Who is the hypocrite now?

‘China’s investments and dealings in Africa have after all, triggered alarmist accusations of neo-colonialism so it is rather amusing to see the West accused of neo-colonialism in Libya’

Carlos Do Nascimento teaches English at the University of Saint Joseph and is enrolled in the Master in Contemporary China Studies at USJ.

Editorials of the People’s Daily Overseas Edition (a more palatable incarnation of its Chinese original, often dubbed the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party) can make an interesting and even amusing read. Such was the case of “New western colonialism emerges in Libya” published on Sep. 7, which was criticizing Western involvement and influence in the removal of Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya and the reconstruction efforts in the war-ravaged nation.
The editorial argued that the Paris conference, held on September 1st and attended by over 60 countries, represented under the guise of assisting Libya in its reconstruction, the carving up of the lucrative oil and post-war infrastructure contracts and projects amongst the Western powers, and submitted that the “The West is unlikely to let the Libyan people decide their own political and economic future, which can be regarded as a form of neo-colonialism. Many African elites are worried that Africa may be colonized again.”
Given the oil wealth of Libya and its geographical proximity to Europe, it is not surprising that the Western powers quickly intervened militarily in the conflict. What if Libya had been a poor country in a different geographical location with no oil and gas reserves? Looking at recent history (the Balkans conflict, Rwanda, Darfur, etc.), one can seriously doubt that given such a scenario, the “West” would have had the appetite to intervene militarily. Such is the hypocrisy of international relations which most, if not all countries are guilty of.
The accusation of neo-colonialism on the part of the West, raises the hypocrisy debate once again. Generally speaking, neo-colonialism refers to powerful countries using their economic and political power to influence less-powerful countries for their own benefit. Looking at the world order through the prism of powerful multinationals, wealthy countries’ trade and investment policies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the veto wielding members of the UN Security Council, one could justifiably argue that most powerful countries are guilty of neo-colonialism, including China. China’s investments and dealings in Africa have after all, triggered alarmist accusations of neo-colonialism so it is rather amusing to see the West accused of neo-colonialism in Libya. Could this also be a case of sour grapes? Prior to the war, China commercial interests in Libya totaled more than US 18 billion dollars, mostly in construction projects. At the time of the editorial, China had still not officially recognized the National Transition Council (NTC) as Libya’s government and the sole representative of the Libyan people, and became the last major power to do so on September 12. This long-overdue recognition of the NTC together with the embarrassingly attempt by a Chinese state arms company to sell arms to the Gaddafi regime during the conflict without the knowledge of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and the lack of support for the rebels during their campaign, represents a failure in Chinese foreign policy in the region. This failure will negatively affect China’s economic opportunities in Libya, at least in the short term, and especially in the awarding of new oil and development contracts.
The editorial appears somewhat schizophrenic since it praises the rebel victory but criticizes the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 which granted member countries the right to adopt “any necessary means to prevent civilians of Libya from being attacked”, and without which, the rebels would have surely been defeated by the superior firepower of Gaddafi’s armed forces. Further, though praising the rebel victory, China had, still ironically at this time, not yet officially recognized the NTC as Libya’s government.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2ndR) participates in a working lunch meeting on Libya as part of the two-day-long NATO Foreign Minister meetings  in Berlin, on April 14

The editorial also conveniently fails to mention that China had earlier voted for sanctions against the Libyan regime and most importantly, had together with Russia, another permanent member of the Security Council, failed to exercise their veto powers and instead abstained from voting on Resolution 1973. This was despite the obvious implications of the broad framing of Resolution 1973 and the blatant desire of France and Great Britain to effect regime change in Libya, despite their protestations to the contrary. Hypocritically, China was quick to criticize NATO’s enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya and its subsequent bombing campaign, pressing the case for dialogue between the warring parties, despite having given a green light to NATO’s bombing campaign.
China’s voting in favor of sanctions against the Gaddafi regime and it abstention on Resolution 1973, represents a change from its traditional diplomacy approach of “non-interference in the internal affairs” of other countries. Following such a principle, China’s foreign policy approach has generally been far less hypocritical than many Western powers who sometimes justify their interference in other countries’ internal affairs as necessary for the pursuit of democracy, yet will support and do business with other non-democratic and repressive regimes such as the previous Egyptian regime and Saudi Arabia. China’s abstention should not be seen as a new direction for Chinese diplomacy but rather as a calculated and strategic move, as was the case when she needed diplomatic leverage after the Tiananmen Square massacre and abstained from voting on Resolution 678 in 1990, which authorized the use of force against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait during the First Gulf War.
Beijing never gave an official reason for abstaining on Resolution 1973 but there are several possible reasons. Beijing has always used her veto power exceedingly sparingly (only seven times if we include the most recent move to veto a resolution threatening action against Syria), in order to show that she favors diplomacy and negotiation over force and sanctions. China also sought to protect her international image since the use of her veto power would have led to accusations that she alone supported the continued bloodshed against civilians. Other possible reasons include strong international condemnation of Gaddafi’s actions and pressure by all the major regional organizations, letting the West strain its resources, and the risk of losing future investment opportunities should the Gaddafi regime fall.
The notorious Joseph Stalin succinctly captured the inherent hypocrisy of international diplomacy when he said, “Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.”