Chinas Policy of Non-interference Faces Possible Modification A Cas

Introduction and Literature Review China and Sudan have a historical trading partnership dating back to the early 1950s, while the oil partnership, one of the most important aspects of the bilateral relations, was begun in the 1990s amid war and tumult. The Chinese government has largely maintained its policy of non-interference in the nation, which helped to strengthen the bilateral partnership. The main purpose of China?s non-interference policy is to cultivate rich and peaceful soil for the development of economy. Sudan and South Sudan are currently attempting to come to an agreement over disputed territories, and China has (for the most part) upheld its policy of non-interference. However, with the violence and threats, the policy has been placed under increasing pressure because it is actually working against its main goal: economic development. The following words are some existing literature on the subject. Qiao Shitong (law professor) believes that in recent years, China?s non-interference policy has been unde r increasing pressure, especially from the Western community. However, he claims that the principle of non-interference is ultimately in China?s best interest to uphold, but that a few modifications may be required. He advocates what is called ?soft interference,? or making suggestions and giving verbal guidance on internal matters. Opposing views argue that China is far too economically invested in these conflicted nations to disentangle itself from the political turmoil. Also, the policy does little or nothing to allay the issues of establishing safe and secure environments for investment, according to Berger and Wissenbach, which is needed in order to engender development and growth. In this essay it is necessary to explain why China?s best option is to officially modify its policy of non-interference for relations with Sudan and South Sudan due to the tension the policy created, the threat of violence towards Chinese investments and workers (as both of these reasons are negative ly affecting China?s economic growth), and the fact that China has not always stuck to the policy in the past. Alienating South Sudan The policy has had some negative backlash regarding China?s oil relations with the recently independent South Sudan, which undermines China?s energy security as well as potentially risks economic growth. Since the official Chinese stance is to recognize the official government in power in any given nation, before South Sudan became a nation the Chinese government did not recognize the government in Juba. China?s loyalty and official relations lay with the government in Khartoum. This caused initial relations to be quite rocky, and could very well have been the cause of directed violence towards Chinese workers. Moreover, some Southern Sudanese saw China?s non-interference as complicity with the north?s violence and human rights violations during the civil war. For this reason, there still exists much animosity towards China in South Sudan, especially over oil trading. In February of this year, the South Sudanese government forced the Chinese head of a major oil company to leave the country over allegations of conspiring with Sudan to steal oil. Whether or not the allegations are true, this is a prime example of China being caught in the middle of the conflict, suffering negative consequences in South Sudan and potentially harming the bilateral relationship. Since it is China?s policy to have official relations with the regime in power, when the opposition manages to establish its own state and government (as in the case of South Sudan) there is a high likelihood of feelings of negativity toward China for its lack of support, or even opposition to the new regime. Further evidence of the negative consequences can be seen in other countries. For example, the same violent backlash has also been seen in both Libya and Syria during the revolutions last year. China?s veto in the UN Security Council against intervention in Syria was seen by many in the Middle East as support for the current Assad regime. In Libya, many citizens and members of the new regime were angered by China?s supposed support of Gaddafi and the back and forth stance that China took, first supporting UN sanctions but later not supporting the NATO operations. There is ample evidence that the policy of non-interference has had negative consequences regarding bilateral relations between the newly-established South Sudan and China;

