Africa

 

China’s contribution to various medical aid projects is an aspect of its involvement in Africa that is often overlooked. Recognised as a form of soft power, sometimes dubbed “health diplomacy”, it is structured differently to the network of NGOs and charities that citizens of other countries have established, independent of their governments. Instead, China is one of the only countries that sends government-paid medical workers to Africa for extended periods.

This form of soft power is – perhaps surprisingly – not as new as China’s commercial interest in the continent. The first Chinese medical team arrived in Africa in 1963, to assist in Algeria, a brand new nation that urgently required health care.

Now that China has the financial means – and fewer governmental channels than it did in Mao’s era – it provides most of its assistance in financial terms. The figures – as is often the case with China – are impressive. China’s worldwide aid contribution totalled US$39 billion since the country first launched its foreign aid program in 1950, an article in The Guardian reports. Other estimates indicate that the amount of aid provided doubled between 2006 and 2009 alone. But what exactly constitutes aid, and where have the majority of the billions been spent in recent years? An article published in Wharton Business School’s online journal reports on the use of foreign aid funds:

“More than 40% [of foreign aid funds] were allocated to “aid gratis,” or grants, while the other 60% were distributed between interest-free loans and concessional loans. Concessional loans are used to finance major capital projects with the aim of generating profit. The money is used in the construction of transportation, communications and electricity infrastructure, while less than 9% has been given to developing oil and mineral resources, writes The Guardian. The money for the concessional loans is raised on the market by the Export-Import Bank of China, while grants and interest-free loans are distributed from government finances.”

These are the same loans that allow China to negotiate for the right to resource extraction at extremely favourable rates, but the conditions of Sino-African business arrangements are a separate matter. It is the categorisation of concessional loans as “aid” that is misleading — and worrying. In the context of somewhere like Zambia – where a large proportion of the population is concerned about the extent and nature of Chinese involvement in their country – applauding China for “aid contributions” when more than half of these funds are used for making hardnosed business deals is extremely problematic.

 

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.

 

According toa recent report from Ernst & Young, the increasing global demand for commodities is encouraging resource nationalism, defined as national governments taking control of the country’s natural resources. Resource rich countries will benefit from the resulting increased price of exports, says the report, but countries that rely on imported resources could suffer badly.

China’s dependence on African resources is likely to grow, with ever more Chinese companies scouting the continent for the raw materials they need to maintain growth, but while Africa stands to benefit from the rise in demand for commodities, it also presents the continent with risks. The Ernst & Young report describes resource nationalism as the number one risk for the mining and metal sector in 2011, which “became an early target to help restore treasury conditions…because the mining and metals sector rebounded quickly from the global financial crisis.”

Namibia is one example of an African country that has made resource nationalism a part of its economic plan. The Namibian government has given the nationalised mining company, Epangelo mining, the exclusive rights to mining and mineral exploration. Epangelo, with its limited budget, will create partnerships with other companies, but will always hold the majority share, in order to have control over the mines. This has significant implications for China. The Namibian government have been rethinking their Sino-African ties, and now wants China to add value to Namibia’s raw materials domestically.

 

Zeray Hailemariam from the Walta Information Centre interviewed the Chinese ambassador to Ethiopia, Gu Xiaojie, this week, about the relationship between the two countries and China’s special relationship which Africa.

China has had a relationship with Ethiopia for over 40 years. Gu Xiaojie said that the countries share mutual trust that there has been an increase in relations between the two countries.

Trade

According to Gu Xiaojie there are “healthy trade ties” between the two countries. China has invested heavily in Ethiopia’s National Network of Telecommunications. Its has also seen a 30% increase in imports from Ethiopia, while China’s exports to Ethiopia have also increased. Gu also said that China provides as much economic assistance to Ethiopia as it can, but that China’s ability to extend aid is limited because it is still a developing country. He emphasised that the relationship between the two countries is more than purely economical, saying there is also a relationship between the peoples of the two countries.

“The people to people relationship is the important one which laid foundation to the over all relations, we see more people coming from China to Ethiopia to do business, studying, working groups and other to get know each other.”

Investment

The Chinese ambassador believes that there are currently over 130 Chinese investors in Ethiopia. While in the past investment was more clear cut, it now appears that investors are diversifying their investments in the country.

“The unique characteristics of the Chinese investment are the ever growing interest of Chinese investors to invest in Ethiopia in diversification. Leather processing and building materials were the first investment sectors by Chinese in Ethiopia. But they are expanding and diversifying to other areas.”

Indirect Colonialism

Zeray Hailemariam asked the Chinese ambassador to Ethiopia about his views on China’s activities in Africa being labelled indirect colonialism. Gu Xiaojie argued that Africa has chosen Chinese involvement.

“From some media, I have read some irresponsible accusations made in this regards. What convincing them to do this unwarranted accusation against China could be the fact that African Governments and the people are in the best position to make a judgement on China’s involvement.”

