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;