In 1955, at the Bandung Conference of Non-Aligned Nations, the Chinese delegation looked to shore up its relationship with countries across the African continent. According to a new paper from the Nigerian think tank, the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, this was in an attempt to counteract the utter dominance of Asia and the East by the Soviet Union.
Fast forward nearly six decades and we see a world where the Soviet Union is no longer in existence and China is once again vastly increasing its presence on the continent. Ironically, while the relationships fostered at Bandung were meant to shore up support against the hemispheric hegemony of the Soviet Union, itself in a cold war with the United States, it is now China that is seen as the gravest threat to American interests in Africa.
In first part of this AFKInsider miniseries we examined the relationships that have been fostered across Africa due in large part to an anti-Western or anti-Imperialist world view that bred a support network and financial incentives for standing up to American hegemony. Much of the current network is decidedly small in comparison to the Cold War-era countries that saw support from the Soviet Union as a reason or means to stand up to Western dominance.
The Chinese incursion into Africa stands in stark contrast to the earlier Cold War Soviet methods of fostering allegiance and ideological similarity through investment and economic incentive. The Chinese move into Africa has been described as “anti-ideological,” or of economics over politics.
While many of the relationships discussed in part one of this miniseries came from a mutual enmity towards the West and, in particular, the United States, China’s operations and investment on the African continent have been purely economic arrangements. The purposes for this are twofold.
First, as described by George Washington University Lecturer and former US Ambassador to a number of African states David Shinn, the explosion of economic connections between the Chinese and African countries has led Beijing to desire cordial relationships across the continent. Rather than risk alienating any states, the Middle Kingdom has pursued a policy of non-interference, leaving domestic affairs out of the equation when determining whether to invest or extend loans to African states.
The second reason is perhaps more malignant. While the Cold War-era Soviet Union sought support for its Socialist political and economic system to stem the capitalist ideals of the West and the West hoped to buy the opposite, China has adamantly pursued a policy of non-interference in domestic affairs. That policy is a two way street.
While African states accepting loans often have horrific human rights records and/or are run by anti-democratic despots, China makes no attempt to change their governance structure for the better. In return, China expects no criticism of its own spotty human rights record. In short, while the Cold War-era United States and Soviet Union bought ideological fealty, China’s investment buys silence.
According to a recent book by journalist Howard French entitled China’s Second Continent: How a Million Migrants are Building a New Empire in Africa, this relationship suits many African leaders just fine. French uses Angola and Zimbabwe as notorious examples, two countries whose leaders have notoriously bitter relationships with the West.
Western Apathy
Other countries with less strained relationships with Western countries have ‘become adept at threatening to ‘go east,’” or turn towards China, when Western countries or companies have attempted to set down human rights or democracy preconditions on loans or contracts.
Whatever the reasons, China’s present across the African continent has exploded. According to French while the numbers are hard to pin down, one source has China’s Export-Import Bank giving $62.7 billion USD in loans to African countries between 2001 and 2010, $12.5 billion USD more than the World Bank. African economies have also been flooded with Chinese dollars, “chiefly to buy raw materials to fuel China’s roaring economy.”
The search for raw materials can foster a lack of diversity in African trade by China. According to the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis report 70 percent of Chinese imports from Africa originate in just four countries, Angola, South Africa, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Exports are not considerably more diverse, with 60 percent of Chinese imports heading to just 6 countries, South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria and Benin.
This is, of course, expanding. There is little doubt that as economies across Africa continue to grow at breakneck speed China will continue to grow its relationship with the continent, both seeking more raw materials for its own growing economy and further markets for its exports.
While the Cold War relationship between African states and global superpowers was laden with ideological conditions and near-fealty, the Chinese relationship with states across the continent can be fairly called ideologically non-ideological. China’s connections to the content reflect both an economic interest and a lack of interest in meddling in domestic affairs or having their own domestic affairs meddled in.
This has created a tug and pull relationship between African states looking to receive assistance from superpowers but uninterested in the classic preconditions of the West, including improved governance and human rights and a commitment to the rule of law. Only time will tell whether the expansion of this relationship creates a de facto international bank that cares not for human rights and democracy. For the time being, it is very worth watching.
Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.