Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:06:24



Why would China, a country that is heavily involved in the arming of JANJAWEED in DAFUR be arming Kenyans? Kenya is a country which has been unable to build infrastructure for its people since 1963. There are no roads, running water, hospitals, or sewage. This is the same country that is incapable of internally defending its citizens. Yet, Kenyan government officials can afford to order arms from China!!

What for?

Thousands and thousands of black African women and children in Dafur have been living under dusty tent conditions while the oil is being harvested by Chinese companies in exchange for arms; the arms that are being used to kill the black Africans in that region by Chinese and Arab allies. All these activities go on under the watchful eyes of the UN and AU who have chosen not to rock the Chinese boat. Helping black Africans does not serve the super powers' national interests.

Food and tents programs have been instituted in Dafur by UN. The western farmers benefit because they can sell their farm products to the UN World Food programs. The tent manufacturing companies have huge contacts with the UN for supplying tents. Additionally, the UN workers in Dafur have jobs.

Human displacement is a very lucrative business indeed. The only losers are the people who have to live under nasty conditions with no privacy. Maybe there is a general consensus among these human displacement forces that black Africans do not require privacy as long as they are fed.

There is one thing that the Chinese and the West do not understand about Africans, they like to live in their little huts in the countryside and take care of themselves. They are attached to these small pieces of land because their families are buried on these plots of land. Unless you are interested in wiping out black Africans, please stop supplying your friends with arms.

I AM VERY ANGRY ABOUT ARMS SALES TO AFRICAN COUNTRIES. THEY DO NOT NEED ARMS. THEY NEED TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT. YOUNG AFRICANS MUST START THINKING ABOUT HELPING AFRICA INSTEAD OF TURNING AFRICA INTO A WAR ZONE WHERE NATURAL RESOURCES ARE EXCHANGED FOR ARMS!!!!


QUOTE

How is China involved in helping the Arab-dominated government kill its black African citizens? It buys about two-thirds of Sudan's oil exports. About 70% of Sudan's oil revenues go to its military, which is involved in the mass murders. Yet China's involvement is not just indirect. China sells arms and aircraft to Sudan in a manner that is almost certainly in violation of the United Nations's arms embargo. As important, Beijing has used its permanent seat on the Security Council to shield Khartoum from effective action by the international community. This has had the effect of continuing what America terms "genocide." As Darfur activists Mia Farrow and Ronan Farrow recently wrote, "Beijing is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so."

So if Beijing is responsible for the acts of the government in Khartoum — and it certainly is under the common understanding of that term — then are there other parties accountable for Darfur because they support the Chinese government? As a theoretical matter, there might be. If an enabler is answerable for another's acts, then so should a party that enables the enabler.

So who is enabling the Chinese? America and other Western nations do not treat China as just another state; they actively engage Beijing and support it. For three decades it has been our fond hope that the Chinese will make the transition to representative governance and free markets from Maoism and Marxism. We have sought to help in this makeover, and, as a result, we have provided technical and material aid to China. More important, we have also been patient with the Chinese, continually tolerating international conduct that is unacceptable. We have the best of intentions, but we may be producing the worst of results.

The issue therefore arises: At what point do other nations begin to share in Beijing's culpability? The Farrows link Western support of the Olympics and Beijing's cynical policy in Sudan. With such an expansive view of responsibility it is not surprising that Ms. Farrow is now organizing a new campaign, Divest for Darfur. The goal is to cut the flow of cash to the Sudanese military. For this purpose activists seek to have Berkshire Hathaway and Fidelity Investments sell their holdings in PetroChina, whose parent company has oil fields in Sudan. The ties between the Janjaweed and these American businesses are hardly direct, but Darfur campaigners essentially make the argument that attenuation does not matter.

UNQUOTE