煙華散盡
所有的友情和愛情都從陌生開始，所有的歡笑和痛苦都以沉默結束
幾周之前，當西方媒體正一麵倒地報道中國政府鎮壓西藏之時，一向標榜親華的肯尼亞黑同事山姆一臉嚴肅地對我說，我其實也是不滿西方各國對中國的事指手畫腳的，但是怎麽中國也做這種往津巴布韋賣武器的事呢，我和廣大非洲人民很失望啊。我連忙上網去查，才知道 4 月 16 日中遠公司向津方運送軍品的船隻船在南非被據上岸、然後在南部非洲幾國遊蕩十來天均不得登陸一事（最終在安哥拉卸下給安國的貨品後拉著武器回國了）。
關於這一事件，非洲若幹人等跳出來譴責中國支持津國獨裁者穆加貝，往政局混亂的津巴布韋火上澆油般輸送武器；中國外交部發言人則聲稱此交易屬主權國之間正常武器貿易，合同是去年簽的，聯合國也沒有規定向津巴布韋禁運武器。這事兒報道雖然有，但比起正如火如荼的奧運火炬和藏獨運動而言，很容易便被淹沒掉了。
我知道自己對津巴布韋和非洲政局大大外行，所以對山姆的意見保持沉默。不料又過了幾天，山姆同學發給我一封郵件，通知我他就此事寫文並將發表，邀請我提意見（原文見附件）。這倒也罷，他居然抄送了一大堆人，號稱此事是中國政府在南半球的另一國際公關危機，仿佛一定要借奧運和藏獨的東風把非洲問題塞進公眾視野，還痛心疾首打著號召非洲同胞團結起來拯救非洲的旗號。
我諒解他借風求雨的不得以，卻認為他的方向根本錯誤。他若真心為非洲謀福，就應該抵製西方對非洲各國內政的繼續幹涉，接受中國沒有附加條件的、以經濟發展為主的合作政策，甚至在西方、中國和印度對非洲皆有所求的環境中博弈以求最大化對非洲的利益；他若是趕這陣批中國的浪潮求個人名利，就應當逆流而行，反其道而行之，有先見之明地支持中國，而不是人雲亦雲，枉做小人。
在津巴布韋國內政局動蕩之時運送武器給不得人心的當權政府，又被人捉到小辮子，是中國的不是。往非洲賣武器的多了，往其它動蕩地區賣軍火的，聯合國安理會成員國也差不多個個有份，怎麽偏偏就裝在中國海船裏的武器卸載不下去？隻能說，在國際關係的微妙棋局中，中國尚遠遠沒有學會審時度勢，更不提運用金錢、情報、媒體公關和公民社會的力量造勢創時。不過話又說回來，在國際社會中所謂的“時、勢”都是以西方的道德標準為基礎、語言為載體、媒體為渠道的今天，中國空有幾千年的厚黑學，就是走不出國門玩不轉國際舞台，也夠鬱悶。
津巴布韋目前的政治和經濟危機，主要源於殖民時期遺留下來的土地問題、對西方援助和貿易的過分依賴、以及內政腐敗皆失策。這幾個關鍵原因，在非洲大部分國家都存在，沒有簡單的解決辦法。中國力量的介入，最起碼提供了另外一個可以借力打力的機會。當然中國是衝著資源去的，但期待國與國之間有無私的援助，恐怕太天真吧。更何況，中國在非洲的一舉一動，都被所謂國際社會用放大鏡看著分析著呢，怎麽做也比以前非洲殖民時代時的歐美國家做事要小心公平。僅僅從這個角度來看，山姆以及他自稱他代表的非洲人民們也應該歡迎中國。
非洲的國家元首們是明白的，要不然也不會有 44 個非洲國家的元首和政府首腦齊聚北京參加２００６年的中非合作論壇。令人惱火的就是山姆這樣自謂公民社會代表的聰明人，黑的殼白的心，什麽事情都要以西方一貫的民主人權的道德標準反思一番，以為自己比別人都看得深遠。非洲現在需要的是民主還是脫貧？人權的基本是參政投票權還是生存權？空談誤國說的就是這種人，踏踏實實發展經濟增強國力才是根本。想向中國學習怎樣從一片廢墟中站起來麽，先學習中國的務實主義吧。
美國英國等國家在這起事件中明裏暗裏起的作用很不小，不過是維護他們在世界各地既得利益、防止中國勢力擴張的另一起小小文章。其實歐美對中國的防範實在是過火了，以致點燃起海內外中國人的愛國之心，大大幫了中國政府團結民眾、轉移內憂的忙。擺在中國麵前的國內問題多了去了，在來得及趕超美國之前，中國ＧＤＰ的線性發展被黑天鵝事件幹擾的可能性其實很高。而沒有了歐美各國販賣黑奴和殖民全球長達四個世紀的斂富發跡機會，擺在中國麵前的發展史本來就是注定坎坷不平的。歐美國家操心操得開始幫中國的忙了。
扇上山姆同學的另一記耳光，是媒體組的一紙禁令，指明他的文不得再在仍何地方繼續發表，以免傷害和中國政府的友好關係。哈哈，西方的言論自由其實是這樣的。
############################
Here we go again
As China’s influence in Africa grows, are we entering another period of colonisation and subordination?
