Sata and Kaunda’s diplomacy of hypocrisy on China and Angola

 By Austin Mbozi

To you our great comrades of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) where Dr Kenneth Kaunda is visiting.  Do not take that man (Dr Kaunda) seriously on that particular mission. He represents a Don’t Kubeba crooked diplomacy.because he has been sent there by a hypocrite, President Sata.  Treat that man with the contempt he deserves. Whatever he tells you about President Sata’s policy on China don’t rely on it. Verify it with, and believe what, your own ambassador to Zambia Zhou Yuxiao tells you.

To you Angolan brothers and sisters. Do not trust both Sata and Kaunda’s fake apology that MMD was supporting UNITA’s Savimbi.  No! Kaunda is the one who supported Savimbi in 1975 and arrested UNZA students who opposed him. Sata was General Secretary of MMD.  Instead, they should apologize for their past roles as individuals, not on our behalf because we never supported Savimbi. And they should use their personal money, not our tax payers.

To you Zambian parliamentarians, demand that Sata’s Government tells you what Kaunda’s mission was in both Angola and China and how much was spent. If they don’t, cut their budget estimates on Foreign Affairs.

Sata’s treachery on China

Since President Sata has not told us his new Chinese policy, we must still hold that his anti-China campaign views still stand. To prevent him from lying, in his usual way, that the media misquoted him during campaigns, let’s use extracts from the speech he gave at Harvard University, USA, organized by the University’s Committee on Human Rights Studies Events on 24th October 2007.  Sata titled his paper as: ‘Chinese Investment in Africa and Implications for International Relations, Consolidation of Democracy and Respect for Human Rights: The Case of Zambia.’

The key points of his speech are below:

1. Sata opposed the Chinese Government’s ‘One China Policy’ and promised to support Taiwan to breakaway from China. His paper reads: ‘The Sino-China diplomatic relations is based on the so-called ‘One China policy’, which basically entails non-recognition and isolation of Taiwan.’ (paragraph 7). Sata further claims that China kept African countries ignorant about its human rights abuses against the Taiwanese and Tibetan minorities.

Sata even used to seek funding from the Taiwanese and in 2007 he wrote to the Taiwanese in Malawi asking for USD $50,000 (about K250 million) so that he goes to Harvard to discredit the Chinese Government as he and the Taiwanese had agreed. The Post Newspaper of Thursday 1st November 2007 called him a ‘hired gun’ and a ‘shameless liar’ for this. More shocking, he gave the Taiwanese his personal bank account number instead of the PF one.

Lies have a multiplier effect. Do you know that the current diplomatic row which Sata’s Government is having with the Malawian Presidency is a child of this Taiwanese plot? The Malawians deported him from their country. But now that he is Zambia’s President, instead of apologizing to them for using their country in dealing with Taiwanese, he is trying another trick; to revenge by supporting the opposition in that country. He invited the opposition leader Ms Banda during independence celebrations and then reportedly issued a radio license to a son of Malawi’s opposition leader to be broadcasting against that Government from Zambia.  This President will give us trouble. Supposing the Malawian opposition responded by also issuing a radio license to UPND’s Hakainde Hichilema to broadcast against Sata from Malawi? This will be a grandchild of Sata’s attempts to deceive the Chinese!

In fact, there are so many grave innuendos he has made against the Chinese outside this formal Harvard speech. Remember how he lied that a Chinese person stole his passport at Crown Plaza Hotel in London in late October 2007 , only to find that  both the London Metropolitan Police and the Hotel Management where he lied he reported the matter, denying receiving any report?

The reality of the China-Taiwan relations

The fact is that it is Sata, not African leaders, who was ignorant about Chinese relations with Taiwan. The Taiwan-Chinese case is exceptionally complicated, even for professional multicultural experts like Professor Will Kymlicka. Historically, the Chinese sub-continent as a whole has since the ancient times faced periods of being invaded and ruled as a one vast country by various dynasties; and sometimes each region left to rule itself. These were the Zhou Dynasty ( 1122-255 BC), Quin Dynasty (255-206 BC, the name ‘China’ comes from this Dynasty. ‘Q’ in Chinese is pronounced ‘Ch’) and the Han Dynasty ( 206 BC to 221 AD).  From 221 AD to 589 AD, various Chinese regions became free from a common ruler, and each ruled itself. Then Dynasties returned namely; the Tang Dynasty (618 AD -907 AD), Song Dynasty ( 951 AD -1280 AD), then came the Mongol rule (1280 AD- 1368 AD) and the Ming Dynasty ( 1368-1644). Then came a period of Manchu rule (1644 AD- 1911 AD) followed by rule by Republicans (Kuomintang capitalists 1911 -1949). From then on the Communists took over under Mao Zedong.

