By Zhang Lijuan
US Secretary of State Clinton’s recent seven-country tour to Africa has caused a stir amongst pundits. Although it demonstrates that Africa will be on the American foreign policy agenda, it is still questionable as to how much can actually be done. Three years ago, when China announced its own African policy, American scholars and politicians began to debate its efficacy and the challenges it posed to the US Such differing opinions indicated that, indeed, acknowledging diversity on the African approach is the key.
Over the years, the United States and China have shared common interests in Africa despite pursuing different approaches. Both nations are seeking to improve the development of African nations, but while the U.S. still applies the same strategy of trade politics to Africa as it does in other global regions, China seeks to distinguish itself through an agenda more favorable to African nations.
The United States promotes an American version of freedom, democracy, and human rights worldwide, including for countries like China. America’s aid to Africa, for example, is provided under strong conditions on human rights and expanding democracy while making little distinction between the different circumstances within each country and region. As a result, policymakers began placing increased emphasis on human rights commitments to economic reform programs in making their decisions for aid allocations (Copson, 2005). However, the logic in this approach may be only skin-deep, for it is often perceived as neglecting the distinctive cultural, social and political realities that constitute the diversity of these nations. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been much international skepticism in the application of this homogenous approach because of the widely divergent results. Basing provision of aid primarily on human rights conditions is seen by many as putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
China, on the other hand, does not share the American obsession in this regard, as China has been unwilling to put political conditions on its economic initiatives towards Africa. Instead, China argues that a nation cannot improve its status on human rights without economic development. From the Chinese perspective, improving African economies is a pre-condition to better human rights and is seen as support in and of itself for China’s strategies for Africa. In addition, China insists that one nation should not intervene in another’s internal affairs, and it would be furthermore futile to try to solve existing African humanitarian issues if the African nations do not even have a basic economic foundation. Thus, China consistently supports the idea that economic development should be the top priority of African governments, reasoning that foreign aid and investments should work as tools in order to facilitate achievements of social goals rather than making the social goals the prerequisites. In fact, China has continued to voice increasing opposition to “conditional ties” imposed by the US and EU for access to aid and investment.
At the same time, it is likely African countries have realized that they may benefit not only from direct trade with China, but also China’s experience in improving its economic and social system to create domestic stability. Cognizant of the fact that education was a key factor in its own rapid growth, China has offered three years of training to 15,000 African professionals, every year since 2005. Of course, the learning that the African nations would gain from China would be far more than just a simple mimicry of China’s experience with supporting and leveraging education for development.
Today, Africa is not at the core of US foreign policy. Although the Bush Administration had increased aid to Africa in the past, its current total growth is far short of what is necessary to achieve the target of 0.7% of GNP in 2015 set by the Monterrey Consensus, despite the fact that, in 2004, the US Congress passed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which marked a new element of American commercial diplomacy toward Africa. One of the main drivers behind this change was increased competition, including from China, within Africa’s energy sector. In addition, Africa is playing an increasing role in world affairs in such areas as counterterrorism and regional stability, which are key concerns of US foreign policy.
China is a bright spot in today’s world economy, and while existing arguments persist as to whether or not China is indeed a threat to the United States, most scholars and politicians consider this argument vague and implausible. Indeed, China still has a long way to go in terms of building its economic and military power. However, the 21st century may see China’s emergence as a great power and a growing opportunity beneficial for global cooperation. It is already increasingly seeing the benefits of involvement in international affairs, as exemplified by its approach towards Africa.
Amidst world economic recession, China’s economic growth will continue to shape the world’s recovery as well as impact the US economy. However, even though shortages of natural resources are becoming bottlenecks for further industrial development in China, not only the government, but also domestic industries are aware of this challenge. For this reason, China is now giving up its longstanding policy of self-reliance, which was first proposed as a national principle under the Maoist strategy for economic development. As the Middle East and Latin America may not serve as reliable sources for natural resources, China believes that building strategic partnerships with Africa will benefit China’s long-term economic development as well as Africa’s efforts to move forward on poverty alleviation and economic capacity building.
Even so, some very important challenges persist for China’s African strategy. First, most African nations have limited institutional capacity and insufficient governance, which stand as the main institutional obstacles that are beyond the control of donors and investors. To be sure that investment and debt support development, China has to be assured that African nations are willing to create enabling environments for business operations and deliver reasonable infrastructure to support essential services that include fund management, resource and revenue distribution, and policy transparency. Second, although China has delivered substantial direct assistance to Africa, Africa will continue to require a high level of humanitarian assistance. Finally, removal of debt may provide African nations with temporary relief from current debt burdens, but still may not necessarily touch upon the root causes of said debts. Regimes with inefficient debt management and inadequate political stability still carry the threat of mishandled new debts and investments to these regions.
Thus, tough realities continue to exist in Africa. However, it is not so much a matter of how much debt relief China or the US can and will provide, but how China and the US can work together with the UN and other countries to help build a better functioning risk management regime. In this context, the US and Chinese governments should coordinate their policies toward Africa while acknowledging the diversity in their approaches. As President Obama stated very recently, the relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century. By working together and utilizing differing strategies, both nations can have more effective policies geared towards Africa.
(The author Zhang Lijuan is professor at School of Economics, Shandong University, China, and adjunct professor at Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA)
(China.org.cn August 21, 2009)
