I just read an irritating article from CBSnews on China in Africa.
Irritating because it is filled with mistakes, emotional appeals and shallow analysis.
Irritating because most of the reader’s comments at the bottom of the article think that this is an excellent piece of writing.
*SIGH*
George Bush’s Aids policy has been a success and welcomed across Africa? Really? His no condom policy was great?
I think other people with more expertise beg to differ.
USA does not have baggage like Europe does in Africa? Does this author know anything about Africa’s history? Ever heard of Patrice Lumumba? As one of the commentators says:
“The United States does not carry baggage from a colonial past as do European countries.? Not from a colonial past, yes. However, propping up dictators who abuse their people and ruin their countries?that is a baggage. So is overthrowing revered leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and spearheading the assassination of beloved patriots such as Patrice Lumumba.”
Then you have the scare tactics such as the false claim that China has leased half of Congo’s farmland (media articles always seem to need to put some random statement with no evidence on this type of “neo-colonialism” by China these days).
In essence the author of the article argues that China’s involvement in Africa is driven by nothing other than China’s quest for political and economic power. There is no such thing as good will involved.
“Roads in Nairobi, notorious for their clogged traffic circles, are being widened and repaved with large billboards telling Kenyans that the work is a gift from the people of China. The fact that the roads will ease congestion for Kenyan motorists is an afterthought to the benefactor which requires modern infrastructure to move African commodities to ports for shipment to China.”
Yes, China’s investments do serve Chinese interests aswell as African interests, but this is the concept of “win-win” situations. And what is the problem with a situation in which both sides can derive benefits?
Isn’t this the very fundamental principle of a free market economy? With out the possibility of win-win outcomes there would be no trade and no interaction. In short there would be no market for anything.
One could of course say that genuine altruism entails the willingness to do something (such as building that road in Kenya) without there necessarily being any advantage to oneself. But let’s be realists here for a second.
Do you honestly think that any country out there is making investments and giving off aid in a purely altruistic manner? The driving force behind any country’s actions is self-interest, in particular in democratic countries because those elected governments are accountable to their people above all other things.
I am not saying that individuals working with aid is doing so with their own country’s national interest at heart. I know lots of people who work in the aid industry, my parents included, who are genuinely committed to assisting other countries in reducing poverty and improving living conditions. But the state as an apparatus does not have a heart or emotions or feelings of empathy even though individuals working within these institutions may have this.
The article also talks about how America must come forward as a leader and promoter of human rights and liberty. Similar to what I said above, do you really think that America is just in Afghanistan to promote progressive values?
No doubt this is part of their job there, my brother is in the army in Afghanistan. I know he is there because he truly is fighting for these values and with the aim of creating a better place for Afghanis.
But again lets ask ourselves, why Afghanistan? Why not Sudan? Why not Swaziland or the DRC?
The answer is that a government will have to prioritize, the American’s can’t use military pressure everywhere it is needed. They have to prioritize. And of course they will prioritize Afghanistan which pose a security threat to America. I don’t think this diminishes the importance of their work in promoting human rights in Afghanistan, but my point is that in this world where resources are limited, governments will always have to prioritize. And they will prioritize in their national self-interest first and foremost.
Something else that comes up constantly when China’s aid to Africa is mentioned is how they give indiscriminately to all governments including those who are sanctioned by the West such as Mugabe.
However I object to this vilification of China in an attempt to whitewash Western donors relations with African countries. Of course, just because the West has also been engaged in some pretty gruesome behaviour in Africa it does not make it right for China to do so aswell. But I think we need to look at what is actually being done.
Unlike the West, China are not engaged in creating coup detat, assassinations or install a puppet government in Africa. They are enablers yes, but not actively scheming out political plots . They are simply businessmen, not politicians in a quest for global dominance.
China is pragmatic and adhere to the principle of non-interference. This means that they enable African governments to do as they like. This can be bad in the case of Zimbabwe and Sudan. On the other hand, it also enables African governments who genuinely want to develop their economies to persue the policies they would like to. This is in starch contrast to Western donors who impose policy prescriptions in the name of good governance.
The emergence of China as an alternative source of funding is not just welcomed by sanctioned leaders such as Mugabe, but also by those governments who have their own nation’s interest at heart. Decades of SAP’s have not lead to a miraculous change the economies of African countries. The imposition on policy restrictions and prescriptions is void of any democratic value (that the West proclaims to promote).
Looking at the development process of economies such as Korea, Taiwan and Japan one finds that the exact policies used to develop those economies are being banned as conditions for aid in Africa. Despite having good intentions, these policies have amounted to nothing spectacular. The conditions imposed on aid-recipient countries has denied developing countries to implement necessary policies for their economic development, thereby rendered them aid-dependent.
China thus presents an opportunity for countries wishing to emulate the development process of success countries such as Korea, Japan and even the United States itself. Of course, “bad” countries such as Mugabe will not improve with Chinese funding, but at least the “good” ones will now finally regain some bargaining power ower their own policy decisions.
Does this mean that I am against imposing conditions on aid? No.
I see no reason why tax payers in Norway or Sweden should pay for Mswati’s children to go shopping in Paris and Milan. A lender and giver should of course have the right to be assured that the money goes to the people it was destined for, not some greedy individuals pocket. So conditions for transparency and corruption control are important measures. I do think it is immoral to back up regimes that violate human rights.
But the conditions attached to Western aid today does not stop at that. The conditions extend into policy decisions, social policy, economic policy, matters that we normally would consider the job of an elected government to execute are now being imposed by donors abroad. The West tiptoe around issues such as the discrimination against homosexuals (a true human rights issue) in the name of “cultural sensitivity” but instead demand the recipient economy relinquish any economic policy autonomy.
What do we really mean by good governance? A government that is transparent and combats corruption? A government that do not violate human rights? Or a government that opens their trade borders for Wester products? A government that follow specific economic policies that Western countries deem in their best interest (African’s can’t think for themselves seems to be the reoccurring motto amongst Western donors). To give a quote from one of my favourite economists, Erik Reinert:
“Race was convenient for explaining poverty in the colonies, thus exonerating the colonial prohibition of industrial production from blame….African’s were not poor because they had not been allowed to industrialize, they were poor because they were black. Today we when we emphasize the role of corruption n in creating poverty, we are a little bit more politically correct. African’s are no longer poor because they are black, they are poor because blacks are corrupt. In the final analysis the difference is marginal”
Ah that heavy white man’s burden.
We don’t have to choose between ignoring recipient government’s actions completely and imposing our own policies on them. If we want to demonstrate the value of democracy and freedom, the best way is to practice what we preach.
No comments:
Post a Comment