While you were gone...

Dearest Readers: I apologize sincerely for the rather embarrassing lack of posting in recent days (or has it been weeks, already?). I have several writing projects on my plate at the moment (not to mention the mammoth beast that is the PhD), all of which have served to hamper my desire to blog when I manage to steal away some ever-fleeting moments of spare time. That said, I have not abandoned you and will continue to post in this space when I can (hopefully more frequently going forward!).

Now, let's get back to business, shall we? It seems that among the golden rules governing the IR world is the ever-wise maxim, "don't blink or you'll miss it." Much has happened in the way of Sino-African relations since I last wrote. To that end, I've collected a not-so-brief list of stories which have surfaced during my absence, and which I deem especially worthy of note:

• The FT last week ran a special report on Kenya. Whilst many "special reports" of such a nature have previously been written, I found this one especially well crafted and comprehensive, covering issues ranging from the country's leadership crisis to its extreme (and extremely fickle) climate
• Always sharp, always informative, Elizabeth Dickinson asks whether China's Guinea deal is for real. Emerging evidence suggests that the deal may actually amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the Guineans, though given the shroud of secrecy under which the Chinese (and by and large Guineans) operate, the actual reality of the matter is anyone's best guess. I find it perfectly typical, though: Guinea is embroiled in turmoil and gross human rights violations; the international community is ready to impose sanctions; and China is soldering on with its oil and investment deals. Where have we seen this before?
• Unsurprisingly, an increasing body of experts are calling for heightened transparency in China's Africa investments. I wouldn't be surprised if Beijing will over time begin declassifying a select pool of documents surrounding its African activities - not because it will have suddenly decided to operate within the international regulatory framework, but for the very reason that by appeasing Western demands in this regard it will be able to continue doing as it pleases. Give a little, take a lot seems to be the name of the game.
• In the name of fairness, however, if one is to be critical of the Chinese for their African oil investments, one should seemingly be equally condemnatory of the Bush family....
• A sad twist of irony in our technologically advanced world: phones appear to be more widespread than food. Might we - in our constant pursuit of all things bigger, better and faster - be losing sight of the basic needs of the world's poor? Food for thought (no pun intended)
• An interesting glance into the DRC's 2009 budget (HT: Texas in Africa). As Texas in Africa aptly notes, the best thing about the budget is how easy it is to see where the money is being stolen. The whole thing reads quite like a satirical novella. Well, almost.
• The 2009 Forum on China Africa Cooperation is due to take place in Egypt on 8-9 November. I look forward to reading the newly revised China Africa strategy which, I'm quite certain, will read exactly like the old one
• A most harrowing account of human rights violations in North Korea from The Economist. While North Korea is generally discussed solely in terms of its nuclear ambitions and contentious behavior on the international stage, one often forgets of the country's population, which is suffering under the most atrocious and deplorable conditions
• On the near-eve of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Brahma Chellaney puts 1989 in global comparative perspective: Europe got freedom, Asia got rich. And, twenty years later, China's authoritarian capitalism stands to challenge the global spread of democratic values. How much happens in such a short period of history.

Noteworthy...

Posting here will likely be light(-ish) through the end of this month, as I'm currently in the process of moving back to Oxford after a year-long hiatus. As you might imagine, things are rather hectic, and I imagine that they will remain as such until I'm properly settled in the city of dreaming spires come the end of September/early October. Please do bear with me!

For now, some very noteworthy reads (now bulleted for your reading pleasure owing to their number. Slightly more optically pleasing, no?):

• Protests have again broken out in Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang province, two months after the initial turmoil. Thousands of Han Chinese have taken to the street touting the "uselessness" of the government and its failure to provide appropriate security protections in the region
• John Prendergast, co-chair of the ENOUGH Project, discusses the flaws in the Obama administration's Sudan policy and what should be done to remedy them. Mark Goldberg was right: Darfur activists appear to be losing their patience
• Gmail was down for a while this week, and it seems that the world nearly stood still. Why do we freak out over such seemingly insignificant technical glitches?
• It's no secret that the Chinese cook their books. What's perhaps less well known is that the cooking is done not by central CCP bureaucrats, but by local and provincial government officials. Such a reality speaks to the complexities of center-periphery relations in the country
• Is Kenya falling apart? It certainly appears that way, especially with the Kenyan state growing increasingly less visible and less relevant
• One-third of Chinese scientists want to switch careers and wouldn't recommend their profession to their children. Too little pay, too much work
• While I'm certainly no expert on Honduran politics, I nevertheless find it rather curious that the U.S. is threatening not to recognize the results of the Honduran elections to be held this November. This decision is based on the "current existing conditions" in the country, which have deteriorated since the June 28 coup. If this is indeed the sole guiding motive, surely the U.S. should not have recognized the Iranian election results either?
• Via Texas in Africa I learn of a brilliant series being run by Myles Estey over at The Esteyonage. The series, 'Gettin by,' looks at the micro-economy of Liberia and the means by which people outside the national statistics make a living. While the focus in solely on Liberia, the findings are indubitably applicable to other African states as well
• Amartya Sen's new book, The Idea of Justice, is 490-some pages of wise Sen-isms. Two themes predominate: economic rationality and social injustice. Occasional swings at John Rawls are also taken, which (depending on your guiding philosophy) make the book both witty and exceptionally informative. The Economist's review of the book may be found here

