Chinese ship carries arms cargo to Mugabe regime
Maybe it's just the timing that's unfortunate. But it really does seem as if there is nothing that South Africa will do to intervene to stop Mugabe from brutalizing his own people.
Zimbabwe are importing 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, from China - at the very moment when Mugabe is sending his "army veterans" out to intimidate Zimbabweans into voting for him in the election rerun - and South Africa say there is nothing they can do about it as long as the papers are in order.
Thank God there are still unions in this world who can see what is happening and take some kind of moral stance to prevent this situation from getting worse.South Africa's national conventional arms control committee issued a permit on Monday for the trans-shipment of the cargo from Durban to Harare. The head of government information in South Africa, Themba Maseko, said yesterday: "We are not in a position to act unilaterally and interfere in a trade deal between two countries." South Africa had to "tread very carefully", given the complexity of the situation in Zimbabwe, Maseko said.
South Africa was not encouraging the purchase of weapons by Zimbabwe, he said, pointing out that there was no UN trade embargo against that country.
But Tony Leon, the South African opposition foreign affairs spokesman, said the shipment was tantamount to "putting a fuse in a powder keg".
Dockers in Durban were refusing last night to unload the ship. The SA Transport and Allied Workers Union's general secretary, Randall Howard, said: "Satawu does not agree with the position of the government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons. Our members will not unload this cargo, neither will any of our members in the truck-driving sector move this cargo by road."
The idea that China would continue to supply arms to Mugabe, after it became clear to one and all that he has lost the recent election, is simply obscene. I mean, unlike Sudan, there is no oil at stake here, so what does China have to gain by helping to uphold the regime of Robert Mugabe?
I've expressed my disgust at the weakness of Mbeki enough times already, but I really find it hard to understand the actions of the Chinese. They are already experiencing the nightmare of trying to get their Olympic torch around the globe under a torrent of protest, and now they are supplying weapons to the regime of Robert Mugabe? Is that wise?In Britain, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said last night: "The international community must speak with one voice on Zimbabwe. We call on China, as part of that community, to suspend arms sales to Zimbabwe.
"The Mugabe regime continues to deny the right of the people of Zimbabwe to choose their leaders. To supply arms to it at time when opposition activists are being intimidated and attacked, not only sends the wrong signal, but will harm the reputation of China.
"In addition, it is time that neighbouring states like South Africa made clear that such shipments are not welcome."
It's certainly sends the signal that China is not a supporter of the democratic process, at a time when China is already under huge international pressure, with protests yesterday taking place all over India.
I'm puzzled though as to why the Chinese are doing this. What's in it for them, apart from the cash from the arms sale?
Click title for full article.
12 comments:
It's certainly sends the signal that China is not a supporter of the democratic process
Wow, you're just figuring out that China is not a supporter of the democratic process? Their consistent actions over the last several decades weren't enough to indicate this?
I'm puzzled though as to why the Chinese are doing this. What's in it for them, apart from the cash from the arms sale?
Sphere of influence. China has been a player in Africa for some time and seeks to spread its influence as a counter to the West and Russia, and specifically China has been a supporter of Mugabe from the beginning.
Wow, you're just figuring out that China is not a supporter of the democratic process?
Yeah, Jason. Only occured to me today. 8.17am precisely. Shock nearly killed me. I thought Tiananmen Square was lovely with that young chap getting up close to inspect that tank. I told myself, "He obviously feels that it's his military if he can get that close and feel no fear". But it turns out they're nasties all right.
Thank God I have intelligent commenters like you to keep me on the straight and narrow. Off to a dark room with a vinaigrette cloth over my head to recover from this shocking news.
I mean what am I going to discover next? That the charming John McCain left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs? That lovely President Bush authorised torture?
Too much reality for one day. Zzzzzzzzzzz....
So I take it now that your question concerning "what's in it for them" has been sufficiently answered.
Only occured to me today.
Judging by the fact that what little you have said about them in this blog has been generally positive up to now, I can see that.
Judging by the fact that what little you have said about them in this blog has been generally positive up to now, I can see that.
I'm not sure I've said anything positive other than I understand that the Bush administration's stance regarding Unocal has led the Chinese to hunt for oil in Africa and is, to a large degree, responsible for the situation we face in the Sudan. That's simply a fact.
Yes, that's right, Bush is responsible for the Sudan situation. I believe he is also responsible for "global warming", Islamofascism, the Chinese crackdown in Tibet, rising Russian authoritarianism, the increased prices of oil, the tsunami that hit Indonesia a couple of years ago, the decline in the housing market, HIV in Africa, and every other thing that has gone wrong in your life.
Yes, that's right, Bush is responsible for the Sudan situation.
Yes, he is. The fact that this man who supposedly believes in the Free Market intervened to prevent China acquiring Unocal has left China hunting for oil throughout Africa and is the reason why China will veto any UN resolution on Sudan.
