Thursday, October 05, 2006

China and Africa: An Amoral and Asymmetrical Relationship

Over at TNR online Joshua Kurlantzick has a fascinating and important article on "How China Controls African Politics." When I was in Beijing this past summer one of my concerns was that China couched any behavior, however dispicable, in terms of national sovereignty. It is a remarkably resilient and amoral argument: China can do wahetevr it likes and no one can judge them because of their unabiding belief in the principles of national sovereignty. The issue that most vexed me was China's involvement in the Sudan, which I referred to in one meeting with a Chinese official as "countenancing genocide." But China needs and wants oil, and they simply do not care about Sudan's internal affairs. Khartoum is more than happy to work with the Chinese, and so, based on their principles, voila! the outside world has no right to judge either the Sudan or the Chinese. This is a very convenient way to promote atrocity while simultaneously not caring about gross violations of human rights, all the while benefiting handsomely.


Kurlantzick's article focuses on Zambia and the recent elections. Here are some key excerpts:

[M]uch of the Zambian debate centered on a completely different topic: China. Opposition candidate Michael Sata accused Chinese companies, which have invested heavily in Zambian copper mining, of exploiting Zambian workers and undercutting Zambian goods. "Chinese investment has not added any value to the people of Zambia," Sata told a Zambian radio station, also threatening to toss Chinese companies out of the country. In response, China's embassy in Zambia became directly involved in the election, very unusual for foreign diplomats in any country, warning that Beijing might sever ties to Zambia if Sata won. The incumbent president, Sata's opponent in the election, reportedly apologized to Beijing for Sata's comments. [. . .]
Zambia, in fact, offers a window into a phenomenon American policy makers have only just begun to discover. In a short period of time, China has become a major donor and investor in Africa, and it has begun to play a major role in domestic African politics--not only in Zambia but also across the continent. In fact, China has so quickly amassed power in Africa that it now rivals the United States, France, and international financial institutions for influence--and potentially damages Africa's economic and political renaissance.

This is where China can be a profoundly destabilizing force -- in pursuing a grand strategy that amounts to geopolitical passive-aggressivism couched in very realpolitik western terms. They are not about to mount an attack on the United States or any of our interests. In military terms, China poses little danger, and almost never has -- though potentially it could. But where China can be massively destabilizing is by joining forces with states that either do not much care about its people (ie -- Big Men love Bigger Partners) or with those states so desperate for anything resembling development that they will sell out the safety and security of their people for short-term gain that holds immense appeal even as the repurcussions hang like Domocles' Sword over the heads of the teetering state.

7 comments:

Ahistoricality said...

Interesting. Thanks.

dcat said...

Thank you. glad you liked it.

cheers --
dc

Anonymous said...

Hi,I'm doing research on Spams ,so ,I left my email here .Thanks for you help.

helmut said...

You mean "immoral"?

dcat said...

Nope. I mean "amoral." I mean that moral concerns are not part of the Chinese calculus in matters of foreign policy.

dcat

helmut said...

I see that, but the tone in this post is one of moral judgement, which appears to presuppose some sense of immorality as opposed to moral neutrality or irrelevance. I'm not so sure China - if it views policy in amoral terms of cold self-interest calculations - is much different than any other state. In fact, that's at the very root of how many traditionally define the state.

dcat said...

Helmut --
I think you make a good point, but let me try to explain what i mean.
China's foreign policy approach is, on its face amoral. In other words, morality does not come into play, positively or negatively. You'll never hear the Chinese make a strong case for acting for what's right or against what's wrong.
However, the outcome can be utterly immoral. in other words, China's amoral foreign policy has the effect of immoral real outcomes.
i hope this does not seem too clever by half, or to be needlessly splitting hairs. I think these diferences are important and worth parsing.
And yes, other nations can be accused of the same, but the problem is, most countries are subject to moral suasion because they do not stake an amoral claim. China has forsworn morality as a guiding principle and therefore is almost immune to such accusations.

Cheers, and thanks for pushing the discussion --
dcat