The crusade for women's rights

The issue of women's rights is one that doesn't appear frequently here at China in Africa, but rest assured that such a lack is not for want of concern or interest. My undergraduate thesis centered on women's land rights in Africa - particularly Kenya and Botswana - and examined especially the conflict between customary and statutory laws, and the entitlements women enjoy under each. Somewhere between trying to understand Chinese foreign policy, parsing out the do's and don'ts of foreign aid, and attempting to decipher a U.S. policy towards Africa (a recent undertaking, to be sure), however, I seem to have placed the issue on the back burner.

A recent NYTimes article by Kristof and WuDunn has seemingly lead me back to the cause. As the piece aptly notes, focusing on women and girls may well be the most effective way of combating global poverty and extremism. For instance:

A series of studies has found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier.

This, as opposed to circumstances under which men control the assets. It has been found that men often engage in unwise spending, with the poorest families in the world spending approximately 20% of their incomes on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy (candy!!), sugary drinks and lavish feasts - and only 2% on the education of their children. For this reason among others, we are seeing a growing number of microfinance projects directed specifically at women. Additionally:

It has long been known that a risk factor for turbulence and violence is the share of a country’s population made up of young people. Now it is emerging that male domination of society is also a risk factor; the reasons aren’t fully understood, but it may be that when women are marginalized the nation takes on the testosterone-laden culture of a military camp or a high-school boys’ locker room.

Indeed, some scholars believe that the reason Muslim countries have been disproportionately affected by terrorism has little to do with Islamic teachings about infidels or violence, and more to do with low levels of female education and participation in the labor force. I haven't yet had the chance to gather my thoughts on the matter, but a cursory glance at global terrorist hubs and their corresponding women's rights (to the extent that we can even call them that), seemingly lends much credence to the claim.

Kristof and WuDunn ultimately argue that women's rights must be brought to the forefront of the international development agenda, as it is women who perhaps represent our best hope in the fight against global poverty. Fight on, sister, fight on.

[Image: BBC]

You thought having only one child was bad? Try having only one dog

I must being today's post by noting that I have spent much of this morning getting caught up on my Bugle podcasts, which rather hinders me in my ability to take any political/IR goings-on quite seriously. For those unaware, The Bugle is an absolutely marvelous weekly satirical news podcast hosted by John Oliver (from The Daily Show) and Andy Zaltzman. Some of the humor is quite English, what with references to rugby and cricket and the like, but it is nevertheless absolutely amazing and certainly worthy of your attention.

All that being said, I appear to be finding the humor in just about everything this morning, and thus cannot help but draw this to your attention:

For decades, most Chinese residents of the southern city of Guangzhou have resigned themselves to the country's strict one-child policy. Now, a similar restriction on dogs has got them howling mad.

[...] On July 1, city authorities implemented the "one-dog policy" seen as a crackdown on the estimated 100,000 unregistered dogs in Guangzhou ahead of the Asian Games in the city next year...

The hits just keep on coming, don't they? Not only are Chinese families restricted in the number of children they can have - with severe repercussions for families who 'illegally' have more than one - but now their pet-keeping habits are also squarely under the auspices of the CCP! Evidently the reach of the government continues to run deep in China - from bedroom to kennel.

According to Chinese authorities, this so-called "one dog policy" is aimed at curtailing the spread of rabies across China. The CCP must really be running short on inspiration, however, as this is the very same excuse that was used in 2006 when the policy was implemented in Beijing. Well, three years and the slaughter of hundreds of dogs hasn't done the trick, so let's have another go at it. What logic! At least do try to mix it up a bit, guys. Surely there must be a 'Creative Propaganda Bureau' lodged in the government apparatus somewhere...

Oh, China, you never cease to amuse me.

2009 Failed States Index (and a map!)

Foreign Policy has again joined forces with the Fund for Peace to compile the 2009 Failed States Index and a wonderful accompanying interactive map of state fragility.

