledge that this is one goal it is expected to work towards. The situation is different in places like Sudan, where the abuses of are a different nature. Genocide for instance (not cultural genocide), necessitates that intentional law be employed in a more drastic fashion. In these cases, where direct and immediate action is required, international law is beholden to the actions of the individual states which make up the international community. In some instances, such as in the former Yugoslavia, some states are willing to take violations of international conventions seriously, and to act upon them. In other instances, this is not the case. In the end, no states actually act with “impunity,” there are consequences.

International law does not function in the same way as municipal law does, but to see the two as the same animal is to misinterpret that international law is.

October 17, 2005 @ 5:08 am | Comment

In this thread I feel like I’m re-reading the same undergrad essays that I used to read, the same ones I graded time and time and time again. Always the same, always the same formula and the same catch-words….

October 17, 2005 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

Sorry my my drivel, reading my stuff again is giving me a big headache.

October 18, 2005 @ 5:35 am | Comment