Guinn v. United States

Guinn v. United States Guinn v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1915, dealing with the constitutionality of voter qualification provisions in state constitutions. Specifically, the court found residency-based â€Å"grandfather clause† exemptions to voter literacy tests- but not the tests themselves- to be unconstitutional. Literacy tests were used in several Southern states between the 1890s and 1960s as a way of preventing African Americans from voting. The unanimous decision in Guinn v. United States marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down a state law disenfranchising African Americans.   Fast Facts: Guinn v. United States Case Argued: Oct. 17, 1913Decision Issued: June 21, 1915Petitioners: Frank Guinn and J. J. Beal, Oklahoma election officialsRespondent: United StatesKey Questions: Did Oklahoma’s grandfather clause, in singling out black Americans as being required to take a voter literacy test, violate the U.S. Constitution? Did Oklahoma’s literacy test clause- without the grandfather clause- violate the U.S. Constitution?Majority Decision: Justices White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, Hughes, Van Devanter, Lamar, PitneyDissenting: None, but Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that residency-based â€Å"grandfather clause† exemptions to voter literacy tests- but not the tests themselves- were unconstitutional. Facts of the Case Shortly after it was admitted into the Union in 1907, the state of Oklahoma passed an amendment to its constitution requiring that citizens pass a literacy test before being allowed to vote. However, the state’s Voter Registration Act of 1910 contained a clause allowing voters whose grandfathers had either been eligible to vote before January 1, 1866, had been residents of â€Å"some foreign nation,† or had been soldiers, to vote without taking the test. Rarely affecting white voters, the clause disenfranchised many black voters because their grandfathers had been slaves before 1866 and were thus ineligible to vote.   As applied in most states, the literacy tests were highly subjective. Questions were confusingly worded and often had several possible correct answers. In addition, the tests were graded by white election officials who had been trained to discriminate against black voters. In one instance, for example, election officials rejected a black college graduate even though there was not â€Å"the slightest room for doubt as to whether† he was entitled to vote, concluded the U.S. Circuit Court. After the 1910 November midterm election, Oklahoma election officials Frank Guinn and J.J. Beal were charged in federal court with conspiring to fraudulently disenfranchise black voters, in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. In 1911, Guinn and Beal were convicted and appealed to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Issues While the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had guaranteed U.S. citizenship without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, it did not address the voting rights of former slaves. To bolster the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Reconstruction-era, the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, prohibited the federal government and the states from denying any citizen the right to vote based on their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Supreme Court faced two related Constitutional questions. First, did Oklahoma’s grandfather clause, in singling out black Americans as being required to take the literacy test, violate the U.S. Constitution? Second, did Oklahoma’s literacy test clause- without the grandfather clause- violate the U.S. Constitution? The Arguments The state of Oklahoma argued that the 1907 amendment to its state constitution was validly passed and clearly within the powers of the states granted by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to the states or to the people. Attorneys for the U.S. government chose to argue only against the constitutionality of the â€Å"grandfather clause† itself while conceding that literacy tests, if written and administered to be racially neutral, were acceptable. Majority Opinion In its unanimous opinion, delivered by Chief Justice C.J. White on June 21, 1915, the Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma’s grandfather clause- having been written in a way to serve â€Å"no rational purpose† other than to deny African American citizens the right to vote- violated the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The convictions of Oklahoma election officials Frank Guinn and J.J. Beal were thus upheld. However, since the government had previously conceded the point, Justice White wrote that, â€Å"No time need be spent on the question of the validity of the literacy test, considered alone, since, as we have seen, its establishment was but the exercise by the State of a lawful power vested in it not subject to our supervision, and, indeed, its validity is admitted.† Dissenting Opinion As the court’s decision was unanimous, with only Justice James Clark McReynolds not taking part in the case, no dissenting opinion was issued. The Impact In overturning Oklahoma’s grandfather clause, but upholding its right to require pre-voting literacy tests, the Supreme Court confirmed the historic rights of the states to establish voter qualifications as long as they did not otherwise violate the U.S. Constitution. While it was a symbolic legal victory for African American voting rights, the Guinn ruling fell far short of immediately enfranchising black Southern citizens. At the time it was issued, the court’s ruling also nullified similar voter qualification provisions in the constitutions of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. While they could no longer apply grandfather clauses, their state legislatures enacted poll taxes and other means of restricting black voter registration. Even after the Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of poll taxes in federal elections, five states continued to impose them in state elections. Not until 1966 did the U.S. Supreme Court declare poll taxes in state elections unconstitutional.   In final analysis, Guinn vs. United States decided in 1915, was a small, but a significant first legal step in the Civil Rights Movement toward racial equality in the United States. It was not until passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that all remaining legal barriers denying black Americans the right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment- enacted nearly a century earlier- were finally outlawed. Sources and Further Reference Guinn v. United States (238 U.S. 347). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.Guinn v. United States (1915). Oklahoma Historical Society.Onion, Rebecca. The Impossible Literacy Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s. Slate (2013).Poll Taxes. Smithsonian National Museum of American History.