The Index, which ranks 177 states in order from most to least risk of failure, is premised upon 12 social, political, economic and military indicators of state cohesion and performance, and an alleged 30,000 publicly available sources. The 12 indicators are: (1) demographic pressures; (2) refugees/IDPs; (3) group grievance; (4) human flight; (5) uneven development; (6) economic decline; (7) delegitimation of the state; (8) public services; (9) human rights; (10) security apparatus; (11) factionalized elites; (12) and external intervention. The data used are collected from May-December of the preceding year (in this case 2008). More information pertaining to the methodology employed may be found here.

According to the 2009 Index, the ten most fragile states are: (1) Somalia; (2) Zimbabwe; (3) Sudan; (4) Chad; (5) the Congo; (6) Iraq; (7) Afghanistan; (8) Central African Republic; (9) Guinea; (10) and Pakistan. This marks only slight shifts from 2008. No longer included in the top ten is Cote d'Ivoire, which has moved from #8 to #.. well, it appears to be absent from the 2009 ranking! Curious. Guinea, which in 2008 was #11 has now moved up to #9. Beyond this unfortunate bunch, other discernible jumps are those of Kenya (#26 to #14), Georgia (#57 to #33), Iran (#49 to #38), and China's appearance in the top sixty, at #57. Naturally, Norway, followed by Finland and Sweden remain the most stable.

Whither America's Africa policy? No, seriously. Where is it?

I really can do no better today than to direct you to Shashank's well thought out post in which he concludes:

After seven months, a presidential visit and now this major trip, it's still unclear what the Obama administration wants to do differently in Africa. The most important U.S. agency that works on Africa, USAID, still has no leader. Clinton's trip was full of the same hopeful but canned rhetoric about "good governance," "food security" and "helping Africans help themselves." Folks who care about Africa hardly expect the continent to be the Obama administration's No. 1 foreign policy priority. But they will be disappointed with this trip.

Not only is it disappointing, but it's actually quite laughable - and not in a joyous laughter sort of way. I really don't understand how anyone is meant to take US policy towards Africa (the presently non-existent policy, mind you) seriously when the country's own Secretary of State makes such ridiculous statements as her proposal for camcorders in the Congo, and her lending of support to Somalia's Sheik Sharif - evidently unaware of the consequences - among others. Her utterly distasteful outburst in the Congo doesn't do much to bolster her, or American, credibility either (surely there was a classier, more professional way of handling the matter, even if it upset you, Madame Secretary), and neither does her outlandish comparison of the 2000 Florida recount to Nigeria's rigged elections. I am terribly sorry to discover that she is still seemingly bitter over the matter, but drawing such faulty moral equivalences jeopardizes the advance of democracy in countries like Nigeria and others across Africa where corruption is rampant. To draw my own comparison, the ridiculousness implicit in such a statement is tantamount to that which would compare women's rights in, say, Sierra Leone - the worst place in Africa to be a woman according to the 2008 UN Human Development Report - to those in the United States. Think on that.

While Secretary Clinton may be dancing away across the continent, the U.S. missed a prime opportunity to seriously engage with African leaders on matters of trade, foreign assistance, human rights - heck, even the objectives behind AFRICOM - and other matters of actual consequence to the continent. It's little wonder that African leaders are more seriously engaging with the Chinese as regards their countries' needs and policies. I probably would, too.

Of rape, video cameras, and Clinton in the Congo. What did I miss?

I forthrightly admit that neither am I an expert in matters pertaining to the Congo, nor do I know much about preventing or otherwise dealing with cases of rape - in the Congo or elsewhere. Having said that, I'm quite certain that I'm not the only one absolutely baffled (floored is more like it, actually) by Hilary Clinton's announcement yesterday of a $17 million plan to combat the abysmal levels of sexual violence in the Congo, part of which entails "supplying rape victims with video cameras to document the violence." Really? Video cameras? To rape victims? Hmm.....

Texas in Africa and the ladies at Wronging Rights have virtually summed up my thoughts on the matter quite well, raising among other matters questions pertaining to who, exactly, will be receiving said camcorders; where the footage will be sent (do bear in mind that both the Congolese government and military hierarchy are quite generally unwilling to prosecute rape perpetrators); and indeed how the camcorders will be charged given that the country lacks a power grid on which to charge portable electronic devices (a most astute observation). Might I also add that it is most, most improbable that a rapist will cease his evil actions upon being confronted with a recording device. Again, while claiming absolutely no expertise on the matter, intuition leads me to believe that he might indeed become more violent in his actions.

Given all of these considerations and quandries, what on earth would lead someone to believe that video cameras are part and parcel of the solution to combatting rape in the Congo? Having brought my initial frustrations over the matter under control, I began to ponder the logic by which one could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. A cursory glance through my Google history is enough to frighten just about anyone, with phrases like "rape victim, video"; "rape, congo"; "rape, video, persecution" floating about - evidence of my feeble attempt at discovering existing cases (in the developing world) where video cameras effectively served as preventative measures or lead to the prosecution of the perpetrators; or otherwise research suggesting that the distribution of such devices may indeed be the way forward. Presumably Clinton's statement is premised on some research that someone must have conducted at some point in time, right?

