Philosophies, cultures, histories and ideologies are pushing the agendas of China and the USA across the African continent. The USA is flexing its well-honed military resources to provide counter-terrorism trainings in key countries while China is investing in growing economies in a soft power move that often places them above the USA in local influence. China is working now to change its image in Africa as the international community has raised issues. The USA continues a humanitarian military presence, however there may be a new shift in the USA's Africa policy with a newly elected President. Foreign aid in Africa is influenced by the cultural histories and philosophies of the USA and China.
Asserting its extensive soft power in economics China is quickly becoming a world leader in the current financial crisis: contributing to the IMF, long the bastion of Western power, and pushing for a new reserve currency that is not the dollar. As a full understanding is reached on the financial crisis' effects, China has said it will continue to support emerging African economies while there is talk that the USA will become protectionist. The USA has steadily fallen as a foreign aid leader in Africa and is increasingly using Chinese financial tactics to cope with its own severe economic downturn. Since 2006 the Chinese government has been working to create a less controversial policy in Africa. In supporting human rights and international institutions, will they learn from the USA's Africa policy? A new administration is in the White House and the USA is building a more comprehensive Africa policy. The USA has borrowed ideas from the Chinese policy book on dealing with the economic crisis, will they also look to China in building new partnerships with African countries?
There has been increasing talk and scholarship on the implications of Chinese actions on the African continent especially in relation to the USA’s presence. Many experts and pundits don’t go beyond surface level involvements between the world powers. Scholarship often fails to deconstruct media representations of both China and the USA. The media more often paints China as an evil imperialist nation scooping up African resources. While Chinese actions in Africa are problematic, the USA is not exempt from imperialist or destructive actions in Africa either. Current scholarship fails to delve into the historical philosophies and histories of both China and the USA. Culture and world visions are not taken into account when analyzing the Africa policies of these countries. The respective views and values on moral aspiration, international leadership and “othering” has driven scholarship on the quest for power between China and the USA on the African continent.
*Disclaimer: Below is a full 25 page research paper. Read at your own attention span.
Internationally Related
Within the realm of international relations, both China and the USA are taking more normative approaches to engaging in African affairs. By taking more country specific approaches to engagement and focusing on providing services to people, China and the USA have been working to use more diplomatic actions to gain the upper hand in Africa. The actions of both China and the USA have been problematic when it comes to engaging Africa. China has implemented numerous aid programs, but is seen as hypocritical in its policy of not getting involved a country’s domestic affairs. Some Africanist scholars have noted that the USA’s policy is borrowed directly from European imperial histories. These competing policies both based off of diplomacy have numerous points of contention, but is that reason for China and the USA to not cooperate?
Still, the United States has much to gain from cooperating with China on foreign aid and Africa policy. The US could help China develop a more permanent and transparent aid bureaucracy which would allow Chinese liberals to better promote their interests through the system. Also, the United States should encourage China to play a larger role in the donor community, allowing China to evaluate other countries’ aid programs and being subject to the same level of scrutiny. As major oil consumers, the United States and China also have incentive to work together toward political stability and energy security on the continent.Very often China is painted as an aggressor on the African continent by Western scholars, however these scholars tend to forget the histories of their own countries and their policies, which are based in colonialism, imperialism, and neocolonial actions. If an approach is taken that builds of off John Fairbank’s call for a re-evaluation of Chinese perceptions and Paul Cohen’s call for a “china-centered” history. The importance of Western governments recognizing their past and rethinking how they perceive a growing leader in international relations cannot be emphasized more.
Our American assumptions about East Asia and our instinctive responses to problems there have been and still are far less conscious and far more blind and culture-bound than we realize…. Too often we have leapt before looking and become partisan in feeling before making a serious intellectual effort to see all sides, including particularly our own side. (John King Fairbank)This is most relatable to Alexander George’s “fundamental attribution error.” The West (USA) is looking for an enemy within China’s policies in Africa as a way to position themselves strategically. Since the USA looked for the negative in Chinese policy, they found an enemy in China.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars who wanted the USA to engage China in more involvement in the international donor community in 2006 were right on track. China has now said that it will become more involved in the IMF and will contribute “within its ability.” China’s efforts to strengthen its standing with the international community are directly in line with its history of diplomacy. Michael Hunt talks of this long tradition of Chinese diplomacy, but it is most important to compare this to the USA’s diplomatic history within the international system.
