"supportive of other liberation struggles and antagonistic towards Western powers that buttressed the apartheid regime."

Couldn't China's relationship with the Sudanese regime be described as 'buttressing'? I don't know anything about South African foreign policy but I imagine they're doing some economically motivated buttressing too. Everyone's buttressing.

Everyone's buttressing but the Yankees.

Seriously, the Chinese government doesn't give a shit if every Sudanese were killed in the genocide, as long as they can make money from trading with the Sudanese government.

Think of it, Exxon and Shell don't care either.

Very interesting.

China is not mentioned in the talk given by Lathan, but I guess given the link's presence here on Danwei we can assume you think that South Africa's own multifaceted relationship with Sudan sheds some reflected light on China's positioning and difficulty with Darfur?

Stephen O: 'Buttressing' just means 'reinforcing'. The key idea here is 'buttressing the apartheid regime". In context, this means apartheid South Africa before the ANC rose to political dominance.

Ken: The Chinese government has tried to use their access and relationship to pressure Sudan on Darfur. I don't think they have been unresponsive to the humanitarian hue and cry.

I don't know how effective they can be, and I don't know what we can reasonably expect or even hope for.

None of that helps save people from getting slaughtered, I know. I'd like to think China can make that much of a difference. But it seems engagement works better than sanctions.

The article from Latham helps to show the position of South Africa vis-a-vis Sudan -- that even the political party of Nobel Peace Laureate Nelson Mandela struggles to find an effective approach to the issue. (Whether the ANC of today is the ANC of old is another discussion for another blog I think...)

Yet I don't think we will see Mia Farrow and Co., launch a 'boycott South Africa' effort any time soon.

I don't blame anyone for trying to find what will work. But there is no doubt in my mind that at least some of the Boycott the Olympics/Save Darfur movement in the US provides burgeoning anti-China attitudes with sanctimonious cover. I think that's wrong.

ada:

does the possibility, the likelihood, or even the certainty that "at least some of the Boycott the Olympics/Save Darfur movement in the US provides burgeoning anti-China attitudes with sanctimonious cover" negate enough of the potential positive impact that this movement might have on the Darfur crisis so as to require the silencing of such a movement? i don't know the answer to that question.

in my own opinion, the politicization of the olympics is too insignificant a "harm" to recommend much less require widespread hostility to the boycott movement. the olympics , as a series of contests in sport between nations, often--or perhaps even necessarily--reflect the larger contests that exist between these same nations in any given year. the olympics, as such, strike me as inherently political, even if the sub-texts to these contests in some years are more ideological, and therefore more malignant, than in others.

by contrast, however, the possibility that the boycott movement in the US may "provide[] burgeoning anti-China attitudes with sanctimonious cover" is more troubling.

if the movement provides cover to already extant anti-China hostilities without multiplying these hostilities, then the harm again is too insignificant to recommend attenuation of the movement. in this instance, the fact that the cover provided is "sanctimonious" likely reflects the degree to which those susceptible of sanctimony in this instance are motivated by concern for Darfur rather than by anti-China sentiment.

if the cover provided by the movement somehow amplifies that anti-China sentiment, then the movement becomes much more troubling both for those who are especially sensitive to anti-China sentiment, and for those concerned with a balancing of the equities, as it were.

b:

i never suggested anyone be silenced. i said that it's wrong to use the issue as cover for anti-china bias, which is not insubstantial at the moment back in the US.

you will have to find someone else to argue your counterpoint on the sanctity and virtues of the olympics. lol.

the NYT article you link to -- very encouraging by the way -- also suggests that a US policy of engagement would be more constructive and well received in Sudan than any effort China has made, or could.

[...]
'"American approval and acceptance would transform Sudan in a way the billions of dollars from China, India, Malaysia, Iran and the gulf have been unable to: by opening the spigots of Western development aid and with it a deal to reduce its nearly $30 billion in external debt, along with technical assistance to manage the tide of money rushing in.'

“We are receiving billions of dollars in foreign investment that we are not even prepared to absorb,” said Ali al-Sadig, a senior diplomat and Sudanese government spokesman... "Sudan wants, above all, a normal relationship with the United States and the West.” But the Bush administration seems divided on what to do about Darfur. On one hand, there is heavy pressure from advocacy groups, Congress and others to take a tough line with Sudan, stepping up sanctions and hammering the government over new attacks.

'At the same time, because Sudan is a crucial ally of the United States in fighting terrorism, some in the administration argue that it cannot be allowed to become more isolated and further beyond the West’s orbit than it already is, diplomats and analysts say."'