Análisis de los Resultados de la Aplicación del Control Interno

Possibly the most frequently recurring construct in the Chinese discourse on China’s policies towards Sudan has been the construct of mutuality. There have also been a few variations in the presence of this construct between the established literature and the official Chinese discourse on this subject. This refers to the benefits that Chinese foreign policy can bring for Sudan and the shared experiences of the two countries, although the latter features less prominently due to the comparatively recent nature of these ties (Alden and Hughes, 2009, pg. 569). This reflects the image of China as an equal partner to Sudan, an image that the Chinese narrative seeks to promote in competition with the American construct of China’s African policies as being largely exploitive and based on a largely unequal Sino-Sudanese relationship.

In line with the dominant construct of China as a role model, the purpose of the construct of mutuality is to create an image of Chinese foreign policy towards Sudan. This is intended to create a more positive image of Chinese engagement with Sudan in a bid to counter the perceptions of Chinese foreign policy created by the American discourse on this subject (Wang, 2008, pg. 257). Throughout the Chinese discourse on the case of Sudan, there have been numerous references to ‘mutually beneficial cooperation’, such as the claims made about China’s policies in the country by Chinese spokespeople such as Hong Lei and the Chinese ambassador to Sudan, Li Lianhe, with the former claiming that:

156

“China has long been providing assistance to Africa in good faith as its capacity allows. We will continue to strengthen cooperation with Africa to draw the world's greater attention and help to Africa.” (Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei’s Regular Press Conference on June 3, 2013)

This quote presents the image of China’s African policies that the Chinese narrative seeks to promote, most notably the idea that these policies are largely benevolent in nature and that China seeks to develop the African states rather than exploit them as the American constructs depict it as doing. The construct of mutuality in this statement comes in the claim that China ‘provides assistance in good faith’, which reflects the form of this construct emphasising the mutual benefits of Chinese initiatives rather than mutual experiences. This underlines the comparatively recent nature of China’s involvement in Sudan. The depiction of these policies as a partnership is also raised here by the references to cooperation, which furthers the image of China as an equal partner to the African states (Zhao, 2010, pg. 434). The dimensions of Chinese foreign policy are also raised by this quote with the claim that the cooperation between China and Sudan will ‘draw the world’s greater attention and help to Africa’. While this appears to fit with the Chinese construct of mutual benefit, it is also suggestive of the apparent disinterest in the African continent at the end of the Cold War, which left a vacuum that China was able to fill (Kim and Li, 2013, pg. 41). It is this aspect that illustrates how China was able to gain a foothold in the African states, which underlines the methodology of China’s African policies. China could exploit to further cement its ties with the African states. The construct of mutuality is expressive of the image that China seeks to promote and the developments in Chinese foreign policy.

Such a move can be seen in the attempts by the Chinese discourse to present Chinese initiatives in Sudan as being mutually beneficial for both China and Sudan, as outlined by the frequent reference to ‘friendly and mutual beneficial cooperation’ used by the Chinese narrative to describe Sino-Sudanese ties, an example of this being the common claim that China is a ‘an important cooperative partner’, which was used in a Chinese Foreign Ministry report on a Chinese delegation’s supervision of Sudanese elections. This is intended to counter the common assertion in the American discourse on this case study that Sino-Sudanese ties are largely unequal in nature and that they are primarily for China’s benefit rather than for Sudan’s, a claim that has often manifested itself in the construct of China as an exploiter (Mei-Ting Schwartz, 2018, pg. 12). The conflict between these two constructs can thus be an example of the wider discursive conflict between the American and Chinese discourses on China in

157

Africa, which are an example of how these narratives serve as two competing habituses for the control of the legitimate discourse.

In a similar vein, the construct of mutuality is often utilised regarding the cooperation between China and Sudan. As with the other elements of this construct, this is again intended to depict Sino-Sudanese ties as an equal partnership rather than China being a dominant partner over Sudan. This is again intended to serve to challenge the claims made in the American discourse on China in Africa. The concept of mutuality is utilised as the crux of the Chinese discourse’s response to the claims made about Chinese foreign policy by the American narrative. Such a notion also ties into the wider issue of China’s image and how the Chinese discourse seeks to challenge the image created by the American discourse on this subject. This can also be seen in Li Lianhe’s speech, which claims that:

“Chinese people and Sudanese brothers are greatly inspired by the establishment of strategic partnership between two countries. we are full of confidence in the future of bilateral friendly cooperative relations.” (Speech at the Reception Celebrating the 66th _{Anniversary of the Founding}

of the People’s Republic of China by Ambassador Li Lianhe)