The IMF […] warned that the $25 billion figure is only a conservative estimate as the situation on ground indicates that more countries will be more deeply affected, outside the 20 countries earlier identified by the body as much hit by the crisis. "The IMF study finds that more than 20 countries are particularly vulnerable to the unfolding crisis. At least US$25 billion in urgent concessional financing will be needed this year in the most affected countries, but much more may be needed given the heavy downside risks to the global economic outlook, and the prospect of more countries being affected as the crisis deepens," said IMF Managing Director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He warned that the number of vulnerable countries could double, raising additional financing needs to $140 billion.As China has said it will continue to support emerging African economies into the current financial crisis , another historic financial crisis should be analyzed. In this current economic crisis China has pledged support within the IMF as the "international community is determined to act together to get through the time of hardship." China is emerging as a strong leader in this current crisis by calling for reform along with their financial support. In contrast, during the Great Depression, the effects were more sever because there was a lack of strong international leadership. Following World War I the USA had gained prominence as an economic player, but was not interested in becoming a leader in the international economic game. A major reason that the USA was not interested during the Great Depression was because financially helping Europe had no short-term gain. Will China take this same mode of thinking? Harold James notes that this will be China’s dilemma in the current crisis, but it appears that China is following their cultural traditions and is coming to the aid of the international community instead of taking an protectionist policy. The current economic crisis seems to be another example of the USA shrinking from an international leadership role. China shows that it is committed to the international community, where the USA is narrowly focused on national interest.
Both China and the USA have taken on more bilateral agreements with other countries as of recent. China most notably, since the 1990s, made multiple bilateral agreements with African (and other) countries in the multiple tours taken by their government leaders. The Obama Administration has taken a very strong stance that its foreign policy will be driven by diplomacy. This also happens to be the Chinese government’s number one strategy to foreign policy.
In recent years, China has begun to take a less confrontational, more sophisticated, more confident, and, at times, more constructive approach toward regional and global affairs. In contrast to a decade ago, the world's most populous country now largely works within the international system. It has embraced much of the current constellation of international institutions, rules, and norms as a means to promote its national interests. And it has even sought to shape the evolution of that system in limited ways.While it is difficult to gauge Obama’s foreign policy of diplomacy as of yet, significant efforts have been made to meet with world leaders of countries where relations with the USA have been strained. The Chinese effort is measurable and visible over an almost 10 year period. China is growing a network of cooperation across the African continent and the globe while the USA is just beginning to mend broken international relationships and extend a hand to former enemies. Africa is a growing interest for both countries, how long will it be before China and the USA cooperate more closely on African issues?
Before delving too deeply into the nuances and implications of various foreign policies, it is important to understand the origins of Chinese and USA cultural traditions and international involvements.
Invisibly Shared Power
The basis of Chinese international relations begins with the teachings of Fu Xi, author of the I-Ching. The I-Ching’s lesson on the Law of Change and promotion of harmony (yin/yang) governed early Chinese policy where there must be a complimentary balance. A very important concept to understand within Chinese foreign policy based in the I-Ching is “The Principle of Heaven.” This is sometimes called the Rise of the Dragon and teaches about how one should act, whether an individual or a state actor, when the top is reached. In the Chinese tradition, one who reaches the top has two choices: to be arrogant which will result in falling from heaven [the top]; or to assist those below in also reaching the top. This teaching plays into the I-Ching’s “Concept of Hegemony,” which is best explained with the analogy of “a group of dragons without a chief.” In the “Concept of Hegemony” there is no one leader in the international community there would be multiple hegemons that work together to bring more into the “group of dragons.”
This philosophy coupled with the Chinese traditions of a collective societal structure has translated to foreign policy as China works to increase cooperation with many international actors. The diplomatic history of China dates as far back as 3000 BC. However, China was not always so internationally focused. During its history China was controlled and relegated to a lesser status by the British government’s colonial treaty system. The treaty system essentially placed China under the economic control of the British government. Following the end of the treaty system China became more nationally focused. Many scholars such as Sun Yat-Sen, Cohen, and Hunt, write on how building a strong and safe China was the priority that developed as a response to the imperial treaty system which had divided the country and weakened the people by creating widespread poverty.
