No talk of military help, but plenty on the use of sanctions and boycotts.

China is receiving the majority of calls from around the world to impose sanctions, but will they?

From The Age’s article ‘China under pressure to rein in Burma‘

CHINA’S leaders are finding that dealing with the uprising by Burma’s red-robed monks may be an even bigger dilemma than responding to the North Korean nuclear crisis.

As the six-party talks to dismantle Kim Jong-il’s nuclear ambitions resumed in the capital yesterday, China found itself flooded with fresh calls for it to use its influence with another pariah client state.

In response, China yesterday for the first time called on all parties in Burma to exercise restraint as it struggled to craft a response to the popular uprising on its doorstep. It is caught between its ambitions to be accepted as a responsible world power and uncomfortable parallels that could be drawn with its own political situation.

A fascinating development of the modern age is the influence of globalisation on the political motives of individual nations. Could globalisation bring peace to the world? From the same article:

When North Korea tested a nuclear bomb in defiance of China’s overt warnings and those of the international community, China finally used its influence to bring Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. When outrage over China’s support for the Sudanese Government, which is implicated in the continuing carnage in Darfur, began eroding Beijing’s image as an international peacemaker, Beijing also acted decisively, persuading Sudan to accept a UN peace plan.

Economy vs. Human Rights. While the economy of China is growing, enough Chinese are living in poverty still that the economy is a human rights issue in itself. Deals between Burma and China are important for both countries and so China has a huge conflict of interest. This from The Independent:

According to some reports, senior Beijing figures have been talking to the generals and the opposition but China cannot risk its strategic goals of using the country to secure oil and gas supplies. Burmese opposition figures said the Chinese authorities had been hedging their bets in case the regime was toppled by the protests that started this summer.

China has lent a lot of money to the Burmese for infrastructure projects, much as it has in Africa. Beijing is keen to secure a key role in the Shwe offshore gasfields near Sittwe, ahead of India which is also bidding for Shwe’s natural gas. The Chinese are also involved in dam-building projects and oil pipelines.

Campaigners say China and India are crucial in propping up the regime and that Western sanctions have little impact while these two regional powers continue to battle over Burma’s resources. This week India, pursuing its “Look East” policy, signed a $150m (£75m) exploration deal to explore for some of Burma’s offshore gas. India has also been involved in training the Burmese armed forces in an effort to clamp down on militants located on its eastern border.

The Burma rulers need China and India desperately. Michale Gerson of the Washington Post writes:

After the pointless construction of a new capital in a remote part of the country and the building of luxury housing for the military elite, Burma’s government is cash-strapped.

[...]

While the upper ranks of the Burmese military are well taken care of, the lower ranks often scramble for basic necessities. The Burmese guards outside the U.S. Embassy in Rangoon, according to one U.S. official, are currently getting by on a single meal a day.

But how much does China and India need Burma and similar countries? Gerson continues:

While Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorists, China has become the leading state sponsor of common thugs, from Burma to Sudan to Zimbabwe. It has positioned itself as a great power without the pesky complication of conscience, willing to court and support any dictator who supplies a tribute of natural resources. At the same time, it has invited moral scrutiny by hosting the 2008 Olympics. China will either begin acting more responsibly in Burma and elsewhere — abandoning its stated policy of “noninterference” — or the Summer Games will become the focus of human rights complaints about every one of its brutal clients in the world.

The pressure is on and eyes are watching every move of the Chinese government. There appears to be a global wave of public dissatisfaction with human rights abuses on an international stage. This is not civilised countries vs. uncivilised countries. Note the protests of Iraq (a much less clear cut situation) and how much scrutiny America and Britain have been put under by each government’s own people. It is a complicated moral and political situation because few countries have a clean record.

It will be fascinating to see whether international pressure can bring harmony to a country (perhaps even democracy). If it does it will provide a strong political argument against future wars such as those in Iraq. If not then war may continue to be our only choice for more years to come. In my mind this is potentially a historic turning point. But currently it only has the potential.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 28th, 2007 at 12:32 UTC and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.