The new Jamestown Foundation China Brief focuses on China-Africa relations with 4 great articles for your perusal, such as this one regarding China’s controversial relationship with the Sudan.

China’s presence in the Sudan results from a combination of China’s search for energy supplies and Sudan’s domestic problems. The country’s declining security conditions, the abuses of human rights and Khartoum’s alleged support for international terrorism, drove away Western companies and created a vacuum. China has exploited this need for economic and diplomatic support to the full. There are, for example, about 3,000 Chinese citizens, mostly executives and workers of Chinese companies, living in the Darfur region alone.

The Sudan is China’s 4th largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Oman. Although Sudan’s share of global oil production is only 0.4%, it has an estimated 5 billion barrels in total reserves, or about 57-years worth. Chinese investments also include the power industry, hydropower plants and dams. China has admitted that many of the projects are of more political than commercial value. Of the 15 most important foreign companies operating in Sudan, 13 are Chinese:

With extensive operations in Sudan, China has attracted fire not only for fraternizing with a supporter of terrorism but also for arming Sudan and practically participating in its human rights abuse by cooperating in the forced displacement of peasants from some oil concession regions. Eyewitnesses have testified to seeing Chinese-made trucks and military vehicles at these areas, as well as Sudanese troops carrying Chinese-made weapons. Reportedly, of the tens of thousands of Chinese workers in Sudan, at least some—and some say many—are demobilized People’s Liberation Army soldiers. Occasionally, China is also associated, though indirectly, with the atrocities in Darfur. These allegations—and the intensive Chinese activities in Sudan—have led to considerable friction with the United States, and have drawn a good deal of criticism from Washington that invokes not only moral values but also charges of “crude” political, strategic and commercial interests.

The article argues that as China’s interests in the Sudan are as a result of the country’s domestic instability and international isolation, Beijing has a direct interest in the continuation of unrest and human rights abuses that serve to scare away more powerful competitors, primarily Western. The fear of Western companies returning to the Sudan at China’s expense is a real fear. However, the article does conclude that too much instability is not in China’s economic interest and that Chinese firms already have a strong foothold in the economy, including many 20-years contracts. China is in the Sudan for the long term.

William Pesek Jr. argues that the most obvious mistake the U.S. makes when dealing with China is that they see the country as either another Japan or another Soviet Union. China is neither, he says, and the U.S. needs to get that straight.

Unlike Japan, China is looking to bypass the process of domestic company building that preoccupied Japan for decades. That’s why Chinese companies bid for established global brands. U.S. politicians might be wary of China but most executives aren’t. Consumers are also more than willing to load up on low-cost Chinese goods. China is far less developed than Japan but China operates a much more outward-looking development model with exports and imports accounting for 74% of China’s GDP (Japan’s is 23%).

Comparisons to the Soviet Union began when President Bush called China a “strategic competitor” rather than “strategic partner”. The Cold War comparison is usually based on China’s recent spike in military spending and territorial ambitions in Asia. However, unlike the Soviets, China is more intertwined into the global financial and trade system. Rather than defining it’s diplomatic relationships on ideology or fear, China uses economic diplomacy, offering trade rewards.

The article concludes by stating that China-U.S. rivalry is natural, particularly in securing access to energy and commodities, but Washington shouldn’t fight, or try to contain, China’s rise. Pekek warns that the rise of Asia should be seen as a competitive challenge and the U.S should be a part of any Asia-centric economic regime or risk being left out.

Far be it for me to argue with a senior Asia-based correspondent but Pesek’s article falls flat in several places. Firstly, he makes it sound like the U.S. is on the back foot here. Not true – America holds nearly all of the cards – political, economic and military. It is China that faces the biggest problems and, even if its rise is entirely smooth (which I very much doubt) then it still has an awfully long way to go.

China might not be another Japan or Soviet Union but it certainly shares traits with both countries. As an Asian nation, it is quickly cultivating economic wealth where previously there was none. China’s heavy-handed domestic suppression ensures the stability to remain focused on economic development.

China claims to be a peace-loving country but has fought wars with several of its neighbours in living memory. Simmering territorial disputes abound. China declares that it will never seek hegemony but, for instance, it claims the entire South China Sea as Chinese territory – stepping on the toes of almost every country in South Asia, including Japan. It assures the world of its peaceful rise while it spends tens of billions on military hardware for the largest standing army in the world – despite not facing any direct military threat.

