China in Africa: Myths and Realities

[CardSharp]

In recent years, journalists and pundits in the West have looked on China’s economic engagement with Africa, including foreign aid, with growing alarm. An NYT op-ed a few years ago called China a “rogue donor,“ giving aid that is “nondemocratic in origin and nontransparent in practice, and its effect is typically to stifle real progress while hurting ordinary citizens.”

Other negative stories about China in Africa include China abetting genocide in Darfur by supplying arms in exchange for Sudanese oil; propping up corrupt government in Zimbabwe; swooping in to undo the anti-corruption work of the IMF or the World Bank in Angola or Nigeria with offers of no-strings-attached loans; and generally ignoring environmental, safety and labor standards on projects in Africa.

So the idea that China’s aid to Africa could be in any possible way better, more credible, or more effective than Western aid to Africa may be a hard sell. But Deborah Brautigam, author of the new book The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa, argues that focusing only on the China threat makes us blind to the real opportunities Chinese engagement offers for African development.

Part of the problem, says Brautigam, is that there is very little information about what China is really doing in Africa, and in this vacuum, “myths sprang up and were rapidly accepted as facts.” Brautigam fills this void and dispels, or at least complicates, some commonly held beliefs about China in Africa.

In other areas she finds evidence to back up criticism of China’s Africa policies, but argues that we should not see China’s stance towards Africa as static; it is evolving and can sometimes be influenced by international pressure. Throughout, some of Brautigam’s best insights come from asking “compared to what?”: The book seeks to compare Chinese aid to Western aid as it really is, not as we wish it were.

A few examples of China myths and partial truths:

1) China targets aid to African states with abundant natural resources and bad governments

Actually, China gives money to almost every single country in Sub-Saharan Africa, excluding only those that don’t acknowledge the One China policy. There is little evidence that China gives more aid to countries with more natural resources or specifically targets countries with worse governance. China is not alone in its interest in natural resources in Africa, and natural resources are not the primary motivating factor for Chinese aid: like all donors, US definitely included, China is motivated to give aid by a mix of political, commercial, and social/ideological factors.

2) The Chinese don’t hire Africans to work on their projects

This depends on how long a company has been working in Africa, and how easy it is to find appropriate local labor. Ultimately, it also depends on African governments themselves, who have the power to dictate what proportion of project staff must be local (as Angola and the DRC have done). Brautigam also points to the stark contrast in standard of living between Chinese workers and managers in Africa, who tend to live in extremely simple conditions, and Western advisors, who more typically live in expensive housing or hotels. While Western experts may be fewer, they cost their projects a lot more.

3) China outbids other companies by flouting social and environmental standards

This one’s true but evolving…Brautigam portrays China as “on a steep learning curve,” struggling with environmental and corporate social responsibility issues at home and abroad. She gives some evidence that China and Chinese companies are becoming increasingly sensitive to international perception on these issues and may be inching towards international standards

China in Africa myths and realities

 

[Tigershark]

I actually read her book a while back and she makes an excellent argument for the real picture of international aid. The West has been giving aid to Africa for a century and Africa is still a third world country. Western aid is also full of cases of the left hand passing the dollar to the right. e.g. a Western government will announce tens of millions in aid money to Africa. Sometimes that money never materializes. Even if the money does appear, a large portion will be spent on the salary of expensive Western engineers and consultant, their hotel bills, and bureaucratic costs. Then they will build a park or a school, announce their success and leave. Meanwhile, there has been no real impact on the social or economic development of Africa. No transfer of technology or expertise. Without an effort to understand the effectiveness of western aid, it becomes an exercise in donor hubris--the Western public gets their egos stroked by announcing millions in aid yearly, and yet no lasting economic development is being achieved as a result of the so called aid.

 

[Vassnti]

From an interesting debate between Brautigam and Gaye.

Listen to the People
China's presence in Africa may be progressively rejected unless the Chinese understand that they should NOW take into account what the vast majority of Africans want for their continent instead of colluding with so-called African leaders in order to achieve their long-term African hidden agenda which smacks of colonialism.

China does not realize that Africa has become a place where people yearn for democracy, good governance and economic development.