Maybe I'm not a very diligent Googler (though this is highly doubtful; of the countless skills one acquires whilst writing a Master's dissertation and subsequently tackling a PhD, Googling ranks quite high among them), but the results of my several hours of searching are indeed just as laughable as the proposition in question. Among my findings/musings:

• Video footage of rape acts has in some cases lead to the persecution and conviction of the perpetrators (see here, here, here and here, for instance), but in all such cases the acts were documented by either the perpetrators themselves or their cronies, or otherwise a passerby who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - or indeed the right place at the right time, depending on your perspective. I wasn't able to find a single case in which a rape act was prevented or otherwise persecuted in which the victim was the one pressing the 'record' button. Perhaps Secretary Clinton has a CCTV-style system in mind, but then where would you install the cameras?
• According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, a significant percentage of rapes in the Congo are committed by senior army officials, over whom the government and donors have little leverage. This ties into the earlier point regarding where footage would be sent and how it would be handled upon receipt. It moreover leads one to conclude that the focus should be on combatting the overall culture of corruption, rather than the supplying of video cameras. Alas.
• Suggesting video cameras as a means by which rape victims can "document the violence" operates on the assumption that the victims will bring such videos forward as evidence (though we still haven't established to whom). The problem with this, though, is that rape victims in the Congo - and elsewhere in Africa - are often grossly stigmatized, and in some cases jailed. Given such a reality, documenting the act (especially by the victim) may prove quite counterproductive.
• If the surrounding culture is one laden with corruption and embodying "entrenched notions of gender hierarchy and the sexual entitlement of men" (to quote Prof. Rachel Jewkes of the Medical Research Council speaking on South Africa's culture of sexual violence), video footage isn't going to assist victims in any significant way. Such measures will only be effective if the external environment is one in which such acts are outrightly condemned, of which the Congo isn't (yet) one.

I really could go on, but would nevertheless fail to understand how the camcorder proposition makes sense - or indeed discover any research suggesting its merits in the developing world. The effective use of camcorders for such means in the Western context is a moot point in my opinion, precisely because the surrounding culture is one in which acts of sexual violence are not only regarded with contempt, but are severely punished. While I'm sure Clinton's suggestion is well-intentioned and put forward with all the right motives, I cringe at such cases of "headless hearts" - arguably my favorite of Paul Collier's phrases - who fail to properly understand the realities of the countries they are somehow hoping to save. Inevitably, the law of unintended consequences always prevails. And while I certainly am no expert on the Congo, even I can make out the blatant flaws implicit in such a proposition. One would hope that the U.S. government could, too.

But then again, I'm no expert. Will someone please kindly inform me: what did I miss? ....

Update: For a different perspective on the issue of "Camcorders for the Congo," see Shshank Bengali's post. I'm not sure that it lends any credibility to the proposition, but it does well to suggest that this isn't the craziest U.S. initiative for Africa. I'm sure it ranks up there, though...

"Among the worst employers everywhere"

Via Global Dispatch's Erin Conway-Smith I'm reminded of a report I've been meaning to link to for some time, but have continuously forgotten to do so - apologies! In May, the African Labour Research Network released a great 400+ page report on the labour conditions maintained by Chinese-operated firms in Africa. The report - "Chinese Investments in Africa: A Labour Perspective" - focuses especially on the cases of Angola, Botswana, Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe, among the nations where the Chinese presence is most pronounced, and with which trade is particularly high.

Unfortunately for the Chinese, the findings are not at all favorable towards them. Quite generally, the report finds:

Chinese employers tend to be amongst the lowest paying in Africa when compared with other companies in the same sector. In Zambia, for example, the Chinese copper mine paid its workers 30% less than other copper mines in the country. In general, Chinese companies do not grant African workers any meaningful benefits and in some instances ignore even those that are prescribed by law. Wages above the national average were only found at those Chinese companies with a strong trade union presence. Chinese staff members enjoy significantly higher wages and more benefits than their African counterparts.

Collective bargaining hardly takes place in Chinese companies. They resort to union bashing strategies to discourage their workers from joining a trade union. In many instances, Chinese businesses were supported by host governments who defended Chinese investments against the demands of labour. Trade unions see the practices of Chinese companies as a threat to the limited social protection that unions have achieved over the years through collective bargaining.