So the diplomatic disputes over territorial authority arise mainly because the Communist PRC Government is focusing mainly on times when the whole territory shared a single ruling class. So they claim that China is one. But the leaders of the now autonomous regions like   Taiwan or Tibet who focus on periods of no common rule can claim that China is not one country. The West’s trade contacts with Taiwan came when there was no or less Chinese rule in Taiwan, and the West knew the region as Formosa. In 1895 the Taiwan territory was conquered and ruled by the Japanese imperialists. When the Japanese lost World War II in 1945, they also lost Taiwan to the Western allies. When in 1949 the Communists under Chairman Mao Zedong overthrew the capitalists (Kuomintang) who were ruling China, these capitalists retreated to Taiwan. These are the capitalists who are now trying to separate from the rest of China while the PRC Government still regard Taiwan as a Chinese territory, though Mao preferred to give it greater semi-autonomy.   Thus even world powers like the US Presidents do not make categorical support for or against Taiwanese independence. Hence Beijing China, and not Taiwan, got a UN seat in 1971. Even when the following year in 1992 US President Richard Nixon visited Beijing he never encouraged Taiwan’s independence. Instead, following his visit, the US normalized relations with China in 1979.  Though there is US-Taiwan trade going on, the are no formal US-Taiwan diplomatic ties .The closest form of explicit support the US has with Taiwan is the US Congress- passed ‘Taiwan Relations Act, which says the US shall ‘make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.’ But even here, the US is merely trying to protect Taiwan against a possible Chinese military attack, not that the US want Taiwan to breakaway. Recently, trade and economic ties between China and Taiwan have become warmer, though the two regions are still suspicious of each other and each one keeps its military forces on alert.  Meanwhile, Japan also withdrew its recognition of Taiwan in 1972 and officially recognized the PRC Government in Beijing; the One China Policy.

So what did Kaunda say about all these? Would our Zambian defense force go to fight for Taiwan’s independence should war break out there?  Or did Kaunda go to announce that Zambia will now respect the One China Policy? If so, will this imply that he should then proceed to Taiwan and tell them that Sata  used their money to deceive them and that he would pay the Taiwanese back? If so use your own or PF money. Never, ever use our tax paper’s money to refund Taiwan or you face the law after you leave office.

——————————————————————————————————————-

BREAKING IN NEWS COMMENT

UPND must petition the Chongwe result. Why? Because (a) PF President Michael Sata instructed Government officials to electrify all Chongwe villages. This is a lie to cause undue influence. It is against the Electoral Rules. No budget or Government program exists on this. (b) Guy Scot reportedly was distributing fertilizer, (c) ZNBC and other Government media were biased, (d) PF has petitioned over 70 seats won by MMD based on these same grounds. If the Courts nullify the MMD results due to these practices by MMD but refuse to nullify the Chongwe one for the same reasons, then we will believe that the courts have been corrupted. If MMD also has even the smallest reason, they must petition the Nakonde result also.

PF thought they were clever by petitioning even where they clearly lost. Why were they not petitioning in 2001, 2006 and 2008? If they think it is because now they trust the courts, what have they done to these courts to make them trustworthy to them? It’s now tit for tat.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Let us continue with China. If Sata really cared about human rights as a principle, then he should have focused on Tibet who has a more convincing human rights abuse case, not Taiwan where Beijing fears to directly control.  The Mongol who ruled China up to 1368 AD ruled both China and Tibet. But they were foreigners. So the Chinese cannot claim historical control of Tibet on the basis of this rule.  During the last non-foreign Chinese dynasty of the Ming from 1368 to 1644 Tibet was not under Chinese control at all, nor was it so under the Republican period (1911-1949). As in Taiwan, the international community has not endorsed Tibet as a separate country, but they, including the US Congress, have condemned Chinese brutality in crashing Tibetan nationalism, such as the Communist’s imprisonment of 70,000 Tibetans between 1959 and 1961 in Lanzhou city  where half of them died and of course the Tiananmen Square  student massacre in 1989.  The former Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama whom the Communists overthrew into exile to India in 1959 after Tibetans revolted against Chinese rule, is gaining international support and Voice of America began broadcasting the Tibetan language in 1991.

Does President Sata really know these things? Foreign diplomacy must be a professional career. You must have at least a some certificate in international relations or equivalent. That is why in the US they choose experts in foreign affairs like Henry Kissinger, Collin Powell, Condoleezza Rice (PHD in Russian politics badaala!)! Not Mr Chishimba Kambwili who does not even know that it puts Zambia’s image in bad light when he violates Nevers Mumba’s contract requiring three month’s notice for a recall.  And looking at the ‘braggadocios’ like George Mpombo they send abroad it’s clear PF will mess our foreign relations.

