Simeon Gready

Simeon is a first year student at the University of Cape Town, studying Politics, English, Media and Philosophy. He has moved back and forth between England and Africa several times, has long been interested in writing, and is looking forward to pursuing a career in journalism. You can follow Simeon on Twitter at @simgready.

 

The front pages of South African newspapers over the past few weeks have been dominated by one story – that of the execution of Janice Linden. Three years ago she was convicted of smuggling 3kg’s of tik through China’s Baiyun International Airport, an offence which, in China, carries the penalty of death by lethal injection.

I am going to go on record and say that I have no time for drug mules – admittedly, I do not know of their motives, whether it is for money or for pleasure, but to risk throwing away your life, literally in this case, is nothing short of idiotic.

I do however reserve some sympathy for Janice Linden. The death penalty is a shockingly outdated punishment, one that has rightly been outlawed in most parts of the world. I personally do not believe that any action is justifiably penalised by death.

This is a common view, and understandably news of Linden’s execution has been met with much outrage in her native country. China play an increasingly influential role in not just South Africa, but Africa as well, and thus the connection linking the two countries is growing stronger as each year passes.

Surely then, her fellow citizens fume, we could have put up more of a fight? Linden’s family have expressed their deepest disappointment in the South African government in the way they seemingly idly stood by whilst one of their people was put to death by one of their biggest trading partners.

There have been cases, six in total, where South Africans have been spared the death penalty in China for similar offences – although whether these were via pressure from our government is debatable.

But I think that you could argue that there was not much that could have been done. China is a vastly proud and traditional society, and this is exemplified by the fact that they have kept laws like the death penalty whilst a large part of the world seems to have moved on – in fact, China execute more of their own people, even on a per capita basis, than any other country in the world.

I am not going to pretend that I understand Chinese culture; their motives or their traditions. From our point of view, the execution was handled extremely badly in that she was told a mere few hours before it was to happen, but we live in a completely different society, so we cannot judge and criticise that which we do not understand. Whilst Janice Linden’s execution and the way in which it was carried out might seem gravely harsh to us, it seems perfectly justified to the people of China. That is the world that they, and we, live in.

In short, Janice Linden chose to risk her life, and it just so happens that she must pay the ultimate price because of the place she chose to risk her life in. Whilst we could go on about how our government did nothing to help her, in the end I do not really think there is much they could have done to change the practices of one of the oldest institutions in the world. Janice Linden chose her fate when she decided to smuggle 3kg of tik through Baiyun International Airport, and we, as fellow South Africans, must accept this.

 

There is no denying China’s increasing influence in Africa, whether it is beneficial to both parties or not. It has been largely assumed that China’s involvement in the continent is in direct competition with Western – and specifically United States – involvement in Africa. This is not necessarily the case though, as emphasized by several senior U.S officials. In fact, statements from these officials generally reflect a desire to engage with China in Africa in a positive way.

It is firstly important to note, as stipulated by Senator Chris Coons, that the U.S. and the Chinese have fundamentally taken on different roles in Africa: 70% of Chinese assistance to Africa comes in the form of roads, stadiums and government buildings, whilst a similar proportion of U.S. aid is focused on the war against disease.

Statements in favour of bilateral cooperation in Africa are based on the theory that where U.S. and Chinese interests overlap, there can be cooperation. Both advocate the importance of political stability, encourage African economic development and are supportive of UN and African Union peacekeeping operations in the continent. Perhaps most importantly, both the United States and China seek access to African raw materials, particularly oil.

There are, naturally, obstacles that need to be overcome. The U.S. and China have had differing philosophies toward governance in the past, resulting in a sense of mutual mistrust and suspicion. Possible collaboration between the world’s economic powerhouses has also left many African countries unable to see past the possibility that they might be ganged up on.

David H. Shinn writes that there are several areas in which the U.S. and China can collaborate. These include peacekeeping operations, as well as concerted efforts in the healthcare sector to counter the colossal threat of disease. U.S and Chinese interests in Africa will continue to overlap, and this will open the door to possible coordinated diplomatic engagement. Once pride is put aside, the three parties in question, can surely only benefit, both economically and politically, from this proposed collaboration.

