The US wants to reduce reliance on the Middle East for energy supplies, meaning a new quest for hydrocarbons in places like Africa. 
But as the competition for energy heats up, the West is finding that our feel-good finger-wagging over human rights and corruption means most African governments find China a more cooperative partner. Our moral high-mindedness and ham-fistedness is both hurting the national interest and ultimately hurting the cause of human rights in Africa as well.
New evidence of China’s geopolitical gains show up in the papers every week. To list a few of the notables:
SUDAN: China has never backed the regular Western rebukes of African corruption and human-rights abuses, and Sudan is no exception. This is partially because China would be calling the kettle black. But it’s also because Beijing finds that speaking softly can win them plenty of friends and lucrative oil contracts. Think it’s a coincidence when China threatens its UNSC veto to block genocide charges against Sudan for the massacres in Darfur? It helps when Sudan is the source of 7% of China’s oil imports.
ZIMBABWE: While the West finds Mugabe’s Zimbabwe appalling, the result of our sanctions is that China is now the biggest investor in Harare and props up that failing regime (previously noted here).
ANGOLA: At the G-8 summit in 2005, President Bush and other leaders wrote off $40 billion of debt for Africa at the behest of renowned intellectual Bono. They patted themselves on the back for doing a world of good. Most of Africa didn’t notice because it was drowned out by criticism of human rights and and corruption. But many took note of China’s $2 billion in credit to Angola for repair infrastructure destroyed in the country’s decades of civil war and saw multifold dividends on the investment. The deal wasn’t competitive, but China can afford it — Sinopec is a state monopoly heavily subsidized with the understanding that acquiring the oil is more important than breaking even. And its paid off. First, the contracts were given to Chinese construction firms. Second, it ingratiated the government with Angolan officials. And third, the new friendship between the two nations was such that when French oil company Total applied to renew its license on a large Angola oil-production block, Angola refused and handed the deal to Sinopec instead.
NIGERIA: Nigeria is another big source of Chinese investment in the past few years. Mustafa Bello, head of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, who has visited China seven times over the past few years, had this to say: “the U.S. will talk to you about governance, about efficiency, about security, about the environment. The Chinese just ask, ‘How do we procure this license?’” To cite one example, a Chinese oil company purchased one of Nigeria’s old oil refineries that was guaranteed to lose money. But China pushed the deal through as a way to secure it’s ties with the Nigerian government.
The grand total of all this and more is that China has spent lots of real and political capital on developing relations in Africa. And they’ve seen real benefits in the form of securing fossil fuel resources, which is real cause for concern for the stability of future growth in the West.
The way of the world is realpolitik. Leftists want the West to promote all the ‘nice’ things and cut off transgressors. Meanwhile, our enemies take full advantage of this. I don’t think we should throw our morals out the window, but we have to act to our best advantage. We can’t let others get too many strategic advantages over us.
If it ever came to the Chinese reaching some kind of superpower status (a big if), I wouldn’t want to see a world largely under the sway of Chinese Communists. To those who think that the US is an evil empire, China would certainly not be better and could easily be a whole lot worse for the world.
Why is there always one jerk country messing up all our plans?
I think the “easiest” way to solve this problem is to switch to something like ethonol. Brazil will stop exporting oil by next year because of federal laws mandating change.
During the Cold War, the US cozied up to every nasty sumbitch who said he was anti-Communist. When we couldn’t find a nasty sumbitch in charge who said he was anti-Communist, we overthrew the pinkos in charge and put one in. The end result was a great many of the world’s peoples chanting “Yankee Go Home.”
Now, China is doing the same thing for natural resources, and you are bemoaning the fact that the west is allowing a cozying-gap. In twenty or thirty years time, after the people of the various crapholes-masquerading-as-states have finally had enough, do you want the people there to chant “Yankee go home” or “China out now”?
Frankly, I don’t know why China isn’t trying the ethanol route, unless their agriculture isn’t efficient enough to support food and fuel production. Unless they are playing a game of go with petroleum.