Yes, the economies of Asia are developing, and that’s to be welcomed, but it’s certainly not the beginning of a new and omnipotent Asia-centric global economic regime.

NOTE: For further analysis of this subject, please see China’s Rise in Southeast Asia: Implications for Japan and the United States. The website, Japan Focus, is also a great resource for Asia-related articles.

China, in a move seen as further extending its divide-and-rule policy of isolating Chen Shuibian, will for the first time mark the anniversary of the island’s return to Chinese rule from the Japanese on October 25 1945. The People’s Republic has never previously recognized this anniversary for fear that it would tarnish the official line that the Red Army, not the larger and better-equipped Nationalist forces, won the 8-year Anti-Japanese Struggle.

“To promote the peaceful reunification of the motherland and realize the revival and earnest struggle of the Chinese people, the central government in October will organize commemorations of the 60th anniversary of Taiwan’s return.” The celebrations are also intended to “encourage compatriots across the Straits to join hands, eliminate the destructive obstruction of ‘Taiwan indep3ndence’ splittist forces and build cross-Strait ties that develop in a peaceful and stable way,” said Li Weiyi, spokesman of the Mainland’s Taiwan Affairs Office.

Japan returned Taiwan to Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT at the end of WWII after 50 years of colonial rule. The anniversary was celebrated annually during the KMT’s authoritarian rule but the governments of democratic Taiwan have played down the anniversary in the same way that the Double-Tenth National Day celebrations have become more low-key in recent years.

UPDATE: Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council reacted with disdain, saying Japan’s return of Taiwan had “nothing at all to do” with China. “It shows that the Chinese Communists have a gradual plan to work their way into Taiwan, and citizens should be alert to this.”

Danwei reports that Blogspot, blocked for 3 years in Mainland China, is now accessable in Beijing:

Google’s Blogspot hosting service is now accessible to mainland users. And Google Cache is operational again as well. Filtering still seems to be taking place on a keyword level. And from comments around the net, it appears that these sites are still being blocked by certain ISPs. In Beijing, Blogspot and Google Cache are accessible through Beijing Netcom; Beijing Telecom probably not. Elsewhere is anybody’s guess. Since this news is currently circulating among bloggers, we feel that publishing it here on Danwei is unlikely to jinx it. Don’t blame us if you still can’t reach the cache.

Unfortunately, I must report that Blogspot is still not accessable in Guangzhou. I just tried accessing Sun-Bin and Those Who Dare. I’ve always heard that Internet censo0rship in China was regional, although it must have taken a national coordinated policy to block Blogspot throughout the Mainland. I’m puzzled as to why Blogspot is now at least partially unblocked in China. After all, the mysterious reasons for it’s original block, I’m guessing, have not changed over these last 3 years.

Melinda Liu, Newsweek’s Beijing Bureau Chief highlights the growing dangers surrounding Chinese journalists and activists who choose to get involved with foreign media organizations both in China and overseas. The names of several are well known to us, names like Zhao Yan, the NY Times researcher detained on charges of “revealing state secrets” – a crime punishable by death in China; and Chen Guangcheng, the blind forced abortion activist from Shandong Province who officials threaten to prosecute for “providing intelligence to foreign countries.”

The latest incident involves Chinese activist Lu Banglie who was beaten in front of The Guardian’s correspondent, Benjamin Joffe-Walt, in Taishi. The article also reports that, in a further incident, Taishi thugs roughed up another two Beijing-based foreign correspondents over the wekend. This story has provoked hot debate among the China-related media and China bloggers regarding, particularly, where the blame lies:

The incident sparked outrage, but also a huge debate among China watchers, mainland bloggers and journalists themselves. If a foreigner brings a Chinese acquaintance into a potentially dangerous situation, who’s to blame if the local gets beaten or detained? Some Chinese bloggers insist the foreigner is at fault. “As for the guardian’s Benjamin Joffe-Walt, how the f— did he still have the nerve to write [his report]?,” one said. “Why didn’t he insist on rescuing Lu Banglie? Or is that Chinese person just a guide dog?”

