Cynical mimicry: China and Russia talk anti-corruption at the UN

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Redefining terms like anti-corruption, human rights, democracy, and integrity — even when self-evidently disingenuous — provides China the cover to mimic the mechanisms of good governance while blunting efforts to hold authoritarian regimes accountable, Elaine Dezenski writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Representatives from hundreds of countries assembled last month at a UN conference in Atlanta, Georgia, to talk about global efforts to combat corruption. 

While the event of more than 3,000 attendees hardly made the local news, it proved to be a brilliant opportunity for authoritarian regimes to muddle an issue that negatively affects the lives and livelihoods of billions of people.

Disingenuous objections by Azerbaijan were meant to limit the participation of anti-corruption activists, while representatives from China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia spoke about the importance of transparency and even denying safe havens for illicit financial flows.

There were entertaining moments — a Russian panel on anti-corruption devoted its entire hour to discussing the difficulty of choosing a winner of its 1990s-style youth contest for the best anti-corruption poster or video. 

China handed out “little red boxes” to the other panellists after a particularly bland discussion of how academics can assist anti-corruption efforts — a panel where the Russian moderator appeared to make an overt request for greater China “funding”. 

It all adds up to a worrying and much larger trend on full display — the democratisation of kleptocracy.

Beijing pats itself on the back

The highlight for authoritarian double-talk, however, was unquestionably China and its self-congratulatory presentation on integrity within its notoriously corrupt Belt and Road Initiative. 

It was a sixty-minute tour de force, touting the various “high-level principles” and the “firm stances” on integrity building without ever providing a single concrete action to practically address — or even admit to — the massive corruption scandals caused by China’s opaque disbursal of a trillion dollars in BRI spending.

Instead of action, the China panel pushed weak and non-credible platitudes: “Every construction project will be completed with integrity. Each penny of public funds will be well spent. Every corrupt person will be brought to justice.” 

Apparently, the Chinese Communist Party is now available to help the world unwind China’s bad behaviour over the last decade of the BRI.

Beijing gave no support for its claims, though they did note that “an opinion poll shows that 97.4% of the Chinese people are satisfied with the progress in the fight against corruption.” 

To bolster the claims of integrity in global BRI projects, public officials from Cambodia, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia shared the stage with the Chief Inspector from China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC), who offered that the state-owned company “show[s] zero tolerance to acts such as corruption, fraud, and colluding,” despite widespread allegations of corruption against CSCEC in BRI projects in Zambia, Guyana, Georgia, the Philippines, Pakistan, or Hungary.

The World Bank’s debarment of CSCEC in 2019 seems to stand alone as an appropriate and effective multi-lateral act of courage.

‘A more equitable and prosperous world for all’?

The nonsense narrative deepened with the BRI Integrity panel keynote address of Ghada Waly, Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the UN agency that oversees and safeguards the implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. 

More than 180 countries have signed the convention, including China’s adoption of it in 2006. 

Waly, the UN’s top anti-corruption official, shared the stage with Chinese officials to announce that “the Belt and Road Initiative charts a road towards a more equitable and prosperous world for all.” 

Given the astounding levels of corruption reported in BRI countries, Waly missed the opportunity to call out the BRI for what it has come to represent — a decade of questionable deals, large-scale corruption, vanity projects, opaque terms and conditions, and failing infrastructure, including in her home country of Egypt. 

While it is understandable that UN discussions reflect a level of diplomacy and respect, surely it is not impossible to speak the truth, or at least refrain from appearing oblivious to reality.

ADVERTISEMENT

China’s integrity double-talk is, of course, part of a broader push to extend political and economic influence by bending the UN and other international bureaucracies toward more empty platitudes that allow China (and others) to continue its export their own set of deal terms, rules, norms, and standards around the world.

In dire need of an honest conversation

Adopting the popular and valuable language of Western liberal democracies by redefining terms like anti-corruption, human rights, democracy, and integrity — even when self-evidently disingenuous — provides China the cover to mimic the mechanisms of good governance while blunting efforts to hold authoritarian regimes accountable.