Sam29 Apr 2008 11:14
While the rest of the world has been consumed by the high drama surrounding the Olympics torch relay, another curious and unprecedented drama has been unfolding on the African high waters. A Chinese ship bearing arms destined for Zimbabwe is on its way back home, having been refused docking rights in any regional port. The ship and its ominous cargo had alarmed a few regional leaders, concerned that an ‘arms' variable was being introduced to an already precarious Zimbabwean equation. This story is not without significance. ‘Strong African leadership', a concept typically more conspicuous in its glaring absence, was responsible for this important Chinese acquiescence. Is the barking African bull dog finally growing sharp fangs? Is China learning that there is a limit to its "no questions asked" policy to doing business with Africa?
It's worth recalling that in the intricate dance that is global geopolitics, China has sent strong, unambiguous signals that Africa is a valued, if not preferred, dancing partner. But while certainly excited by the prospects of partnership with China, Africa has learnt to be circumspect, if not outright suspicious, when it comes to the thorny issue of relationships with foreign suitors. This, after all, is not the first time Africa is embroiled in a courtship with prospectors from far-off lands.
Africa has been serenaded and charmed by many suitors before. Almost invariably, the melodious serenading has not resulted in blissful marriage between Africa and the foreign charm-bearers. During the Cold War era marriage with the US and Russia, Africa filed for separation on the grounds of acute spousal misuse and abuse. Marriage with Europeans ended in acrimonious divorce, with Africa citing ‘irreconcilable differences'.
To be sure, the economic fundamentals of doing business with China are beyond reproach. Between 2002-2006, Sino-African trade rose from $ 12 billion to $ 40 billion, with Premier Wen Jiabao predicting confidently that it would stand at $ 100 billion in 2010. To help that prediction along, China recently signed a trade deal with the DRC worth a cool $ 9 billion. The Chinese leadership has also pulled no stops in efforts at making friends in Africa. Both President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao have graced the Continent with personal visits, and in late 2006 nearly 45 African Heads of State were feted lavishly in Beijing. Look beyond the head-spinning statistics, though, and bloats and blemishes appear on China's otherwise enticing narrative.
It is hard not to spot the obvious fact that the major African beneficiaries of Chinese largesse are energy and mineral producing countries. Angola, Chad, DRC, Nigeria and Sudan. China's roaring economy has developed an insatiable appetite for energy and commodities - the two items Africa has in abundance. The other commodity Africa does not suffer a shortage of is odious and unsavoury regimes. Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is only the latest leg of a journey that's taken China to the Congo, Chad, Sudan - countries whose leaders will not be lining up to collect the Noble Peace Prize anytime soon.
As China tries to convince a sceptical world audience that it enters Africa as a force for good, the ‘arms to Zimbabwe' saga threatens to achieve the exact opposite effect. It lends credence to the criticism, prevalent in mainstream Western media, that China's policy of "non interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations" gives comfort and sustenance to vicious dictatorial leaders.
It is true that the West does not exactly stand on terra firma when it comes to giving China lessons on dealing with Africa. Europe's long sejour in Africa was not characterised by gentle hand-holding meditation sessions. It was as macabre as it was undemocratic. Unless one applies an elastic definition of democracy, the recent French intervention in Chad had little to do with preserving a legitimately elected government.
The above point notwithstanding, the larger criticism against China's cosy relationship with African autocracts holds. While Africans generally welcome China's pragmatic, no-nonsense approach to doing business, loud alarm bells go off where this business includes arms deals to the likes of Robert Mugabe. Many Africans, myself included, salute without reservation the role played by iconic freedom fighters in ridding the Continent of colonialism, apartheid and other such perverted ideological imports. Alas, how quickly the heroes of yesteryear metamorphosise into inglorious villains.
Africans expect African leadership to respond vigorously and resolutely when it comes to defending African strategic interests. Outsourcing this sacrosanct responsibility to our so-called development partners, the amorphous ‘international community' or ‘Africa experts' in the West simply doesn't cut it. This only serves to reinforce the stereotype that Africans are weak and vulnerable, and need to be spoken for.
Levy Mwanawasa deserves credit for mobilizing and instigating African leadership to refuse the ship entry. Pressure from Zambia and Mozambique, as well as concerted efforts from civil society groups, succeeded in sending the ship packing. Sustained, decisive leadership will be necessary as Africa responds to the next crisis. This is unlikely to be the last time a ship full of arms attempts a dubious docking in an African country rocked by political turbulence. Lest we forget, all the permanent members of the UN Security Council are major weapons producers, with an illustrious track record of supplying arms to Africa.
The next questionable consignment that arrives on African high waters, be it Chinese or otherwise, should suffer a similar fate. At this crucial juncture in its development trajectory, Africa needs less arms (and alms) and more trade.