China’s dark underbelly of rent-a-thugs, official intimidation, journalists’ news assistants invited for “informal chats” about what their foreign bosses are up to. Mobile phone signals monitored (that’s how Zhao Yan was caught). Mainland authorities perfecting the art of intimidation, co-opting, detaining and allowing attacks against local people who help foreign journalists. Melinda Liu admits that all of this has a chiiling effect on the foreign journalist community. She describes this kind of tactic as “killing the chicken to scare the monkey.”

UPDATE: Following the latest incident in Taishi involving the reported beating of a Malaysian (SCMP) and French reporter (Radio France International), the Hong Kong Journalists’ Association condemned the attack in a protest letter to Guangdong governor Huang Huahua.

Thank you to the reader who sent this link to Richard. He, in turn, sent it to me as he didn’t have the time to post it today.

The U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, established as part of China’s accession to the World Trade Organization and mandated by the U.S. government to monitor human r1ghts and the rule of law in China, issued its latest report which claims that China has achieved “zero” improvements in both reforms and human r1ghts this past year.

“China has tinkered with legal reform and engaged the international community on human r1ghts, but these positive steps were clouded by new detentions and government policies designed to protect the Communist Party’s rule and tighten control over society.”

“The government did not recognize core labour rights such as freedom of association and collective bargaining, prohibited independent labour unions and punished workers who tried to organize,” it said. Authorities had also “tightened restrictions on journalists, editors, and Web sites” and continued to “intimidate and imprison journalists, editors, and writers.”

“Chinese authorities used administrative procedures and vaguely worded criminal laws to detain citizens who try to practice freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. The Chinese government continues to harass, abuse, and detain religious believers who seek to practice their faith outside state-controlled religious venues.” The report cited repression or severe restrictions on T1betan Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants. “These detentions and policies violated not only China’s constitution and laws, but also internationally recognized human r1ghts standards.”

China, as expected, reacted furiously. Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said, “The report wantonly interferes in China’s internal affairs and we express resolute opposition to it.” He said that the report “distorted facts and continued to attack China on the issues of human r1ghts, religion, T1bet, Xinj1ang, Hong Kong and women’s r1ghts, disregarding China’s achievements in human r1ghts protection and legislation.” He claimed that “China had maintained fast and healthy economic development and people of all ethnic groups enjoyed their full legal rights and basic freedoms.”

The Shenzhou VI successfully blasted off from China’s Gobi Desert earlier today for a planned 5-day mission. The mission is both longer and riskier than that of the Shenzhou V in 2003. Unlike China’s tentative maiden space flight, the launch was given blanket coverage on state television – with the theme of the 1970s U.S. cult sci-fi series “Battlestar Galactica” as background music.

China’s state media, as expected, went into overdrive. Premier Wen Jiabao said “The astronauts will accomplish the glorious and sacred mission and will once again show that the Chinese people have the will, confidence and capability to mount scientific peaks ceaselessly.” A Chinese gentleman watching on a big-screen outside Beijing Railway Station said, “The Shenzhou liftoff brings pride to our divine land, pride to our Chinese people, pride to our country and pride to humankind.”

Although the launch was shown live, foreign reporters were barred from the launch site and authorities, at the last minute, turned away a number of Hong Kong reporters who had been invited to attend. A few selected Chinese state media reporters were allowed in but were warned that they could be ordered to hand over film and video – presumably in case anything went wrong. Other reporters who attempted to get within 50 miles of the site were turned away.

Although the goals of China’s space program mainly concern the bolstering of national pride, international prestige and commercial and scientific development, space technology could also potentially improve China’s military capabilities. The U.S. sees China’s space ambitions as an increasing serious security concern and a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in space. Phillip Saunders of the Pentagon-linked I.N.S.S. said that the U.S. is concerned that China might eventually develop the ability to attack US satellites, of which the U.S. is extremely dependent. He added that as China’s space technology improves, it will be able to enhance its other military capabilities. The Rumsfeld Commission report once warned of the potential of a “Pearl Harbor in space” – a surprise attack by China on US military satellites.

Chinese space officials said that they hope to land an unmanned probe on the Moon by 2010 and launch a fully functioning space station by 2020.

