Non-Interference As A Doctrine In China’s Africa Policy:the Case Of Darfur

Since diplomatic relations were first established in1956, China’s African policy has shifted from an unsustainable and ideologically-motivated approach, to political pragmatism and on to the present relationship based on economic pragmatism. While these shifts have markedly changed Sino-African relations over the past50years, another look reveals the persistence of core principles that continue to underpin the relationship. Principles of equal treatment, a respect for sovereignty, noninterference, mutual benefit and co-development have endured. China is highly sensitized to notions of sovereignty and equality among nations. This is largely due to the fact that violations of China’s sovereignty by other major powers and the intervention of outside powers into China’s internal affairs have been salient diplomatic threats since the foundation of the P.R.C. Past experience has led China’s foreign policy to embrace a principle of "noninterference" in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries. This principle emphasizes sovereignty as the common denominator among all nations regardless of other factors, and fundamentally holds that all countries should be equal and no country has the right to dictate the sovereign affairs of others. This principle of noninterference has served to safeguard China’s own sovereign rights. Take human rights as an example. The West is inclined to believe that human rights have historically arisen from a need to protect citizens from abuse by the state, which might suggest that all nations have a duty to intervene and protect people wherever they are. But the developing countries, including China and most African nations, argue that state sovereignty is paramount, not least because the human rights protection regime is a state-based mechanism. A non-interference principle holds that human rights should not be a reason for one country to interfere in another’s internal affairs. By holding to this principle, China can both ensure its own sovereignty and gain the trust of African nations. Over the past decade, human rights proposals against China were defeated11times at the United Nations. Without African nations’support, China could not have defeated those proposals. And though there are many critics of China’s absolute adherence to the principle of noninterference, even in the face of human rights violations and political corruption in African countries, China does not consider it qualified to make judgments on the domestic affairs of African countries and considers the African Union more qualified to do so. China’s policy of noninterference does not equate to ignoring humanitarian disasters, rather that China respects the sovereignty of nations and acknowledges its limits in solving such a crisis. In diplomatic discussions with African nations, China does make suggestions on issues of governance and intra-state affairs. What distinguishes Chinese suggestions from Western interventions is that they are provided in a friendly rather than coercive manner. On the issue of Darfur, China has consistently opposed economic sanctions on Sudan. China believes the Darfur issue is an issue related to development, where sanctions would only bring more trouble to the region, especially in light of a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)2007report that states:"Environmental degradation, as well as regional climate instability and change, are major underlying causes of food insecurity and conflict in Darfur." Since the Darfur issue is a conflict between different Sudanese peoples, and nation building is a difficult process for any country (in the United States for example, the civil war killed about600,000people after80years of independence), the international community has to give Sudan some time to solve this problem. China’s aid targets the root cause of conflict-poverty. China has aided infrastructure development such as schools, hospitals and water projects for Sudan. China has already given US＄10million in humanitarian aid and promised to offer more. China also insists on using influence without interference-they view respect as vital to finding solutions. China has used its ties with Sudan to persuade the Sudanese government to cooperate with the United Nations. Since China has sought to alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people with a solution agreeable to all parties, the Sudanese government trusts China. Recently, the Sudanese government has accepted the "hybrid peacekeeping force" in Darfur. The turning point for the political process resulted from negotiations with the Sudanese government based on equality-not coercion or the threat of sanctions. This study aimed to look at non-interference as a doctrine in China’s Africa Policy. This involved looking at the non-interference principle in general, not only in Beijing’s policies. The non-interference principle as contained in the policies of the African Union, United Nations and in the policies of Western and Asian states were discussed, noting a gradual shift away from strict non-interference towards non-indifference and humanitarian intervention. Beijing’s orthodox understanding of non-interference, on the other hand, is based on respect for the sovereignty of other states and a belief that, unless requested, no state should interfere in the domestic affairs of another state. The doctrine of non-interference, as understood by Beijing was then applied to the crisis in Darfur. In the case of Darfur, Beijing initially adhered to its understanding of non-interference, in spite of criticism that its behavior was based solely on China’s own interests. China initially ignored international expectations to intervene in the affairs of Khartoum. In fact, Beijing continued to support Khartoum and abstained from UN Security Council resolutions on the matter. Initially the government in Beijing was not willing to make any adjustments to the non-interference doctrine, as the situation in Darfur did not seem to present any reason for Beijing to disregard its own policies. Yet Beijing gradually shifted in non-interference; seen in its pressure on Khartoum to allow the AU/UN hybrid peacekeeping force. The reasons for the shift are ascribed to various factors ranging from international pressure and even the possible reputational risk. China managed to balance its economic and political interests in Sudan with its duties and expectations of the Security Council. At the same time, Beijing continued to protect the sovereignty of the Khartoum government by adhering to its beliefs of the right of the state. The subtle shift away from Beijing’s orthodox understanding of non-interference can be seen as China changing its non-interference doctrine to suit its new role in the international community. It can also be seen as China still adhering to the non-interference doctrine, as it places emphasis on avoiding sanctions and still requires permission from the host state for external intervention. Another key element is that it adapted when its interests were at risk. It would seem probable that this trend will continue, resulting rather in Beijing implementing a form of’pro-active non-interference’based on the situation. Such a position would indicate a shift in the doctrine of non-interference based on the situation and pressure, but according to certain core values of Beijing.