China doesn’t back Western rebukes of human rights violations because they are small potatoes compared to what they themselves do.
It probably wouldn’t do any good for the US to be ambivalent about African governments anyway. It would just be attacked as foreign aid, sending our dollars overseas for no good reason, as opposed to our noble wars on, excuse me, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, France…
You’re forgetting, we don’t need to worry about growth, or oil, or the environment, because Jesus is going to come back soon and then those nasty heathens will burn as fuel for Heaven’s Escalades…
You guys talking Ethanol as a serious alternative don’t understand the science. There is no way that Ethanol will ever come close to meeting US gasoline demands, not even a sizeable portion of that demand. Brazil is one exception because they have enormous sugar cane growing potential and a miniscule demand for gasoline (when compared with the great economic powers).
And a great many who love us. Besides that, it’s apples and oranges: China isn’t replacing regimes or stationing military bases overseas.
“You’re forgetting, we don’t need to worry about growth, or oil, or the environment, because Jesus is going to come back soon and then those nasty heathens will burn as fuel for Heaven’s Escalades”¦”
NeonCat, who are you talking about? Capitalism and the idea of progress and growth come out of the same tradition as Christianity. A few nutbars might claim this, but most want a better world.
Again, there needs to be some sort of long-term thinking going on in Washington over how to recouncile the growing energy needs of China, India, Korea, etc without further destabilizing shaky regions like East & West Africa.
China is already pouring arms into Nigeria to help them fight rebels in the Niger Delta, a tense situation that could lead to greater civil unrest and overall instability in a country that has ficticous borders and no real unity among its diverse group of peoples.
Ditto for Sudan.
This will not end well, and if China’s interests are in oil, this can only lead to greater difficulty in retrieving that oil and getting it safely to the Chinese customer.
There is room for agreement and cooperation in regards to the US and China on Africa. Getting the kind of leadership in the White House and Congress that can make it happen or at least an honest attempt of it is going to be the problem.
blockquote. And a great many who love us. Besides that, it’s apples and oranges: China isn’t replacing regimes or stationing military bases overseas.
curzon, good that you made that distinction finally. :)
In what post (links please) have I stated that China is replacing regimes or stationing military bases overseas?
no. there had been nothng wrong. just glad that point was made now.
…since “proping up regimes”, although could be an indirect result of being mercantilistic, could be over-generalized and interpreted by some as the motivation.
in fact, US was accused of proping up the China regime during the 2-3 years after 1989. but as you probably have heard of, some school of thoughts think that maintaining contact is one way to support ‘peaceful evolution’.
I know you are probably trying to make a point that there are alternative and more pragmatic approaches by US, but comparison in this way could be quite misleading.
e.g., talking about doing business with these african countries, i am sure toyota is very happy selling cars to them today. so is samsung and nokia selling handphones. the difference is only: scale and visibility.
Pingback: Live From The FDNF
Excellent, but depressing post. It would appear that the U.S. is going to need to at some point at least consider decoupling of human rights from its oil policy.
Lofty ideals and politics don’t mix.
“It would appear that the U.S. is going to need to at some point at least consider decoupling of human rights from its oil policy.”
“At some point”? That doesn’t make any sense. Ask any Saudi or Kuwaiti woman. Since when has our oil policy ever been coupled to human rights? Only when being in Burma or Cameroon becomes a PR disaster due to US domestic protests, or someone in Afghanistan blows up some buildings, screwing up your Unocal/Taliban meeting.
Stop pretending our energy policy ever included human rights. We’re stone cold killers, dontcha know? Our top five petroleum and crude importers are Canada, Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It’s not like we don’t buy oil from people we consider bastards. Like those dirty Canucks. “Yeah, you heard me Younghusband!”:http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
“China is already pouring arms into Nigeria to help them fight rebels in the Niger Delta, a tense situation that could lead to greater civil unrest and overall instability in a country that has ficticous borders and no real unity among its diverse group of peoples.”