In Namibia, for instance, some workers are paid $0.55 an hour by a Chinese company that is building the new Works and Transport Ministry headquarters - about half the legal minimum wage of $1.10 per hour for entry-level construction workers. In many cases workers don't wear safety helmets, as they are often required to pay for their own safety equipment - an investment they can ill afford. At a construction company in Malawi, too, workers had to mix cement with their bare hands. Many labour for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The general work day in much of Africa is 8 hours.

Of course it's difficult to expect high standards of working conditions in Chinese firms in Africa when Chinese firms in China don't fare any better. As I noted nearly a year ago, it's quite difficult to expect Chinese employers to improve labour conditions for foreign nationals working in their firms, when they have yet to do so for their own compatriots. For African states, the solution lies in legally regulating working conditions. But as the South African case demonstrates, where in place even such edicts are being circumvented. Thus while Africa stands to benefit from increased Chinese investment as such, it similarly stands to lose if such conditions continue. Change must occur, the lingering question is how.

Noteworthy….

China cracks down on civil society, making a case of the Open Constitution Initiative (OCI)

A coffee shortage in Venezuela? (Evidently I can't seem to leave the coffee theme from last week. Apologies.)

Who stereotyped whom? A different perspective on the 'Gates-Gate' controversy

On crime, security and corruption in Africa; new findings from Enterprise Surveys

Diplomacy 101 from Joe Biden. Quite frankly, it just makes me want to cry (and not tears of joy, mind you!)

Lending a new meaning to the term "south-south cooperation"

David Axe of the War is Boring blog has a column in Wednesday's World Politics Review in which he suggests that Kenya might be funneling arms to South Sudan. Excellent. Well done, Kenya (of course I say this with complete and utter sarcasm).

According to Axe, the Ukrainian-owned vessel, Fania, which was captured by Somali pirates and returned to the port in Mombassa in February, was bound for the breakaway region in southern Sudan. The ship carried 33 Soviet-designed T-72 main battle tanks, plus other arms and ammunition - all of somewhat dodgy origin and ownership:

The Faina shipment apparently represented the third and final installment of a large batch of heavy weaponry for South Sudan, sourced from Ukraine and brokered by Nairobi. In November, the German magazine Der Spiegel claimed it had records proving an earlier shipment of 42 tanks that had largely escaped international scrutiny [...]

If this is indeed discovered to be true, it "would finger the Kenyan government in a sanctions-skirting arms race that some worry could result in another bloody civil warfare in Sudan." Kenyan military support for South Sudan would also put Nairobi at great odds with the U.S., which is one of the country's closest allies.

The Stop Arms to Sudan program of Human Rights First has a database of various countries' arms sales to Sudan between 2004-2006 (if anyone happens upon an updated version, do please let me know!). Not surprisingly, China is the foremost supplier of arms, but if you scroll down a ways you see that Kenya has done its fair share as well. The database is a conservative estimate at best as the data collected is that which the countries have divulged voluntarily (*chuckle chuckle*). The database also fails to specify where in Sudan the arms are being shipped, though it really isn't too difficult to guess.

Perhaps it is somewhat foolish to single out Kenya in such a way, as it is highly plausible that other African states are engaged in similar antics, though perhaps do a better job of remaining under the radar. At the same time, the outing of the Kenya-South Sudan relationship may perhaps do well to serve as a warning to other African countries embroiled in similar engagements. A comment by an Economist reader puts the matter in plain terms: "Kenyan Govt is fishing in a muddy waters. Beware what you do in the neighborhood."

Humming a familiar tune

Barack Obama delivererd his speech to Ghana's Parliament this past Saturday (full text of the speech may be found here) in what was his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa. A collection of opinions on the speech may be found at the BBC's fantastic 'Africa Have Your Say' program.

What I have to say is this: While there is little denying the significance of Obama's trip or the importance of his now oft-repeated statement that "Africa's future is up to Africans," the content of his speech was altogether unsurprising and contained nothing that hasn't already been said. Like other Western leaders who have addressed African nations in the past, Obama came touting the need for Africans to embrace democracy and market capitalism; to battle corruption, cease the ongoing violence, work with the West to combat disease and - in short - embrace the 21st century. This is all well and good, but such catch-phrases amount to no more than empty suits when not substantiated with specifics. Even his claim that Africa's future rests with its own people has been made numerous times in the past; most recently by the likes of Bill Easterly, President Kagame of Rwanda, and Dambisa Moyo in her ever-controversial book Dead Aid.

There was a welcomed shift in tone when Obama promised to cut down on funding American consultants and administrators and instead put resources and training into the hands of those who need them (i.e. resident Africans), as well as when he highlighted the economic possibilities implicit in African entrepreneurship (which, again, Kagame has been stressing for some time). But overall the speech diverged little from previous U.S. policy statements on Africa, no less so given Obama's insistence on continuing Bush's terrible idea of Africa Command. As Bill Easterly aptly notes in today's post, "[...] goodwill for U.S. military is nonexistent after a long history of Cold War Africa interventions, post-Cold War fumbles, reinforced by the more recent fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan. Africans will never see US military (or any other Western force) as a neutral and benevolent force." *Sigh* When will we learn?