By overemphasizing sovereignty and non-interference, the Chinese are running the risk of losing the support of the African population.

Even as someone who believed in China's relationship with Africa, I am having second thoughts in view of the cynicism that drives its Africa policy.

The fact that China closes its eyes and refuses to address publicly the lapses in good leadership [in Africa] can only lead to the negative consequences we all know: corruption, human rights violations, wars, and destruction of democratic gains.
Sudan may be the most obvious case in point, but China's attitude is emboldening dictators and crooks across the continent. In attempting to fill the gap left by the former Soviet Union, China has indirectly encouraged the return of political authoritarianism in Africa. African leaders have abandoned the road to economic reforms and political liberalization. Among them, many dictators are finding comfort in China's involvement—and are ready to facilitate

The debate gives some good points from both sides. Adama Gaye is the author of the dragon and the ostrich.

Is Chinese Investment Good for Africa? - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[CardSharp]

From an interesting debate between Brautigam and Gaye.



The debate gives some good points from both sides. Adama Gaye is the author of the dragon and the ostrich.

Is Chinese Investment Good for Africa? - Council on Foreign Relations

Good read. I think Adama Gaye is expecting too much from China. Premier Zhou states that the China-Africa relationship would be one of mutual benefit and I think China has largely stuck to this.


Mr. Gaye says

Even if Deborah may be right to highlight China’s role in infrastructural and industrial developments and its swift cancellation of debts owed by Africa, it remains that this generosity is only deployed to buy goodwill. China gets more in return

and

So far, China’s help has not reversed the unequal terms of trade that attracted wide criticisms against Western nations. The early colonizers came to Africa with alcohol and useless gifts to lure the locals. Is not China doing the same with the help of greedy leaders?

But really China is not there to be the panacea to all of Africa's problems, it doesn't try fix countries, it doesn't install democracies, it sees non-interference as the best way to form mutually respectful relationships.

 

[Vassnti]

But really China is not there to be the panacea to all of Africa's problems, it doesn't try fix countries, it doesn't install democracies, it sees non-interference as the best way to form mutually respectful relationships.

Isuppose what supprised me about Gaye's comments is i had alwaysthought non-interference was a sensible policy that the "paternalisation" of previous western adventures in africa had done more harm than good .
What he made me realise is non interference is in a way imaginary, you are in a county you spend 10 billion dollars on projects, you have interfered, the leaders of a country expect China to respect the status quo, the people expect China to make their life better.
Just because it isnt China's job to fix countries, it doesnt stop the man in the street from having that expectation, unrealised expectations fuel resentment that then has to supressed or bring change.

 

[Tigershark]

Noninterference is far superior to western policy of interference in the affairs of other countries.
A good example is sanctions against nondemocratic nations. Sanctions have a terrible history of actually accomplishing its goal, namely to force the country to change its system of government. Sanctions do not work in most countries--Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, India, Zimbabwe, and on and on--because 1) sanctions hurt the leadership the least, and 2) the population rally around their leader and government against the aggression of the sactioning nation.

Moreover, sanctions directly hurt the people the western governments are purporting to help. I have heard many times perfectly moral westerners claiming how sanctions should be increased on North Korea, about how they should be starved out, and that this is all for their good! No. They've got things backwards. The moral way to help people is to increase trade to build up the country's economy, to talk about reform respectfully, not down the barrel of a gun, and yes, to deliver aid to directly help the people. That is the Chinese policy of noninterference. Not neglect, as Gaye seems to see it, but respectful engagement. What the West does is cut aid every time a riot breaks out in an African city. Cutting aid and slapping sanctions is not only disrespectful interference, it exacerbates a country's social and economic instability.

 

[Vassnti]

Noninterference is far superior to western policy of interference in the affairs of other countries.
The moral way to help people is to increase trade to build up the country's economy, to talk about reform respectfully, not down the barrel of a gun, and yes, to deliver aid to directly help the people. That is the Chinese policy of noninterference. Not neglect, as Vassnti seems to see it, but respectful engagement. What the West does is cut aid every time a riot breaks out in an African city. Cutting aid and slapping sanctions is not only disrespectful interference, it exacerbates a country's social and economic instability.

respectfull engaement is a much nicer term that non-interference. No one likes to be told what to do, what to think but then people do not like the way some oil companies act that, its not our problem people are starving or our pipelines foul their villages we dont interfere

If one can integrate these two aspects and find the middle path between them, one will obtain the wisdom of Chan.

