Chinese "Saviors" in Africa

[Dialectic]

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6134

I thought this might be an interesting article to discuss from an integral standpoint as well.

One constant idea in all developmental theories is that no stage can be bypassed or "skipped." You can't go, for example, from tribal/ mythical to worldcentric: you have to go through ethnocentric and rational/ modernist first. This is why quite a few people knew the Iraqi invasion and attempt to establish a democracy would fail from the start: you can't drop an Orange political system into a landscape littered with Red and highly pathological Blue, not to mention poverty and massive violence.

In the case of the African nations, they have significant portions of the population at Purple and Red, some in Blue, some in Orange, and very, very few in Green.

Any talk of human rights - which starts at Orange and goes full-blown at Green - and cultural sensitivity and tolerance - which starts at Green, simply cannot take hold in Purple/ Red/ pathological Blue. Whereas the Western nations always push for democracy and human rights and all that good stuff and get nowhere, China isn't doing that at all. They're talking about money, with cultural exchange a distant second and human rights not even on the table.

Do you think this a good thing? Will this be more useful in helping African nations develop?

[Logain]

I think you're going to get mixed responses depending on who you ask. I frequent alot of black forums with people of African descent from all over the world. There are alot of Africans who aren't very happy with the way China is developing it's influence in Africa. There have been alot of cases of exploitation and harsh treatment as well.

In my own personal opinion I don't see China being any better than European or American imperialists myself. It seems instead of working with Africa and various nations/companies they're more interested in getting what they can take and not being held accountable for it. The Chinese I discussed this matter with wrote it off as being justifiable means since Africa was in such a shitty state anyway. I have to admit this pissed me off since I've seen some of those same people go on about how they talk about China's negative backwater image and interferance in internal affairs.

There are going to be some overall benefits but I'm not intersted in seeing a rising Chinese influence in Africa unless they're going to actually show some respect to the people they're dealing with and not become another name on the list of problems Africa already has.

[Sothy]

The difference between Chinese and Western human aid is that China itself isn't at the green level of compassion. Now, obviously, Western countries aren't as a whole either, but when 25 percent of the population are there, the oranges and blues can easily be manipulated into some form of compassion.

China still has a fair amount of red (do the Han "tribe" care about the non-Han "Chinese"), and a lot of orange, but not that much in the way of green obviously.

Any model that they create is, obviously, not going to be developmental/ blue-orange and orange-green diplomacy will not mix and make for a proper model.

Besides, the real problem is that (parts of) Africa, along with the Indian sub-continent, has the highest ethnicity mixes by concentration in the world (ie. there are lots of different ethnicities in a very small area). Much higher than Canada for example.

This is great in many ways (lots of culture, etc.), but when you get "large" countries and the population below blue level, you can't even make a myth about a common origin (ie. everyone is Han Chinese these days, so now blue becomes a logical step). Of course, this leads to a lot of "in"-fighting...

since Europe created these countries, they aren't willing to "re-divide" them (cause that means that they are still imperialists...right?), and China's "non-intereference" in internal matters is basically a free pass for outsiders to take advantage of the situation...

take Somalia. It was Somaliland (english) and Somalia (italian) before, but now is just Somalia, and as we know had a civil war...Somaliland has defacto independence now, and is becoming a functional democracy, but is not recognized in Africa (as the African Union (ie. their governments) obviously doesn't want to divide up their countries as it reduces their power). So they can't develop their industries, rights, etc.

Will more economic opportunity, via China's rise, advance technology, which will eventually cause a thinking shift as well...sure, but the pace is the problem...

[ZhuBaJie]

i don't know if China's involvement in Africa will be as bad as that of western powers. only time will tell. rest assured though, that China's involvement is definitely self serving.

what i'm more concerned about is whether or not China's "non-interference" policy is really ethical. is China basically empowering governments that really shouldn't be empowered?

[frogfoot]

China's interest in Africa is probably even more crudely materialistic than the earlier European interest.

Chinese interest is motivated by a desire for land(less so), labor, resources, money and markets.

Main difference with the Euros is they have no desire to convert Africa to Confucian or Taoist culture or give Africans Chinese names.

[ZhuBaJie]

China's interest in Africa is probably even more crudely materialistic than the earlier European interest.

Chinese interest is motivated by a desire for land(less so), labor, resources, money and markets.

Main difference with the Euros is they have no desire to convert Africa to Confucian or Taoist culture or give Africans Chinese names.

no, i would say that the main difference is that Europeans force their way into African resources and enslaved Africans.

[frogfoot]

[quote=frogfoot]no, i would say that the main difference is that Europeans force their way into African resources and enslaved Africans.

OK, true to a degree. But Europeans didn't first use much force, they aligned themselves with elites and engaged in trade including trade in humans.

Only later did they use force. You don't need to use direct force if you deal with the ruling elite and then that group uses the force necessary.

China is making a move into an Africa that now does not require foreign force to exploit it. Force now is to a great degree counterproductive and wastefull.

[wuwei]

The original link is dead.