Gu accused the Western media of portraying the Chinese government as only taking natural resources from Africa. He emphasized that the relationship between Africa and China is not colonial, but brotherly.

“China and Africa know how to treat each other on equal basis and of course the African people have acknowledged and developed sincerity to the Chinese helps.”

Climate Change

Gu Xiaojie also said that China wants to reduce carbon emissions as it recognises that the country has a fifth of the world’s population, but blamed developed nations, which have, he said, been polluting for decades. He said China is working with African countries to reduce emissions. For example, in the Africa China Cooperation Forum, it aims to develop new sources of clean energy with African countries.

 

Many of China’s investments in Africa stem from the need for energy resources. However, a new report from Brookings Institution suggests that China’s energy supplies are unstable compared to the stability that countries such as America enjoy. For example, the recent turmoil seen in Libya (which supplied 3% of China’s crude oil in 2010) and the political unrest seen in the Middle East (which supplied 46% of China’s crude oil in 2010), have both highlighted the possible volatility of supply that China could face.

As consumption of oil continues to increase within China, the greater demand puts pressure on Chinese authorities to invest in stable oil supplies. Chinese researchers have pinpointed the Arctic, which contains an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, as a possible option for investment.

As a result, China’s investment in Africa’s energy resources could continue to decrease, as they have done over the past four years. In 2006, 32% of China’s supply of oil was exported from Africa, and in 2010 this amount decreased to 22%. With the recent political upheaval within Africa, it seems inevitable that this percentage will continue to fall, and China’s dependence on African oil will decrease.

 

It seems nothing brings a group closer together than a financial meltdown. Systematically higher growth rates in emerging economies led to a decoupling of potential output, but the severity of the downturn reinforces the notion of cyclical coupling in the interconnected contemporary world. Looking at the debris is telling: the global economy is now at 2008 levels, some USD7.5 bn smaller than most had expected it would be at the start of 2008. Rightly, ideological debate and multilateral reform played second-fiddle during the past three years. The highly synchronised fall in income, employment, output and trade demanded all hands to be on deck.

Truthfully, the exorbitant number of multilateral meetings held since the collapse of Lehman Brothers has yielded very few tangible results. Even the change in emphasis away from the G8 to the G20 was unavoidable: global institutions hoping to retain any semblance of legitimacy in an era of multilateral stasis had to (and still have to) reform. The shift could prove meaningful but crucially depends on the organisations ability to transcend multilateral static and deliver genuine results. Yesterday’s institutions are struggling to address today’s challenges. And won’t manage to deal with tomorrow’s.

To be sure, the recession and recovery period has exaggerated the divergence in economic momentum between advanced and emerging markets. The shift in political influence away from western exclusivity towards a wider inclusive arc of nations (from the East and increasingly the South) has accelerated. Explicitly, the economic momentum of the emerging markets is explaining a proportionately larger share of global fluctuations.

As their economies limp sluggishly ahead, finance ministers from the advanced nations arrive in Seoul, South Korea, exhausted and deflated in equal measure. Enormous fiscal policies intent on generating large domestic multipliers have run aground. Without inventory restocking and stimulus support the artificial recovery has lost momentum. For many the exorbitant explosions in public debt levels are now under the microscope. Financial markets demand credible pathways, back to fiscal respectability. Importantly, the policy response has been varied: for instance, the UK front-loaded fiscal consolidation and the US has spent to mend. Meanwhile, the monetary responses to these largely shared problems have been distinct too. Granted, each major economy cut rates dramatically to divert apocalypse. However, the US Federal Reserve Bank’s USD600 bn tranche in quantitative easing contrasts with the approach of the Bank of England and European Central Bank, which kept rates unchanged in the first week of November. Moreover, commodity-rich nations such as Australia and Canada have already started tightening cycles.

Clearly, with the advanced economies are meaningful variations. Add to the pot, big and small emerging markets and the broader G20 group has rehabilitating structural variations. For instance, the US economy is larger than the combined economies of the non-G7 members; Australia’s income per capita outsize’s India’s by a factor of 50; large surpluses in commodity exporters, Russia and Saudi Arabia, and manufacturing exporters, China, Germany contrast with deficits in the US, UK, India and South Africa; China and India is called home for over two billion people, whereas, Saudi Arabia’s population is less than 30 mn. Finding a lowest common denominator will prove illusory. Worryingly, the new club members bring even more divergent realities, interests and constituencies, further diluting the possibility of galvanizing common cause.

