Over the last two days, Secretary Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have led a U.S. delegation to Beijing for the second joint meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. The meetings focused on a range of economic and political issues of mutual concern for the two countries. As Secretary Clinton remarked on Sunday, “Few global problems can be solved by the United States or China acting alone. And few can be solved without the United States and China working together.”
How the international community deals with the interlocking crises in Sudan is no exception. Therefore, I was pleased to hear that Sudan was on the formal agenda of the two days of talks. It reportedly was one of only two non-regional issues that will be discussed. With that said, it’s unclear whether the discussions are making any progress on Sudan as the issue went unmentioned in the State Department’s recently released statement on outcomes from the dialogue.
Last fall, during President Barack Obama’s trip to China, I wrote on the close relations between Khartoum and Beijing and how the U.S. should appeal to Chinese national interests on the issue:
From the outside, it sure looks like [Premier] Hu has a convenient excuse not to take any dramatic steps to challenge Khartoum’s deadly policies in Darfur, failure to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and enact true political reforms. Yet, this is the very reason why Save Darfur has urged President Obama not only to use moral suasion with the Chinese but appeal directly to their own national interests: keeping oil freely flowing (something impossible, for example, if war erupts again between the North and South). This type of realist case for tying incentives for the NCP directly to sustainable peace in Sudan has the real potential to influence even Khartoum’s closest supporters…
More recent reports include a story at The Wall Street Journal that points out that Sudan is a key part of China National Petroleum’s $60 billion international push aimed at increasing its overseas oil production. The article states:
China National Petroleum has been selling assets to PetroChina that aren’t already part of the listed unit, but it keeps assets in politically sensitive countries like Iran and Sudan out of PetroChina to avoid backlash from international shareholders.
For those interested, Global Witness has produced very valuable reports on the need for transparency in Sudan’s oil industry to avoid a return to conflict between the North and the South. The organization, furthermore, urges China to use its significant influence in Sudan to implement key recommendations from the report.
On another issue, dealing with Sudan’s enormous external debt is an area where the U.S. and China could have the opportunity to work together. China currently serves as Sudan’s most significant creditor. The Sudanese government, in fact, has used Chinese loans to expand significantly the oil economy over the last decade, as well as finance its wars in South Sudan and Darfur. And in 2007 on a trip to Khartoum, President Hu Jintao “cheerily waved away $80 million in debt.”
In a paper last December, I explained how the United States could work with the international community to use Sudan’s debt burden as a leverage point for peace:
If the Sudanese government demonstrably changes its behavior to the equitable benefit of its people, the United States should be prepared to lead the way in facilitating a debt-relief package for Sudan with the international community. On the other hand, if the Sudanese government fails to match its rhetoric for peace with proven action, then the United States should make it clear to Sudan that it will use its role at the IMF and World Bank, as well as its position in the Paris Club, to block any potential debt-relief package. The American message should be simple: the international community will not help Sudan with its economic crisis unless the Sudanese regime takes proven and substantive steps to resolve Darfur, implement the CPA, and enact true reform to the benefit of its citizens.
Last week, the Sudanese government made clear once again that obtaining debt-relief is a major policy priority. On Friday, the Sudanese government announced that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) finally agreed to start talks on relieving Sudan’s debt. The Minister for Finance and National Economy Lual Deng described this approval as “serious movement” and a “promising start.”
Nothing can be gleaned yet from the conversations in Beijing over the last two days about Sudan from either U.S. or Chinese officials. Hopefully, this silence means that both sides are working aggressively to build a common strategy that is not at this time ready for public consumption. It would be troubling though if the silence pointed instead to ignoring the importance of a united front toward Sudan or, even worse, to disagreements on how to approach the critical challenges ahead.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
Tags: China, Government of Sudan, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Sudan