Saw this article today on the same subject:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/africa.php

China makes Africa its business
By Lydia Polgreen The New York Times

Published: August 18, 2006


DAKAR, Senegal The Boulevard du Centenaire was once the preferred address of a certain class of this city's Paris-educated elite - the career civil servants, university administrators and other upper-level functionaries of the vast state bureaucracy.

These days the street, one of the loveliest in this seaside capital, is more likely to be home to Chinese merchants who sell shoes, electronics, plastic jewelry and toys from storefronts built into Centenaire's grand old villas.

China, it seems, is suddenly everywhere in Africa, not just in oil-rich states. Trade between Africa and China has almost quadrupled since 2001, and last year reached almost $40 billion.

China is hardly the first nation to seek its fortune in Africa.

First the Arabs, then the Europeans built their empires on African riches and sweat, followed by the Cold Warriors, fighting their proxy ideological battles in Africa's marketplaces for influence and profit.

Through all the iterations of the world's engagement with Africa, most of the continent's nationsprimarily supplied valuable raw materials to the developed world while serving as a marketplace for cheap manufactured goods.

But China seems to be offering Africa something new, a straightforward business relationship between equals based on mutual interest and noninterference in the internal affairs of its allies. Or as the economist Jeffrey Sachs phrased it at a conference in Beijing this week, "China gives fewer lectures and more practical help."

But is China's interest in Africa truly different from that of the earlier powers? Or is Beijing, as some are beginning to say, peddling the same exploitative formula in an attractive dressing of Third World solidarity?

Certainly, China sees itself as offering something superior to the standard Western prescription.

"Now African countries have more choices," said Lu Shaye, China's ambassador to Senegal. "They have the panaceas of the World Bank and the IMF, and at the same time the experience of China. They can compare and choose the best."

China's recent history presents seductive possibilities for sub-Saharan Africa. In the past two decades, China has pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty and transformed itself into the world's fastest-growing economy.

Its presence is certainly greatest in the resource-rich countries like Nigeria, Angola and Sudan (where its role has been criticized as contributing to the crisis in Darfur).

But China's growing presence is also manifest in less obvious spots. In Sierra Leone, Chinese companies have built and renovated hotels and restaurants. In Mozambique, Chinese companies are investing in soybean processing and prawn production. At the African Union meeting in Banjul, Gambia, last month, the Chinese delegation dwarfed the ones sent by France, Britain and the United States.

Here in Senegal, a country whose economy was long dominated by peanut farming, Chinese construction companies are working on roads, bridges, waterworks and other projects. Small-scale Chinese enterprises have sprung up, importing inexpensive goods and running restaurants and Chinese medical clinics.

In the post-independence era, the fad was state control aimed at rapid industrialization, an expensive and generally badly managed experiment in most countries. In the post-Soviet world, many adopted the "Washington consensus" of open markets, macroeconomic stability, loosened state controls and more transparent government.

But economic reform has yet to improve the lives of most Africans, and many have grown disenchanted with the West.

"The West has closed its doors to us," said Amadou Niang, a Senegalese forestry expert working in Mali on a UN development project. "Even if we follow their plans, at the end of the day their interests are more important."

But it may be too soon to say that China will be different. A study published earlier this year concluded that so far China's main interest in Africa has been raw materials. In return, it said, China mainly exports manufactured goods.

In other words, China has done pretty much what the rest of the world has done in Africa, but without the moralizing about good government and fighting corruption.

Indeed, the Chinese model could prove deceptive and destructive.

"I think the strongest argument you can make for China's growth is that you had some very capable people in charge of making economic decisions who were given a mandate insulated from political thinking," said Todd Moss, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington.

But whatever role China ultimately plays, perhaps the most important element it introduces is competition. The West has for too long relied on one set of ideas aimed at fixing Africa's problems, said Duncan Green, head of research at the British aid organization Oxfam.

"For Africans it is quite a welcome change from the approach they get from Western governments that manages to be both patronizing and demeaning at the same time," Green said.

Elizabeth Dickinson contributed reporting for this article.

DAKAR, Senegal The Boulevard du Centenaire was once the preferred address of a certain class of this city's Paris-educated elite - the career civil servants, university administrators and other upper-level functionaries of the vast state bureaucracy.

These days the street, one of the loveliest in this seaside capital, is more likely to be home to Chinese merchants who sell shoes, electronics, plastic jewelry and toys from storefronts built into Centenaire's grand old villas.

China, it seems, is suddenly everywhere in Africa, not just in oil-rich states. Trade between Africa and China has almost quadrupled since 2001, and last year reached almost $40 billion.

China is hardly the first nation to seek its fortune in Africa.

First the Arabs, then the Europeans built their empires on African riches and sweat, followed by the Cold Warriors, fighting their proxy ideological battles in Africa's marketplaces for influence and profit.

Through all the iterations of the world's engagement with Africa, most of the continent's nationsprimarily supplied valuable raw materials to the developed world while serving as a marketplace for cheap manufactured goods.