China’s space budget is conservatively estimated to be US$2.2 billion per year, compared to NASA’s US$16 billion. While China is already a player in the commercial satellite business, critics question the ever-increasing costs of the space budget as the country changes to a full market economy, citing the shocking state of the, particularly rural, health and education systems.

However, I wish the two astronauts, Mr. Fei Junlong and Mr. Nie Haisheng a successful mission and, most importantly, a safe journey home.

UPDATE: This article discusses China’s space ambitions vis-à-vis the U.S.

AsiaPundit offers us some much needed clarity in what has become a messy, emotion-ensnarled controversy. It is an important antidote to the nonsense spewed by blogger Michael Anti in one of the most irresponsible posts I’ve ever read anywhere.

A journalist himself, AsiaPundit offers essential insights into how Joffe-Walt’s story is anything but damnable. (And as an ex-journalist myself, I can confirm this.)

Although I cover finance and would never likely be in a similar situation, AsiaPundit believes he would have done the same as Joffe-Walts in the same situation. Protecting sources is important, and I have in recent months, to my shame or credit, asked a Chinese-national source to review some of his on-the-record comments that were highly critical of the central government. He did and it almost ruined a great story, but I feared they were a risk to his livelihood, albeit not his life.

I would never put my staff at risk, but I’ve personally always ignored the most-sound advice and taken insane risks (usually with my own life and typically during leisure activities). And it seems from Joffe-Watt’s account that the risk was taken willingly by Lu and not taken at the correspondent’s request. Indeed, it was after his repeated objections.

Read every word. The knee-jerk reaction to Joffe-Walts’ misunderstanding of the extent of Lu’s injuries, while wholly predictable, is a chilling reminder of how sensible discussion and enquiry can be subverted by exploiting emotional trigger points. Whether the trigger point is Taiwan, Japan or “foreigners treating Chinese people like dogs” (to paraphrase Anti’s deranged assessment), the result is the same, a meltdown of reason and a return to sloganeering, insults and irrationality, all justified by an insistence on victimhood. A never-ending cycle of pointless rage with no healing, of accusation with no resolution, of anguish with no consolation.

Go read AsiaPundit’s post now.

It’s been a long tme since we’ve talked here about Taiwan, the mountainous island to China’s southeast. Here is a guest post by Jerome Keating that should certainly spark some lively debate.
—————————————————————

The True Shame of the ROC’s Lost UN Seat
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

For the Republic of China (ROC) October 25, 1971 was a day of infamy. On that day, its world came tumbling down as the nations of the world rejected the legitimacy of its claim to rule China. With a vote of 55 for and 59 against and 15 abstentions, the countries of the United Nations (UN) decided that the “Important Question” rule did not apply to the credentials of who represented the people of China. Up until this time, the United States and the ROC had by this “important question” designation required that any changes in membership would need a two-thirds majority vote. This was a vote requirement that their dwindling majority of supporters could still use to keep the ROC in the UN. Now however, the end was near. Once this designation was lost, the UN members by a simple majority could vote to oust the Republic of China; and so, rather than be kicked out, the Republic of China withdrew from the United Nations.

Two key technicalities were evident. By focusing on credentials instead of membership, the proposal made by Albania could circumvent any veto. If the vote had been one of direct membership for the People’s Republic of China (PRC), then either the ROC or the United States could have used its Security Council veto to deny membership. The ROC had used this veto in 1955 when it refused to admit the People’s Republic of Mongolia. It did this on the grounds that Mongolia was part of the Republic of China. In 1960 Russia challenged this unrealistic claim of the ROC and threatened to retaliate by vetoing all in-coming African nations to expose it. The ROC backed off and Mongolia came in. (In an ironic twist of history those same African states would line up on the side of the PRC over the ROC.) The second technicality was in the ROC’s departure; the ROC could always say it chose to leave and technically left–before it was kicked out.

While many in the West felt it was a shame that the ROC, one of the founding members of the UN, should receive such “ignominious” treatment, for anyone who had watched the increasing erosion of support for the ROC from the 1950s on, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.

The real shame, however, was not in the UN deciding that the PRC, a country with over one quarter of the world’s population should be

(more…)

Life reverts to normal as we continue our futile quest to derive meaning in an irrational and ultimately meaningless world…