For the last 40 years, Africa has been begging. Mistakenly, Westerners thought Africa was begging for money. The truth is that the African states were asking for buyers, and China was the first to realize it. Africa has many goods to sell – oil, gold, pearls, diamonds, copper, iron, cotton, vanilla, cocoa, and tobacco, among others. China is willing to buy. Africa looks up and sees success stories. China looks down and sees thousands of different opportunities, mostly unexplored by Western countries. And this is how a marriage of convenience is born. Now Chinese businessmen are everywhere in Africa. As of 2007, most African states have some sort of economic agreement with China. What is alarming is that some of these states are offering exclusive access to their natural resources in exchange for low interest loans, projects financing, and direct investment or bilateral exporting though exploitive deals, such as selling oil at under market price. Not to mention the deals made with China by those African leaders for whom China represents the number one source of weapons.

[ad#googlepatrat]

Getting the right picture of this complex situation is extremely tricky especially because both Chinese and African leaders are unwilling to make the terms of such deals transparent. In the recent past, trade between Africa and China has been doubling every year. Why would China invest so aggressively in a continent that historically has been devastated by diseases, civil or regional conflicts and wide-scale corruption? Well, firstly, the African environment for investment is not too competitive. Over a period of approximately 40 years, Africa has failed to develop. Besides South Africa, Botswana, and Mauritius, no other African state has constantly appeared in the World Economic Forum’s International Competitiveness Tables since 1980. Also, the local firms cannot efficiently compete against the Chinese companies who have a clear advantage in terms of human and financial resources. The fact that there is no local force that could counterbalance China’s aggressive expansion or even make it reevaluate economic policies means that China has carte blanche on the local African markets. Moreover, most of the raw materials Africa has to offer can be easily absorbed by the huge Chinese market. China has the technology to exploit Africa’s resources, the advantageous international position, and a seat in the Security Council that helps it protect its new African allies from international sanctions. Also, it can effectively absorb the African products into its huge market. But that’s not what appeals most to African leaders. Any superpower could virtually make the African leaders the same offer. There are two reasons that make the Chinese offer almost impossible to turn down. China has a policy of non-interference in domestic affairs and it rigorously tries to maintain this policy. Therefore, Chinese aid packages do not come with human rights infringements, mass killings, or high corruption clauses attached. The idea of good governance overseas does not constitute the main goal of China. Its goal, rather, is massive economic growth in whatever way possible to obtain internal security.

Westerners tend to react to Chinese-African deals with shock and confusion. Yet the most pressing question remains the following: to what extent is this investment really beneficial to Africans in the long run?

In theory, the China-Africa deal looks perfect on both sides. China gets the raw materials it needs, at an exploitative price, but in exchange it offers generous aid packages, and low or zero interest loans; it invests in infrastructure; it builds hospitals and schools. Why would anyone complain? There are many aspects of this fairy tale that on a closer examination might make it appear like a nightmare. Chinese investment strategies make it impossible for international agencies to impose good governance policies, anti-corruption strategies or even to enforce peace agreements in places like Sudan, Eritrea or Somalia. To put it bluntly, China nullifies the democracy agenda the Western countries have so eagerly tried to put into practice in Africa. Also, let’s not forget that the deals are made between the Chinese government and the high-ranking officials of African states. The African people, in some cases, see none of the money actually invested in direly needed infrastructure. Angola has been one of the closest economic partners of China. As of 2007 about 40 percent of the population still lives with less than a dollar a day after billions of dollars have been loaned by China to the Angolan government for aid packages and infrastructure investments. The current deplorable situation in other partner-states of China such as Zimbabwe, Chad, Sudan or the DRC also speaks for itself. In these circumstances African people are doomed to witnessing a new stage in their recent history: human rights infringements, high levels of corruption, endless wars, even more poverty, servitude or dependence on external aid. It almost seems as if this is virtually a new colonialism! Only, at this time, Africa is dealing with its own dictators. It is a fact that a significant number of African presidents see “the Chinese love affair” as a new opportunity to grab some money to finance their own personal objectives. Unfortunately for Africa, these are the countries traditionally ranked poorly in terms of good governance, sustainable development, transparency, and economic development. Autocratic rulers from countries like Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon or Sudan definitely see China as a new heaven-sent source of capital that can be invested in military wages and equipment that will prolong their dictatorships or monopolies over the means of production and natural resources. Not coincidently, in the last ten years, these very countries (but not only these) have bought weapons from China.

Some might argue that this is nothing new. The means used by China in 2008 can easily be tracked down to the Cold War “playground.” The actors differ indeed, but not the means. Then the crucial question is to be asked: is there anything new about the “Chinese love affair” in Africa? Yes there is! The huge difference is that the Chinese state is an active player in the corporate sector in Africa. It is a central think-tank, with a defined purpose (the wellness of the Chinese state on the long term) that has the means, the tools and the best strategists to achieve its goal. In the last 200 years the imperialist governments randomly exploited different African states without a coherent plan. The China of 2008 has a plan. But, more importantly, at times, China appears to be what William Easterly would call a “seeker.” Chinese government looks for small, sustainable projects that can be beneficial to the Chinese government. It has the luxury to lose money while searching for the best markets. It can easily redefine its policy. It can adapt to new realities. It can easily come up with new policies. And that is new for sure!

Would Africa without Chinese investment be different? One might say that it would. That states would be trying to comply with the international regulations, would slide towards a democratic agenda, would provide security for their citizens, free elections and an independent mass media. In return, it would receive international aid and investment from the world wide private sector. Consequently, it would not be on the verge of failure. However, 40 years without an intensive Chinese investment did not bring any economic growth in the majority of the African states. That Western programs failed one after another. Also, one should not ignore that only a strong local leadership combined with international aid packages and sustainable strategies stopped countries like Uganda or Mozambique from becoming “failed” or “collapsed.”

For many years, the leaders of African states have been tirelessly pleading for better international trade regulations, fair access to global markets, and sustainable development programs. They have also timidly – and sometimes ardently – tried to say “enough is enough,” referring, of course, to the paternalistic views of the ex-colonizers and the daunting number of economic restrictions, especially the high agricultural tariffs that mainly the United States and the European Union place on African goods. Unfortunately for them, and in particular for the those African states rich in oil that receive extensive foreign aid, low interest loans, and export opportunities from the Chinese government, these arrangements mean the game of external control and exploitation is not over. However, African people should not be fooled by the Chinese investments in Africa. China will eventually come to say “enough is enough.” By that time, most of the African oil, natural gas, gold, diamonds, coltan, etc will have already taken the road to Beijing; and the Chinese will have no reason to stay involved and further invest in Africa.