By Bob Wekesa, is a journalist studying international communication at theCommunication University of China in Beijing. ******************************************
Historically it was the Arabs who not only made the earliest contactwith Africa but actually eventually became part of Africa’s diverseracial and ethnic mix. Then followed the Portuguese and Spaniards atthe height of their naval power. After the scramble and partition ofAfrica – particularly the 1884 Berlin Conference – Britain took theLion’s share of the balance of power in Africa only ceding thatpre-eminence to the US after Second World War.Since the mid-1990s, China has been consistently upsetting the US andWestern dominance in Africa. Even on a global scale, some Westernthinkers – for instance communications guru Johan Galtung and worldclass linguist and social scientist Noam Chomsky have predicted thedecline and fall of the American empire. Many posit that China willtake US’ place. Indeed, China is today mentioned as having all thecharacteristics of a superpower. This includes its pole position inAfrica today.In 2009, China overtook the US as the most significant of Africa’strading partners not only continentally but also in most of Africa’s54 nations. China has however eschewed hegemonic approaches of carvingout a sphere of influence on the continent, settling forgovernance-neutral values such mutual benefits, non-interference andrespect for Africa’s sovereignty. China does not distinguish between‘black’ Sub Saharan Africa and the mostly Islam Arab Maghreb NorthernAfrica as does the US. Division of Africa on religious and ideologicallines and the framing of some countries and leaders as foes and othersas allies have long been criticized as some of the fault lines thatmight be US’ Achilles heel in the long run.Because of the indisputable importance of China in Africa today,attempts have been made to tame the Dragon’s rise overtly andcovertly. For instance US strategists have been calling forcooperation between the US and China and between China and the EU inAfrica’s trade and development engagements. The point of departurehere is that Chinese and African leaderships appear to turn a deaf earto such entreaties instead forging ahead with the Forum on ChinaAfrica Cooperation (FOCAC), the Sino – African ‘bilateral’ diplomaticbehemoth that leaves no room for triangulation.Globally, China and Africa look to support each other’s causes. Forinstance, African nations under siege, say from the InternationalCriminal Court, use China’s UN Security Council veto power (whereAfrica too can push China’s interests using the three non-permanentseats it holds at any one time) as well as supporting each over tradematters at WTO and human rights matters at the UN Human RightsCouncil. It can be recalled that African countries played a crucialrole in China’s official return to the UN in the early 1970s. It isalso worthwhile noting that China has in principle been pushing forrepresentation of Africa as a permanent member on the UN SecurityCouncil against the wishes of the other four members.Indeed China is neck-to-neck with the US in terms of diplomaticmissions standing at 50-apiece for both in Africa while Africancountries have slightly more diplomatic missions in Beijing comparedto Washington. It would appear that China needs Africa’s numbers atinternational forums while Africa needs Chinese development resources.President Robert Mugabe’s words that Africa “no longer looks to theWest where the Sun sets but to the East where it rises” have beenindeed echoed by most other leaders on the continent over the past fewyears.The main plank for the US-EU African strategy is the missionaryapproach of exporting Western-style democracy and neoliberal economicpolicies to Africa as a condition for assistance and engagement. Inplaces like Harare and Khartoum, the Western allies openly advocateregime change where China keeps its distance supporting the incumbent.In Zambia where there was regime change recently, China was one of thefirst countries to embrace Michael Sata. Some analysts have pointedout that Presidents Robert Mugabe and Osman Ahmed Al Bashir have beenframed as foes as part of a wider Western scheme with resources inthose countries as the real underlying motivation.It has long been appreciated, including by Western thinkers andleaders that the Chinese economic and political model marked bycohesiveness and coherence in decision making explains the thousandsof contracts they are winning virtually everywhere on the continent.The Chinese are able to make decisions expediently about deals andcontracts compared to their Western counterparts. Indeed, some of thechecks and balances that US companies are subjected to are quiteannoying not only to Western business executives but also to Africans.President Museveni of Uganda is a good example of leaders who haveminced no words about the ‘strings attached’ phenomenon.Surveys have shown that African consumers appreciate Chinese productsfor their competitive pricing compared to similar products emanatingfrom the US and Europe. The issues of