But China seems to be offering Africa something new, a straightforward business relationship between equals based on mutual interest and noninterference in the internal affairs of its allies. Or as the economist Jeffrey Sachs phrased it at a conference in Beijing this week, "China gives fewer lectures and more practical help."

But is China's interest in Africa truly different from that of the earlier powers? Or is Beijing, as some are beginning to say, peddling the same exploitative formula in an attractive dressing of Third World solidarity?

Certainly, China sees itself as offering something superior to the standard Western prescription.

"Now African countries have more choices," said Lu Shaye, China's ambassador to Senegal. "They have the panaceas of the World Bank and the IMF, and at the same time the experience of China. They can compare and choose the best."

China's recent history presents seductive possibilities for sub-Saharan Africa. In the past two decades, China has pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty and transformed itself into the world's fastest-growing economy.

Its presence is certainly greatest in the resource-rich countries like Nigeria, Angola and Sudan (where its role has been criticized as contributing to the crisis in Darfur).

But China's growing presence is also manifest in less obvious spots. In Sierra Leone, Chinese companies have built and renovated hotels and restaurants. In Mozambique, Chinese companies are investing in soybean processing and prawn production. At the African Union meeting in Banjul, Gambia, last month, the Chinese delegation dwarfed the ones sent by France, Britain and the United States.

Here in Senegal, a country whose economy was long dominated by peanut farming, Chinese construction companies are working on roads, bridges, waterworks and other projects. Small-scale Chinese enterprises have sprung up, importing inexpensive goods and running restaurants and Chinese medical clinics.

In the post-independence era, the fad was state control aimed at rapid industrialization, an expensive and generally badly managed experiment in most countries. In the post-Soviet world, many adopted the "Washington consensus" of open markets, macroeconomic stability, loosened state controls and more transparent government.

But economic reform has yet to improve the lives of most Africans, and many have grown disenchanted with the West.

"The West has closed its doors to us," said Amadou Niang, a Senegalese forestry expert working in Mali on a UN development project. "Even if we follow their plans, at the end of the day their interests are more important."

But it may be too soon to say that China will be different. A study published earlier this year concluded that so far China's main interest in Africa has been raw materials. In return, it said, China mainly exports manufactured goods.

In other words, China has done pretty much what the rest of the world has done in Africa, but without the moralizing about good government and fighting corruption.

Indeed, the Chinese model could prove deceptive and destructive.

"I think the strongest argument you can make for China's growth is that you had some very capable people in charge of making economic decisions who were given a mandate insulated from political thinking," said Todd Moss, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington.

But whatever role China ultimately plays, perhaps the most important element it introduces is competition. The West has for too long relied on one set of ideas aimed at fixing Africa's problems, said Duncan Green, head of research at the British aid organization Oxfam.

"For Africans it is quite a welcome change from the approach they get from Western governments that manages to be both patronizing and demeaning at the same time," Green said.

Elizabeth Dickinson contributed reporting for this article.



I think the reporter is French. Kinda funny, because France was one of the main European powers trying to colonize Africa, and still a lot of African nations are considered to be a part of the francophone world.

I strongly support China in her endeavors in Africa. For all practical purposes, the West has pretty much given up on Africa, and Europe is more concerned about keeping Africans out of their countries, then trying to help them. I am sure China is driven by material incentives, but both sides are consenting, there isn't any sort of coersion, be it military, religious, or whatever, involved, so why the heck not? I am glad to see that China is reaching out to Africa, Russia/Eastern Europe, Indo-China, the Middle East, and South America, areas that have tradtionally been resentful of the Washington consensus. The Chinese would not have stagnated for centuries if we did not become such isolationists after the fall of the Tang Dynasty, and we cannot allow that to happen again.

White people still have this mentality that "only white people should be allowed to deal with the Africans/South Americans/SE Asians and subjugate them, because we discovered and enslaved them first, remember?" Well, f*ck that. I remember watching this documentary on the Scramble for Africa, and it was saying how David Livingstone discovered the Victoria Falls in Central Africa, and took the liberty to rename it after, then, the Queen of England, and the commentary had a great line, "Apparently, something cannot truly exist, until a white man discovers it."

[ZhuBaJie]

I strongly support China in her endeavors in Africa. For all practical purposes, the West has pretty much given up on Africa, and Europe is more concerned about keeping Africans out of their countries, then trying to help them. I am sure China is driven by material incentives, but both sides are consenting, there isn't any sort of coersion, be it military, religious, or whatever, involved, so why the heck not?

for the most part, i support China's involvement in Africa. but i don't think of the matter as a situation simply of agreements between consenting parties. is Chinese investment essentially propping up African leaders that are only interested in lining their own pockets? is the investment helping poor Africans? etc etc. i think there are ethical matters that need to be under scrutiny.

[wuwei]

I am not too familiar with the current power structure in Africa, I think it differs a lot depending on which part. I think China's stance of non-interference means that it does not want to deal with the chaotic power structure of some of the African nations. Also, China is really not offering Africa straight up cash, it is offering more in terms of manufactured goods, and services such as medical service or construction work, in exchange of raw materials. So it is also a good way to create jobs for the excess labour in China.