Al Jazeera has put up an opinion piece that I found rather interesting and informative, it’s about the struggle for Africa. It covers both American and Chinese interest in Africa’s resources, and how (unfortunately) China is making Africa a better deal than the United States is. It’s kind of long, but I think it’s worth a read.
How is it “unfortunate?” Doesn’t Africa kind of need a better deal?
This is something I study a lot, having lived in China and Africa and seen this first hand. I’m also studying with one of the most prominent writers on the subject. Anyone who knows me knows that I am no China apologist. But I think the story of China in Africa is a complicated one, and one that has demonstrably benefited Africa so far.
The West had a 50 year monopoly on foreign aid to Africa, and very little to show for it. Mostly, we chose to spend that time playing Cold War games that lead to some of the world’s worst governments, trying to force people to buy in to our transnational economic system via the IMF, and generally not doing the one thing that could help Africa- investing in African business. While we have done some good, especially lately, Western aid has generally not been a great thing for Africa.
China came around and realized that Africa is an ideal business partner. And it has, in many ways, worked. China is putting Africa in business. It is giving people jobs. And that- more than food, more than “democracy building,” more than micro-credit and women’s empowerment- is what Africans want.
Of course it’s not all sunshine and roses. China certainly doesn’t care any more for Africa’s environment than they care for their own. Labor will always be an issue, and I’m not convinced that China is going to get over the pervasive racism in their society that they will need to fix before they can become partners.
But in the end, this change could be good for all of us. China introduces the element of choice in aid, and choice leads to increased efficiency and better outcomes. This means that we will need to do a better job of what we offer- stop forcing our agendas and focus on what the African countries truly want, and tighten up bloated and inefficient organizations. We will need to provide what the Africans want. China benefits by having a place to phase out industries that no longer make them money (as China moves to more high tech industries), gets increased trade and new business frontiers, and individual Chinese have a chance to get away from their crowded country and it’s limited social mobility. Africa gets infrastructure, actual salaried jobs, and a chance to work with a model of growth that has, frankly, worked out pretty well for the Chinese (and Chinas bases it’s aid on its own experiences as an aid receiver.)
I mean, if Africa rose as much as China did. Well, wow. We’d be assholes to complain.
where does the unfortunately bit come from? Mr. Pablo Escobar does not consider it to be unfortunate in the least, as far as I can tell. It’s the usual lightly researched hatchet job of “criticize American imperialism, ignore French imperialism, cautiously praise Chinese imperialism”.
And maybe he and even_sven are absolutely right - maybe Chinese influence will indeed be for the better, or at least for the lesser evil. A Polish politician, whose name escapes me now, at some point (probably around 1919) said something along the lines of “with Germans we will lose our liberty, but with Russians (Bolsheviks) we will lose our soul”. In today’s Africa the Chinese are not on record pushing abortion, homosexuality and UN-affiliated NGOs with who knows what long term agendas. That’s the province of white do-gooders.
“Pushing” abortion and homosexuality?
I don’t often agree with even sven, but I think he’s pretty close on this one. I think that it will be a net positive for ‘Africa’, even if there will be a lot of downsides. They certainly couldn’t fuck up as badly as the US and Europe has, though…not even if they try. And I’m always in favor of teaching someone to fish, rather than giving them a gift fish with lots of strings attached and then ignoring them unless the level of shit happening raises up to monumental levels.
-XT
Well, that’s the real question; in the end, will they get a better deal? Or will the Chinese just end up being the next round of colonialist exploiters? I would certainly hope for the former, but history makes me worry it will be the latter; the providers of resources seldom end up getting the good end of the deal.
It is so naive to think Chinese will work for Africa. The truth is the other way around: Africa will work for the Chinese. Even more, Chinese aren’t interested in Africa or Africans, only in the resources that land had, and they are going to get it.
This is the tragic lesson learned in Latin America long time ago. Never let foreigners to control your economy like Chiquita did.
When I was a junior in undergrad, I wanted to go to the Korbel School at DU to study IR. My focus was Israeli-African economic (and political) relations. The Palestinian issue has driven a wedge between what was once an amicable economic relationship.
I ended up not applying (sigh) and I think about political science every day. I do something else now. But still, my thesis was that if economic relationships can help foster allies, strengthening African-Israeli relations was in Israel’s best interest.
