Did 'Ship of Shame' complete mission?

Maybe those Chinese weapons got to Zimbabwe after all.

You may remember the news reports last month that four African nations had blocked a Chinese freighter – dubbed the “Ship of Shame” -- from offloading a weapons shipment for Robert Mugabe’s army in Zimbabwe.

Washington and London crowed that they had twisted arms to prevent the arms from getting off the ship in South Africa, Mozambique, Angola and Namibia.

Now along comes a report on Radio Africa, a London station that broadcasts in short wave. Here is what it says:

Deputy Information Minister Bright Matonga on Sunday claimed that the controversial shipment of arms from China, initially blocked by South Africa, Mozambique and Zambia, was now in Zimbabwe.

Responding to criticism of the shipment during a panel discussion on Iranian sponsored 'Press TV' Matonga is said to have derisively retorted, “in any case that shipment is already in Zimbabwe.”


Press TV's 'Four Corners' program hosted a debate between Matonga, Briggs Bomba from Africa Action, Zanu PF apologist George Shire and an unnamed journalist. Bomba spoke to Newsreel Tuesday and expressed his disappointment at how Angola, contrary to its official position, might have helped Mugabe's regime get their hands on the deadly cargo.

The Chinese ship 'An Yue Jiang' was carrying 3 million rounds of ammunition for AK-47's, 1500 rocket propelled grenades and 3000 mortar rounds and tubes. Pressure from trade unions and civil society groups in the SADC region ensured the ship spent weeks failing to get permission to offload. Emerson Mnangagwa, the man in charge of Zimbabwe's terror campaign through the Joint Operations Command, is said to have traveled to Angola and met President Eduardo dos Santos last week, in an effort to have the shipment allowed through.

Angola officially declined to authorize the offloading of the Zimbabwean arms shipment, but no one knows if they kept their word. The picture continues to get to murkier with other reports suggesting the Angolan President's jet, a Falcon 900, was sighted in Zimbabwe Tuesday evening. No further details were available. Malawi's Nyasa Times newspaper added to the speculation by claiming intelligence agents from Malawi had traveled to Angola to help clear the shipment on behalf of the Zimbabwean regime.

Comments

[shenqh]

According to report, the weapon sale contract was signed a year ago. At that time there was no election confrantation there. China does not specifically send the weapons to interfere the election there. It is just a coincidence that weapon was shipped at such a sensitive time. The weapon sale was done via a private company, not by the government.

[Skeptic]

Response to Shenqh:

Mugabe has been oppressing and intimidating the Zimbabwean people for many years now. Lacking serious external threats, any arms would be deployed for internal repression, allowing the government to rob the people.

I am sensitive to your belief that we shouldn't hold the Chinese goverment responsible for the acts of a private company. However, do not most responsible governments regulate the sale of arms?

This story has 'legs', as we say, because it reinforces the belief that China is indifferent to the welfare of foreign peoples and complicit in government abuses of their citizers. I must admit, that the record of the United States is not much better.

[shenqh]

If Mugabe is really bad enough, it is the people in Zimbabwe to kick him off power. Whoever next runs Zimbabwa, China will still keep good relation with that country. China only wants to business, no interest to set up a military base there.

[Pffefer]

Skeptic,

There was no and there still is no UN-sanctioned embargo against Zimbabwe. So what is the ground of China not honoring the contract that was signed a year ago? Just because Mugabe is not a decent guy? So are you saying it is up to individual countries to decide whether it should sell arms to those "rogue states" determined by the west? Where do you draw the line? Is Pakistan a rogue state? If it is, how come nobody is complaining about the US and China selling arms to Pakistan?

[paolang]

Tim, I would like to provide you with an excellent example of censorship. The pope's good wish to the Beijing Olympics was censored by the Reuters, the Associated Press, and the New York Times in their reports of the performance of a Chinese orchestra in Vatican yesterday. On the contrast, BBC did not censor the pope's good wish, while the AFP made it a title of its report on the same event.

[nanheyangrouchuan]

@paolong

What a stupid assumption, that one media outlet doesn't report a sentence someone said there is censorship. The rest of the media world does operate with one whoremoanized voice like Xinhua.

@ pfeffer;

China just can't get past "two wrongs make a right". 5000 years resulted in what?

[Junhui]

The Chinese want nothing more than business. Because to get rich is glorious as they would put it.

