The recent Beijing Summit made it clear that the Chinese government is becoming more publicly emboldened in their African policy initiatives. Many mainstream pundits and analysts have recently written about this topic, and I thought I would interject with my thoughts while the debate is still young and minds are still impressionable. I have for some time felt that it was essential for the Chinese to take the lead in Africa, and my confidence in this opinion has only been strengthened as coalition forces face increased difficulty in Iraq, and the situation in the Palestinian territories continues to deteriorate.
Though I wish the Chinese would take more responsibility in the current Middle Eastern crisis, I can understand their unwillingness to get involved in a situation that they are neither responsible for nor capable of substantially pacifying. Instead, they should use their experience in managing the development of their own impoverished regions to shape a more prosperous future for the people of Africa, and they should do so without the fear of igniting a diplomatic firestorm among Western governments that view a more proactive China as a threat rather than an opportunity. Africa now faces rampant disease, famine, violence, economic malaise, and is plagued with desertification; all the while Western diplomats sit on their thumbs on the upper-east side and squabble over the merits of peacekeeping missions to halt genocidal slaughter in Sudan.
For decades, U.N. policy has failed the people it was established to benefit -- those in the developing world -- and until recently, there was no end to the destitution in sight. There is no government in the world more experienced with and successful in the implementation of development policy than the Chinese. Its immense population has required its leaders to climb down from their perches in Beijing and travel to the poor villages in its western provinces to better understand the nature of poverty and conceive of more realistic and effective policies to combat its debilitating consequences. However, China has heretofore been unwilling to assert itself on issues which it fears may derail its economic prosperity because of political opportunists in Western capitals eager to keep them in check as they grow and expand their influence beyond their borders.
Article comments
1 - durian
brian "thus, it would be positive for American industry generally to encourage the Chinese to explore possible partnerships in countries like Zimbabwe, Zaire, Nigeria, Kenya, and others that are ready to test the waters of globalization and improve their embattled economies"
I wonder why you left out angola and sudan where the chinese have been successful in forming partnerships.and developing the regions when oil was not found.Now look at darfur in sudan when oil is discovered,the western powers through the media has suddenly discovered compassion for the plight of people of darfur and pressuring the gov`t of sudan to let in the UN.I have always suspected the darfur crisis is created by the U.S. by supporting the rebels to destabilise sudan.
your article is correct to suggest chinese development model can be implemented in Africa but i hope the western powers will not turned into robber BARONs once development and infrastructers has been laid by the poor africans.
durian
2 - Brian
Durian,
Thank you for your comments. I did not mean to exclude any African countries as I think each and every one could stand to benefit from Chinese investment. Also, regarding your comments on Sudan, I disagree if you are insinuating that the US has softened its stance on the state of affairs in Sudan since it has completed its oil infrastructure and become a more attractive investment destination. There are several countries, specifically France and their EU allies, which have from day 1 had little regard for the Sudanese refugees, instead concerning themselves with how much of the credit they should get for any UN intervention. Do not forget, it was Secretary Powell who first called the Sudanese violence an act of genocide. The French have held up UN action insisting that it be an EU operation rather than a UN or NATO peacekeeping force. I find it quite significant that the US was so willing to call the violence genocide, especially considering that President Clinton was unwilling to call the Rwanda crisis, which was far more deadly, a genocide until several years after it was over, while intentionally ignoring it while it was taking place because he was worried he would have to get involved with an election coming up.
I do not think the US will have any involvement with the Sudan until its government is reformed, but you should worry about our moral relativist partners in Europe becoming opportunists.
--Brian
3 - Zedd
durian
The Chinise are already well emersed in a lot of these countries. They are not in these countries for humanitarian reasons. They are making a killing and understand that this continent is the old new frontier for invenstment.
Although we see a lot of people on TV who are starving and can barely afford a stick, there are millions more who are not in that situation. People shop in Africa. They eat, get dress, have kids who want toys, etc. The Chinese know how to produce a cheap usable product.
There is a negative reception to their manner. People see some Chinese as rude......
4 - Zedd
Brian
I forgot to say, well done!!
5 - PhilG
But Brian, who is supplying the guns for the slaughter in Sudan, and doesn't seem to care one iota? There are increasing numbers of native African commentators who ask why all this power and influence from China could be blind to the lessons of African history. Do the mistakes of the west give China an excuse to actively support the violence? Absurd. But I guess to you, the Rwanda violence is "far more deadly" because it was not a mere couple hundred thousand killed.