Daily Champion (Lagos)
EDITORIAL
April 5, 2007
Posted to the web April 5, 2007
China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil and sells its weapons and military aircraft to Sudan. By threatening to veto sanctions on Sudan, China places more premium on its unfettered access to Sudanese oil than on the sanctity of human life. Relying on the Chinese backing, Sudan has continued to reject the UN solution to the Darfur crisis.
For a country without a defined history of colonialism, China should begin to know that its activities and complicity in Darfur could be interpreted as neo-colonial experimentation. Whatever the commercial policy China intends to explore in Africa where she is already doing multi-billion dollar businesses in relatively stable democracies, it is tantamount to double standard for China to continue to benefit from the tragedy that is Darfur.
Instead, we expect China to persuade Sudan to accept the intervention of the UN in Darfur. Further, China and the rest of the permanent members of the UN Security Council should invoke the 1948 Convention on Genocide, by which they are bound to punish genocide under the international law, to intervene in Sudan.
Certainly, China's interest would be best served in a stable democracy devoid of racism and other dehumanizing tendencies.
People are suffering and we should help. How do we help? What is priority?
Getting aid to the people of Darfur seems the most urgent need. Certainly the problem runs very deep. Sudanese government appears to have been corrupted. Whether the government is impotent or loyal only to the highest paying and most threatening militant groups, the government does not seem interested in resolving this conflict. Certainly addressing the crisis under such circumstances of division and hatred will take much strategic action. The UN has already been stifled by China. The situation with China's involvement mimics the relationship between many relevant parties to Darfur - they stand to gain, in some way, by keeping things the way they are. We must demonstrate a greater gain achievable through the cessation of hostilities in Sudan. Specifically, one by one each group (be it government, militia, or agency) must see that it is in their own best interest to end the violence and conflict.
Sudan's economy may illustrate a key problem. The nation relies heavily on primary products. Primary products tend to depreciate over time. If developing nations cannot make the transition to manufacturing and other more sophisticated industries then the economy can very easily desintigrate into waring factions. Each group grabs for power in the form of a larger share of the shrinking profit margins from primary goods (oil and agricultural goods in this case).
The economic situation only accounts for a small portion of the internal conflict among people groups in Sudan, however. The ideological differences seem to prohibit any sort of peaceful negotiations. Can these groups be convinced to work out a compromise peacefully? Does their stubborness require a forceful disarmament?
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.