The ideas of the I-Ching continued to be taught years later by Lao Zi and Confucius. These ideas seemed to pervade Chinese cultural traditions and it is no surprise that they translated into the foreign policy of China. One of Lao Zi’s great contributions to Chinese international relations was on political philosophy. He wrote that the best leaders are known when the people feel like they have accomplished something on their own and the leader has only acted as an “invisible hand” to guide them. This idea is evident in Chinese foreign policy as China seeks to bring other countries up with them into the “group of dragons” and increase cooperation within international systems.
The Rise of Individualism
Needless to say the USA has a very different, and much shorter, history than China. As a country of immigrants the USA developed a cultural tradition focused on the individual. The idea posited by Fritijof Capra that Western societies were very logic based and Eastern societies were more intuition based shows the strong focus of the USA cultural tradition on the productivity of the individual within a growing economy.
The development of the USA into industrialization was fueled in large part by the emergence of the nuclear family. The nuclear family was a result of the large number of immigrants who arrived in the USA as individuals often without any extended family. Talcott Parsons, argues that “the nuclear family fits industrial needs because, on the one hand, it allows families to be mobile and economically independent of the wider kin group; and, on the other hand, it ensures that in an individualistic and impersonal world, adults and children have a stable, if limited, set of affective relationships.”
In the history of the USA the individual has been the building block and has driven the success of the country. Because the USA has such a short history and has built itself from the people and ideas of other countries, it is a country that does not have its own distinct or concrete cultural tradition. It is a cultural tradition that is constantly changing. The best idea that can sum up cultural tradition in the USA is that of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.” This individualist fervor can be easily translated into the USA’s foreign policy as it is focused narrowly on USA national interests and is not driven by cooperation with others.
Sino-African Relations
The earliest records of interactions between the Chinese and the African continent comes by way of myth and trade. Somewhere around 1414, the “treasure fleet” of Zheng He landed on the East African coast. He returned with two giraffes, which were gifts from the Malindi King (present day Kenya), which the Chinese thought were “qilin.” Qilin were mythical creatures thought to symbolize a well-governed country or one where a wise man was born. This marked the earliest Sino-African relations based in trade.
The tradition of Chinese-African cooperation grew significantly between 1949 and 1970.
Peking had diplomatic relations with fifteen African states in 1970. Approximately 5.1 percent of China’s imports and exports were in African trade in 1966. By mid-1966 China had promised African countries $350,000,000 in aid, although the sums made available and actually drawn were much less. But these figures are dwarfed by her commitment to finance and build the Tanzania-Zambia railway; China could spend $280,000,000 or more for that project.This time period marked significant Chinese involvement in African development. This was a period in which the majority of African countries gained independence and began working to develop themselves. Beyond the trade relations that are now ever growing, the political ties have been and remain strong. During the 1960s China provided military and financial to nationalist movements as well as increasing development dollars - $100 million. They also sent 150,000 technicians to implement projects in agriculture, transport, and infrastructure development. China was involved in numerous independence movements. In the build-up to democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China was providing financial support, but it wasn't enough. After Lumumba was assassinated by the USA CIA, the Chinese demonstrated en masse. Millions gathered in Peking, 400,000 in Shanghai, which solidified the Chinese influence and support for further revolutionary movements. A new regime was supported in Tanzania (1964) until Nyerere took power. Nyerere even adopted the Mao-style uniform. Chinese engineers built a railroad from Zambia to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania showing the Chinese economic might and proving that China was serious in Africa. China supported many nationalist and revolutionary movements (see inset map, Page 9) with arms, money, medical supplies, scholarships, and guerrilla trainings and camps.
In 1971 China received 76 votes for a permanent UN Security Council seat. Of those votes 26 were from African countries and by the 1980s fourty-four African countries had established diplomatic ties with Beijing. These ties soon faded out, but have recently been rekindled in the 1990s and even more recently in 2006. In the third China-Africa forum of 2006, 48 African countries were represented. During the past three years the Chinese President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Foreign Affairs have visited almost 20 African countries in efforts to strengthen diplomatic relations.
