Recent Posts

Search This Blog

Loading...

Search through my blogroll



Labels

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

China goes to Africa: the good, the bad and opportunities for US-Chinese cooperation

Yesterday marked the beginning of Hu Jintao's second trip to Africa in less than a year. His 12 day tour of the continent will take him to Cameroon, Sudan, South Africa, the Seychelles, Liberia, Zambia and Mozambique.

Africa, has become a region of particular concern for China. First, China's bilateral trade with Africa hit $55.5 billion dollars in 2006, up from $40 billion in 2005 and is expected to reach $100 billion by 2010. Africa supplies China with a third of its crude oil imports, and is rising in importance in other natural resources. This past year, China surpassed Japan as the second largest importer of crude oil, just below the United States and has become the continents third most important trading partner. China sees Africa as a great market for its low cost consumer goods and as providing Chinese firms with a great economic opportunity thanks to the push by many African countries to privatize their industries, and their bid to open themselves up to foreign investment. Africa, is so important to China that the Chinese government last year invited 48 African heads of state to participate in the China-Africa Forum where President Hu Jintao promised to offer $5 billion in loans to Africa, and to double foreign aid by 2009. Just before President Hu embarked on his tour of the continent, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced that China would be providing African countries with a $3 billion loan, a move widely seen as demonstrating China's commitment to fulfill the pledge it made at the China-Africa Forum last year.

China's visit to Africa, is tied very closely to one of China's primary foreign policy goals; the need to find resources to feed its economic growth. China has used diplomacy, trade deals, debt relief, aid packages and infrastructure projects as a means of getting African countries to look favorably on Chinese firms bidding for access to raw materials. A brief look at President Hu's itinerary makes evident just how important this goal is to China's government. In this trip, President Hu will be visiting South Africa which is the African continent's economic powerhouse and of China's most important trading partners. He will also be visiting Sudan, despite tensions with the West over the issue of Darfur, as the country supplies a large quantity of China's oil imports. Zambia, a long time ally and key supplier of copper to China is also receiving a visit from President Hu. China is even visiting Mozabimque, which it sees as a strategic port for access to landlocked countries like Zambia and Malawi. As mentioned above, the Seychelles are also on his list, as China sees these as providing China with useful ports in the Indian Ocean. Apart from the strategic significance of China's visit, it also demonstrates China's use of its soft power which by visiting the continent twice in two years, garners it a measure of goodwill. As Sanusha Naidu, a researcher in Chinese studies at South Africa's University of Stellenbosch, argues the visit demonstrates the importance China attaches to its relationship with African nations, even while countries like the US seemingly do not. As proof, he states, "I can't remember the last time (President) Bush visited" However, this latest trip will also measure the rising discontent with Chinese policies in the continent, and will say a lot about whether China's African honeymoon is over. Despite being a main factor in driving Africa's economic growth to 5.2% (the highest ever), China will now have to contend with some of the problems its policies, and the manner in which its companies operate in the continent, have created.

First, China will have to improve relations with Zambia, where protesters took to the streets over the treatment of Zambian workers, and salary disputes at copper mines operated by Chinese firms. President Hu's visit, will also seek to mend relations with Zambia over a Chinese diplomatic incident leading up to Zambia's September 28 election. About a month prior to the election, China's Ambassador to Zambia got involved in the presidential contest by suggesting that Chinese investors were scared of investing in Zambia in case Michael Sata (a critic of the government's close relationship with China) won the election, even threatening that China would cut investment in the country until after the presidential contest was decided and then, only if incumbent President Levy Mwanawasa emerged victorious. Ultimately, President Mwanawasa won the contest, but the damage done to relations between the two countries was significant, as even though losing the election, it was obvious that Michael Sata had garnered a majority of votes in the areas most affected by Chinese investment.

Second, China will have to address South Africa's concerns regarding China's $3 billion trade surplus with the country and concerns by South Africa's trade unions that Chinese textile imports have devastated local industries. Increasingly, Africans have become concerned about the manner in which the Chinese operate in the country with many complaining about the fact that Chinese firm's underbid local competition and about China's policy of importing Chinese laborers for infrastructure projects, even as African countries suffer from high unemployment rates. In addition, President Hu will likely encounter some resentment over China's perceived foot dragging with regard to its pledges to improve Africa's manufacturing capabilities. Thirdly, President Hu's visit will also be watched closely to see whether China will use its leverage with Sudan to push the regime to cooperate with the UN and resolve the crisis in Darfur. This, after having blocked the US attempts at the UN, to send peacekeepers to Sudan.

