Skip to main content

The new US Africa strategy is not about Africa. It’s about China


 Cornelia Tremann

20 December 2018 06:00

President Donald Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton outlined the US administration’s new Africa strategy in a speechlast week at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC. The main tenets of the strategy, including the prioritisation of trade and investment, combatting of terrorism, and better-targeting of US foreign aid in Africa, are on the whole sensible. The US has already increased the promotion of private sector engagements in Africa as a key lever for development and should continue to support US investment in Africa.

Unfortunately, the positive aspects of the strategy were a little lost in the speech because the new US Africa strategy is not really about Africa. It’s about China.

According to Bolton, the greatest threat to the US in Africa comes not from migration or extremism, but from China (and to a lesser extent, Russia). Through its “corrupt” and “predatory” business practices on the continent, China is “deliberately and aggressively” targeting its investments to gain a competitive advantage over the United States. This saddles African governments with debt, harming their long-term development prospects and undercutting their sovereignty. As a result, the US would “encourage African leaders to choose sustainable foreign investments that help states become self-reliant, unlike those offered by China that impose undue costs”.

Asking developing countries to choose between China and the US is a bad idea.

The speech suggests that China hardliners have won the Washington policy debate over how to respond to China’s growing influence in Africa. Over the past year, the US government has been framing the differences between US and Chinese models for development assistance as “offering a clear choice for nations around the world”, despite insiders cautioning against such a black and white perspective. In its most extreme form, such a policy would require developing countries to choose between receiving US or Chinese development assistance, harkening back to the Cold War days when Africa’s leaders had to strategically align themselves with the US or communist countries. Bolton’s speech falls just short of asking African countries to do that, but the message is there.

Clearly, asking developing countries to choose between China and the US is a bad idea.

In the immediate term, seeing Chinese activities in Africa only through the prism of competition unravels decades of work by US diplomats to improve relations with China in a “safe” area of foreign policy. In 2015, the US and China signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Development Cooperation that identified sectors for greater collaboration between the two countries on development issues. China and the US consequently worked together on disaster response and preparedness and the establishment of a Centres for Disease Control and Prevention at the African Union. Crucially, the development MOU enlarged the space for dialogue and provided political cover for US and Chinese working-level officials to communicate more openly with each other and explore potential areas for cooperation.

More broadly, isolating China will further encourage China to forge its own path outside of Western norms and institutions that seek to promote high standards of transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights in relations with African countries. China’s foreign policy is becoming more aggressive, and its foreign aid policy in Africa more strategic. This became clear with the launching of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013 and creation of an independent Chinese foreign aid agency in April 2018. The US already missed an important chance to influence Chinese development activities by declining to join the AIIB, despite lobbying to do so by diplomats.

The policy is also too little, too late, and asking countries to choose between the US or China could backfire. If African countries select the Chinese model under American duress, which is possible, it would create an even bigger vacuum of US power in Africa and weaken its ability to put pressure on developing country governments to be more accountable to the needs of their citizens. It might even drive African countries further towards China.

Instead of being confrontational, recognising China as a legitimate actor in Africa whose engagements can also have positive impacts, for example in addressing Africa’s massive infrastructure gap, would give the US more leverage to criticise those aspects of China’s approach that deserve to be critiqued, and foster more creative thinking about how to engage or compete with it.

For example, the US could focus on building African government capacity to negotiate better deals with the Chinese or more effectively manage their incoming funding flows. Currently, donor coordination maps produced by the US to support developing country governments in managing aid inflows and projects from donor countries don’t include Chinese investment activities or projects because they don’t correspond to the US definition of what constitutes development aid.

A development project intended to help farmers bring their goods to markets would surely benefit from a new road being financed by China connecting that farmer’s village to the next big marketplace or to the port across the country. Developing country governments need a more holistic picture of foreign actors and activities in their countries to better determine national development strategies, not one-dimensional, “either-or” scenarios.

Perhaps most egregiously, in focusing so much on China, the new US Africa strategy implicitly treats African countries like pawns in another great power rivalry. This undermines both African agency and the very values that can make US engagement a formidable force for good on the continent. A US Africa strategy should focus on US-Africa relations, not on China-Africa relations.


Popular posts from this blog

SSG Commando Muddassir Iqbal of Pakistan Army

“ Commando Muddassir Iqbal was part of the team who conducted Army Public School operation on 16 December 2014. In this video he reveals that he along with other commandos was ordered to kill the innocent children inside school, when asked why should they kill children after killing all the terrorist he was told that it would be a chance to defame Taliban and get nation on the side. He and all other commandos killed children and later Taliban was blamed.
Muddassir Iqbal has deserted the military and now he is  with mujahedeen somewhere in AF PAK border area”
For authenticity of  this tape journalists can easy reach to his home town to interview his family members or   ISPR as he reveals his army service number”
Asalam o Alaikum: My name is Muddassir Iqbal. My father’s name is Naimat Ali. I belong to Sialkot divison (Punjab province), my village is Shamsher Poor and district, tehsil and post office  Narowal. Unfortunately I was working in Pakistan army. I feel embarrassed to tell you …

CPEC Jobs in Pakistan, salary details

JOBS...نوکریاں چائنہ کمپنی میںPlease help the deserving persons...Salary:Salary package in China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in these 300,000 jobs shall be on daily wages. The details of the daily wages are as follows;Welder: Rs. 1,700 dailyHeavy Duty Driver: Rs. 1,700 dailyMason: Rs. 1,500 dailyHelper: Rs. 850 dailyElectrician: Rs. 1,700 dailySurveyor: Rs. 2,500 dailySecurity Guard: Rs. 1,600 dailyBulldozer operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyConcrete mixer machine operator: Rs. 2,000 dailyRoller operator: Rs. 2,000 dailySteel fixer: Rs. 2,200 dailyIron Shuttering fixer: Rs. 1,800 dailyAccount clerk: Rs. 2,200 dailyCarpenter: Rs. 1,700 dailyLight duty driver: Rs. 1,700 dailyLabour: Rs. 900 dailyPara Engine mechanic: Rs. 1,700 dailyPipe fitter: Rs. 1,700 dailyStorekeeper: Rs. 1,700 dailyOffice boy: Rs. 1,200 dailyExcavator operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyShovel operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyComputer operator: Rs. 2,200 dailySecurity Supervisor: Rs. 2,200 dailyCook for Chinese food: Rs. 2,000 dailyCook…

Historical relationship between Kurd and Baloch.

The Kurds are the ethnical group living in a region known as Kurdistan which is divided into Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They  are struggling for an independent region since decades and they are famous for their female guerrilla fighters.        On 25 September 2017, the referendum for an independent Kurdish region  was held in Iraq with a turn out of 72 %.   On this important occasion, the historical relation between Kurd and Baloch people is worth discussing.       When it comes to history, every nation tends to find its roots and origin. Same goes with the Baloch people. The Baloch people are always curious  about  finding their roots in history. Even if you  talk to a shepherd in Balochistan, he will be curious to talk about his  tribal or ethnical roots.      The Balochs have always conveyed the history to the next generations in different mediums like poems etc. No Baloch before 20th century had written books on  history  or origin of the Baloch nation .