By Morton Abramowitz, Jonathan Kolieb

Frustrated by the West’s failure to halt the slaughter in Sudan, Darfur advocacy groups are pinning their hopes on a country they see as genocide’s enabler in chief: China. But in pressuring an indifferent Beijing, activists are merely helping Western governments evade responsibility for a humanitarian crisis that they could do far more to stop.

After four years of tireless efforts, Darfur advocacy groups have had little success in pressuring the Bush administration or any other Western government to move decisively against the Sudanese government for its atrocities in Darfur. These groups are right to dismiss the Bush administration’s latest sanctions initiative as mere posturing; like all of the president’s efforts to date, it’s too limited in scope and lacks a wider, more holistic diplomatic strategy. These groups are focusing instead on the two C’s of humanitarian advocacy—China and celebrities—as a remedy for a crisis that has killed over 200,000 people and displaced more than 2.5 million. But in pointing the finger at China, proponents of stronger action on Darfur are merely helping the White House evade moral responsibility for a humanitarian disaster that it labels a “genocide.”

With its oil ties to the Sudanese regime and its resistance to U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Khartoum, China is a convenient whipping boy, and a cast of celebrities has signed on eagerly to lead the whipping. Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg, Mia Farrow, and George Clooney have come out in recent weeks to criticize the Chinese government for not responding to the cries of Darfur’s people, zeroing in on the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Earnest editorial writers have joined them enthusiastically.

The campaign has had some results. Beijing’s usual foreign policy approach—“non-interference” in Sudan’s domestic affairs—has been evolving under the pressure. China has become more active in trying to persuade the Khartoum regime to cooperate with the international community. China is willing to pursue a peace settlement, and indeed President Hu Jintao pressured Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on this issue and duly urged cooperation with the United Nations on his visit to Khartoum in February. Beijing has also appointed a full-time envoy tasked with assisting in resolving the Darfur crisis.

But threatening a “Genocide Olympics” alone will not bring peace (or peacekeepers) to that troubled region. No amount of criticism will convince Beijing to pursue a coercive strategy and a nonconsensual deployment of U.N. peacekeepers that Khartoum rejects. Yes, China has the economic leverage to gain the ear of President Bashir, but that hardly means it has the ability—or, more to the point, the will—to bully him into accepting a large U.N. peacekeeping contingent in Darfur. China’s multibillion dollar investments in Sudan’s petroleum industry are a much-needed source of energy for its mushrooming economy. Beijing may make tactical moves to pressure Sudan, but it will not choose human rights over oil, a matter of paramount national interest.

And, even if China were capable of delivering Bashir, the Sudanese government is not the only impediment to an effective peace process. Nowadays, more people may well be dying from tribal clashes than from marauding janjaweed or government forces. The infighting of fractured rebel groups and the sheer number of displaced people with no homes to return to are also immediate and significant obstacles to peace. But China has little influence over the rebel movements and is ill-positioned to act as a mediator between them.

Nor is China a good choice to be our moral compass. The West embraces human rights and international humanitarian law, but China emphatically does not. The continuing crisis not only threatens the lives of millions, but the weak Western response undermines those grandiose principles such as the “responsibility to protect”—hallmarks of our international moral code. Moreover, it is the U.S. government, not Beijing (nor the U.N., for that matter), that has invoked the label “genocide” to describe the Darfur crisis. Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s.

Ending the Darfur conflict requires much more than what China alone can offer. Rhetorical flourishes from world leaders, limited Western unilateral sanctions, and promises of firmer action at some indeterminate time in the future are also patently insufficient. Only a top-level, sustained, and aggressive multilateral mediation effort backed by the United States, the European Union, and African, Arab, and Chinese governments can stop the violence and reverse the massive displacement of people.

Advocacy groups deserve praise for bringing Darfur into the world’s collective consciousness and generating funds to care for millions of dislocated civilians. But their latest campaign lets the U.S. and others off the hook. Highlighting China’s woeful human rights record is important, but does little to resolve the conflict in Darfur. China is not going to do what the United States and Europe have been unwilling to do for the past four years.

Morton Abramowitz is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and a former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Jonathan Kolieb is a research associate at The Century Foundation.

And about F.’s specific suggestions you mention above: I agree that she seems biased when suggesting that US forces shouldn’t bear any military burden as their forces are occupied in Iraq.

