How
much can Raytheon, Mastercard, Nokia, Monsanto and the like be
trusted to invest in long-term outcomes in the global South? When you
see the actors behind U.S. ‘aid and development’ in Africa, is it
any wonder that African leaders would look for any other partner to
work with?
by
Jim Carey
Part
3 - Chinese investment highlights new possibilities
China
spends around $5 billion a year on direct ‘aid’ projects, which
are acknowledged to be effective even by Western analysts such as
Bradley Parks — executive director of AidData, an organization that
tracks effects of global aid programs — who conceded in the
Washington Post that “many African leaders insist that China is
a more reliable and efficient partner,” than the U.S. However,
China also projects investments through another channel: direct
investment in infrastructure and industry. Since a majority of
Chinese industry is controlled by the state, there is no need for the
philanthropic cover and subsidies like those provided by U.S. NGOs.
The investment is just an extension of Chinese economic policy, which
seeks to invest in lifting African economies as partners rather than
making them clients.
China
enacts this policy through massive development projects that bring
jobs, attract investment, and promote the construction of innovative
infrastructure. China is building everything from brand new cities,
giant hydroelectric dams, and massive tech research centers to solar
farms, highways and some of Africa’s largest rail networks. These
massive projects were all funded by Beijing, knowing that they would
be long-term investments integral to Xi Jinping’s larger
Belt-and-Road economic initiative that is written into the Chinese
constitution.
Many
U.S. analysts believe that the credit ratings and economic woes of
Belt-and-Road partner nations are going to be a possible cause of the
plan’s downfall. What China is actually doing is banking on these
‘junk’ rated countries in the global South — that comprise 60
percent of Belt-and-Road partners — to be very-long-term investment
partners in a system that will challenge the Western capital
dominance that impoverished these nations in the first place.
The
differences between U.S. and Chinese approaches are night and day
when one considers the long-term implications. Compare U.S. aid
schemes like those described above — where short-term technocratic
solutions provide multinationals with long-term customers and local
monopolies — to Chinese investment, which doesn’t produce
immediate returns but does contribute in other ways, such as being
the largest driver of job creation in Africa.
While
Washington tries to downplay conditions in Africa, there is some
concern brewing among the pundit and analyst classes in the U.S. One
such example of this realization taking root is neoliberal think-tank
Eurasia Group’s founder, and editor for Time, Ian Bremmer, who is
constantly producing content lamenting that China is the new global
leader and the greatest threat to the U.S.-led world order.
According
to Bremmer, many nations across the globe look at China and see a
stronger leader, a more stable economic structure, the ability of
central planning to create employment and stimulate economies, and
China’s technological advances that rival those of the West.
According to Bremmer, analysts in his camp who once believed “there
was consensus that China would one day need fundamental political
reform for the state to maintain its legitimacy,” now question
that thesis and speculate that “China’s political and economic
system is better equipped and perhaps even more sustainable than the
American model.”
If
Bremmer is to be believed — and, as a pro-U.S. neoliberal thinker,
he should be, since he is inclined to distrust China — then it
isn’t just the amount of money China dumps into projects that makes
for such success, but the framework of how investment is implemented
and the farsighted goals of these projects.
China
is heavily investing long-term in a system specifically made for
countries that have been rejected or ignored by the Western nations
due to their perceived insignificance and making it Beijing’s
priority to build these countries up as partners in Belt-and-Road
rather than as neocolonial vassals. Compare this to the U.S., which
has been interfering in African affairs and extorting the continent
for centuries — and is now ruled by a man who calls these nations,
in essence confirming their already established ‘junk’ status,
“shitholes” — and it’s no wonder African leaders would rather
work with Beijing.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment