The New Rules: China Must 'Pay Globalization Forward' in Africa
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 11:05AM
Globalization's historical expansion from Europe to North America to Asia has featured a familiar dynamic: The last region "in" becomes the integrator of note for the next region "up." Europe was the primary investor, customer and integrator for the U.S. economy in its rise during the 19th and 20th centuries, and America subsequently "paid it forward" with East Asia in the decades following World War II. Recently, it has been Asia's turn, primarily through China, to pay it forward once again with Africa, arguably the hottest integration zone in the global economy today.
Nonetheless, in Washington -- and especially inside the Pentagon -- China's rising influence across Africa has been viewed with genuine trepidation. Beijing's "non-interference" mantra doesn't exactly jive with President Barack Obama's stern focus on counterterrorism, while China's rapacious hunger for raw materials fosters fears of strategic minerals being "cornered." .
Read entire column at World Politics Review.
Africa, China, Obama Administration, US, US foreign policy | in WPR Column | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article 
Reader Comments (4)
Interesting point of view on globalization, if a bit lineair.
- Europe integrates America (early 20th century)
- America integrates Asia (late 20th century)
- Asia integrates Africa (early 21st century)
Interesting analysis, but there is no consideration for the role the African people and their governments are going to play in all this. The assumption seems to be that Africa is a blank space in which both the US or China have the liberty to act irrespective of the desires of the African people . Even if that assumption is correct today, will it be correct in the next few decades?
Are you suggesting that Africans have no agency? Are you suggesting that Africans have no role to play in their future?
A few points.
1. Africa is a rapidly democratizing, rapidly opening continent. For example, there are more mobile phone users in Africa than in the USA. Young Africans are better informed, more activist and less tolerant of incompetent rulers than their forebears. Future African leaders will have to weigh the costs of bad governance against the benefits. This trend will have an impact on the relationship between African nations, China and the West.
2. In case you weren't paying attention, the winner of last year's presidential election in Zambia (Michael Sata) ran on an anti-Chinese platform. He hasn't done away with the Chinese entirely, but the Chinese can no longer take a cozy relationship with the ruling elite for granted. Expect more of the same in many other African nations. The Chinese will modify their behaviour in response to African demands for accountability and transparency.
In case you weren't paying attention, last week's strikes in Nigeria have birthed a movement for more accountability and less waste in government. Nigerians are less likely now to accept Western IMF/World Bank style prescriptions as the gospel truth. If internal conditions in African nations weren't important a few years ago, they are important now. To suggest that they aren't (your analysis doesn't mention them at all) is worrying.
3. The West (especially the US) has a well-earned reputation for not listening to views of either African governments or the African people. That attitude is creating openings for other players like China. For example, President Sirleaf of Liberia requested for assistance on reconstruction after the Liberia Civil War, the response from the West was basically that "we don't do infrastructure". Of course, the Chinese swooped in and the same process is at play in Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Congo.
A senior official in the African Development Bank said that the impression being created is that "if you want endless talks, seminars, capacity-building sessions and investment in social development you meet the West, but if you want tangible, concrete infrastructure like roads, power plants and bridges, you meet the Chinese". The Chinese are gaining a reputation for doing jobs well and with minimal fuss. That is why America's greatest allies in Africa like Zenawi and Museveni are also extremely close to the Chinese.
4. Westerners underestimate the appeal of the Chinese in Africa. The appeal of the Chinese is that for the first time we have a group of technically competent people who don't cower at the latest "travel advisory warnings", don't insist on living like royalty, shop in the same markets as we do, don't earn fifty times what their African counterparts earn but yet get the work done nonetheless. Westerners, for all their good points, do not have this appeal. Do not underestimate it.
That is why for all their faults, the Chinese have consistently high approval ratings in most African nations. (Americans also have high approval ratings, but for entirely different reasons).
5. Two events occurred last decade (many in the West did not pay much attention to these events). The first was intense lobbying for Chinese built special economic zones (usually at the coast), the second was the hostile reception to AFRICOM.