Of course the US should also help to prevent a genocide from happening, and so should other governments. Call it the Rwanda lesson. A lesson has NOT been learned as long as economic, geopolitical, or other considerations seem more important to the political/economic leaders of this world than helping those who need it.

It’s in a way related to the Iraq war: During the Bush regime, the US lost its authority (and the widespread respect that comes with it) as global superpower.

Instead of being on the defensive, China could see this as an opportunity, and step in. I think there are first signs that it does engage with Sudan now, but I think it could do more in terms of open engagement with this issue — this would get the Chinese people the international respect they deserve. An open discussion within China would also expose the problems of F.’s suggestions or world view.

Regarding your Super Bowl analogy: This is a purely U.S. — and not an international — event. And S./F. are hardly referees.

— this is the list:
1. Immediately provide half of the transport helicopters that UNAMID requires, with support from Europe and the United States for maintenance and contracting arrangements.

2. Support punitive measures, such as UN Security Council targeted sanctions, against Khartoum officials, until peace and security for Darfur is achieved. UN targeted sanctions should be imposed immediately against government, rebel, or militia officials who are responsible for undermining UNAMID’s deployment, the North-South peace deal, or regional stability, such as attempting to overthrow the government in neighboring Chad.

3. Verifiably suspend all military cooperation with the Khartoum regime, including weapons transfers, until peace and security for Darfur is achieved.

4. Work with the United States, France, and the United Kingdom in a quartet supporting UN and African Union initiatives in Darfur, Southern Sudan, and Chad. This cooperative work on the peace process needs to be comprehensive. The problems of Darfur, Southern Sudan, and Chad are intertwined, so unless peace is advanced on all of these fronts it will be unlikely to be achieved on any of these fronts.

I’ll focus instead on her request that China “immediately” provide half of the helicopters required by the UN nation in Darfur. This despite China’s developing-nation status, and despite the fact China has never deployed military forces at such a great distance from her borders. And that’s not an insignificant challenge… in 2007, PLA propaganda heavily celebrated its ability to merely transport land forces to participate in a Russia-led military exercise. Deploying a number of helicopters to Sudan would be a huge burden.

And when asked whether the United States should bear this military burden? Her answer was, no. She believes US military forces are occupied in Iraq, and shouldn’t be pulled out for this effort.

Says something about her world view, doesn’t it? Keep the United States military in Iraq, and instead pressure the Chinese government into sending troops to the “genocide” in Sudan.

Engage with whom? Have an open conversation with whom? The people who didn’t publish their statements in Chinese? Perhaps as a precursor to asking the Chinese to have “consideration” for the Farrow position, you should first ask her to have consideration for the (common) Chinese position.

Amban,

Beijing might have the right crisis management team in place, and maybe they’ll find some way to accommodate Farrow’s position. If they do, more credit to Beijing.

But none of that changes the fact Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg decided the best way they could achieve their political goals, was by pissing on an event that the vast majority of Chinese support in a very non-political way.

You said the analogue of a political protest at a “private” Bush wedding doesn’t work for you. Fine, let me give you a different analogy for a public event that gets the same point across. Farrow’s campaign is a little like NFL referees boycotting the Super Bowl because they don’t agree with American foreign policy in Iraq.

“Spielberg’s actions the Beijing Olympics is somewhat similar to the chaplin interrupting Jenna Bush’s wedding to pull out a political banner protesting the war in Iraq. It’s like the rabbi interrupt Spielberg’s grandson’s bris to lecture him about Beijing.”

No, no, no. This parallel is wide of the mark. The Olympics is not a profoundly private ceremony, but an unapologetically public, and hence political, ritual. The Chinese government has volunteered to arrange this year’s Olympics and it is only natural that its record will be put under close scrutiny, including its purported involvement with the regime in Sudan. We should trust that the Chinese government can respond to Spielberg’s action in a dignified way, and there is absolutely no need for people to throw themselves into a patriotic fit of anger to defend the actions of a government that is not accountable to them. If anyone think that the Olympics is something “private” they need to think again why they are equating their personal pride with the performance of this particular government and why people from the whole world – from very different political cultures – should be invited to a very public event and basically be told to shut up. “Disgusting” this, “disgusting” that. What is going on?