« former Milosevic supporter becomes Britain's first Minister of the Interior | Main | we have an omelette! »

March 29, 2007



The Chinese have in fact taken a pretty active part in the Darfur peace negotiations and were pretty key to getting the Sudanese government to agree to the UNMIS force in the first place. Reeves' analysis is just hopelessly skewed on this and a number of other issues by the fact that his real agenda is that he was to see a partition of Sudan.


It seems to be disintegrating anyway, and taking Chad down with it.

I certainly get a sense that it's handy to have the Chinese around to blame where people can't do anything or don't know what to do but think that something should be done. But I think Reeves may have hit on something with the type of campaign he's proposing.


Sudan has actually been quite handy for the amazingly corrupt rulers of Chad and CAR as an excuse for the collapse of their own states which isn't their own fault. I think you might be right that Reeves is on to something as regards a strategy for getting the Chinese to intervene (more than they have done already; as I say, the agreement for the UNMIS mission was concluded precisely during the Chinese state visit, and this is unlikely to be coincidental), but it's an excellent answer to a question nobody sane would ask.

Of course, in the long term, neither China nor anyone else can make it rain in that part of Africa as much as it used to ...


If we're going down the road of international prediction and China's oil purchases, then I reckon we should keep our eyes on Angola and its troublesome Cabinda Province. There is an independence movement there but - oh look! - it is oil-rich, and oil is driving much of Angola's post-conflict development.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs


Blog powered by Typepad

my former home