The Chinese seduction of Africa
Share with others:
To some alarm in America and Europe, the Chinese have launched a significant offensive to win resources, markets and, yes, hearts in Africa. The centerpiece of the new Chinese initiative was an elaborate, costly summit in Beijing last weekend. It attracted a large percentage of African heads of state, and Beijing was elaborately decked out for the affair. More to the point, President Hu Jintao promised to double Chinese aid to Africa, to make available $5 billion in new credits and loans, and to train 15,000 African professionals.
For China, Africa offers resources and markets. Chinese trade with Africa amounted to $40 billion last year and is headed toward $50 billion this year. As many as 2,000 new deals are said to have been signed at the summit. China wants to exploit the African market of upwards to a billion people, and in some ways it is a perfect fit, just as with the United States, where low-cost Chinese exports compete with high-cost local products. China also wants access to Africa's natural resources.
Chief among these is oil. Africa has more than a dozen oil-producing countries, whose percentage of world production is growing steadily. The continent also is something of a treasure house of copper, cobalt, zinc, manganese, nickel and coltan, not to mention gold and silver. It has substantial timber resources and hydroelectric energy capacity which, if developed, could fuel Chinese companies' production in Africa.
Why China and not Europe or the United States?
European countries traditionally operate in Africa in opposition to each other -- especially the British against the French -- so it is difficult for Europe to mount a coordinated counteroffensive to the Chinese. The Europeans also labor under the cloud of their colonialist past, which the Africans have by no means forgotten, and the French continue to meddle in some former colonies with French armed forces. It is always done in the name of stabilization, but some of their troops serve to keep unsavory dictators, such as Gabon's President Omar Bongo, in power.
America's role in Africa remains as flaccid now as it has been throughout most of the period of African independence, starting roughly in 1960. The United States got a good start in Africa when President John F. Kennedy decided that Africa was important to America, in no small part because of our country's vibrant African American heritage. But this period also was influenced by the global Cold War, when the United States was competing with the Soviet Union and, later, with the People's Republic of China, for influence in Africa. After Mr. Kennedy, it was straight down hill for American interest in Africa. Africa since then has ranked dead last in terms of U.S. regional interests, behind Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and, since 2001, even South Asia. America's foreign policy types know this. So, unfortunately for us, do the Africans.
The United States over the years fell behind other countries in addressing African issues, including decolonization of the Portuguese territories -- Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau -- because of Portugal's membership in NATO. It lagged in addressing the racist government of Southern Rhodesia because of concern over access to cobalt, and it held onto close relations with apartheid South Africa long after the handwriting was on the wall there.
In recent years, the U.S. response to humanitarian and political crises in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia and now Sudan has been tardy and hesitant, reflecting the low level of interest in Africa among succeeding administrations in Washington, as well as among Americans in general.
China has been trading with Africa for centuries, long before the economic surge powering its current offensive. In the early days of African independence, Chinese involvement was low-cost and sporadic, prompted partly by Chinese-Soviet rivalry. The Chinese have always made the Africans a little nervous, with their frenetic work ethic and somewhat hard-edged commercial orientation. But they have learned a lot.
Two elements give them the advantage over America in Africa now. The first is that, unlike American businessmen, who are generally risk-averse and spoiled in terms of personal lifestyle, the Chinese take economic risks for the prospect of gain, and their people will go and live anywhere. American companies always have had a devil of a time finding people to work in Africa.
The second, perhaps even more important advantage that the Chinese have over Americans and, to a degree, over the Europeans, is that the Chinese do not attach a big bundle of non-business conditions to their aid and trade.
The Americans are affected by their political view of African countries -- are they democratic, do they respect human rights, are they corrupt? The current American administration is also concerned about religious orientation. Are Islamist elements active? Are Christian missionaries free to proselytize?
The Chinese come. They couldn't care less about a country's state of democracy or human rights. I can still remember the look on the face of the Chinese ambassador in Kinshasa, in what was then Zaire, when I asked him if China was prepared to pressure the regime of then-President Mobutu Sese Seko to hold elections. He was polite, because I was the American ambassador, but he clearly thought I had a screw loose.
So China will do well in Africa, particularly in competing for the oil resources controlled by some of Africa's scruffier governments -- in Angola, Sudan, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and the like. American companies will still win in some cases because of superior technology, but, in general, the United States will pay the price for the way it is, for better or for worse.
First Published November 8, 2006 12:00 am