Of course the speech was inspirational - as may of President Obama's speeches are - and quite empowering for many Africans (and, apparently, for the UK Times' Libby Purves who sees a fantastic "new start" where those who understand African history and politics see none). Yet it pales in comparison to the speech Obama gave in Cairo when he addressed the Islamic world, and fails to represent much in the way of a novel shift in U.S. policy towards Africa and its people. Yes, Africans must pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they are to make anything of themselves, but didn't we (and they) know that already?

"We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans"

President Obama delivered his speech before the Ghanian parliament in Accra today. Full text of the speech may be found here. I will circle back with comments (and perhaps criticisms) on Monday; until then, do enjoy a lovely weekend!

China's ethnic turmoil

When we talk about polities marred by ethnic divisions and unequal modernization and economic growth, China is often not the first country that comes to mind. One is perhaps more inclined to picture a Nigeria or a Sudan, for instance. Yet ethnic tensions have been and remain among the defining features of the Middle Kingdom, which is why the recent unrest is rather unsurprising, though nevertheless quite upsetting.

From what I've been able to gather, no one appears to know exactly what triggered the Uighur violence. While some blame it on exiled Uighur Rebiya Kadeer, others suggest the violence was triggered by a brawl which took place in factory several weeks ago and has since escalated. Naturally, leaders in Beijing blame the West for masterminding the whole thing, though I find little basis for such accusations if for no other reason than the simple fact that the West has little political or strategic interest in China's Muslim community. There were/are twenty-two Uighurs captive in Gitmo, though I doubt the protests have anything to do with this. Rather, the strife seems to be a purely domestic matter, with a historically marginalized sector of the populace acting out against state policies that continue to leave them on the periphery of economic growth, especially since large numbers of Han Chinese have moved into the traditionally Muslim province and are usurping jobs from resident Uighurs.

Of course this is no justification for such awful acts of violence. Since the Uighur riots began on Sunday, 156 individuals have been killed and over 1,400 arrested in what is said to be the worst ethnic violence since the Cultural Revolution. Despite the fact that the population in Xinjiang comprises less than 1.5% of China's overall population, the State is heavily cracking down on the violence so as to preserve the "stability of the state," which is another way of saying 'One China'.

It is important to remember that Beijing's 'One China' policy is directed not only at Tibet and Taiwan, but any separatist movements, of which the Uighurs in Xinjiang are one. Many Chinese likewise uphold the notion of 'One China' which adds yet another element of complexity to the ongoing protests. One could say that the Uighurs are protesting against their marginalization and (perhaps symbolically) for separation, while the Han Chinese are protesting against the protests and for One China. In a curious way, these protests call into question the very notion of Han nationalism, which has long been regarded as a sort of ideological superglue holding together a united China. I seriously question the strength of this glue to begin with, but it seems to be wearing off - if it was even there to begin with.

As with the ongoing turmoil in Iran, the outcome of the unrest in Xinjiang is unclear. Fresh demonstrations have started in the capital Urumqi despite ongoing internet restrictions aimed at quelling the violence. Yet it does seem unlikely that all of this will amount to much. The government in Beijing certainly isn't likely to change its policies, and I don't know that the Uighurs are powerful enough as a group to continue with their tactics in the face of a powerful State. As was the case with 2008 Tibetan unrest, I sense that the protests may go on for a little while longer until the costs of violence will outweigh the benefits and all will be calm (at least on the exterior) once again. After all, the 60th anniversary of the Chinese Communist takeover is fast approaching and the CCP has other matters to tend to. Dealing with an ethnic minority who resents the loss of its culture, freedom and the ability to determine its future is not one of them.

photo credit: UK Times

China's place in the international aid architecture

Deborah Brautigam has a truly great and thought-provoking article on the ways in which China is challenging the international aid architecture (with significant focus on sub-Saharan Africa). According to Brautigam, it's not as doom and gloom as one might be inclined think:

... unlike the West, which buys oil in places like Angola without much caring how the government uses the revenue generated, Beijing buys Angola's oil while ensuring that the purchase price goes to pay its companies to build infrastructure. This is the essence of "win-win," as proposed by the Chinese in their African engagement.

While China's development program is indubitably flawed in many ways, it appears to be quite right in many others. What's more, Chinese foreign aid - largely in the form of oil-for-infrastructure contracts - is an attractive alternative for recipient states which are in dire need of infrastructure (and likewise tired of the Western ways of doing things). As Brautigam aptly observes, China's development aid reflects, among other things, its understanding and assumptions about the road out of poverty. As such, it stands as a challenge to the traditional aid architecture.