China has taken note of these problems and is taking steps to remedy the situation. Recently, China's Foreign Ministry called on Chinese firms operating in Africa to be more responsible, arguing that some of the problems are due to the inexperience of Chinese firms operating outside of China. More specifically, China has announced that it will sign a series of accords and agreements with South Africa to enhance relations between the two countries. Among these, China will agree to provide $2.6 million to help South Africa in its efforts to provide its people with access to skill training and poverty alleviation, in addition to donating "money to Asgisa programs that provides training, capacity building and agricultural development" and helps provide jobs for South Africa's unemployed. China has also announced, that in addition to its $3 billion loan, it would cancel the bilateral debt of 33 African nations, forgiving 168 interest-free loans. Additionally, China also announced plans to build the African Union a convention center free of charge by 2010, 100 schools in rural areas in Africa, hospitals with 100-150 beds for African countries with poor medical faciliites anti-malarial medicine to 33 African countries. Moreover, to expand the sale of goods from the continent, China eliminated import tariffs on over 190 products from 28 African nations. These moves are seen as an attempt to both address concerns regarding trade imbalances and perceptions that African nations are entering a new colonial relationship similar to the one they had with Western powers. In fact, this year's visit is being billed by China, as a means for President Hu to address these concerns with his African counterparts. Thirdly, with regard to Sudan, China recently called on that country to cooperate with the UN in resolving the crisis in Darfur and the deployment of UN peace keepers.

On top of all this, China now has to contend with Western mining companies, who are complaining to the UN and the World Bank that China is using unfair trading practices to gain access to lucrative mining contracts by offering aid, and infrastructure projects to African nations. As they put it,

"Chinese engineers are building dams, telecoms equipment, football stadiums, roads, railways and power stations across the continent. In return for these deeply discounted or gifted projects, they are winning rights to explore and exploit vast areas."

Many of the companies are even trying to use an issue long used against them on Chinese firms, and are asking the UN to require that countries singing deals require participants to meet high environmental and safety standards. They also want to partner with the World Bank's IFC to invest on infrastructure projects so as to be able to offer similar incentives as those offered by the Chinse government to African nations. Moreover, they are seeking to work with environmental groups and organizations such as Oxfam to encourage African leaders to demand more of China, and hence raise China's price of doing business in the continent. A few, however, are taking a "if you can't beat them, join them" approach, and have sought to partner with Chinse firms in Africa exchanging their know-how, for access to the continent's raw materials.

As can be seen from the above, China's relationship with the African continent and African nations is bourgeoning. As it does, it has had to deal with ever more complex situations. Last year, Eddie from Live from the FDNF argued that the US needed to take advantage of China's growing problems in Africa. Adopting Tom Barnett's thesis, Eddie argued that we needed to "begin engaging with China on issues like Petro development and security concerns," with the end goal of creating "a rule set for acceptable standards of conduct by client states." As Tom and eddie pointed out, however, such a policy of engagement with China would likley not materialize due to the lack of imagination on the part of the current administration.

Complicating matters further, is the fact that although China provides much of its aid and projects with hardly any strings attached (a point it uses to distinguish itself from Western governments) there are two conditions that it expects to have fulfilled. The first revolves around the issue of Taiwan, where countries receiving Chinese development aid or benefitting from Chinese infrastructure projects are essentially banned from having formal ties with Taiwan. The second condition regards support for Chinese positions in the UN general assembly. Already South Africa has gotten into trouble with human rights groups and Western governments, for voting with China against a resolution to censure Myanmar for human rights abuses.

Having China in Africa, as Tom and Eddie point is a great asset because it is connecting Gap countries to globalization, but there are many pitfalls. As Barnett argues "They are the essence of SysAdmin sans ideology: connectivity with no effort on democracy," and that is where we have to come in, to ensure that China begins to promote the Rule Sets that we would like them to promote, by demonstrating to the Chinese that they are in their interest as well. An argument for the export of these rule sets (democracy, rule of law, transparency) is that they will lead to more stable states in the continent and hence more stable supplies of raw materials for China's growing economy and growing markets for Chinese goods. This is important, as it is one of the main reasons behind China's foot dragging on Iran, mainly they need a steady supply of energy resources to power their economy and Iran is a vital component of it. This in essence is a bone I throw to those who oppose engaging China as a strategic ally, since they want more than anything to overthrow the mullah's in Iran. I still argue, along Barnett's line, that a better strategy with regard to Iran would be to recognize that the Theocracy is a spent force and that more engagement with Tehran on its economy is a better way to achieve this, even while recognizing that Iran will get the bomb, and there's not really anything we can do about it. That however, is an issue for a later post.

With regard to China, I hope this at least gets others thinking of constructive ways to engage them on issues that matter to us, and about regions that we have up to now ignored, but which in recent years have risen in strategic importance. Africa, is such a place as Islam is the fastest growing religion in the continent and it is also home to very weak, failing, or failed states. In other words, a perfect incubator for al Qaeda's next wave. To prove that point, I submit this from the Counterrorism blog, which is a post on Algeria's GSPC announcement that it was adopting the name of Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghrib. In an earlier post, I did on Somalia, I argued that the issues underlying the conflict were far more complex than what the media reported, or what the administration told the American public. Al Qaeda's potential move to Africa is just as complex a phenomenon, and given China's interest in the region, we better start to pay attention.

Read More...

Monday, January 22, 2007

Slight problem with attribution of content, I think...

This post is more of an personal issue post than anything else. Today I looked through Tom Barnett’s weblog, as I browsed through the entry entitled “Tom around the web” which I look at every week to see who else, other than myself is talking about or using Tom’s theory in their posts. It’s a great resource, as it connects people with similar, or sometimes, divergent viewpoints, to one another. Additionally, it’s great for site traffic! This week’s post however, had a link by Sean that confused me a bit. I was on the list, but so was, well, this one: “+ Humoud linked Time for America to grow up about the global connectivity of foreign direct investment.” Having used this link in the past, I clicked on the link to Hamoud’s website to find, to my surprise and confusion, that the post that was actually linked my own “Islamic Banking- Innovation in Islam.”

I compared Humoud’s piece with my own and found that his post (which was two paragraphs long) was copied verbatim from my own post on the subject. I don’t exactly know what to make of this, particularly as I tried to post a comment on his site inquiring as to the reason he had posted my post as his own. Not wanting to pre-judge, I assumed that it was just an oversight in citation, that happens sometimes. But I tried to post a comment and although it required my blogger id and password, I was unable to post anything. The site told me that my password was incorrect, I tried a couple times more but still no luck. That immediately sent bells ringing and I proceeded to clear my history and to enter blogger from another computer to change my password which I assumed the site now has. Maybe I’m being paranoid, but I don’t understand why I couldn’t log onto blogger from his blog (which is hosted on blogger from what I could tell) and also why he would post my own post as his own given other content that seems to be of his own creation. I guess I could interpret his only copying the first two paragraphs (with a link in the title) as a sort of citation, but I don't know.

In any case, if anyone sees this post on his site, please know that it is entirely my work and it is based on a Memri report on Islamic banking which I found interesting and wanted to highlight, while also connecting it to Barnett’s concept of economic connectivity in the Middle East.

I reported the occurrence to Sean at Tom’s site and provided a link to my own post on Islamic Banking as well as a link to an older “Tom around the web” post which linked to that specific article. I don’t know whether to be flattered, or worried about this, as it may be a spoof site that is using my post (which links to Barnett) to draw victims to the site and steal their passwords if they try to comment. Still I will try to contact Humoud and see if it's just a problem of citation and nothing else. Other than that, does anyone think I should contact blogger about this? Does anyone think I’m being petty? I don’t want to be an unwitting participant (or by extension make Tom’s blog) a participant in drawing viewers to a spoof blog that may steal people’s information. Has anyone ever had to deal with this? What other steps should I take?

Update

I left Humoud a message about this subject as a comment as his site did not provide an e-mail address. I was able to post a comment now, I don't know what was wrong earlier. I now think this may be a minor issue with regard to citation and feel a little foolish about my reaction. Hopefully, I'll hear from Humoud regarding this soon and we could put it behind us. I don't mind being cited, so long as it is clear that the work product is my own. After all, it is all so brilliant.

P.S. I'm also changing the title of this post to reflect my belief that this is just a case of a minor omission and not something more serious.

Final Update

I never did hear anything from Humoud, however, I have noticed that he has began to cite sources in his blog. Also, I later figured out that the reason I couldn't sign into his blog to comment was due to the fact that he is still using the older version of blogger. Since I have already switched to the new Blogger, I have to already be logged in to my account to be allowed to comment on an blog using the old blogger template. As such, I've scratched out the parts of this blog post that referred to Humoud's blog possibly being a spoof site.

Read More...