China has regained a strong influence in African countries. Their power is unmatched and their recent wave of settlement unprecedented. This is a point of contention for both Western powers that may be afraid of the growing Chinese power and the people of African countries who should be wary of another possible exploiter. The Chinese may have a history of support, development and influence, but that does not justify current action.
Colonial Legacy of the USA
Born of European heritage, the USA’s Africa policy is not far departed from the same heritage. From the early American explorers commissioned by European powers, the USA’s Africa policy has been driven by misperceptions and national interests.
One might ask why the Berlin Conference is pertinent to an examination of modern U.S./African policy issues. The answer, to some may appear elliptical. And that is because we were not a party to that Conference or to the spoils of its outcome. Put another way, the United States was never a colonial power in Africa. And because of that the U.S. had a great opportunity to shape post independent relations between Africa and the West. Indeed, Africans looked to the United States to play a neutral and constructive role in bridging relations with the West.It was seemingly impossible for the USA to play a neutral role when there was so much to gain from Africa. The USA’s past is inexorably linked to the African slave trade and events that followed, further connections increased with support for Liberia, and exploitation began when its own multinational corporations became wise to the vast natural resources of the continent.
During the Cold War, the USA’s Africa policy was one founded on “Soviet containment.” The Cold War saw USA involvement in establishing proxy wars to stem the spread of communism across Africa. The CIA was involved in a number of controversial coups as well as rebel movements within countries run by governments close to the Soviet Union. As a result of Cold War policy a number of countries are notably still in turmoil: DRC and Uganda.
With the end of the Cold War some have ventured to say the USA is engaging in a “containment strategy” for China and also for the “war on terrorism.” The ideas of containment for China and terrorism has translated into growing misperceptions about Chinese intentions in Africa as well as implications for the delivery of development aid by the USA.
Development Aid
Foreign aid; development assistance; foreign investment; these terms are now gaining another synonym: rogue aid. Rogue aiders are defined as such, "Because their goal is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda, or sometimes line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they 'aid'."
China is now the largest rogue aid competitor. Moises Naim says, "My friend was visibly shaken. He had just learned that he had lost one of his clients to Chinese competitors. 'It’s amazing,” he told me. “The Chinese have completely priced us out of the market. We can’t compete with what they are able to offer'." China can outbid the World Bank in foreign aid lending power! What does this say for the future of the aid community? What does this say for the future of development? Naim gives three simple answers as to why China and other countries are stepping up their aid game. "[...] money, access to raw materials, and international politics." China now rivals OECD countries of the developed West in providing foreign aid. In 2006-2008, China provided over $10 billion in loans to African countries.
Along with the financial crisis, China is becoming a world leader in giving development aid and engaging in development projects, especially in Africa. The USA has in recent years given out more development aid than ever before, specifically in Africa, but this is still dwarfed by Chinese investment in African development. USA development aid is also increasingly controlled by the military. Almost 25% of all development funds are implemented by the military up from just 3%, while USAID has fallen from 65% to less than 40%.
The gradual shift from USAID to the USA military implementing development aid and projects has been calculated. Many believe that the advent of AFRICOM and the shift in development aid funding is a direct response to China’s growth on the continent. One scholar says that the USA is launching a new “containment strategy” for China in Africa via military presence. When asked about the motives of USA development aid, Navy Captain Paul Dies said, "I can tell you with a straight face, and I swear on my mother's grave, our mission here is purely humanitarian. There's no ulterior motive."
The Bush administration has laid the foundation of a new containment strategy for its successor with the establishment of AFRICOM, enabling the United States to leverage more effectively its soft and hard power assets to contain China. The next administration will be forced to confront China's rise and its rapidly expanding influence in Africa. Writing in the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Senator John McCain identified China's rise as a "central challenge" for the next president and cautioned against Beijing's expanding economic and diplomatic relations with African nations Sudan and Zimbabwe. In the coming years, Washington's new containment strategy will likely mature as China's balancing efforts in Africa collide with U.S. interests.A few authors of African affairs have noted that members of Obama’s transition team are very supportive of AFRICOM as a means to increase diplomatic relations with Africa, but they are quick to note that this is a problematic approach to Obama’s call for diplomacy first. Disproving that there is “no alternate motive” is very easily done when the locations of USA military aid is implemented.