Reading between the lines

It's interesting to observe the varying ways in which the Iranian crisis is depicted in the global news. What aspects are being highlighted? Excluded? Altogether mischaracterized? James Fallows has a worthwhile post outlining several guidelines to bear in mind when reading Chinese (official) responses to the crisis. An obvious though important example:

It is worth remembering that the elements of the Iranian story that give it such drama and importance in much of the world are less automatically resonant in China.

One part of the narrative -- a massed populace standing up against state power -- is obviously anathema to Chinese authorities. And many of the other themes are also less immediate and compelling to ordinary people in China than they would be in North America, Europe, or parts of the Islamic world.

To most Westerners, everything about this story matters. It involves a people's struggle to make their voices heard; it follows other "color revolutions" in former Soviet territories and indeed popular movements for democracy and rule of law in Asia and Latin America from the 1980s onwards; it potentially marks a crucial moment in the evolution of modern Islamic society; it can have war-and-peace implications for US foreign policy and Israeli actions; and so on. Ordinary members of the Western viewing audience feel a connection to these themes. I assert that they seem more distant to ordinary people in China -- even if the themes were featured on the news. People's own problems, and their business problems, and the country's problems, are enough to worry about.

Several curious examples of the way in which the story is being played out in China can be found here (a classic example of the 'blame it on the West' theme), here (short and sweet, calling for 'solidarity'), and here (from China Daily). The China Daily story required a bit of digging: it was buried deep within the 'World News' section, after stories covering Berlusconi's 'party girls,' Japan's whaling tradition, the DC metro train crash, and at least a dozen others. Go figure.

Aid for Zimbabwe?

First it was the U.S., with its pledge of $73 million, and today it's the U.K. seemingly following suit with an additional $8 million (£5m), bringing total U.K. aid to Zimbabwe to $98 million (£60m) for this year alone. Now don't get me wrong, I am very much a proponent of assisting countries in need, but I question whether Zimbabwe has reformed itself to such an extent as to warrant such sizable aid packages. Surely the power-sharing government is a step in the right direction, but in my view not enough to merit such generous aid flows. At least not yet.

Indeed, I find myself agreeing with the Guardian's Tom Porteous who aptly observes:

There is much talk of reform in Zimbabwe but, as yet, no concrete action. The process of political change may have started but it is not irreversible. As long as Mugabe's nexus of repression and corruption remains in place, no amount of development assistance will help solve Zimbabwe's huge economic problems. And any economic aid to Harare from the UK or other donors will help to feed the crocodiles, just as surely as the blood-soaked profits of the Marange diamond mines.

The 2009 Iranian revolution: 30 years of the Islamic Republic is enough

I couldn't quite decide whether the post title warrants an exclamation or a question mark at its end...

Alas, I've had little else but Iran on the mind these past few days. Like many others, I am trying to wrap my head around the ongoing situation to somehow get a sense of what is likely to result. Should we compare the Iranian protests to Tiananmen? The Solidarity movement? The Orange Revolution? Some ignorant commentators have even likened the present situation to the Bush/Gore 2004 recount, demonstrating such a dearth of knowledge regarding Middle Eastern politics that one really can't help but cringe.

Admittedly Middle Eastern politics fall beyond my range of expertise. While I do frequently dabble in democratization theory, I don't quite feel that it's my place to proffer any analyses in this case. Rather, I defer to the experts. Here is a list of several blog posts, newspaper articles and Twitter feeds which I have found to be most interesting and insightful:

• From the Tehran Bureau, "The Leaders of Iran's 'Election Coup.'" A truly fascinating piece which sheds insights on the core ideology guiding supporters of Ahmadinejad and further outlines the primary goals of the coup d'état (aside from the obvious)
• Thoughts on why the revolt is so powerful, from Noticed from Northwest
• Iran's Political Structure and its Potential Implications, from Cheap Talk
• Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, on what the West doesn't understand about what's happening in Iran - and about Iranian politics in general, for that matter
• Wikipedia has a rather interesting collection of pre-election polls, the majority of which give the lead to Mousavi
• The FT's Gideon Rachman suggests the election results are most certainly rigged - with evidence to boot!
• The ladies at Wronging Rights have been running a great "Ask an Iranian" series. Both Parts I and II are worth the read, though I am particularly biased towards the insights raised in Part II
• From among the countless Twitter feeds tracking the Iranian election aftermath, two in particular have caught my eye: @iran09 and @StopAhmadi
• An Oxford Iranian student has been arrested at the airport in Tehran. Both his family and St. Antony's College where he is based are silently pushing for his release
• Iran's football team is silently supporting the revolution, while pro-Ahmadinejad rallies appear to be photoshopped. Go figure

Please do feel free to call other interesting links to my attention, and I will likewise do the same when I happen to stumble upon anything worth the read.