While warfare is bad; China was only doing a business transaction. At least they didn't sell Zimbabwean weapons and in turn invade them so they could sell them more weapons...(does Iraq ring a bell?).

European countries are NOTORIOUS for arms trade (yes even the FRENCH). America exports a huge amount of weaponry. Not for pure business but also for self-interest..(Taiwan? America is fueling regional disability; what of Israel and Palestine?).

Even if China was doing it for their own self-interest they would only be following in the footsteps of the great role-model we know as the United States.

Get off the high horse guys. If we don't like the way people do things, maybe we shouldn't do it ourselves.

In addition, China has gotten a lot right in the last 5000 years, and it has also gotten a lot wrong. What country hasn't?

@nanheyangrouchuan your bias confounds me. Instead of insulting the current Chinese government, you insult 5000 years of development. Isn't that a stupid assumption?

[Search4T]

@nanheyangrouchuan
Sure, 2 wrongs don't make it right. But you seem to enjoy very much what you've been accusing China of. By that, I didn't mean the title of your blog of course. badbadchina.blogspot.com

Or, should I?

[Search4T]

In fairness, the international outcries over the so called "ship of shame" did have some merits and reflect poorly on the Chinese government. However, I think it has much more to do with its clumsy inflexibility when it comes to gauging and reacting to world opinions, than some kind of evil plot to hijack the political process of some African nation. The princelings that run Poly probably were too busy enjoying fine dining highlighted by the new Zagat Beijing guide to realize how bad the timing was for this shipment. Of course, they probably didn't even remember the deal since the value of the contract was so small and Poly might not even get paid in cash. What a mess. On trial in the court of world opinion for some lousy low tech small arms deal when someone making billions using some countries as real life battleground "shock and awe" showroom for their hi-tech arsenal.

[A B]

If we are going to call this petty shipment of small arms by boat the "Ship of Shame", then, what name should we give to the C-130s and C-5s that, at the urgent request of Israel, airlifted cluster bombs to Israel so they can despoil and lay waste to Lebanon after their 2006 invasion stalled?

Should I recount how many children and innocent civilians have been injured by this largess paid for by American taxpayers?

Might I point out that there was ZERO doubt as to what Israel intended to do with the cluster ammunition that were requested AFTER the invasion of Lebanon started.

Is the lesson out of this that the United States is exempt from this kind of moral judgment?

Or that "freedom of navigation" and the "right of innocent passage" by US military transports over Europe and Africa include the willful, deliberate, and intentional acquiescence to US transports delivering these cargos to Israel?

Or do different standards apply?

[nanheyangrouchuan]

"airlifted cluster bombs to Israel so they can despoil and lay waste to Lebanon after their 2006 invasion stalled?"

Would that be after Hezbollah, Lebanon's de facto government, launched scores of rockets into Isreali territory to test the range and accuracy of their new toys?

@Junhui:

"you insult 5000 years of development. Isn't that a stupid assumption?"

After 5000 years China should know better. And China keeps promoting itself to be an alternative to the west while doing all of the bad things that the West did 100 years ago.

[Search4T]

5000 years of history is over-rated. 1.3 billion is not. If all of them piss on you in unison, you'll perish in the torrent of golden tsunami. If half of them spit on you in unison. You'll drown in a sea of yellow/greenish slimy goo (the green part has to do with the polluted air).

[the Chinese Century blog]

China will be selling even more arms around the world in the coming years. There is still a long ways to go to catch up with the USA. Simple as that.

Every government or group who buy arms are going to have someone oppose the purchase.

USA need to think about selling to Taiwan - those might just end up in the hands of the mainland Chinese.

Attaching morality to this thing is kinda silly.

[A B]

"USA need to think about selling to Taiwan - those might just end up in the hands of the mainland Chinese."

The catch is, the US has anticipated that outcome for decades, and so Taiwan get junk at inflated prices compared to other allies like Japan, Israel, or even S. Korea.

That is what happens when the arms are sole sourced from the USA with little competition.

Even if there were competition, there are other issues:

The one time Taiwan bought stuff from another country (France and the Netherlands), they ended up with a huge mess of incompatible systems that created a nightmare both operationally and logistically.

[RA Chinn]

Study war no more...

Changing the direction all this arms trading is taking us should be a global initiative, right up there with stopping global warming.

Interlocking trade (and the nuclear deterent) have made global wars less of an immediate threat. But regional conflicts, wherein major powers force their influence against smaller entities, and local tyrants claim control over their countries and regions, are making it to the headlines every day.