Another side to Chinese development aid investment can be seen in the form of the Chinese population. A recent wave of nearly 750,000 Chinese migrants to Africa are not the first. In the 1960s Mao Zedong sent people to forge political ties with the continent. This newest wave or Chinese people is to strengthen the Chinese claims over raw materials and markets. The head of the China Export-Import Bank has said that he will support this migration with "investment, project development, and help with the sale of products." Mr. Li says,"There's no harm in allowing [Chinese] farmers to leave the country to become farm owners [in Africa]," he added.
Mission of the China Export-Import Bank:
The main mandate of the Bank is to implement the state policies in industry, foreign trade and economy and finance to provide policy financial support so as to promote the export of Chinese mechanical and electronic products and high- and new-tech products, to support Chinese companies with comparative advantages to "go global" for offshore construction contracts and overseas investment projects, to develop and strengthen relations with foreign countries, and to enhance Sino-foreign economic and technological cooperation and exchanges.The numbers of Chinese migrants has dramatically increased. A large part of China’s development aid policy is that African governments use Chinese contract labor, so the aid funding goes directly back to China. China's work in the DRC is its largest loan out to any African country. There are plans to build a road from Kisangani to the Zambian border and a major railway to connect the mineral rich provice of Katanga to the port city of Matadi. Other funds are set aside to rebuild the deteriorating mining infrastructure. As well as being the biggest loan supplier, China also has the largest building company, China Road and Bridge Construction, owned by the Chinese government, with 29 projects in Africa (many financed by the World Bank or other lenders) and offices in 22 African countries.
A final, but contentious, piece of the development aid debate hinges on Taiwan. When China launched its Africa policy plan in the 1990s, Taiwan was not a huge issue. Now China has provided development aid to six African countries that have switched their recognition of Taiwan. Lesotho and Niger switched their diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1994 and 1996, the Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, and South Africa switched their recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1998, and Liberia switched recognition to Beijing in 2003.
It is in the areas of development policy, however, that we and others in the West have experienced our greatest failures in Africa. This is so largely because while well intentioned in many instances, we have sought to export our values and ways of doing things to Africa. In both the public and private sectors, NGOs notwithstanding,for fifty years it has been our way or the highway. Our money or no money. For 50 years our aid to Africa has been tied to our own formulations, priorities and institutions. The approaches made by the Bretton Woods financial institutions have not been different. In like manner, the major international financial institutions have dictated the terms of development under the rubrics of partnership and sustainability while excluding Africans from the councils of governance and staff leadership. These institutions, the World Bank,IMF, IFC, and others, have conditioned their aid on structural adjustment and other private sector strategies while shielding themselves from the consequences and accountabilities associated with outcomes and policy failures.Development aid is probably the area of most contention between China and the USA. Some want to see greater collaboration with the USA helping China reverse its “rogue aid” policies. Others criticize both the USA and China in their implementation of development aid. The Western aid institutions and agency have come under much criticism latterly from withint their own communities. The Chinese take a policy that is very much in line with the idea of bring up many countries to the “group of dragons,” but on the other hand it is often only China that benefits. The USA follows a fairly rigid policy that has specific national security interests at heart and nothing more.
Military Support
Both China and the USA have had long time military involvement on the African continent. From early Chinese military expeditions to exploratory actions of the USA, military presence in Africa is nothing new. China is often criticized for its small arms trade with corrupt African governments. The USA is criticized for attempting to have African militaries do its dirty work through anti-terrorism trainings many of which are held in strategic resource countries. Where the USA has not sent troops, China has increased its number of peacekeepers and has sent active troops of the People’s Army as a way to strengthen diplomatic ties. Oddly enough military support is directly related to development aid.
AFRICOM is seen by some as a milestone in US foreign policy showing that the US actually does care about Africa. I would say this is a great representation of how we have seen Africa throughout our policy writing - only important when the USA has a self-interest or gain to achieve. It seems that the only future for US foreign policy in Africa will be military based. Our 'development' and aid work will be conducted by the military and people will begin looking to the military for aid and assistance. Kenyan columnist, Salim Lone, sums up the fears of many, "The military now is going to be working with civil society, to promote health and education. Africa is going to look at all its development efforts through the lens of the Pentagon. That's a truly dangerous dimension. We don't need militarisation of Africa, we don't need securitisation of aid and development in Africa." The Association for Concerned African Scholars (ACAS) has a comprehensive archive of USA military involvement in Africa. The archive lists that every African country has received military support whether it be supplies or trainings from the USA military, including the USA base in Djibouti.
“Its the oil, stupid!” As the phrase goes, some experts argue that the real reason that China and the USA are engaging in development aid and military support is to access the natural resource wealth of African countries. China has been accused of this in relation to the genocide in Sudan.
Sudan, which now supplies 7 percent of China’s total oil imports, has benefited from the largest Chinese investments. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is the single largest shareholder (40 percent) in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, which controls Sudan’s oil fields, and has invested $3 billion in refinery and pipeline construction in Sudan since 1999.China has also invested heavily in Angola’s oil development and Nigeria’s. The USA depends largely on Nigeria’s oil wealth, but it seems China is cutting in on the business.
Investment in oil development is one thing, but investment by way of military support is another story. The USA has invested millions of dollars and has conducted hundreds of joint military trainings with African countries. China is accused of fueling genocide against an ethnic minority in Sudan through its small arms sales.
Weapons deliveries from China to Sudan since 1995 have included ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft. China also became a major supplier of antipersonnel and antitank mines after 1980, according to a Sudanese government official.The evidence for military support influencing development aid implementation has become overwhelming for both China and the USA. Neither country is exempt from blame in meddling in the affairs of African countries trying to development and build stable economies. Both countries have long histories of military involvement in Africa from colonial times and earlier. Neither country is new to playing with African foreign policy. However what is most important is how China and the USA implement their support. China tends to claim no involvement in “domestic affairs,” but their actions often translate into serious domestic effects. The USA claims to be working towards anti-terrorism (a containment strategy?), but this is often a larger tactic to get closer to the natural resource wealth of African countries. The policies seem very similar, but China and the USA come from different cultural traditions that drive their policy decisions.
Conclusion
The implications for foreign aid both developmental and military, is determined by the cultural traditions of a particular country as well as a long-standing involvement on the African continent.
China builds from a philosophy based on bringing everyone up to the same level. They have had trade relations with African countries since the 14th Century and take pride in having been involved in African liberation struggles. The Chinese traditions that look at hegemony, leadership, and responsibility have translated into their foreign policy actions. The underlying assumptions of Western/ USA academics shows the continued misperceptions of Chinese intentions in Africa. While there are a number of problematic policies, the Chinese government gives responses that follow in the steps of its cultural tradition. With a very long cultural tradition, China works to push cooperation on the African continent, but to what degree is cooperation competition for resources?
The USA is, and has always been, very focused on national interest. If there were no national interest to engaging African countries then the USA would most likely not be there. The serious shift in implementation of USA foreign aid dollars is very worrisome and does not bode well for the future of African development practice. The colonial legacy of the USA’s policy in Africa perpetuates the failures of the past into the future of African development. A re-militaization of Africa is a poor policy for “Chinese or terrorist containment” and must be re-evaluated by Obama. The potential for the USA Africa policy to depart from the detrimental ideas of the Bush administration is very strong under Obama.
While there are problems on both sides of the Africa policies, China and the USA can learn from each other on how they engage African countries. China has an excellent cooperation model and the USA has serious potential to support human rights and accountability. As soon as the Obama administration releases a serious Africa policy brief, scholars and experts can be sure that the USA is committed to a positive shift in the way Africa has been handled. Since the 1990s China has developed a serious Africa policy and for good reason. They now hold the sway of the majority of all African leaders and have access to their resources and markets.
Calls for diplomacy can no longer fall on deaf ears as policies shift, foreign aid is restructured, and economies continue to falter. China and the USA will have to prove to the world that they are ready to build a working world order. A world order where there are multiple hegemons: China as a financially stable elder and the USA as a young and ambitious innovator. There is much that the two countries can collaborate on especially in regards to development practice and foreign aid across Africa. The continent needs renewed policies that see outcomes in an “Africa-centered” view. The world’s giants can no longer use and abuse the African continent, rather they need to actively engage Africa if financial and social woes are to be remedied.
Works Cited:
“Africa Outreach Includes Training, Humanitarian Aid.” America.gov.
Bristow, Michael. “China in Africa, developing ties.” BBC News, Beijing. 29 November 2007.
Brookes, Peter and Ji Hye Shin. “China’s Influence in Africa: Implications for the United States.” The Heritage Foundation. 22 February 2006.
Chen, Shirong. “China seeks broader Africa role.” BBC News. 12 February 2008.
“China ready to contribute to the IMF.” BBC News. 27 March 2009.
“China’s aid to Africa continues despite crisis.” China Daily. 6 February 2009.
“China’s involvement in Sudan: arms and oil.” Human Rights Watch. November 2003.
“China opens coffers to minerals.” BBC News. 18 September 2007.
Ching, Frank. “China’s Africa policy changing for the better.” Japan Times. 11 September 2008.
Engdahl, F. William. “China and USA in New cold war over Africa's oil riches: its the oil stupid!” Global Research. 20 May 2007.
Eze, C. Paschal. “America versus China in Africa: Oil and minerals first.” AfricaResults.com.
French, Howard W. and Lydia Polgreen. “Entrepreneurs from China Flourish in Africa.” New York Times. 18 August 2007.
Gordon, Daniel. “The controversy over Africom.” BBC News. 3 October 2007.
Hansen, Stephanie. “Imaging Obama’s Africa Policy.” Council on Foreign Relations. 22 December 2008.
Hanson, Stephanie. “China, Africa, and Oil.” Council on Foreign Relations. 6 June 2008.
Haru, Mutasa. “US military aid troubles Africa.” Aljazeera. 24 October 2008.
Holslag, Jonathon. “… or Is America the New China?” Foreign Policy. March 2009. < story_id="4778&page="2">.
Hill, Alex B. “Chinese exodus of influence.” When not in Africa. 30 January 2008.
Hill, Alex B. “No more foreign aid institutions. . .its china.” When not in Africa. 4 April 2007.
James, Harold. “Is China the New America?” Foreign Policy. March 2009.
Krebs, Sylvia. “China to Africa, Africa to China.” US-China Review. Vol. XXXI, No. 3, Summer 2007.
Krebs, Sylvia. “The ‘African Marco Polo’ in China.” US-China Review. Vol. XXXI, No. 3, Summer 2007.
Kurlantzick, Josh, David Shinn and Minxin Pei. “China’s Africa Strategy: A New Approach to Development and Diplomacy.” Carnegie Endowment. 12 December 2006.
Larkin, Bruce D. China and Africa 1949-1970. University of California Press: Berkley and Los Angeles, 1971.
Mederios, Evan S. and M. Taylor Fravel. “China’s New Diplomacy.” Foreign Affairs. November/ December 2003. <>.
Naim, Moises. “Rogue Aid.” Foreign Policy. March/ April 2007.
Onu, Emele. “Africa: Continent Needs U.S.$25 Billion Bailout, Says IMF.” ThisDay. 4 March 2009.
Parsons, Talcott and Robert Bales. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Routledge, 1998 (original 1955).
Sanket. “Chinese migrants in Africa (and vice versa).” World Bank: People Move. 15 January 2009.
Skypek, Thomas M. “The Great Game in Africa: Washington’s Emerging Containment Strategy.” The Weekly Standard. 9 October 2008.
Tuckey, Beth. “Obama: Africa, US Africa Policy, and AFRICOM.” Pambazuka News. 6 November 2008.
“USA arms war-torn Africa under guise of humanitarian aid.” Pravda.ru.
“US – Making Peace or Fueling War on the Continent?” AfricaFocus. 18 March 2009.
“US Military Involvement by Country.” Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. 11 February 2003.
Ward, Haskell. “Africa: U.S.-Africa Relations Hampered by Colonial Legacy.” AllAfrica.com. 10 April 2009.
Zunes, Stephen. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy.” Foreign Policy In Focus. 17 January 2008.