Even though the direction is remarkably clear, the shape and end point of broader reforms are still hazy, muddied by the shipwrecked capitalist system’s flotsam and jetsam. And akin to punch drunk boxers, a number of advanced economies are holding, white-knuckled, to vestiges of power. Most are rightly preparing to be underwhelmed by the ambitions and achievements of the latest G20 meeting. Going further, the shift from the G8 to the G20 could very well turn out to be a false dawn. Rather than a new era of multilateral inclusivity, powers past could be trying to hold onto the distribution of power. Inevitably the G20’s powerlessness could become even more exaggerated. The problem, of course, in this twilight zone scenario is that it impregnates the atmosphere with a false harmony and expectation.

It will become increasingly apparent that navigating a course within this ever-changing environment is complicated. Already he has made clear his disapproval of the manner in which the US has unilaterally opted for a further bout of quantitative easing. South African exporters continue to suffer from an overpriced local currency. While a powerhouse on the African continent, South Africa’s proportionately moderate economic clout globally elevates the importance of multilateral institutions and dialogue platforms for the country to raise the timbre of its concerns. The G20 is, perhaps, the most important forum in this regard. At last year’s Copenhagen summit on climate change, South Africa formed a core component of the BASIC alliance which ultimately scuppered advanced world domination of the pivotal event’s outcome. While not all of Africa’s 53 states agree, South Africa is held by most as the representative of a continent which is bursting with economic potential and incumbent strategic influence.

 

On Christmas eve of this year China inviting South Africa to join the occasional meetings of heads of state of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China. Jim O’Neill, the man who coined the term BRIC in 2001 to stand for the four largest emerging markets with “near unlimited” growth potential, responded that South Africa doesn’t really fit into his schema (Via BeyondBrics):

The size of its economy is $350bn. And as O’Neill notes:

… this is quite small by not only BRIC standards, but compared to some others. For example, Russia is around $1,600 billion, nearly 5 times larger than South Africa. And, India is currently similar in size to Russia. Brazil is currently closer to $2,000 billion in size, while China is considerably larger at around $5,500 billion.

That’s of course not the point, the point is that China sees Africa as as a huge potential market, and wants to integrate the continent as much as it can into the “BRIC” story. The largest economy under a single political grouping is South Africa, and thus…

It’s always been a somewhat interesting question whether Africa actually fits in to the BRIC story. BeyondBrics has a bit of a non-committal no. But as I’ve previously mentioned comparisons to India are often made. And of course India and China are much more diverse (even politically) than their single national government would make seem. The rate of demographic growth in Africa throws another variable into the mix.

Of course the BRIC concept was kind of arbitrary to begin with, so how much Africa fits doesn’t really matter greatly. The big point though is that the African story is gaining traction in the global economy. As it should.

 

This is unhelpful:

The half-dozen strangers who descended on this remote West African village brought its hand-to-mouth farmers alarming news: their humble fields, tilled from one generation to the next, were now controlled by Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and the farmers would all have to leave.

“They told us this would be the last rainy season for us to cultivate our fields; after that, they will level all the houses and take the land,” said Mama Keita, 73, the leader of this village veiled behind dense, thorny scrubland. “We were told that Qaddafi owns this land.”

Across Africa and the developing world, a new global land rush is gobbling up large expanses of arable land. Despite their ageless traditions, stunned villagers are discovering that African governments typically own their land and have been leasing it, often at bargain prices, to private investors and foreign governments for decades to come.

Organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank say the practice, if done equitably, could help feed the growing global population by introducing large-scale commercial farming to places without it.

But others condemn the deals as neocolonial land grabs that destroy villages, uproot tens of thousands of farmers and create a volatile mass of landless poor. Making matters worse, they contend, much of the food is bound for wealthier nations.

I bet you can guess which side the article tilts towards. Particularly because they decided to reference the noticeably eccentric Qaddafi, instead of the scores of other more sensible people who are making such investments. I’ve gone over elsewhere why I don’t really think these agriculture deals are a bad thing, and I don’t think its that necessary to draw that much attention to this article but I think its worth pointing out that the area where this article focuses on happens to also be an area which is increasingly unsustainable for subsistance agriculture:

During the Sahel’s nine-month dry season, roughly from October to June, the subsistence farmers who make up most of its inhabitants eagerly await the rain. Temperatures can touch 50 degrees Celsius. Many go hungry towards the end of these dry months, known as the “lean season”. The United Nations Children’s Fund, better known as UNICEF, says that malnutrition kills 225,000 children a year in five Sahelian countries alone (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger).

But now the rains have started bringing problems too. Farmers and aid workers say rainfall has been more erratic and stormy for at least the past five years, though it is unclear whether any areas are getting more water overall.

Or in other words, properly executed moving subsistance farmers off their lands to places where they wouldn’t be… well… subsistance farming, could potentially substantially lower the chance of death by malnutrition – rarely a bad thing. The problem is of course the execution of these relocations and the quality of governance involved. This seems to be poorly done in the best of circumstances, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue trying.

And please stop calling this neo-colonialism. It’s pretty much demeaning to everyone.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha