几周之前，当西方媒体正一面倒地报道中国政府镇压西藏之时，一向标榜亲华的肯尼亚黑同事山姆一脸严肃地对我说，我其实也是不满西方各国对中国的事指手画脚的，但是怎么中国也做这种往津巴布韦卖武器的事呢，我和广大非洲人民很失望啊。我连忙上网去查，才知道 4 月 16 日中远公司向津方运送军品的船只船在南非被据上岸、然后在南部非洲几国游荡十来天均不得登陆一事（最终在安哥拉卸下给安国的货品后拉着武器回国了）。

关于这一事件，非洲若干人等跳出来谴责中国支持津国独裁者穆加贝，往政局混乱的津巴布韦火上浇油般输送武器；中国外交部发言人则声称此交易属主权国之间正常武器贸易，合同是去年签的，联合国也没有规定向津巴布韦禁运武器。这事儿报道虽然有，但比起正如火如荼的奥运火炬和藏独运动而言，很容易便被淹没掉了。

我知道自己对津巴布韦和非洲政局大大外行，所以对山姆的意见保持沉默。不料又过了几天，山姆同学发给我一封邮件，通知我他就此事写文并将发表，邀请我提意见（原文见附件）。这倒也罢，他居然抄送了一大堆人，号称此事是中国政府在南半球的另一国际公关危机，仿佛一定要借奥运和藏独的东风把非洲问题塞进公众视野，还痛心疾首打着号召非洲同胞团结起来拯救非洲的旗号。

我谅解他借风求雨的不得以，却认为他的方向根本错误。他若真心为非洲谋福，就应该抵制西方对非洲各国内政的继续干涉，接受中国没有附加条件的、以经济发展为主的合作政策，甚至在西方、中国和印度对非洲皆有所求的环境中博弈以求最大化对非洲的利益；他若是赶这阵批中国的浪潮求个人名利，就应当逆流而行，反其道而行之，有先见之明地支持中国，而不是人云亦云，枉做小人。

在津巴布韦国内政局动荡之时运送武器给不得人心的当权政府，又被人捉到小辫子，是中国的不是。往非洲卖武器的多了，往其它动荡地区卖军火的，联合国安理会成员国也差不多个个有份，怎么偏偏就装在中国海船里的武器卸载不下去？只能说，在国际关系的微妙棋局中，中国尚远远没有学会审时度势，更不提运用金钱、情报、媒体公关和公民社会的力量造势创时。不过话又说回来，在国际社会中所谓的“时、势”都是以西方的道德标准为基础、语言为载体、媒体为渠道的今天，中国空有几千年的厚黑学，就是走不出国门玩不转国际舞台，也够郁闷。

津巴布韦目前的政治和经济危机，主要源于殖民时期遗留下来的土地问题、对西方援助和贸易的过分依赖、以及内政腐败皆失策。这几个关键原因，在非洲大部分国家都存在，没有简单的解决办法。中国力量的介入，最起码提供了另外一个可以借力打力的机会。当然中国是冲着资源去的，但期待国与国之间有无私的援助，恐怕太天真吧。更何况，中国在非洲的一举一动，都被所谓国际社会用放大镜看着分析着呢，怎么做也比以前非洲殖民时代时的欧美国家做事要小心公平。仅仅从这个角度来看，山姆以及他自称他代表的非洲人民们也应该欢迎中国。

非洲的国家元首们是明白的，要不然也不会有 44 个非洲国家的元首和政府首脑齐聚北京参加２００６年的中非合作论坛。令人恼火的就是山姆这样自谓公民社会代表的聪明人，黑的壳白的心，什么事情都要以西方一贯的民主人权的道德标准反思一番，以为自己比别人都看得深远。非洲现在需要的是民主还是脱贫？人权的基本是参政投票权还是生存权？空谈误国说的就是这种人，踏踏实实发展经济增强国力才是根本。想向中国学习怎样从一片废墟中站起来么，先学习中国的务实主义吧。

美国英国等国家在这起事件中明里暗里起的作用很不小，不过是维护他们在世界各地既得利益、防止中国势力扩张的另一起小小文章。其实欧美对中国的防范实在是过火了，以致点燃起海内外中国人的爱国之心，大大帮了中国政府团结民众、转移内忧的忙。摆在中国面前的国内问题多了去了，在来得及赶超美国之前，中国ＧＤＰ的线性发展被黑天鹅事件干扰的可能性其实很高。而没有了欧美各国贩卖黑奴和殖民全球长达四个世纪的敛富发迹机会，摆在中国面前的发展史本来就是注定坎坷不平的。欧美国家操心操得开始帮中国的忙了。

扇上山姆同学的另一记耳光，是媒体组的一纸禁令，指明他的文不得再在仍何地方继续发表，以免伤害和中国政府的友好关系。哈哈，西方的言论自由其实是这样的。

############################

Here we go again

As China’s influence in Africa grows, are we entering another period of colonisation and subordination?

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.