So what can China do about Darfur? Well Chad switched recognition to Beijing from Taipei in 2006, so maybe the PRC could sit down with its new best friend and its recent best friend and get the pair of them to stop trying to destabilize each other. That wouldn’t solve the militia problem per se, but it would deprive them of sponsors. And of course, it wouldn't make it rain. Dull, but there you go.
There are another questions here: how open is China currently to domestic and international criticism? In what ways can it be induced to respond? Commenting on the early release of Yu Huafeng, the editor of Southern Metropolis Daily apparently framed on embezzelment charges after exposing local government malfeasance and thuggery, Liu Xiaobo gives us a general topography of repression and its absence:
As the Beijing Olympics draw closer day by day, domestic and foreign calls for the Olympic promise to be honored continue to grow. The Hu-Wen regime, though, seeks to tighten control in some of the most sensitive areas, to ensure political stability during the Olympic Games, as it loosens control in others, to present an enlightened image, and reduce foreign pressure. Tightened, mainly for political dissidents, well-known rights activists, and independent civil groups, evidenced by things such as Lu Gengsong's recent sentencing to four years and Hu Jia's arrest. Loosened, mainly for domestic and foreign media, dissenting views in non-political fields, for defense of rights and public debate.
In internal Chinese politics, Darfur most probably falls into the category of “dissenting views in non-political fields” It’s something that it’s safe to have an opinion about. According to this Richard Spencer piece, it’s something the government is quite relaxed about as well.
…the foreign ministry today seemed to understand (as it should) that people who take a stand in the west are not necessarily seen as odd, losers and outsiders. Liu Jianchao, the chief spokesman and a wise bird, expressed "regret" for Spielberg's decision but also said it was understandable there was opposition to China's position on Darfur and he hoped that during the Olympics there could be honest disagreement leading to mutual respect for each other's views. That's a very different tone than previous references to attempts to "politicise" the Olympics, which were said to be part of a plot to demonise the country.
Ten or fifteen years ago the Foreign Ministry would have demanded that the US government shut Spielberg up, and a big satisfying row would have ensued. Then again, Beijing can afford to be relaxed. In the global economic order, China goes out to tie up the energy and the minerals and the raw materials to make the stuff that everybody buys cheaply; and the last thing anybody wants right now is expensive Chinese goods. People might have preferred it if China wasn’t so keen to tie its energy vendors up in exclusive contracts, or be a bit less publicly happy about its embarrassing friends, but what the hell: that’s the way the global division of labour has shaken down in practice, and nobody wants to tinker with that. See you in Beijing, George.
Yet there is an opportunity here. If the current atmosphere in China allows for discussion of Darfur and the Foreign Office is actually calling for “honest disagreement”, then why not stop treating the Chinese public as an inert lump and make it an issue in China through involving, as far as possible, Chinese people in the discussion. Dave’s right here:
The assumption on both sides, the idealist Save Darfur campaign and the realist perspective of Silicon Hutong, is that for any movement on the issue you must petition the Chinese government. What about petitioning the Chinese people?Imagine Spielberg's statement on Darfur was not in English, and not delivered to Western media and the Chinese government. Imagine, instead, his first and perhaps only statement was in Chinese, and emailed and posted throughout the Chinese Internet.
Would it make much difference? Probably about as much as all the other protests eslewhere. But why shouldn’t Chinese people in China be involved in solidarity campaigning on issues of global interest, now that the means exist to reach into the country? There’s also an important negative consideration. Any serious campaigning impact around China, the Olympics and Darfur will be reported by state media as a bad faith attack on China and the Chinese people as a whole, and without any attempt to explain the situation directly this interpretation will be very widely accepted to the point of being a bit of a propaganda coup for the leadership. It would tend to give them a generally freer hand if they wanted to play harder ball in Africa and elsewhere.
Comments