Anyone who thinks that a US instigated "great power military rivalry" with the Chinese will serve US interests needs to have his head examined. In the first place, the US doesn't have a record of competently utilizing its immense military assets in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Great, you have a carrier battle group stationed of the Gulf of Guinea, but of what use is your carrier battle group when you neither have the capacity, the political will nor a clearly thought out strategy to intervene when / if Nigeria implodes (a not so implausible scenario). Secondly, are you sure that the Chinese are going to play ball?
6. I may be wrong, but I think that nothing will improve African agriculture like the introduction of supermarket chains like Walmart and Shoprite. I traveled to a medium sized town in South Eastern Nigeria and I was surprised at the number of customers at a newly opened Walmart subsidiary. I never knew Africa had that number of consumers!
What really caught my attention was what was being sold - local foodstuff at competitive prices. Expect the likes of Walmart to expand the agricultural supply chain, extend outreach to local farmers and introduce better seeds and inputs like fertilizers. They will do this much more efficiently than either USAID, the World Bank or the Bill Gates foundation.
7. There is little real evidence that the Chinese are engaged in a large scale land grab in Africa. Deborah Brautigam debunks this in her book "The Dragon's Gift".
8. Both American and Chinese behaviour in Africa are driven by self-interest. However, Chinese behaviour has a greater potential to trigger economic growth at the micro-level and intersects more neatly with the hopes and desires of African people, not their fears.
.
American policy is still driven by "what sounds good on Capitol Hill" and the needs of the Energy Industry not a sober assessment of what goods and services the Africans will need in the coming decades and how America is best placed to meet these demands. (If America was really serious about Africa's future it would be aggressively marketing low-cost solutions to Africa's higher education crisis - taking advantage of its unique strengths in that area).
The American focus on counter-terrorism may sell well to an American audience, but there is an economic component to any successful counter-terrorism campaign. I am yet to see any significant effort to tackle the economics (a lot has be written, but very little has been done).
All said there is hope, Walmart is Africa's best friend. The day Walmart begins to have a greater say in US Africa policy is the day the policy will change for the better. A Walmart driven Africa policy will be more democratic, closer to the hopes and desires of African consumers and most importantly, better informed.
In conclusion, Africa isn't the place to play silly 20th Century "great power politics". It is a market of a billion consumers, eagerly waiting for someone to sell something to them.
You make it sound as if Africa is a zero sum game between the US and China. As if Africans themselves have no role to play in their future.
Haven't you heard about a country called India? Are you keeping track with what the Brazilians are up to in Lusophone Africa?
Africa is Africa and Asia is Asia. An Asian style great power struggle between the US and the Chinese will not be possible in Africa - we've been there, done that and we are wiser.
Unlike in Asia, no African nation is in mortal danger of being overwhelmed militarily by another African nation and most importantly, no Sub-Saharan African nation has ever or is likely to obtain US Military protection from external aggression.
So the US has a large supply of what Africa doesn't really need - US Military assets. Whilst the Chinese have a large of supply of what is in demand - expertise in infrastructure, cheap financing.
No one wants to host an AFRICOM base, but everyone wants a Chinese sponsored SEZ on their coast. Americans are organising pointless training sessions with Congolese troops (who haven't been paid for three months and are close to mutiny) while the Chinese are busy building roads, bridges and universities.
Does the US even have an Africa strategy?
Maduka,
As always, your comments are sound. Also as always, they echo or repeat arguments I've made elsewhere.
Here's the reality of any one column: it cannot be all things to all people.
So yeah, I have heard of India, and have made that argument about a C-I-A (China-India-America) future world ad nauseum.
I've also written at length on Africa's growth, consumer markets, need for better governance.
I just didn't make this one column try to cover all those points, because then it would become a laundry list.
Every column has a purpose. You can deal with that purpose or spend your time listing everything this column is not.