Photo credit: Boston.com (the link has a striking collection of photographs from the election aftermath)

Raising the bar on corporate social responsibility

In 1995, Nigeria's authorities executed Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmental activist and a member of the Ogoni ethic group in the Niger Delta, whose land was being targeted and destroyed by the oil extracting activities of Royal Dutch Shell. At the height of his non-violent campaign, Saro-Wiwa was arrested along with nine other anti-oil campaigners. All were tried by a military tribunal and hanged by the Nigerian military government of General Sani Abacha. The charges were entirely politically motivated. 

This devastating human tragedy provoked much outrage and raised many important questions, the most crucial of which had to do with the human rights responsibilities of multinational corporations, especially when working in conjunction with corrupt national governments. In 1996, relatives of the nine executed campaigners brought a case to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, in Ogoniland in the Niger Delta in particular. The case accused Shell of being complicit in murder, torture and other abuses by Nigeria's former military government against campaigners in the region.

While the case was set to go to trial at the beginning of this month, Shell on Monday agreed to pay $15.5 million to settle the case. Shell continues to deny any wrongdoing, touting the settlement as a "humanitarian gesture" meant to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss and to cover a portion of their legal fees and costs. Regardless, the settlement indubitably brings a long-awaited peace to the families of the victims. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of the executed activist, had a moving piece in yesterday's Guardian in which he wrote: 

Nothing about this has come or will ever come easy. Every word, every phrase and every comma has been weighed, scrutinised and debated. These are life and death matters. Head versus heart. The case has been freighted with all kinds of agendas that it cannot possibly satisfy. In the end a settlement is a compromise; both parties agree to settle their differences by meeting in a so-called middle. That middle is a matter of perspective of course. To some this must be bewildering. To others it was too long in coming. In the end it is only those who are intimately involved, who have everything to lose and everything to gain that have to make a decision that will not satisfy everyone.

History will show that this was a landmark case. Multinationals now know that a precedent has been set, that it is possible to be sued for human rights violations in foreign jurisdictions.

Indeed, the significance of the settlement lies precisely in the fact that the bar for corporate social responsibility has been firmly set, sending multinationals a clear signal that their activities vis-a-vis local populations in the regions in which they work will be under close scrutiny. Surely a step in the right direction.

Noteworthy….

How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgement

In its 2009 annual report, The State of the World's Human Rights, Amnesty International notes that it now considers poverty a human rights violation. Unfortunately, such a rights based approach is setting up new aid programs for failure.

Arguably the least welcome convert. Ever.

China is up to its old tricks again...

... while intern season has officially begun in Washington D.C. Oh dear.

Tiananmen twenty years on

Reporting from Beijing today James Fallows observes the scene in Tiananmen Square:

[...] There are always plenty of security forces around -- soldiers in green uniforms, various kinds of police in blue uniforms, and "plainclothes" forces who are pretty easy to pick out, like strapping young men in buzz cuts all wearing similar-looking "leisure" clothes. But I have not seen before anything like the situation at the moment. 

There are more representatives in all categories -- soldiers, police, obvious plainclothesmen -- than I recall seeing even during the Tibet violence in early 2008 or through the Olympic games. Also many people whom you would normally classify as fruit vendors, tourists from the Chinese provinces, youngish white collar workers male and female, and skateboarder-looking characters wearing cargo shorts and with fauxhawk haircuts, were last night walking up and down the sidewalks with their eyes constantly on visitors and drifting up next to people who were holding conversations.

The way to avoid their attention is keep moving briskly along the sidewalk rather than stopping as if you think there is something particular to look at in the square today. The way to draw it is to stop and look around, to pay attention to the security forces themselves, or to have a camera in your hand. 

Writing in the WSJ's China Journal, Loretta Chao elaborates further:

Most local residents seemed not to know what the commotion was about. One man asked if there was something going on because Malaysia’s Prime Minister arrived in the capital yesterday. Before he could continue talking, several officers swooped in and told him to leave the area.

The man offered minor resistance, then left. But as he walked away, a camera-toting cop followed him, recording the man’s departure. Not realizing that the camera cop, who was wearing a white T-shirt and no badge, was with the authorities, the man demanded to be left alone, splashed his bottled drink on the camera cop’s face, then threw the empty bottle at his head before walking off. “Why are you following me?” he yelled. “What’s wrong with you?”

Rather surreal and eerily ironic images stand to commemorate the June 4 incident. But has the West been mischaracterizing it for all these years? Should we speak louder about the abuses that occurred - and continue to occur - in China, or is this best left for discussions behind closed doors?