China’s Hand in Africa

-- By UchennaIbekwe - 27 Feb 2009

I. Introduction II. Advantages and Disadvantages of Chinese Investment III. The Difference Between a Contract and a Swindle IV. Feelings of Relatedness--Two-Fold V. Why the Con is Working

Introduction

I have followed China’s increasing investment in Africa for several years now. They have made major investments in places like Sudan, Nigeria, and Zambia—promising to develop the countries in exchange for access to natural resources. Most recently, China made a $22 million donation in aid to Tanzania and gifted a $150 million conference center for the African Union headquarters. In doing so, China has demonstrated its commitment to investment in Africa. However my concern is, at what costs? Unlike other funding sources such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund (IMF), China signs contracts over to African countries with no strings attached. They do not require transparency, democracy, or minimum standards for human rights. Instead, they are solely interested in Africa’s abundance of resources and purposely avoid involvement in internal affairs. As a result, African leaders are jumping at the “no strings” attached funding and we now see modern hospitals, fútbol stadiums, roads and railroads developed throughout Africa. Personally, I do not believe these are equitable deals for African counties, because without conditionalities African leaders will not be held accountable for maintaining the new facilities. I fear these new structures will soon become relics of the past.

So how do we define China’s presence in Africa? Is it a swindle or a contract? And if it is a swindle is China the con man? Or is this title more appropriate for the African leaders who agreed to these deals?

Advantages and Disadvantages of Chinese Investment

The advantages of Chinese investment are clear. African nations gain much-needed infrastructure and amenities that they otherwise would not be able to 1) provide for themselves or 2) receive assistance from funding sources such as the World Bank and IMF. Because it is much easier to qualify for Chinese investment, one could argue China’s presence is helping African countries become developed. As they provide for jobs, both during and after construction, and lead to increased trade between the countries. Once more, China’s success in Africa is bringing attention to the continent and attracting foreign investment.

However there are disadvantages to Chinese investment, because China does not require African countries to meet certain standards. In particular, they do not require a system to preserve these new projects. Without actively creating plans to maintain the new facilities and training African citizens to fill the skilled positions that come with modern facilities, it will be impossible for these developments to have long-lasting effects. In addition, these investments are completely Chinese-owned. The funding, labor, and materials are Chinese and the jobs available to locals are limited. In instances where jobs are available, they are the low-level positions and pay as little as $2US per day.

The Difference Between a Contract and a Swindle

There is little difference between a contract and a swindle, as both require a “deal” to be struck and a cooperative relationship. The distinction is the end result. If the end result is one party essentially got something for nothing, then there is a swindle. However, if both parties achieve what they agreed to, then the relationship is a contract.

Here, China’s growing presence in Africa is characterized as a swindle and China is the con man. As described in A. Leff’s Swindling & Selling piece, a con man is one who swindles another out of something of value in exchange for nothing (or at least something significantly lower in value). China needs resources to feed its fuel burning economy and African countries desperately need foreign investment to create infrastructure and necessary services. It is only together that the two can maximize their total utility in their joint system (Leff p14). On its face, it seems that various African countries are attaining new facilities, roads, etc. upfront and that there is a mutually beneficial exchange. But when looking at end results, we learn these developments are temporary. Moreover, because there is no system in place to maintain these new facilities, it is likely they will become dilapidated. Nonetheless, in exchange China gains long-term access to oil in Angola and Sudan and minerals from Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among other things.

Feelings of Relatedness—Two-Fold

The idea of “feelings of relatedness” is that human relationships are being exploited because of their desire to “belong.” As discussed in class, for the same reasons that commercial retailers prey on people who spend money on items to “belong.” China is preying on African leaders who desire to live lavishly and for their country to “belong.” China is exploiting the African leaders feelings of relatedness, and in turn conning them, in order to further their agenda to become “developed.” Along those lines, the spark for China’s action is also a result of feelings of relatedness. China wants to become recognized as a regional power and wants to have more global influence, hence the answer is to modernize their country and strengthen their economy. The problem is China does not have enough natural resources to fuel this ambition, so in order to gain access they exploit Africa. China constructs new facilities and makes large donations, which are trivial in comparison to the exponential and long-lasting returns on their investment.

Why the Con is Working

The con is working because both parties believe it can gain more than the other from the deal. As touched upon in class, these deals prove successful because “an honest man can’t be conned.” China is conning the corrupt African leaders. They are exploiting their feelings of relatedness (desire to look developed, live lavishly, etc.) in order to further their personal goals of becoming a regional power. Does this make China a modern colonizer of Africa? Or is this simply business as usual? Whatever the case, the reality is Africa needs foreign investment. Perhaps a solution may be to require a system that ensures new developments become long-lasting.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, UchennaIbekwe

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list

This essay reinforced the idea that I had two years ago. While in the middle of the French presidential election, both second round contenders called for a new and modern French involvement in Africa, in order to stop the Chinese imperialist aspirations over the continent. Historically deprived of its resources by France and the UK-moderately by Germany too- it seems that China is now the gaining an extreme influence. It is all the more substantial as China has always been considered as an ally for every single country in Africa, because of the moral support they brought to the population during the independence era. Colonization was a substantial trauma for the African populations, although imperialists would consider that the developed world brought 'Light and Progress' ( Still now, this idea is prevailing, if we just look at the 2005 French bill which recognized the positive effects of colonization on the African continent, without however acknowledging any harm). But China has quite successfully adopted a strategy that conciles its interests with the population's ones. They are not willing to take the political power, deprive the population of their lands , submit the officers to their wills and 'enslave' the locals. Rather, their imperialism is an economic one, with respect to the people's right to dispose of themselves. The means are different, but the outcomes are pretty similar: The African continent is still under the yoke of an imperialist power, our political elites are probably getting more bribed, and there can't be any progress of democracy. Sadly. I can't wait for the day that Africa will finally be colonized by its own assets, scattered all over the world, educated and worried about their roots, and the situation of their community at large. Because our people deserve better than illiterate 'spiritual guides', self-proclaimed 'presidents' and other outrageous dictators.