What we've lost

The Washington Post today has a very telling story on what we have lost in the Middle East due to our failure in Iraq. The story is even more tragic once you realize what may have been had the administration had a real plan to deal with post-war Iraq. Below are the relevant excerpts:

With a certain satisfaction, Lebanese journalist Michael Young watched a local station broadcast images seen across the world on April 9, 2003: the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Firdaus Square, its reverberations rumbling across a stunned Middle East.Out of curiosity, he switched to a satellite station from Syria. It was showing a documentary on a venerable Damascene mosque. He flipped to another channel, where a former Egyptian general was dismissing the idea that day that the Iraqi capital had even fallen.

"If they were scared of what was happening in Baghdad, there was more power in this moment than might have been expected. The regimes were truly scared of this moment, truly scared," recalled Young, the opinion editor of the Daily Star in Beirut.

"The problem is," he added, "the Americans failed."

...nearly four years after the invasion they backed, their sense of frustration, resentment and even betrayal speaks volumes about how withered American standing is in the Middle East today and how far the region itself has deteriorated, riven as it is by escalating conflicts, worsening sectarian tension and a simmering struggle with an ascendant Iran.

"It's a success story for al-Qaeda, a success story for autocratic Arab regimes that made democracy look ugly in their people's eyes. They can say to their people: 'Look at the democracy that the Americans want to bring to you. Democracy is trouble.

From the Persian Gulf to Egypt, the arc of the administration's avowed aim of promoting democracy in a region still largely run by autocrats and monarchs has come full circle. In the latest sign of shifting priorities, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice eschewed public criticism of Egypt's authoritarian government during a visit last week, declaring it instead part of "an important strategic relationship, one that we value greatly."

"What's coming is worse than what is now," columnist and editor Ghassan Tueni wrote in Beirut's an-Nahar newspaper.

Like Young and Khalil, Ghabra was one of the very few in the Arab world who saw the invasion as opportunity. Hussein was a malignant current in the Middle East, he thought, and only force, American force, could remove him and initiate a transformation in a sclerotic region.

Young, he was most optimistic the day Baghdad fell. But even then, and in ensuing weeks, he remembered fearing what was being unleashed, as looting and chaos ravaged the Iraqi capital. Then the Americans -- to him and others, inexplicably -- dissolved the Iraqi army.

The landscape of the Middle East today is vastly different than it was in 2003. Governments in countries such as Egypt and Syria felt insecure then, buffeted by budding reform and protest movements or international pressure. These days they appear emboldened, even confident. Iran is developing a more assertive foreign policy in the region, from Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to the Gulf.

But those who most fervently supported the American action bestow much of the blame on the United States itself, in a critique all the more bitter because it comes from admirers: There was no plan for the postwar period and too few troops; Iraqis played too small a role in the early days; and the Americans fumbled about as Iran, Syria and other countries outdueled them in Iraq. Fundamentally, some say, U.S. officials knew too little about the country they inherited, imagining a blank slate for their vision.

"Everything is gray, and the Americans never figure it out until it's too late," he added.

Saudi Journalist,Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, says of the American effort: "I knew at that moment they have the force, but they don't have the brains to manage the Iraqi situation."

"The American agenda has completely changed," Young said. "What Iraq was set out to be has been supplanted by a completely different agenda -- containing Iran and containing Iran's allies."

"The democracy debate has ended today," he added, "and I regret that."

So do we.

Read More...

Friday, January 19, 2007

Somalia, the Sys Admin and the Gap's battlefields

More indications that Somalia is far from being won emerged today as Reuters reported that the Presidential palace was hit by mortar fire. The suspected culprits? ICU remnants that two "ex-fighters" claim “have started infiltrating Mogadishu again."

One thing I did not mention in my last post, partly because I felt it had gotten too long, is the fact that Somalia presents us (the US, the West) yet again with the same problem we have yet to figure out how to handle: nation-building. Despite originally disparaging the term and vowing never to engage in it, the administration has changed stances and has recognized its importance for our security. However, as both Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, and to put it in the nicest term possible, we suck at it. We are good at winning wars, but horrible in the post-war phase and we are hurting as a result.

The crisis in Somalia, and the fact that now we are scrambling to find peace keepers for it, demonstrate a couple of things. The first, that our commitment in Iraq is preventing us from managing other crises in a satisfactory manner, this although it is hard to say whether given the history of the US in Somalia, we would have ever committed troops to such an endeavor. However, it is likely that our experience in Somalia has colored the manner in which other nations view involvement in seemingly intractable conflicts, after all, if the world’s sole superpower cannot do it, how can a ragtag group of African, or Latin American, or European countries do it. The other thing it tells us is that we need an active peacekeeping (i.e. Sysadmin) capability desperately, and we currently don’t have one. By this, I mean, not just the US, but more so, the international community. Somalia is but one example of crisis that we are not handling well, if at all. To name just of a few of these crises, think of Sudan, where the UN has recently called the situation beyond dire; the Democratic Republic of Congo, where despite the fact that we have sent in some peacekeepers, violence continues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Myammar among others.