quality for which China has beencritiqued in the past have been progressively lessening since itsascension to the WTO a decade ago.The steady stream of business between China and Africa has beenfollowed through by high level diplomatic exchanges. Lately, China hasstepped up its cultural exchanges with Africa principally throughConfucius Institutes, scholarships, the arts and an increasing numberof high level visits. A testament to this is the fact that PresidentHu Jintao has been to Africa a record six times while Chinese PremierWen Jiabao comes to Africa so often. Indeed, every year, the firsthigh level foreign visit by a Chinese leader is usually Africa sincethat tradition was established in 1991. Last month, senior Chinesepolitical advisor Li Qishen was on hand to officiate at theinauguration of the African Union headquarters, a gift by the Chineseto Africa.By contrast, an analysis of Western engagements with Africa shows adecline across board – socially, culturally and economically – nodoubt because of budget constraints although other factors are at playtoo.The fact is that the US is undisputed military power and this shows onthe African continent such as AFRICOM – the military command dedicatedto Africa; a base in Djibouti; a more recent one for stealth drones inEthiopia and others. This has lend more credence to China’s “peacefulrise” and “harmonious development” as the country seeks to project theimage of a country that is more interest in trade with Africa ratherthan military adventurism.It’s not true to say China is the sole beneficiary of Africanresources considering US and the European Union nations consumeroughly one-third of Africa’s main export – oil and natural gas. Whatis defensible is that China’s engagement in Africa’s resources hasbeen growing and this is what worries the West.While it is true that China has become a major importer of Africanminerals, it is also true that most of these minerals had beenneglected by the West who considered them too insignificant inquantity. A good example is the remotely located Kitui coal mineswhich the Chinese have taken up. The Chinese have agreed to theextraction of cobalt, manganese, tantalum, copper, iron ore and otherminerals across Africa that the West had given a wide berth. At anyrate, the Chinese demand for resources – particularly oil and naturalgas – is good for Africa because this has led to a spike in pricesmeaning African countries can earn more from their natural resources.While criticism was leveled at China for imports into Africa, analysisnow shows that most of its imports to Africa have moved away from lowend products that can be produced in Africa such as textiles, to highend capital intensive goods and services such as telecoms, roads andbridges.As Dambisa Moyo has noted in Dead Aid, China does not dabble in aid toAfrica much except for emergency interventions such as the ongoingfamine relief interventions in the Horn Africa where the Chinese RedCross is involved. This is as it should be for donor aid that haslittle input in Africa’s economic development. As one commentator hasput it, donor aid is the disease of which it pretends to be the cure.Indeed the Chinese approach of long term loans with concessionaryfinancing and devoid of proselytizing conditionality have proved awelcome deflection from the Western model.The other reason why Chinese funding is having the desired impact inAfrica is that the state is involved in sourcing financing, overseeingoverall regulation in addition to companies such as ZTE and Huawei forinstance rolling out intensive marketing strategies. The West losesout on this score thanks to mantras such as ‘government has nobusiness being in business.’One of the most significant deals for China in Africa was in 2008 whenthe Industrial and Commercial Bank of China bought a 20 per cent stakein South Africa’s Standard for about $5 billion. Other banks with afootprint in Africa include China Export-Import Bank that undertakesexport sellers and buyers credit, Construction Bank of China which isactive in the huge construction and engineering works and Bank ofChina that finances viable business ventures. China Africa DevelopmentBank runs an equity fund and is on the prowl for business dealstapping into African entrepreneurship.The success of China in Africa reclines on the fact that developmentfinance and assistance has been experimented and refined over time by“feeling for stones while crossing the stream,” in the words of DengXiaoping the reformist President.While a good number of Western donor funding goes to programmes in thedemocracy area, Chinese projects are mainly infrastructure inclined –roads and bridges, airports and seaports, telecoms and power plants,mineral extraction and water generation, etc, in other words,projects that have a direct impact on development.The Chinese model – referred to as agency restraint – is one wherecountries with huge natural resources such as Angola and DemocraticRepublic of Congo can have infrastructure built for them and paidthrough future exports thus overriding the resource curse disease.