 

There has been consistent criticism of Chinese employers in Africa. The commonly held perception is that Chinese companies fail to provide enough job opportunities for locals and rarely try to ease the social problems that suffocate African countries; one just has to look at Michael Sata’s recent electoral success in Zambia as proof of the unrest that the Chinese can cause amongst locals.

The China Road-Bridge Company (CRBC) is an exception. The CRBC has made significant progress in recent years, writes Li Lianxing, by gradually improving its labour relations. It has also indicated that it will implement long-term social programs in Kenya, which is just one of the countries in which it operates.

The statistics tell a favourable story. The ratio of Chinese to local employees is about 1 to 15; at one particular project there are 1,371 Kenyan employees and just 45 Chinese staff. The locals are not restricted to menial work and some are technical staff or occupy management positions.

In addition to these increased job opportunities, Chinese companies – and not just the CRBC – have also shown a willingness to take a more hands on approach in countries like Kenya, through long-term social programs. The primary focus of these social programs is primary and middle schools, as well as a local orphanage.

Jiang Yu claims that Chinese companies as a whole have created 350,000 job opportunities in Africa, and criticism aimed at these companies is based on the activities of just a few corporations. It seems that co-operation between China and Africa is improving, and becoming more mutually beneficial, but it whether or not perceptions of Sino-African relations might start to mend remains to be seen.

 

The recent presidential elections in Zambia saw the emergence of a familiar face, Michael Sata, who was sworn in as the country’s new president after three failed attempts. This change in fortune for the former British Rail worker was largely down to his much-publicised stance on Chinese investment in Zambia, as he looks to put an end to the ease with which Chinese investors have torn through the country’s resources – particularly copper – over the last few years.

As the Telegraph’s Southern African correspondent Aislinn Laing put it, the former Zambian President Rupiah Banda “made life as easy as possible for the Chinese,” introducing policies that cut the windfall tax on mine earnings and other investor-friendly legislation. Sata’s anti-Chinese rhetoric, though less pronounced than in previous years, reflected the mood within the Zambian population, particularly the largely unemployed youth.

There are few places where its [China’s] presence is felt more than Zambia, where Chinese investment in agriculture and the country’s bountiful copper mines exceeded $1bn in 2010…The Chinese claim they have created as many as 150,000 new jobs and point to investments in infrastructure as proof they are giving back…But there have also been accusations that Chinese businessmen in Zambia act with impunity – and treat local workers badly with poor pay and working conditions. Anger boiled over into protests last year when two Chinese managers shot and injured 13 workers at a coal mine…With two thirds of Zambia’s population still living on less than $2 a day, dismay is growing at his [Banda’s] perceived failure to make the relationship work for his countrymen…Mr. Sata, although toning down his anti-Chinese rants for this election … has pledged to reinstate the windfall tax to combat the problem…The affect that pledge has had in some of the country’s poorest slums was evident yesterday, where crowds of youths rampaged through the streets ripping down posters of Mr. Banda and chanting for change.

Change is indeed what the Zambian population got, as the election, a supposed ‘referendum on China,’ saw Sata receive 43% of the votes, with Banda receiving 36%. Sata, as expected, has immediately begun his attempts to reduce Chinese exploitation of his copper-rich country. He announced that China would have to play by the rules, through employing more Zambian workers and limiting the number of people the Chinese investors bring to Zambia.

This leaves the door open to continued Chinese investment in Zambia, and with Sata in charge, the African country might be able to strike a more balanced deal with Chinese companies, and better use the promise of Chinese investment to improve the lives of its people.

 

As Muammar Gaddafi’s autocratic stronghold over Libya nears its end, China is at risk of being locked out of the oil-rich country by its prospective new rulers, the rebel Transitional National Council (TNC). According to Middle East watcher James Dorsey, China’s support of Gaddafi as well as its role in obstructing the release of Libya’s frozen assets has jeopardised its future in the country. “China has scored two near fatal own goals in the race for influence and lucrative contracts in oil-rich post-Gathafi Libya,” writes Dorsey.