Yes, he is. The fact that this man who supposedly believes in the Free Market intervened to prevent China acquiring Unocal has left China hunting for oil throughout Africa and is the reason why China will veto any UN resolution on Sudan.
Where do you get this stuff? First off, there is genocide in Darfur because of the Sudanese government and nobody else. Had the UN committee formed to investigate the situation labeled it as "genocide", that would have forced the UN to enact sanctions and very likely military action. Naturally the UN wanted to avoid this at all costs.
More importantly, I'm not sure whether the source of your false statement is ignorance over the Unocal situation as a whole, or ignorance over how the US government works.
A bipartisan group of US congressmen were in fact the source of the opposition to Unocal, and inserted language into the energy bill which would have stalled Cnooc's bid. Cnooc soon after withdrew their bid. Bush, to the chagrin of many including myself, is very pro-China and aside from his administration stating that they felt a review of the deal was premature, stayed out the fray. Here's a copy of a WSJ article that discusses the entire thing in simple easy to understand language.
If you have actual proof that George Bush "intervened to prevent China acquiring Unocal", feel free to let us in on it. Unfortunately this is likely just another case of laboring under false illusions.
Where do you get this stuff? First off, there is genocide in Darfur because of the Sudanese government and nobody else. Had the UN committee formed to investigate the situation labeled it as "genocide", that would have forced the UN to enact sanctions and very likely military action. Naturally the UN wanted to avoid this at all costs.
We've discussed this before so you know fine well what I am talking about. It is impossible to get the UN to take any effective action in the Sudan because China will veto. Why will they veto? Because the US is squeezing them out of the oil market and because the deal to buy Unocal was thwarted, which leaves China needing places like Sudan more than she otherwise would.
A bipartisan group of US congressmen were in fact the source of the opposition to Unocal, and inserted language into the energy bill which would have stalled Cnooc's bid.
I suppose strictly speaking I should have said the Republican-led US House of Representatives rather than lay the blame at the door of Bush himself, but it was nevertheless the actions of Bush's party which resulted in this bid failing.
As was said at the time:
"In a harshly worded statement, Cnooc blamed "the unprecedented political opposition" in the U.S. and a "political environment" that "made it very difficult for us to accurately assess our chances of success."
The Unocal affair left a bitter taste for some in China. "Free trade for the U.S. isn't really free and fair, it's just what's best for the U.S.," said Xing Houyuan, of the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, a think tank."
I suppose strictly speaking I should have said the Republican-led US House of Representatives rather than lay the blame at the door of Bush himself, but it was nevertheless the actions of Bush's party which resulted in this bid failing.
No, strictly speaking you should have said "a bipartisan group of Congressmen". Further, the deal was in 2005 and it was a Democrat led congress.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor Thursday that she supports an amendment offered by Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan that blocks the purchase of Unocal by the Chinese company.
Pelosi called the CNOOC bid to acquire Unocal "a graphic example of America's energy vulnerability."
"President [George W.] Bush should refuse to approve the acquisition, and Congress should indicate its disapproval as well," Pelosi said.
So what we have determined as a fact then is that your statements blaming Bush for the situatin in Darfur, despite the fact that he is trying to convince the UN to label it "genocide", are in fact completely false.
No, strictly speaking you should have said "a bipartisan group of Congressmen". Further, the deal was in 2005 and it was a Democrat led congress.
It was not a Democrat led Congress. The Democrats didn't win control of it until 2006.
So what we have determined as a fact then is that....
....You don't know who controlled the Senate in 2005.
....You don't know who controlled the Senate in 2005.
No, you got me on that one. It was 2006, the mid-term elections, and I claim simple forgetfulness on that one. So my apologies for that misstatement.
I see however that you totally refused to address the meat of the post however which was clearly demonstrating Democrat support at the highest levels for the actions against the Cnooc bid. That's called "bipartisan".
So once again what we have determined as a fact then is that your statements blaming Bush (or Republicans for that matter) for the situation in Darfur are completely false.
Now are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong this whole time regarding Unocal and Bush? I doubt it, even though it is indisputable that you were. I'm sure we won't be seeing any more "the all Omnipotent Evil Bush is causing genocide in Darfur" posts in any event.
No, you got me on that one. It was 2006, the mid-term elections, and I claim simple forgetfulness on that one. So my apologies for that misstatement.
Thank you.
So once again what we have determined as a fact then is that your statements blaming Bush (or Republicans for that matter) for the situation in Darfur are completely false.
In this new spirit of bipartisanship, I will admit I was wrong to blame Bush or even the Republicans. It would appear from the Pelosi quotes you gave that even the Democrats have their hands stained in this business. But I do believe American actions concerning Unocal are why China find themselves scrambling around the world seeking oil wherever they can find it and this is why they will veto any UN resolution concerning Darfur.
Post a Comment