Now look. Poor people in Algeria look at Palestinians and make Israel the poster bad guy. Anti-Israeli sentiment is on the rise (well, duh) in many North African countries (even more so than before) and it’s spreading…
I didn’t mean to make this go OT, but I rather think Israel dropped the ball on this one. Arguably, Israel having good relationships with some African countries stabilizes the region and provides benefits to both.
That’s a matter of economics and power. On the one hand, the African nations in question need China. On the other hand, it’s not an even playing ground.
Except no one is saying that. Otherwise it would be a good point, I suppose.
In order to exploit African resources and African labor the Chinese will have to build infrastructure. And that means jobs for many African nations that have high levels of unemployment and little opportunity for the majority of folks living there. SOME job is better than no job at all, and investment, even if it’s designed to exploit, is better than none at all.
As mentioned, things couldn’t get a hell of a lot worse in Africa, no matter what the Chinese do.
-XT
+2
Chinese bring theirs own labor. They have done already in the construction of buildings and railways in Africa :rolleyes:
Again, apples to oranges. Latin America has been under Western control since, oh, I donno, the 1500s? When Mexico won her independence, she was in debt to France (which resulted in another war) and had no infrastructure. The hacienda never really left.
Economic independence is kind of a misnomer, but ‘economic dependence’ that you speak of is kind of how it works. If you’re the new guy in town, you don’t make the rules. Take Mexico: They weren’t in a position to argue because they needed what post-colonization countries had to offer. Unfortunately, Mexico’s main resource ended up being labor, but hey, whatever.
Do you want to see your shoes made in China or made in Africa? Do you care? Or do you want to pay $200 for a pair of American made shoes?
Furniture?
Clothing?
Pencils?
Combs?
Lamps?
Dishes?
The U.S. has become dependent on foreign labor. So when people say “oh xyz controls our economy because they’re a rich White Western power”, it’s not true. They feed off each other. The U.S. pays for it in other ways, trust me. If Mexico and Taiwan and China and El Salvador all banded together and demanded better pay, we’d be fucked.
Cite?
BBC Report
Indeed. But there was a very dark time when American “enterpreneurs” exploited Lat Am countries like private feudal states! Remember Chiquita. Remember the Banana countries? Remember ITT and Anaconda company? Without control, foreign “investment” can easily mean suicide.
This is sometimes true, but generally overstated. China does hire African labor, and is under increasing pressure from African governments to hire locally. it is a two-way street, after all, and China has actually been relatively good about responding to African government’s needs.
China’s stake in this game is to build markets for Chinese goods. Building markets is good, or at least better than the alternatives. To have markets, you need a middle class, and a middle class is the foundation of a functional country. This is one of the reasons why former British colonies (which were largely conceived of as markets) are in better shape than former French colonies.
In any case, the West does that too. And I’m saying this as an American who is hauling my ass to Africa to go work this summer.
There are some cautions. I don’t think China, on it’s own, is automatically good for Africa. But I do think the competition and opening of the aid market is good. Africa should have choices.
The jury is still out, but I don’t see the Chinese as all that interested in long-term investments in Africa. I see them building railroads, mines, fisheries, etc…all to facilitate the extraction of raw materials…which will go to China , and return as finished goods.
That is the problem for Africa-it seems doomed to be a supplier of raw materials.
This is because China now has a manufacturing infrastructure with very low costs-how would an African-based car manufacturer ever be able to compete with them?
Plus, given the instability in Africa, why risk a multi-billion $ investment in a car factory?
Admittedly, at least the Chinese are paying for the stuff they mine and extract-while GB, France, Belgium just took the stuff and gave nothing back.
Yeah, but when the African country they did have good relationships with was Apartheid South Africa, it wasn’t so good for actual Africans. Especially not when they shared nuclear tech.
One irony with all this is that China’s meteoric rise has happened so fast I can still remember people confidently declaring that China could never become a prosperous country while it was being exploited by the West.
I’m not about to say all exploitation is good. But as others have said, you can’t really make certain parts of africa much worse, and at least this investmentappears to be helping.
You can’t underestimate how useful just having the infrastructure is.
Building a new highway in the US might improve productivity in some region a little bit.
Building a decent road in certain african countries may allow them, and landlocked neighbours, to export bulk goods for the first time.
I couldn’t agree with you more on this. China also has economies of scale that mean even if africans work for less wages, and there were no political instability, it would still be cheaper in most cases to buy from China.
But the thing is, this is true whether or not china invests in the region. However without investment, africa is doomed to stagnate as it did in the 90s.