A document made public over the weekend contains evidence that China was preparing to supply weapons to the Gaddafi regime in July of this year, in violation of United Nations sanctions. Adding fuel to the fire, the head of the TNC, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, has accused China of blocking the release of Libya’s frozen assets. Along with the disclosure of the weapons deal, the accusation indicates that China is at a disadvantage as it competes with Russia, India, South Africa and Brazil to repair strained relations with Libya’s new rulers.

China has yet to officially recognize the TNC, but has recently sought to upgrade its relations with the rebels. These efforts will be made far more difficult by the four-page document found by Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, which shows that state-controlled Chinese arms manufacturers were prepared to sell weapons and ammunition worth at least $200-million to the Mr. Gaddafi. TNC officials said the documents explained the origin of brand new weapons captured on the battlefield by the rebels.

The document reports on meetings in Beijing beginning on July 16 between Gaddafi security officials and representatives of three state-controlled weapons manufacturers – China North Industries Corp. (Norinco), the China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corp. (CPMIC), and China XinXing Import & Export Corp. The Chinese companies offered to sell their entire stock to Gaddafi’s representatives, and promised to manufacture more supplies if necessary.

In a bid to keep the door open to the rebels and retain a bargaining chip, China agreed last week to the release of $15 billion of the total $170 billion in Libyan assets frozen by the international community. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, speaking after a meeting in Paris last week with the TNC’s number two, Mahmud Jibril, said that “China is ready to grant reconstruction aid to Libya… and hopes that the TNC will take into account China’s concerns, respect its commitments and guarantee the interests of Chinese business interests in Libya.” China’s trade ministry estimates that China has 50 large-scale projects in Libya worth some $18.8 billion and it evacuated an estimated 36,000 Chinese workers from the country at the beginning of the conflict.

As the rebel TNC edge closer to full control over Libya, they appear to be distancing themselves from those who helped sustain the Gaddafi regime. Although China has made moves to rectify their relationship with the rebels, they are far behind the likes of Russia, and a senior Libyan oil official has warned that countries who are found to have been involved in “corrupt practices” during the Gaddafi era will be punished when post-Gaddafi reconstruction contracts are awarded.

It seems that China, so prominent in Africa in recent times, is at risk of having to take a backseat to a new wave of investment into “some of the world’s most important oil and gas reserves”, and the country’s policy of non-intervention, which has done more harm than good in this case, might well have to be rethought.

 

“Right now, Britain is in danger of missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities on the planet.” These were the concerned words of British Prime Minister David Cameron whilst on his recent, but brief, visit to Lagos, Nigeria, where UK investment and influence has taken a backseat to Nigeria’s blossoming relationship with China.

It is not so much an increased lack of activity between Britain and Nigeria, but rather the extraordinary rise of Chinese business interest in the Nigerian economy that has left Cameron calling for immediate action. In fact, UK exports of goods to Nigeria were up 42% from 2007 to 2008, whilst the exports of services rose 46% over the same period. As Cameron emphasizes, though, there is still some way Britain has to go in order to catch up with China – “Today, Britain accounts for less than four percent of Africa’s exports… almost three times less than China.”

Sino-African trade went from $2 billion in 1999 to $55.5 billion in 2006, and increased further to $73 billion in 2007. Chinese trade with Africa is growing faster than with the rest of the world, as the perceived ‘raw diamond’ quality of African goods has been realised and used accordingly. The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) reports that “the public investment and economic activities of Chinese in Nigeria have gained prominence in recent time… This type of investment spanned different areas of the Nigerian economy and prominent among them are those in oil and gas, construction especially building of infrastructure.”

Thus, the UK, with Cameron at the forefront, is seemingly determined to increase private enterprise and trade in Africa. UK Trade and Investment is an initiative which encourages UK-based businesses to look for investment opportunities overseas. Furthermore, influential overseas companies are encouraged to create links with companies within the UK. At present, these opportunities are presenting themselves consistently in Nigeria and its neighbours.

China, it seems, has been quick to discover the potential in Africa, as their continued investment and influence proves. The rest of the world, however, is slowly realising what could be achieved in the continent, and Britain, a state with strong links with Nigeria as well as Africa as a whole, is well-placed to build on their relations with Nigeria and thereafter increase their trade and investment. As Cameron states, “we see Africa in a new way, a different way… Yes, a place to invest our aid; but above all a place to trade.”

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha