Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues

The current Sino- African and U.S.- Africa economic relationships are quickly becoming unacceptable to Africa, China, and the United States. For many African countries, the drawbacks of China’s “Angola Model” have started to outweigh its benefits because of infringement on sovereignty and human rights abuses. In order to secure stability in the region from which it receives 23 percent of its oil, China uses the Angola Model, by which it provides low-interest loans, below market value, in exchange for oil and mining rights. These loans, however, come with conditions that heavily favor China. For instance, China often adds clauses that require at least 50 percent of the loan be spent on Chinese goods. Additionally, China often engages in resource-for-infrastructure swapping, such as when China invested $6 billion, half of Congo’s GDP,  in infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, and universities, in exchange for exclusive rights to copper and cobalt for the next 25 years. 

At the same time, human rights abuses are rampant. In Zambia, Chinese managers opened fire on a crowd for unionizing without any repercussions. Furthermore, managers in Namibia, South Africa, and Zambia have repeatedly ignored minimum wage laws, affirmative action requirements, and social security payments. All the while, the benefits to the local economies have been hindered by China primarily using Chinese workers and machines at the mines. 

The Angola Model is also starting to backfire against China. For instance, Chad and Gabon withdrew oil field permits for China National Petroleum Corporation after the company dumped excess crude oil into their rivers. As a result of human rights abuses, Michael Sata won the Zambian presidency on an anti-Chinese, xenophobic platform. Meanwhile, South Africa is pushing back against China’s influence in the region, by, for example, turning away a Chinese arms ship headed to Zimbabwe[1].

By contrast, the U.S. “conditional lending” policy, while less fraught with human rights issues, has had little success in developing a more economically and democratically stable Africa. Washington’s method of giving aid on the condition of liberalization and good governance has led to at least four problems. First, the required conditions are often so onerous that they take years to meet. (For example, "dismantling quotas and domestic monopolies, deregulating capital markets, introducing currency convertibility, and opening industries and stock and bond markets to direct foreign ownership and investment” all take a long time to accomplish)[2]. Second, when the necessary changes are enacted, they result in inefficiencies due to the need for extensive central planning. Third, conditional lending benefits only those countries already committed to economic and political reform. As a result, those most in need of development assistance often do not get it because their governments are not interested in meeting the necessary conditions to receive aid. Therefore, the conditional lending model is comparatively inefficient in developing Africa. 

The United States and China should work together through a joint committee that uses a synergic approach to development in Africa to improve the outcomes for all three parties. This committee can start with South Sudan as a pilot case because of the importance of this country to the United States from a human rights perspective and to China from an oil perspective. The goal of the committee would be to promote the right to develop, a right recognized by the UN, and preferred by China and Africa over the term human rights, because human rights are often associated with Western values. This also eliminates the possibility of China needing to justify the hypocrisy of giving human rights to Africans, but not to its own citizens. 

In order for this committee to function, both sides must make certain compromises. The United States would no longer implement conditional lending; it would be allowed to reward liberalization and good governance through financial incentives, but not punished for failing to meet conditions. China would have to comply with local laws, including provisions governing impact on the environment, minimum wage, affirmative action, and social security. Each investment project would specify an agreed upon percent of labor and equipment coming from Africa. These compromises are consistent with current policy trends already occurring in the United States and China. The United States has “backtracked from conditionality” towards reward-based conditional lending, rewarding good governance without punishing bad governance[3]. Meanwhile, China’s resource-for-infrastructure deals with African countries, such as Angola, have become increasingly more equitable. Therefore, this committee would formalize and accelerate trends already expressed by these powers as a constructive fusion rather than forcing either nation to completely change its stances. 

This proposed committee would benefit all parties. For the United States, it would promote a more effective development strategy in Africa and help moderate the worst of Chinese human rights violations. For China, it would increase the amount of money going into African development over which China has influence and allow China to use the relative popularity of the United States in Africa to counter the current political backlash against China and Chinese companies. Of the 10 African countries studied by the Global Attitudes Survey, all indicated a higher approval rating of the United States than China. Most importantly, the approval rating of the United States is 30 percent higher than China’s in South Africa, China's largest trading partner in Africa[18]. 

Meanwhile, African countries would have more efficient access to investment without the loss of sovereignty and human rights violations endemic in its current relationship with China or the conditional penalties imposed by the United States. By working together toward a common goal, the United States and China can synergize their existing development approaches, increase stability in the region, improve relations between the two nations, and incorporate Africa more closely into the global community. 

[1]  Uche Ofodile, “Trade, Aid and Human Rights: China’s Africa Policy in Perspective,” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 4, no. 2.
[2]  M. Rodwan Abouharb and David Cingranelli, Human Rights and Structural Adjustment (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
[3] Christopher M. Dent, China and Africa Development Relations (Routledge, 2010).

David Lysenko is a sophomore in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University majoring in international political economy.

COMMENT FROM CALEB HUFFMAN (November 21, 2016):

David, an interesting read. I couldn’t help but pursue further sources on the subject. Your proposal makes complete sense; considering the United States and China are two large foreign aid providers in Africa, a joint commission on the effort could maximize the benefits of both countries’ strategies.

I would like to propose a more fundamental question: Does foreign aid to countries, specifically in the continent of Africa, actually work? Of course, this question is dependent upon what work means. If work means creating a self-sustaining economy, there is strong evidence it doesn’t. If work means promoting democracy, once again, there’s strong evidence foreign aid is ineffective. But, if work means mitigating terrible circumstances or gaining political influence, then the case for aid is stronger.

Addressing the fundamental question of the goal of foreign aid in African countries will help determine the path forward in the distribution of foreign aid.

COMMENT FROM MINGYAN "AMY" DUAN (November 21, 2016):

This article is well-organized in writing and creative in thinking. First, it gives a critical analysis of both the Chinese and American approaches to helping Africa. The problems pointed out hit the nail on the head. The new strategy proposed seems effective and convincing, especially taking South Sudan as a pilot case is a clever choice. However, the synergic approach is an ideal situation that is hard to achieve. It is difficult for the two countries to make suggested compromises as we both need to defend our own interests while helping Africa. What’s more, African countries may become dependent on foreign aid because everything seems to come so easy for them under the new approach.