Eddie, my favorite page these days is “Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations” at State:
http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/cbj/
“Foreign Military Financing (FMF) will be used to help Nigeria improve military management and training.
FMF will strengthen the Armed Forces Staff College/Infantry Center and the school’s simulation center,
train teams in counter-terrorism and peacekeeping, build military justice capacity, develop a small boat unit
to enhance energy security in the Niger Delta, and provide C130 technical support.”
Oh, and according to FAS, we sold Nigeria $6 mil of arms and delivered $9 mil in 2004 (not sure what kind). I’m not clear on what the difference is between us and China. Help me out here.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33217.pdf
This thread leads me to consider that the development of a real alternative to petroleum-based energy would be one of the best technological advances of our times. If only there were the will for such . . .
Nuclear fusion is prospective, but apparently the proper technology and infrastructure for truly large scale production is apparently a few decades away.
Dave: Kuwaiti women have made extraordainary gains since the first Iraq War thanks in due part to US pressure. As for HR v.s. national interest, my calculations have led me to believe that :surprise: the US puts national interest first. However, we have often raised international human rights issues when 1.) domestic interest groups pressure it into the agenda, 2.) it is in-line with our national interest, 3.) it complements the national interest, or 4.) it gains support for our policies overseas.
But I also think that’s a pretty irresponsible statement. Does the US pressure Saudi Arabia to make positive changes regarding rights for women? Yes. To the point where its even damaged our relations with the Saudi kingdom. Should we gain moral satisfcation by all our breast-beating where the Saudis tell us to f*** off, leaving us with no Saudi oil and no pressure on improving womens rights? That seems to be what your proposing.
Remember also Kaplan’s comment on the Saudis: “They are the most reactionary, unhelpful regime in that country, except for anyone that could take its place.” The Monarchy is a vastly superior alternative to the Wahabi extremists that want to replace them.
R. Elgin: Will has little to do with it. It’s more to do with science. Hydrogen, biodiesels, ethanol, and all the rest provide no substantive alternative to gasoline derived from oil. Nuclear could be an option, but many politicians (and environmentalists who want us to move away from oil) don’t have the stomach for it.
regarding the kuwaiti women, the yasukuni school would say saddam’s invasion liberated them from the oppression, in a way similar to how they had liberated the whole SE Asia from colonialism. :)
and if limited changes in woman right is enough as an indicator for general human right, chairman mao probably did a much better job than the kuwaiti princes.
“Should China gain moral satisfcation by all the breast-beating where the Sudanist tell them to f*** off, leaving them with no Sudanese oil and Sudan with economic pressure which could more likely lead to a genocide, and them with no future opportunity to mediate? That seems to be what your proposing” — which is “irresponsible?”
Should we gain moral satisfcation by all our breast-beating where the Saudis tell us to f*** off, leaving us with no Saudi oil and no pressure on improving womens rights? That seems to be what your proposing.
I’m not proposing anything of the kind, nor am I suggesting we change whom we procure oil from. I think you’re reading too much into my statement. I’m just saying that it’s inappropriate to say human rights and oil policy should be “decoupled”. I don’t think they were ever coupled to begin with. We’ve pushed for the recent electoral reforms in Kuwait, and that’s good. But that has nothing to do with oil policy. Likewise, I don’t see us ever connecting human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia to our oil purchases. We address them separately. Now compare US and Chinese approaches: neither connect oil with human rights, both address them separately (the US, to its credit, addressing human rights far more often). I’m arguing that the Chinese approach to energy and Africa is not so different from our own. To wit, the Nigerian arms example above. Are our approaches to human rights different? Black and white, my friend, but it has nothing to do with energy.
In all, I don’t believe we’re handicapped by values as your title suggests. Indeed, the situation you describe of “breast beating” and losing all influence through no oil and no engagement, that sounds more like “handicapped by values”.