While the description of China and Sudan as “brothers” appears to further the construct of Chinese engagement with Sudan as a mutually beneficial partnership, it also appears to echo the post-colonial solidarity between China and the developing word during the Mao era. This again serves to further the image of these ties as being mutually beneficial, which is a response to the claims made about Chinese policy by the American constructs as well as promoting the image of Chinese policy that Beijing perceives it as (Zhen and Zhang, 2012, pg. 23). In this case, it is the allusion to mutual benefit that is reflective of the competition between the differing constructs of China in Africa, which is also an illustration of the wider competition for the perceptions of China’s image in the wider world. In addition, such an image places a greater emphasis on consent rather than coercion, which is also indicative of the nature of the methodology behind Chinese foreign policy. It is this aspect that ties into the nature of power in Chinese foreign policy, most notably the role of cultural soft power in building African support for Chinese initiatives as well as the issue of the agency of the African states, which has been a prevalent theme in the African literature regarding these policies.

This construct has also been utilised for more case specific aspects on Chinese policy towards Sudan. This can be seen in the depictions of the Sudanese conflict, with the Chinese narrative portraying China as a possible mediator or balance for it as shown by the description

158

of Vice Foreign Minister, Zhang Ming’s meeting with the South Sudanese leadership being China’s commitment to ‘establish the transitional government at an early date and promote South Sudan for early restoration of peace and stability’. The possible motivation for the presence of this construct is the desire to present China as a responsible power, which can be interpreted as a response to the common criticisms over the lack of Chinese intervention in the African continent, most notably the claim that China is a ‘free rider’ in international affairs as well as the assertion that Chinese policy facilitates Sudan’s worst excesses (Naughton, 2010, pg. 445).

Another case specific aspect of the construct of mutuality here is China’s role in the Sudanese conflict at the time, or rather the potentially positive role it could play in it, which is cited by another foreign ministry spokesperson, Lu Kang, who claims that:

“China will work with the international community including IGAD and continue to play a constructive role in advancing the peace process of South Sudan.” (Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang’s Regular Press Conference on July 11, 2016)

This claim reflects the case specific aspects of the construct of mutuality in Chinese policies towards Sudan, in this instance, the conflict in Sudan. By claiming that China will play a ‘constructive role’, the construct of China’s policies being of mutual benefit is present by depicting China as playing a role in the peace process. Lu continues to depict the Sino- Sudanese relationship as an equal partnership by emphasising the role of ‘mutual cooperation’. This further emphasises mutual benefit rather than mutual experiences, which illustrates both the image of Chinese policy that the corpus seeks to promote as well as the recent nature of Chinese engagement with Sudan when compared to the case of Zimbabwe. The reference to the international community is suggestive of the potential audience for the Chinese constructs, in this case, the wider world. This furthers the idea that the spread of the Chinese constructs is reflective of the wider issue of the constructs of China’s identity in that this constructive role is an example of the image that the Chinese constructs seek to promote (Zhang, 2016, pg. 11). This statement also serves as a potential response to the claims made by the American constructs, most notably the common image of China as a facilitator of human rights abuses and authoritarian norms as well as that of China being a reluctant Great Power or a ‘free rider’ in that China appears to be willing to play a greater and more positive role in Sudan.

159

Regarding the other constructs present in the Chinese discourse on China’s engagement with Sudan, the idea of mutuality has also been utilised to refer to the common experiences between China and Sudan. In this case study, the idea of mutual experiences has been comparatively recent in line with the increase of China’s involvement in the country in the mid 1990’s. This has seen the utilisation of China’s experiences of economic development in a bid to legitimise Chinese policies in Sudan as well as to further the image of China as a role model for Sudan to follow for its own economic development (Niu and Liu, 2016, pg. 277). It is this intended image that serves as an example of the continuity within the Chinese discourse to the perception of China as an example for other states to follow as well as illustrating the changes within the Chinese discourse on China in Africa.

The dominance of the construct of mutuality is indicative of several factors present in the Chinese discourse on China in Sudan. This is largely a part of the efforts by the Chinese narrative to depict China as an equal partner for Sudan, possibly in a bid to counter the claims made by the American discourse on the same subject (Wu, 2018, pg. 767). The utilisation of this concept has primarily been in the form of the benefits of Chinese policy for Sudan as well as the experiences between China and Sudan. These highlight the continuity and changes within the Chinese discourse with the case of Sudan serving as an example of the more recent policies pursued by China in Africa. It is the response of the Chinese discourse to the claims made by the American narrative that can be interpreted as an example of the conflict between the discourses on China in Africa, which symbolises the power relations between China and the United States. While this image serves as part of the response to the American constructs of China’s African policies, it is also symbolic of how China perceives its role in the African continent as well as the image that it seeks to project.