A BRI document titled “Achievements and Prospects of Belt and Road Integrity Building,” argues that “integrity is the moral ‘bottom line’ and the legal ‘red line’ for Belt and Road cooperation.” 

Later in the same document, we see why China’s notion of integrity lacks meaning: “We need to … respect the right to choose one’s own way of fighting corruption.”

In other words, no country can judge another country’s methods for fighting corruption, even if those methods achieve nothing at all.

ADVERTISEMENT

To be clear, bashing a UN agency will not undo the ongoing whitewash of the global anti-corruption agenda. It is past time for governments to call out the double-speak. 

For the UNCAC to have real weight — and generate outcomes that are good enough for the local nightly news — it’s time for UNCAC signatories to hold themselves and each other accountable, starting with an honest conversation.

Elaine Dezenski is Senior Director and Head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Cynical #mimicry #China #Russia #talk #anticorruption

Six years after signing up for BRI, Nepal still struggling to comprehend what China wants

Nepal has completed six years since it signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), but it still appears to be at a loss — failing not only to acquire even a single project under the scheme but also to comprehend what exactly Beijing wants.

Confusion exacerbated after China labelled a project, which was started before Nepal signed up to the BRI, as one under the initiative.

When Pokhara International Airport, built with a Chinese EXIM Bank loan, was set to be inaugurated on January 1 this year, the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu said in a tweet: “The Inauguration Ceremony of Pokhara International Airport will be held at 11 a.m. tomorrow. This is the flagship project of China-Nepal BRI cooperation. Warmly congratulates to Nepali Gov and Nepali people!”

It raised quite an eyebrow, as the construction of the airport started in 2016, while Nepal signed up to the BRI framework only in May 2017.

On June 21, when a Sichuan Airlines charter flight flew into Pokhara from Chengdu, the first international flight to land at the $216 million facility, Chinese Ambassador Cheng Song again tweeted: “Today, the new Chengdu-Pokhora air route marks a new achievement for the trans-Himalayan multi-dimensional connectivity network between China and Nepal, which is a priority cooperation field between China and Nepal under the BRI initiative.”

The issue was even raised at Parliament.

Amid questions from various quarters, Nepal’s Foreign Minister Narayan Prasad Saud was forced to furnish a statement. “Nepal and China are still discussing how projects under the BRI framework would be implemented,” Mr. Saud told Parliament on June 27, without mentioning the Pokhara airport. He, however, made it clear that Nepal has yet to execute any project under the initiative.

Opinions are divided over Chinese assistance under the BRI in Nepal — some warn of a debt trap risk, others say it could be an opportunity.

In 2019, at least nine projects were agreed upon for their launch in Nepal under the BRI, but there has been no progress at all, even as there have been vigorous engagements at various levels between Kathmandu and Beijing in recent years.

Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, executive director at the Center for Nepal and Asian Studies, says there seems to be confusion not only among the Nepalis about the BRI but also among the Chinese when it comes to dealing with Nepal amid a geopolitical flux. “As I understand, by repeatedly calling the Pokhara airport a project under the BRI, the Chinese want to make clear to everyone about their presence in Nepal, where big countries like the U.S. and India do not want to lag behind when it comes to exercising their influence,” said Mr. Karki. “Since Nepal signed up to the BRI in 2017, the common understanding is that the Pokhara airport cannot fall under the initiative as it was started before that. And that’s the correct understanding.”

Debt trouble

Since not even a single international flight has started operations to and from the Pokhara airport in the last eight months, there are growing fears it could turn into a white elephant. Some observers wonder if more mega projects are built with Chinese assistance and all of them are put under the BRI basket, Nepal could face serious debt trouble. But there are others who call for making use of aid programmes like the BRI and others for Nepal’s larger benefit.

“Rather than squabbling over what Beijing said, it would be better to focus on how we can utilise the airport. And this applies to any other project built with Chinese assistance,” said Anurag Acharya, director at the Policy Entrepreneurs Inc, a Nepal-based research centre. “Public opinions may differ but it’s for the policymakers and the political leadership to think how Nepal should pursue its foreign policy and economic policy.”