 

[CardSharp]

What he made me realise is non interference is in a way imaginary, you are in a county you spend 10 billion dollars on projects, you have interfered, the leaders of a country expect China to respect the status quo, the people expect China to make their life better.
Just because it isnt China's job to fix countries, it doesnt stop the man in the street from having that expectation, unrealised expectations fuel resentment that then has to supressed or bring change.

You're right there is no way not to interfere when dump 10 billion dollars on a country, but I think in most cases, it's more complicated than the man on the street versus government. Most countries have their own unique power dynamics, even if you wanted to help the "man on the street" how do you do it when there's more than one man on the street, what if the population is divided along ethnic lines, what if there are rival factions.


It's complicated and if you try to help clumsily, you may actually end up doing more harm than good. More sensible I think is to deal with the current power structure, and not interfere. Besides China doesn't really export communism or democracy.

 

[cross1993]

2) The Chinese don’t hire Africans to work on their projects

I do not think Chinese companies are reluctant to hire African. The wages of African workers much less than the Chinese workers!
That is not the problem of Chinese companies!

The most important reason is African workers too lazy.
When they receive a month's wages, many African workers will give up their jobs to enjoy wage, then Chinese companies had to find new workers...

My uncle to work in Africa, He once said to me: "I've had enough of those Africans! They No Credit, No efficient, No culture, No technology, No ethics, even No hard!"
They should review their own why do they not find a job?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Just because it isnt China's job to fix countries, it doesnt stop the man in the street from having that expectation, unrealised expectations fuel resentment that then has to supressed or bring change.

Why would they think that?

They weren't too fond of the memories of European "paternalistic" colonialism, so why would they have such an expectation of us?

I would be interested to read any article from an African person (a citizen from any African country), who really believes that China has a duty to "fix" their country.

 

[CardSharp]

I do not think Chinese companies are reluctant to hire African. The wages of African workers much less than the Chinese workers!
That is not the problem of Chinese companies!

The most important reason is African workers too lazy.
When they receive a month's wages, many African workers will give up their jobs to enjoy wage, then Chinese companies had to find new workers...

My uncle to work in Africa, He once said to me: "I've had enough of those Africans! They No Credit, No efficient, No culture, No technology, No ethics, even No hard!"

They should review their own why do they not find a job?

It's a cultural thing probably, they probably think Chinese bosses are too demanding.

 

[cross1993]

It's a cultural thing probably, they probably think Chinese bosses are too demanding.

Whatever the reason, nobody wants to hire and train a group of workers each month.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

each country has right to spread its shpere of influence around the world and giving economic and military aid is the best way to do that. post second world war, uncle sam had steadily increased its influence through out the world. it interviened in domestic affairs of many countries to safeguard its economic and political interests.

i see no wrong in china investing in africa. indian govt is also doing the same. its time uncle sam realise that there is more to world then jus US of A.

 

[below_freezing]

I do not think Chinese companies are reluctant to hire African. The wages of African workers much less than the Chinese workers!
That is not the problem of Chinese companies!

The most important reason is African workers too lazy.
When they receive a month's wages, many African workers will give up their jobs to enjoy wage, then Chinese companies had to find new workers...

My uncle to work in Africa, He once said to me: "I've had enough of those Africans! They No Credit, No efficient, No culture, No technology, No ethics, even No hard!"
They should review their own why do they not find a job?

In Guangdong aren't there alot of blacks? Are they still lazy when they come to China? I also heard police killed 2 blacks last year, was it true?

 

[cross1993]

You are right.
Guangzhou Blacks is industrious, but African Blacks is not...

I also heard police killed 2 blacks last year, was it true?

No, that is a rumor.
广州上百黑人冲击派出所ç»ï¼šè·³æ¥¼è€…并没æ»äº¡(4)-视频-在线观看-激动网-ä¸å›½æœ€å¤§çš„视频门户