“Should China gain moral satisfcation by all the breast-beating where the Sudanist tell them to f*** off, leaving them with no Sudanese oil and Sudan with economic pressure which could more likely lead to a genocide, and them with no future opportunity to mediate? That seems to be what your proposing”Â?””?which is “irresponsible?”Â?
Sun Bin, some might respond by pointing to China’s SecCouncil vetos on Sudan. Never mind Russia has also vetoed sanctions, the AU fielded a worthless peacekeeping force and the fact that the US is giving military aid to integrate the Southern SPLA into Khartoum’s (Khartoum’s!) standing army, as I pointed out before from the FY2007 Foreign Operations budget.
I would ask why no one is discussing jointly cooperating with China to pressure and work with Khartoum, since both sides are doing it already.
R.Elgin, I think you’re mistaken in claiming that there isn’t the will to develop alternate sources of energy. The only real hope for development of an alternative lies with business, not with politicians, because it requires huge amounts of investment to find reliable alternatives. With oil prices sky high, there is a tremendous push for alternates as companies look for profitable alternatives. Alternatives that prove profitable will be developed further, it has little to do with will and everything to do with profitability.
Also, I think nuclear is making a serious comeback because it is now profitable. Let capitalism go to work on this problem and it will find solutions.
Gee, how many times can I use the word ‘profitable’ in one post? Myabe I should have just said, the bottom line is that alternatives will be found if it means people can make cold hard cash from it.
Sunbin:
You begin with a completely wrong premise — that genocide is an equivolent violation of human rights as a lack of equal rights for women — and logically proceed to a perfectly illogical conclusion.
that is exactly what i wanted to point out. thanks!
women right is one category of human rights, yes. but you ignored a lot more crimes commited by the princes. then you claimed your great accomplishment in pressuring the one who said ok, and listed the failure to pressure those who said f*** off also as your accomplishment.
then you used chinese companies, which are as selfish as the US, as an excuse to do something ‘different’.
actually, i do not know how different US could have done in, e.g. Angola. Isn’t this the way every MNC (Exxon, Shell, and your favorite contractor Hallibuton) is doing business in developing country?
:sigh:
Yet again a false analogy. ExxonMobil and others are private companies that invest overseas after conducting their own due diligence, and are controlled by the shareholders. Sinopec is a state company controlled by the PRC.
The only time US based private companies do not examine investments in various oil fields is when US sanctions prevent them from doing so. And they withdraw when they are not profitable, as in last year’s pullout by ExxonMobil from Azerbaijian.
If the US was not so fussed about human rights, we would have invested in Iraq, not invaded it, and we would currently be investing in Irans oil and gas infrastructure. The US is not so desperate for oil that it need work with these scoundrels. Note also that the US has lost plenty of allies for its harping about human rights, most recently Uzbekistan and Nepal.
Please also note that Shell is an Anglo-Dutch company; Halliburton does infrastructure, not oil export/import, production, exploration, or development.
sun bin, I believe that most Western companies at least make some attempt to act in ways that are not blatantly ‘bad’. Whereas nationalized companies and some companies of countries such as China can take advantage of the hidden nature of what they do to engage in corruption, human rights violations, rampant pollution, etc. That’s the difference between publicly held oil companies and nationalized ones-the public ones have some accountability.
snow, yes, we all know the subtle difference, and you are right. but the different is not too much in reality. curzon’s post said, Sinopec was bidding against a French company in Angola.
curzon,
1. the only leeway a company which does not have to be responsible for shareholder is the leeway to make bad deals. why are you so concerned that sinopec overbid or mis-invest? it is the money belonging to someone you do not like anyway.
i am with you that there should be better accountability for these managers.
2. why oil business is so different from infrastructure developement?
3. about iraq, i don’t know what to say. if you insist the invasion is because Bush is so fussed about human right.
have you confused oil and money with human right now?
there are a lot of reasons to invade iraq, but that was not the ‘official’ reason.
us should have joined killed that bastard in 1980, or 1981, or 198x, or 1990. there were perfect reason for doing so, bastard invaded who killed enemy with mustard gas — that is WMD.
typo: the bastard invaded a neightbor and killed his enemy with mustard gas””?that is WMD.
SB: Additionally, I would direct you to two recent posts on morality and oil MNCs “here”:http://www.cominganarchy.com/2006/03/09/discussion-exxon-sued-for-indonesian-troop-torture/ and “here.”:http://www.cominganarchy.com/2006/03/26/discussion-part-2/
anyway, we can go on in such debate.
what i really do not agree with you is that, whenever a bad situation US has caught itself in, the conservative wanted to compromise the ideal — high ground on human right, democracy, etc., and wanted to do something not exactly in line with what your consitution said.
in reality, it was usually the fact that US HAD compromised which led itself into such dilemma.
i.e., if you always put Value (human rights/etc) over Money (oil). you would not have been caught in cases like Iraq from the start.
The solution is to simply read your constitution, and first ask yourself if your act is in line with the freedom, right to pursue happiness, democracy of the people there . than consider oil and realpolitik, instead of the other way round. you win in the long term this way.
Exxon sued for collaborated with Suharto?
well, i know there are other rules imposed by pressure groups as well. mainly environmental.
well, you can sue Sinopec in HK, Singapore, Canada as well (i think they bought Kazakh Oil, which is based in Canada).
if CNOOC were allowed to bid for Unocal, you could also subject CNOOC under the same rule as Exxon. But the conservative (together with the bidding rival Chevron) deprived you of that opportunity. blame them.
Here’s an idea for a pragmatic approach to encourage China to put more emphasis on human rights:
We need China to think of Africa not just as a supplier of natural resources, but as a potential market. Eventually their current markets will become saturated with their exports. To continue to grow they’ll need to expand into new regions. Encouraging the rule of law, governmental transparancy, and regional stablility will lead to a larger potential market for Chinese goods. However, supporting oppressive and kleptocratic regimes will keep the potential market small.
Paying more attention to human rights issues could therefore be presented as a positive for China’s long-term economic prospects. In addition, it could offer a bit of international prestige that they are hungry for.
“the sierra leone-china case”:http://www.granta.com/extracts/2616.
Sun Bin…Thanks for the article. I maintain, however, that encouraging more responsible & responsive government will be important to the Chinese strategy long term, as their goods & (eventually) services more more up-market.
Curzon said:
If the US was not so fussed about human rights, we would have invested in Iraq, not invaded it, and we would currently be investing in Irans oil and gas infrastructure.
Do you seriously believe this? Cuz I don’t. I think the criteria you mentioned before, domestic politics, is the only reason the US never considered a rapproachement with Saddam. As for Iran, the US has never pushed one of its closest allies to cease relying on Iranian oil for any human rights reasons. That ally? Japan. Nippon Oil started cutting Iranian oil purchases last month, but that’s not about human rights. That’s about nukes. Yes, Japan is a sovereign nation, big boys, they can make their own choices. But the US never expressed concern or worry about Iranian human rights abuses and Japanese oil imports.
As for Sun Bin’s analogy, first I’d point out that Saudi Arabia engages in a plethora of human rights abuses, besides oppressing women. Juvenile death penalty, torture, lengthy prison sentences for circulating a petition for a constitutional monarchy, “face flogging”.
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=saudia
Second, the word genocide is misleading. Sudan is more like three concurrent civil wars. The Darfur rebels, the SLA and JEM, are armed (by, among others, Eritrea). The southern rebels, the SPLA, are armed. The Janjaweed are armed. They are all killing each other. This is Bosnia redux. Ethnic cleansing? You bet. On both sides? I’ll put good money down that’s happening now or will happen the moment the tide turns.
Are you suggesting that China completely leave Sudan and have no influence, as per Sun Bin’s comparison? Do you believe regime change is necessary? Who would replace them? Are you prepared to wipe out the LRA in N Uganda as well, since they’d move into any power vacuum? What about meddling by Chad and Eritrea while you try to build a new government? How will you keep the AU from becoming a completely joke for failing to sort it out themselves?
And finally, how do we know China isn’t using its newfound influence to pressure Khartoum to calm the situation? The Kuwaiti women didn’t vote overnight.
Finally, you mention Uzbekistan. The US totally screwed up Uzbekistan, according to CACI:
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/
“In late 2002, several Uzbek diplomats appeared in Washington and asked officials and students of Uzbek affairs whether a review of compliance with the terms of the Strategic Partnership Agreement was planned. These Uzbeks implied clearly that the reformers among the Uzbek government had supported the agreement in the hope that it would bring to bear American influence in the cause of reform in Uzbekistan.”
“This proved to be a decisive moment in the overall relationship, in that it marked the moment when those favoring a strong relationship with Washington and reform at home began to lose power in Tashkent. Their opponents could henceforth say, in effect, See, we told you the Americans’ sole concern is with their own immediate goals.”Â? They are no more interested in reform than many of U.S. are. You have taken the President and Uzbekistan down a blind alley and humiliated the country in the process.”
“But in Western eyes and in the view of Washington, the problem was not with part of the Uzbek government but with all of it. Sweeping reformers and hard-core troglodytes into a single bundle, and ascribing to President Karimov a degree of absolute control over the Ministry of Internal Affairs that he may not actually have possessed, they began tightening the screws, in the process undermining whatever pro-reform and pro-western faction may have existed.”
Wow, the US refused to distinguish players on the ground, gave them the cold shoulder, and – surprise! – lost them to Russia. Oh, and the US government wasn’t concerned with human rights in Uzbekistan. We were rendering prisoners there, for christ sakes. We just got embarassed by Craig Murray and Andijan. That wasn’t being fussy; that was bad PR. And instead of working with reformers within the Uzbek government, we sponsored groups like Freedom House and talked up the Color Revolutions, which basically scared every leader in the region into the arms of Russia and China. Fantastic. Way to go. U – S – A.
I have no faith in capitalism. More so than ever, business is the opponent of innovation so long as there is no driving reason to change the way things are done. As of now, there is no real drive to develop alternatives other than using existing means to deter the lack of oil supplies.
Nuclear is not a viable option simply because the waste is so toxic. I refer to the DOE status report on the various waste facilities in existence in the U.S. — this is still a ticking bomb that has not gone off since no long-term solution is at hand yet — fourteen years later.
No, capitalism is about money. It is not about solutions.
Sorry R.Elgin, you are totally wrong on this about capitalism. There are stunning developments going on in the world of alternate energy sources and such and its all being driven by private companies.
Money drives capitalism, yes, but what makes money? Solutions. Politicians and acitivist groups have an influence, but the biggest hurdle is money. Capitalists supply this when they think there is money to be made.
Currently, because oil prices are so high and because the oil majors have piddly reserves compared to the state monopolies, there is plenty of push to find more reserves, hence the absolutely intensive push to develop the oil sands in Canada and to develop sophisticated technologies for drilling.
As for alternate sources, hybrid technology is happening. The auto majors are moving fast on this but there are some problems. For example, the demand for battery components is far beyond what the suppliers can keep up with these days, so the carmakers can’t put out too many hybrids yet. It takes years to change such systems, but it is happening. In so many other areas, such as telecommunications, biotechnology and others, there are advancements going on all the time. Innovation is driven by capitalism.
The reason we came to rely on oil was becasue it was cheap and easy to get. Now things are different and there’s money to be made in finding alternates. It may seem like nothing is changing, but that’s misleading, because a hell of alot is happening. I follow many trends in the business world and innovation is ongoing at a furious pace.
“The Darfur Test”:http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-liberals-failing-china-darfur-test_24.html
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » PRC People’s Daily responds to CA