While Beijing and New Delhi have always jostled for expanding their sphere of influence in Kathmandu, Washington has emerged as the third leg in Nepal’s diplomatic stool.

An incident last year may serve as a sparkling example. In 2022, China and the U.S. appeared to be in a state of proxy battle for influence over Nepal — as Washington was pushing Kathmandu for parliamentary ratification of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Beijing was warning of consequences. Nepal and the U.S. signed the $500 million MCC agreement in 2017, the same year it signed up to BRI.

Mr. Karki says China started to pursue a proactive foreign policy in Nepal only after Xi Jinping came to power. “Amid China’s emergence as the second largest economy and its active and aggressive engagements in Nepal, there are chances the U.S. and India would consider rethinking their ways of viewing and dealing with Nepal,” said Mr. Karki. “Failing to maintain a balance would harm only Nepal, not others.”

Nepal’s geopolitical risks have snowballed amid growing India-China and U.S.-China rivalry, and observers say Kathmandu’s failure to keep pace could put it into a quandary. New Delhi has traditionally enjoyed its clout in Kathmandu, while Washington has renewed its engagements in Nepal in recent years. Both India and the U.S. continue to stick to their position on BRI, with American officials during their visits to Kathmandu in the past warning Nepal of the possibility of falling into debt trap, offering Sri Lanka as an example.

Just last month, India made its stance clear once again, as it stood in opposition to the BRI at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation virtual summit. It has maintained a silence though on Nepal signing up to MCC or BRI.

Soft power tools

With projects particularly mentioned under the BRI framework failing to take off in Nepal, China appears to be in a bid to employ soft power tools as well. Last month, Beijing launched what it calls “Silk Roadster” in Nepal as a platform under the BRI.

“The International Department of the [Chinese Communist Party] Central Committee has set up the ‘Silk Roadster’, a new platform for practical cooperation and people-to-people exchanges between China and Southeast and South Asian countries,” reads a document named ‘Introduction of Silk Roadster and Its Five Signature Projects’.

According to the document, seen by The Hindu, the five signature projects are — Silk Road Embarkment, Silk Road Empowerment, Silk Road Enjoyment, Silk Road Enlightenment and Silk Road Enhancement.

Small-scale projects and programmes like technical skill training, overseas studies, and cultural as well as people-to-people exchanges, among others, have been included in the document, which it says will be carried out in coordination with political parties and social organisations.

Mr. Acharya, the director of Policy Entrepreneurs Inc, believes China is in a bid to expand its presence through various means by using soft power along with investments in mega projects. “Take, for example, the Nepal-China Dragon Boat Race Festival in Pokhara in June organised by the Chinese Embassy in Nepal,” said Mr. Acharya. “This is part of Beijing’s aim to enhance cultural ties with Nepal. And also, there are clear indications that it wants to work with provincial and local governments besides the federal government.”

According to Mr. Acharya, just like there was no need of fear-mongering over MCC, there is no need to do the same over BRI.

Lingering concerns

Concern, some say, is not that China asserted Pokhara airport is part of BRI, concern is what if Beijing continues to make unilateral announcements like this in the future.

“Our politicians and policymakers need to step up to the plate,” says Mr. Karki. “Nepali politicians should stop their never-ending game of clinging to power and should rather redefine and strengthen Nepal’s own foreign and economic policies.”

Semanta Dahal, a lawyer who has written extensively on foreign aids like the MCC and the BRI, says as the initiator of the BRI, China is the one that defines it and that drives it as well. “Since it’s their foreign policy tool, on their part, there seems to be nothing wrong on their part to call any project under the BRI,” said Mr. Dahal. “Nepal should rather focus on the possible consequences rather than China’s pronouncement that a certain project is under BRI.”

(Sanjeev Satgainya is an independent journalist based in Kathmandu.)

Source link

#years #signing #BRI #Nepal #struggling #comprehend #China