Tom Barnett has argued for the necessity of a Sysadmin force, but more than that, I think the current climate in our world, is now demanding it.

If we had such a force now, we could send some into Somalia and aid the TFG in setting up the structures and institutions it needs to enhance its legitimacy among the population. The Sysadmin, however, is no magic bullet but it would go a long way to improving our ability to respond to these type of crises. As Barnett argues:

Does it matter that the U.S. moves in the direction of sufficiently investing in their own Sys Admin elements? You bet. Without our "hub," nobody plays effectively in the Sys Admin universe. Check out the latest African Union plan to send a paltry 3,200 peacekeepers into Sudan. Guess who's providing much of the housing, transport, and command and control?

Notice that he made this argument on October 26 of last year. Also notice that back then we were still encountering the same problem we have now, the only difference is that it was with regard to Darfur, not Somalia. It is also telling that, his post, just as mine point out the fact that the deployment of any such force will need substantial US logistical support. The question then becomes, how long until we start accepting the need for this force, to address the many problems that we must address?

In the current political climate, such a position would be difficult due mostly to the mess in Iraq. It is, however, necessary if we are going to ever defeat the likes of al Qaeda. After all, it is in the Gap's battlefields that they thrive, the lawlessness, the chaos and disconnectedness are their natural allies.

To say this, is not to imply that the only way to defeat al Qaeda is through military means, but rather the opposite, the Sysadmin force is a force designed to deal with post-war situations (all post-war, not just those initiated by the US) and as Barnett has argued should be composed of as many troops from as many countries as possible. These would not so much be soldiers, as police officers and experts on post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation. The need is apparent, but where is the leadership to accomplish it?

Read More...

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Update on the Horn of Africa

Ethiopian forces helped the Transitional Federal Government in Somalia defeat the Islamic Courts Union earlier this year, the question on many people's mind is, now what? This quote from the Washington Post, aptly captures the TFG's dilemma.

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi's transitional government...is perceived by many Somalis as having interrupted a months-long period of unusual calm. The government is also seen as being too closely aligned with its leadership's clan and with outsiders, particularly Ethiopia and the United States. Although many rejected the stern religious laws imposed by the Islamic fundamentalists, who came to power last summer after driving out U.S.-funded warlords, they appreciated a new semblance of order.

The country is already experiencing a backlash against Ethiopian troops. On January 9, a police building housing Ethiopian armed forces was hit by a rocket propelled grenade. The next day, another of these was fired at a convoy of Ethiopian trucks in the Somali capital. These acts of violence followed a weekend where Somalis took to the streets demanding that Ethiopia leave the city.

Even more troubling, the TFG is still unable to fill the power vacuum left behind by the defeat of the ICU. Ethiopian forces cannot stay in the country for long, given the animosity most Somalis have for them. However, unless the African Union can come up with the troops for a peacekeeping effort in Somalia, it is doubtful that the TFG can remain in power for long, without the backing of Ethiopian forces. Given the fact that such an event would lead to similar conditions that allowed for the rise of the ICU, Ethiopia would be disinclined to withdraw anytime soon. This, despite the fact that its very presence in Somalia is causing much resentment in the country's population and is directly connected to the violence described above.

Somali anger at Ethiopia was exacerbated following the US attack on what it termed, suspected al Qaeda targets. According to news reports, the strikes failed to hit their objectives and may have caused many civilian casualties. This action brought back to many Somalis, the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident, and aroused more anti-American and anti-Ethiopian feelings. This incident was a contributing factor to the violence described above.

Since then, anti-American/Ethiopian anger has subsided somwhat. Reports from the region, however, indicate that the American strike, along with Ethiopia's continued presence in the country to protect the TFG has to a large extent discredited it in the eyes of Somalis. Ethiopia recognizes the anger its presence is causing, and has been urging the deployment of African Union troops to the country. So far, however, only Uganda has committed troops for the endeavor, with other nations such as South Africa stating that they must take note of current commitments in other regions, before being able to decide whether to provide forces to a Somali peacekeeping operation. Even in Uganda, troop deployment has come under scrutiny by its legislative branch with opposition leaders calling for the President to outline an exit strategy prior to their deployment into Somalia. Although Uganda has committed to sending troops, it will have to rely on American logistical support to transport and funding for said operation. Currently, Uganda is relying on IGAD for support, but most of its members are either opposed or barred from any intervention in Somalia in accorda