Even you reader. Are you not obviously mesmerized by how I have propounded the  data on Chinese politics above?  Now when you go into government,   are you not likely to appoint the likes of me to the Zambian embassy in Beijing? I can make Zambia proud. Can’t I? …. I am not talking to you on this one Mr Kambwili. Why are you joining into our discussion ? ….. Oh, ah! You mean  you wanna appoint me? Oh he he he  …..eem…..eem… I ….I … ……..limbi kuti twaifwana bakamba… nomba … ukulabomba naimwe ba  PF!

2. Sata claimed that China violates individual human rights at home. Paragraph 3 of Sata’s speech reads: ‘China does not subscribe to democracy and is inconsistent in upholding human rights at home’.  As shown in the case of Tibet, this is true. But does this require sending Kaunda to say it? How come Sata’s former Presidents, even Kaunda and Mwanawasa whom Sata now claims they are his heroes, never sent special envoys in the name of former leaders to go and condemn human rights in China?  Are we going to be wrong to suppose that he wants to lie something opposite in secret; to flatter the Chinese that they are a model of human rights and democracy?  And what will Sata then tell the Americans next time? Americans also trade with China. But don’t try fake flattery. Be it George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Barak Obama or Hilary Clinton, they are unanimous against Chinese human rights home record. In fact many world leaders who read cultural history are cautious because part of Chinese so-called dictatorship is not seen that way by many Chinese citizens. In their Confucius philosophy and culture, obedience to authority is a virtue, and centralized and authoritative government is not only preferred for its ability to protect them from war but a sign of a virtuous leader.

Can this man, President Sata, really travel to the UN and speak for Zambia without embarrassing Zambia? Maybe no wonder he does not travel abroad or even hold press conferences at home! Recall that only recently Sata told visiting Archbishop of Canterbury that MMD made a mistake with a ‘Look ‘East (China) Policy’. Is the Archbishop now not feeling deceived that Sata is giving so much special attention to China?

3. Sata said China refused to help Zambia when Zambia faced economic problems (paragraph 10) and also that China refused to help Zambia reach its HIPC completion point (paragraph 12).  Firstly, this is a total lie. In 1975, the USAID and World Bank refused to help. China provided a 30 year long interest -free  K 286.6 million (current rates: over K1.3 trillion )  loan and constructed the 1000 mile TAZARA railway line. A second lie: China actually also canceled our debt during HIPC. Secondly, even if China had not helped, there would be no reason to demonize them. They owe us nothing. They never colonized us. They should help only when they want and after solving their people’s problems.

Who gets Chinese bribes: MMD or PF?

4. Sata claimed that the Chinese  bribed the Mwanawasa then ruling leaders to allow Chinese low quality goods, Chinese non-skilled laborers (who it hopes to ‘resettle permanently in Zambia’ (  Paragraph 24)) and Chinese unsafe working conditions and low salaries (paragraph 13). Here I can’t tell whether this is true or not. But since Sata believes that the Chinese are corrupt people why is he courting corrupt people? Why was it that the first diplomat he met after being elected was the Chinese ambassador to Zambia? Why is it that he has not fed all the other foreign investors in Zambia with taxi paper’s money but only fed the Chinese, the same corrupt people? Why did he tell the corrupt people that it was not them to blame for Zambia’s problems but MMD? So according to Sata MMD received bribes from the Chinese but only MMD was corrupt and not the Chinese?

5. President Sata claimed that the Chinese bribed Mwanawasa’s MMD in order to escape paying mining taxes.’ Sata said:

’ Due to corruption, the Chinese were given favourable terms, including generous tax exemptions for 15  years, and even permission to export unprocessed ores to China….allowed to pay ‘slave wages’ (import)’ unskilled workers’ …..paragraph  13).’

So since Sata’s reason was that Mwanawasa’s MMD had not charged high mining taxes in 2007, should we say he lied since Mwanawasa eventually introduced windfall tax in 2008? And should we conclude, going by Sata’s reasoning, that it is actually him that gets bribes for not introducing windfall taxes in this years budget? Lies do backfire!

Kaunda clearly wasted our tax paper’s money because did not clarify these things in China. If he has sense, he should leave us alone to remove Sata from office before he messes too many things on our behalf. As for Sata, it is better he lets Guy Scott conduct the day to day state functions and support Given Lubinda to take over the PF Government if it wins in 2016. This way, both the PF can gain by improving their chances of winning in 2016 while at the same time not spoiling Zambia’s international image.

Next, we shall look at Kaunda involvement and Sata’s position during the MMD era,  in supporting Savimbi in Angola.

 

[email protected]

Share this post
Skip to toolbar