China Redux

Chinese state-run oil company Sinopec was the target of a large-scale attack at an oil field in eastern Ethiopia on Tuesday morning. 74 workers were killed, including nine Chinese and 65 Ethiopians; another seven Chinese workers were kidnapped. The Ogaden National Liberation Front, an ethnic Somali group aligned with insurgents in Somalia, claimed responsibility for the massacre, according to the AP (full story here).

The attack was apparently motivated by a desire to punish China for its investments in Ethiopia; the group issued a warning last year saying that “any investment in the Ogaden area that also benefited the Ethiopian government ‘would not be tolerated.’”

It is also worth noting that the Ogaden National Liberation Front is not a radical Islamist group. According to its website, the ONLF is a “grassroots social and political movement founded in 1984 by the Somali people of Ogaden who could no longer bear the atrocities committed against them by successive Ethiopian regimes.” It is seeking the creation of an independent state for ethnic Somalis in the volatile Somali Regional State of Ethiopia, which Somalia lost control of in 1977.

Today’s attacks mark at least the second time this year that Chinese oil workers in Africa have been killed or kidnapped by militants. In Nigeria, nine Chinese oil workers were kidnapped in January, and two more in March (two workers are still being held).

Today’s unfortunate incident introduces another element of risk into China’s forays in Africa. The initial risk centered on the outpouring of negative international opinion and perceptions resulting from China’s business deals with Sudan and other unsavory regimes (for more on this, see earlier post here). The new risk calculus must also take into account the fact that China is now a bona fide target for militants in the region, which see it as a colonial or mercantilist oppressor working in unison with opposition regimes. If China decides to maintain its investments in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and elsewhere in Africa, the costs will grow, since it will need to provide more substantial resources to protect its workers and investments. At what point are the costs of doing business prohibitive, i.e. the risks fail to justify the rewards? Chinese leaders are likely asking themselves that very question right now.

The irony here is that China does not understand how it has been cast in the role of oppressor. Here is President Hu’s remarkable words from a speech delivered in in Pretoria on February 7 (which I argued here would go down as a milestone in Chinese history):

“For more than 100 years in China’s modern history, the Chinese people were subjected to colonial aggression and oppression by foreign powers and went through similar suffering and agony that the majority of African countries endured,” Hu said according to a transcript released by South African officials. He added: “China has never imposed its will or unequal practices on other countries and will never do so in the future.”

Of course, China’s problem in Africa is not with partner governments; it’s with the people themselves, a great number of which consider their political representatives to be illegitimate rulers. That’s not a problem easily solved — another world power is still struggling to manage that divide. It won’t go away easily, either. China will want to reconsider its strategy for foreign investment in Africa and elsewhere, or risk more days like this one.

For more on China’s expansion into Africa and its risks, see Edward Cody’s piece in the Washington Post here.

Barack Obama delivered the first major foreign policy address of his Presidential campaign today at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Here are the lone references to China in the speech, as prepared for delivery (for a list of Obama’s five key points, see this NYT post):

And as we strengthen NATO, we should also seek to build new alliances and relationships in other regions important to our interests in the 21st century. In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region. It is time for the United States to take a more active role here – to build on our strong bilateral relations and informal arrangements like the Six Party talks. As President, I intend to forge a more effective regional framework in Asia that will promote stability, prosperity and help us confront common transnational threats such as tracking down terrorists and responding to global health problems like avian flu.

In this way, the security alliances and relationships we build in the 21st century will serve a broader purpose than preventing the invasion of one country by another. They can help us meet challenges that the world can only confront together, like the unprecedented threat of global climate change.

And on the environment:

We should push for binding and enforceable commitments to reduce emissions by the nations which pollute the most – the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and India together account for nearly two-thirds of current emissions. And we should help ensure that growth in developing countries is fueled by low-carbon energy – the market for which could grow to $500 billion by 2050 and spur the next wave of American entrepreneurship.

It is encouraging to hear Senator Obama take a measured yet firmly optimistic tone on the future of US-Chinese security relations. Obama’s reference to “a more effective regional framework” in Asia suggests he would likely pursue security cooperation and integration at the expense of the Bush Administration’s current hedge strategy towards China.

All in all, not a lot to go on here vis-a-vis China. Nonetheless, these remarks provide an important glimpse into the candidate’s directional views towards China. The issues surrounding US-Chinese relations are not likely to win the election, but could sabotage one’s chances. I expect Obama and his aides to navigate this issue in a smart, pithy manner. Iraq is the seminal foreign policy issue of the 2008 campaign, and Obama will see no reason to force a shift (at least, at this point in time).

But Iraq, like Vietnam, will one day fade into the recesses of American’s minds. When that happens, sometime during the administration of the next President of the United States, there will be China, first and foremost. Judging by his limited remarks today, Senator Obama would be well-suited to negotiate that relationship.