China vs. the West » African Boots

A catalogue of China’s labour abuses in Africa

Posted by Iain Manley at 6:16 pm China vs. the West, In the News, The Beijing Consensus 1 Response »

Nov 022010

China – a Blessing Or Africa’s Curse?, an article published by Uganda’s Sunday Monitor, catalogues a range of labour and other abuses for which Chinese companies, both state and privately owned, have been responsible. Examples range from the recent incident at a Chinese owned mine in Zambia, during which 13 miners were injured, to the China Henan Group (Chico) requiring workers in Mozambique to wear a badge with the word escravo (slave) written on it, in what was apparently a case if mistranslation. “Unwittingly,” the article continues, “those badges have turned prophetic of the nature of labour relations between Chinese enterprises in Africa and their employees. From Mali to Madagascar, Kenya to Zambia, workers’ restiveness abounds.”

Reporting like this is regularly written off as the whining of jealous Westerners, unhappy that China is now so influential in places once the sole preserve of former colonists. In a recent interview, Li Anshan, a professor at Peking University’s School of International Studies and head of its Centre for African Studies, said that Western criticism of China’s involvement in Africa is largely rooted in fear, fear which he said is “a consequence of deep-rooted colonialism; they [Westerners, referring in this case specifically to France] feel something that belongs to them is being taken by China.” Not so in this case. China – a Blessing Or Africa’s Curse? was written by Janet Otieno, Jonstone Ole Turana, Saudah Mayanja and Caesar Abangiraha, all of whom are correspondents for the Sunday Monitor.

Aid, trade and some indignation

Posted by Bradley Gardner at 11:01 am China vs. the West, The Beijing Consensus No Responses »

Oct 072010

With the end of the UN summit there has been a lot of talk about the Millennium Development Goals, and the need to provide more aid to African states.

And then there has been a lot of talk about why this attitude is supremely misplaced.

But current experience and history both speak loudly that the only real engine of growth out of poverty is private business, and there is no evidence that aid fuels such growth.

Of the eight goals, only the eighth faintly recognises private investment, through its call for a “non-discriminatory trading system”. This anodyne language refers to the scandal of rich countries perpetuating barriers that favour a tiny number of their businesses at the expense of impoverished millions elsewhere. Yet the trade-related MDG received virtually no attention from the wider campaign, has seen no action, and even its failure has received virtually no attention in the current MDG summit hoopla. Continue reading »

Who’s teaching whom?

Posted by Tom Rafferty at 11:18 am China vs. India, China vs. the West, The Beijing Consensus No Responses »

Sep 242010

A conference was held in Beijing earlier this week between representatives from China, African states and members of the OECD – the “rich man’s club” – to promote “mutual learning” on development and aid policy. Its focus was on the role of infrastructure in stimulating economic growth, looking particularly at the relevance for Africa of China’s experience in building effective transport, telecommunications, energy and water systems. The conference forms part of the effort made by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, the body through which the “established” donors coordinate their aid, to engage with “emerging” donors – primarily China – whose approach to overseas development is seen as posing a possible challenge to existing norms.

Choosing infrastructure as the subject of discussion was significant because it has been an area notoriously neglected in international development. From the 1970s, Western donors and the international financial institutions cut funding for “hard” infrastructure projects in favor of policies aimed at building the “soft” infrastructure of good governance, environmental sustainability and civil society. Those “hard” infrastructure projects that were commissioned were often farmed out to private corporations, with typically disastrous results. This reflected the ideological biases of this era, when the ascendance of market economics and “structural adjustment” packages led to deep antagonism to anything that smacked of statism.

As was pointed out at the conference, although China has privatized swaths of its economy over the past 30 years, it has also not exactly conformed to “neo-liberal” prescriptions because the state has retained a key role for itself within the national economy. It has allowed the Chinese government to pursue a program of intense infrastructure development, often against the advice of the World Bank. Initially facilitated by oil-backed loans and technical assistance from Japan, it has since been funded through China’s own considerable reserves. The chief economist of China’s ExIm Bank said at the conference that infrastructure development had been vital to enhancing agricultural production in China as well as giving it “comparative advantage” as a site for FDI. China’s dense network of modern roads, railways and ports are widely seen as central components in its “model” of economic growth, often contrasted, for example, with India. Continue reading »

Is China rethinking its approach to Africa?

Posted by Tom Rafferty at 11:58 am China vs. the West, The Beijing Consensus 1 Response »

Sep 102010

Plenty of coverage and research in the West has suggested that, after an initial “honeymoon period”, China is now struggling to adjust to complexities wrought by the dramatic expansion in its ties with African states. Investments are not yielding promised returns. There has been a litany of kidnappings and attacks on Chinese workers. The perception of cozy ties between Beijing and “pariah” regimes has brought international reputational costs. Pressure from trade unions and civil society is forcing Chinese companies to rethink labor and environmental practices. From the heady days of the 2006 China-Africa summit, the relationship now appears to be characterized by mounting problems and growing doubts.

The widespread presumption is that China is going through a “learning” experience in Africa. After initially trying to stake out a different approach to the continent, it is now predictably gravitating towards the models and frameworks through which the more “experienced” West has come to structure its interactions with African states. The more distinctive aspects of China’s approach in Africa – such as the policy of “non-interference” in another state’s internal affairs or its refusal to attach “conditions” to aid – are now thought subject to change. China’s lending institutions and major enterprises are signing up to international CSR agreements and collaborating on joint projects in Africa with Western companies. Official engagement and dialogue aim to gradually draw China into webs of Western-shaped multilateral security and development cooperation. China, according to this analysis, is on a path towards adopting the dispositions and concerns of a “northern” power in Africa.

There is certainly plenty of awareness in China about the difficulties it faces in Africa. Beneath the diplomatic rhetoric, policymakers are quite open about the problems faced by the government, many of which stem from managing the growing number of Chinese actors – from large state-owned enterprises to individual entrepreneurs – now active in Africa. Streams of publications by domestic research institutes debate how to improve Chinese policy in Africa, tackling subjects such as enhancing soft power, lowering trade tensions, ensuring the better targeting of aid, and looking at how to widen forms of communication beyond the state-state level. This is a clearly a period of flux as China reflects on its approach to Africa. Continue reading »