implications for foreign aid across the continent: the shifting africa policies of china and the usa

The Beginnings of Giants

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. .

chinese exodus of influence

In the early days of African discovery soldiers, missionaries, and explorers led the way towards the attempted understanding of and preceding conquest of Africa. This push came from the world powers of the day in Western Europe - now we see a new wave of settlers moving in on the African continent. However, this exodus should not be a surprise. Lured by the increase in wealth, property, and life style, Chinese migrants are starting new lives in Africa. Approved by the Beijing government, the migrants are involved in agriculture reform, construction (which is a huge Chinese business in Africa), and trade.

The Chinese relationship with Africa is strong and this new development should not come as a surprise. "To build a unified front against imperialism," was the Chinese goal in the 1950s. This involved supporting the growing African decolonization, nationalist movements, and revolutions. There is a strong history of economic ties between China and Africa. We can see this in Chinese blue and white porcelain found at African gravesites from the expeditions of Zheng He. Zheng He left the Cape of Good Hope with the gift of a giraffe. Trade relations with China only increased from there.

China began its first bilateral agreements in 1956 with Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, and Guinea. China had been in agreement with the Soviet Union in supporting African revolutions, but China became more interested in providing financial and military support for nationalist movements. In the 1960s there were nineteen African countries with official ties to Beijing. The recent wave of nearly 750,000 Chinese migrants 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.

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 efforts of the 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 map) 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 more recently in 2006. In the third China-Africa forum 48 African countries were represented. China now represents the leading Asian developing giant, above India, Singapore, and Thailand. China now rivals OECD countries or the developed West in providing foreign aid (rogue aid). China now outbids the World Bank and in 2006-2008 provided over $10 billion in loans to African countries.

China has regained its 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 who may be afraid of the growing Chinese power and the people of African countries who should be wary of another exploiter. The Chinese may have a history of support, development, and influence, but that does not justify current action.

the continuous scramble for africa

From the so called great scramble to the new scramble, I believe that there never really is any difference or change in scrambling. The imperialist tendencies and actions towards Africa have been concentrated in one continuous scramble - for resources: land, people, minerals, diamonds, timber, markets, etc. A continuous scramble and a systematic exploitation and looting of the African continent. Globalization and the global political economy are generally not looked at through the African perspective. While I can hardly offer that perspective, I work to understand.

For a long while many people, non-Africans, Europeans and African alike have understood the systematic destruction of Africa. Quoted in an article in Alternatives: A book written by Walter Rodney in the 1970s was titled "how Europe underdeveloped Africa" and Karl Marx noted in his Critique of the Political Economy that the "hunt for black skins" signaled the dawn of capitalism. It seems the African continent may have been doomed from the birth of the capitalist dream.

The Scramble for Africa began long before the Berlin Conference of 1884-5, when the African cake was divided by European powers for land claims and resources (slave trade). The scramble, however, did not end after that conference. The European powers were not appeased with just staking claim to the land. Oppressive and brutal remained in control and increased their thirst for more, and more. The Alternatives article notes that there now exists NEPAD, the WTO, EU, AGOA, EPA, and I think you could place any international agreement that places the wants of those in power over the long exploited African people.

The article also notes the increase and spread of the Chinese influence in African markets seeking to gain access to fossil fuels and resources. There is now considerable critique into the effects and practices of the Chinese (I have been part of this). However, this makes the practices of the EU and the USA almost completely fall from the picture. Well the Chinese may be pursuing extremely detrimental practices in Africa they cannot be left as the scapegoat for why Africa is "under-developed," exploited and robbed of resources to spur growth. The European powers and the USA need to be exposed and the ills of their actions need to be dissected and understood as well. These "historically-structurally disadvantaged societies" need leaders who will place the interests of their country-people above their own advancement. A lot needs to happen if the scramble is to end, but that requires a recognition to the problem and a plan to empower local communities. Resources do not have to be the downfall of a country. As long as the resources are used properly and agreements are in place so that the benefit reaches the people resource can be a positive. It is my opinion that African countries need to adopt a near protectionist policy in regards to socio-economic matters if the scramble and following exploit is to stop.

China is pouring money into Africa for "development" flooding markets and building infrastructure with money that will flow right back into China, the US is militarizing the continent at a frightening rate (nothing new) to "fight terrorism" and gain access to resources in their "triangle of interest," Brazil, India, Russia, and countless other countries are positioning themselves to yet again eat from the African cake. This competition can work as a positive for Africa, but only as long as the minority of elites need to recognize the great need of their people.

who speaks for whom?

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) peacekeepers are trapped in the middle of the fight. Checkpoints are all over the North Kivu province and the UN personnel are not exempt from interrogation. The UN peacekeepers are forced to live with a precarious relationship with the various warring factions in the DRC, including the government army. The DRC's current government army is just a conglomerate of merged rebel armies and so there does not exist a common identity. You never know who you may have to deal with at a checkpoint. Recently a rebel leader in North Kivu surrendered to the UN forces. Kabila has given the green light to loyal troops to engage and disarm rebel General Nkundu. The recent fighting between government forces and rebels probably caused the small rebel group of about 30 to surrender. The resurgence of fighting has also brough with it human rights abuses. From 2005 - 2007, over 258 cases of rape were recorded along with 14,200 cases of sexual violence. Less than one percent of these made it to court. The UN Independent Expert on human rights has called for an end to the impunity of sexual violence cases and urged Kabila to take up a 'zero-tolerance' policy.

There is now talk of US military trainers coming to the DRC to train the mixed-up government army. A large Congolese delegation, along with President Kabila, will visit the White House on Friday to discuss the possibility. Is this yet another move by the US to gain ground over the Chinese resource grabbing machine? Will the US be able to bring together a divided government army? This is yet another great example of the US aiding the re-militarization of African countries. Well this case may be different I can't see the US handling in a more focused approach of helping to create law and order in the security sector of the DRC.

In Sudan, we see the deployment of a UN-AU joint peacekeeping force. The force still lacks necessary equipment, notably from China, including specialized units in both air and ground support. A great step to ending a terrible conflict, but a step that I feel will meet the same difficulties as the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC. There are so many disconnected rebel movements in Sudan that it will again be hard to know who you are dealing with. In both countries peace deals had been signed to end the fighting, but fighting quickly resumed when rebel factions not associated with teh signing groups continued fighting. Somehow everyone needs to be brought to the table, but how? You have the government forces propogating a genocide and numerous, divided rebel groups fighting against the government and each other. The UN-AU peacekeeping force will be a help in Sudan. However in both the DRC and Sudan, peacekeepers will need to find out who is who and who speaks for whom if they are to broker a successful peace deal.

the 'third' congolese war

From: !Enough: the project to abolish genocide + mass atrocities -

Dissident Congolese Tutsi General Laurent Nkunda's more than 3,000 loyal forces have carved out control of parts of North Kivu Province. The Congolese government has responded by realigning itself with the FDLR -- a militia composed of more than 6,000 Rwandan Hutu rebels, many with links to the 1994 genocide in their home country -- to fight Nkunda's more effective force. This threatens to draw Rwanda back into Congo's conflict, which would lead to rapid escalation and potentially plunge Congo back into regional war.

In recent weeks, fighting between the two sides has intensified, with increasing numbers of troops being deployed to the front line and more being forcibly recruited. Civilians inevitably are caught in the crossfire, and the prevailing climate of impunity allows all sides -- Nkunda, the FDLR, the Congolese army and local militias -- to exploit the local population without fear of consequences.

Not many people know that there is even a conflict happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Not many people have even heard of the DRC or the frightening linkages between the conflicts in Rwanda, Uganda, Darfur and the DRC. People flee from southern Sudan into Uganda, rebels chase them into Uganda intensifying the northern Ugandan conflict. Some then flee to the DRC. During the First and Second Congolese Wars, Rwanda and Uganda intervened to try to bring stability to the region. Rwanda had an interest in intervening because Mobutu, leader during the Second Congolese War, was in support of the Hutu rebel militia, which was responsible for the genocide in 1994. Theseinterlocked conflicts have fueled the continued conflict in the DRC. There are now many competing militias in the DRC and they are all looking to gain the upperhand. A relative peace had fallen over the region, but the ceasefire between the rebel forces and government forces has been abandoned. Rebel forces resumed fighting just this month saying that it was in response to government attacks.

As the intense fighting waged on, China jumped into the turmoil to grab up the riches of the DRC. Because of the extended conflict the infrastrucutre of the DRC is extremely poor and nearly non-existant. China is investing a large sum to help the DRC build infrastructure in exchange for access to the mineral wealth of the country. The BBC writes about a recent study that concluded that China's main interest in Africa is to guarantee its supply of raw materials. No study is necessary to conclude, just read the news. 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. But where is this loan money going, who is recieving the money to build the roads and buildings and railways? Answer: China. 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. Chinese money for big projects is going back to Chinese government. China is losing nothing in the deal while African countries lose everything. When there is no longer raw materials and resources an infrastructure is irrelevent.

Chinese trade and investment has galvanised mineral production from South Africa (manganese) to Niger (uranium), and from Sudan to Angola (oil). Much of that activity reflects an intense appetite for the African resources needed to fuel China's manufacturing sector, but big Chinese companies have quickly become formidable competitors in other sectors as well, particularly for big-ticket public works contracts, like the ones now proposed for DR Congo. Chinese workers are engaged in dozens of African road-building projects. China is building major new railroad lines in Nigeria and Angola, large dams in Sudan, airports in several countries, and new roads almost everywhere.

The DRC is a lush, beautiful green land, full of extended unprotected forests. Minerals may be a hot commodity, but timber is what may become the DRC's biggest challenge. A BBC reporter called the forest a "sea of broccoli." The Congo forest stretches across six countries, but in the DRC it is disappearing at an alarming rate - more likely than not, due to the country's instability. A recent report showed that the majority of the timber is headed to China, 90% illegally. Logging companies set up in the DRC in what appears to be far off forest wonderlands. These wonderlands are inhabited by groups of people who traditionally lived on the land being cleared by logging. Much of the land has traditional and religious importance to the people. In an article written for the BBC, the story of one traditional village is told with a overtone of hope. The logging company is working with the people to make maps and document which sites are of significance and should not be disturbed. They use handheld satelitte machines to mark sacred spots and the people could not be happier. In a country where logging companies overrun traditional peoples and sacred lands without any regard, this is an instance of positive development.

the chinese influence

The Chinese influence in Africa is a topic that I have been researching for a few years now. I have conducted most of my research by way of news sites and journals in the States and with the help of the internet, but now I have the opportunity to see firsthand the impact of the Chinese influence in an African country. This entry will follow my experiences and insights on how China is involved in Ghana.

The first thing that someone traveling in Ghana will notice is that there are so many Chinese restaurants. They are just about everywhere. Chinese food is almost as prevalent as Ghanaian food. Sadly, the Chinese food is not at all what you would find in America or for that matter China. The menus are often 15 pages long and with only minimally Chinese named dishes. Nevertheless, Chinese restaurants are everywhere. Also in the service industry there are a number Chinese themed hotels that host a number of Chinese tourists and business people. On our walks down East Legon we see them buying bread and other food stuffs at the market.

As some of you may know, China is currently one of the highest (maybe the number one) foreign aid provider. This is often called 'rogue' aid because it is not administered through an aid institution without any restrictions on aid usage. This aid is evident in Ghana with a number of projects sponsored by the Chinese government. One day on a tour of Accra, near the Kwame Nkrumah moselium a police escorted motorcade shot through the traffic with a handful of Chinese officials. The wonders of Chinese aid is prominently displayed in the construction of the National Theatre, it was completely funded by the Chinese government. I wonder if there is any linkage between Kwame Nkrumah's administration and the remaining Chinese connection. During his rule Nkrumah often hosted Chinese officials and received help from China.

The people, the aid, the food, the history is all here. There is a deep worry, that I often agree with, China is seeking to gain natural resources from African countries. They make a number of aid packages for 'development' and sign bilateral trade agreements, but what does it all mean? Is China's motive in Ghana to reach a growing market economy? Is it to cash in on the mineral wealth of Ghana? It cannot be just to build a National Theatre and assist the Ghanaian government with 'development.' I really wonder what the specific trade-off for China is.

China is not the only big aider that I have noticed while in Ghana. Iran is sponsoring a number of projects and many of the government ambulances are donated by the Republic of Iran. I will touch more on this in 'A Snapshot of Health in Ghana.'

Index of blog post series on Ghana.

imperialist footprints: the development story from the inside

Day 10 | May 21, 2007
We actually woke up on time today. It was probably because it was very difficult to sleep with sunburn. I kept tossing and turning to find the right angle to get some rest. Without the sheet it was too cold because of the AC on the sunburn, with the sheet it was too hot on some sunburned areas. Having sunburned hands I think s worse than sunburned feet or shoulders. When you even wash your hands it sends s shooting tingle through your hands. At any rate we were up and enjoyed toast and eggs for breakfast. It was a very overcast day and for once my sunglasses were not needed. Rain seemed imminent. The sky was so dark as we headed to the University for lecture. We arrived for lecture and the skies grew darker yet.

During lecture the lights flicked and soon the rain came pouring down. Our professor had to speak up to be heard over the roar of the rain on the roof. As the lecture progressed the rain seemed to increase and the ceiling began leaking profusely. Lecture was on colonialism again, with emphasis on de-colonizing and colonial legacies. Another day to zone out and relax. Sixty-eight years old, not an ounce of gray hair, and chasing 20 somethings across the African continent in his khakis, collared safari-style shirts, straw, old man hat, water bottle and bug spray clipped on his belt at the ready, he may not always hear us or understand what the Ghanaians say, but Ted Tims, Teddy Bear, T-bear will always be a great travel partner and has definitely, at his young age, not lost his passion and sense of adventure. Can you imagine 68 and still traveling the world? I sure hope I can do that and without gray hair.

As I sat in lecture I listened slightly and thought about how the colonial legacy was so strong in Ghana. The leading bank is Barclays, a prominent British bank, sponsor of the Premier League of Football in England. The tourists that I encounter are mostly from the UK and when you see an Obrooni it is most often a British accent that responds. The game of football is huge, this may not be a colonial legacy, but as I wrote before, many Ghanaians stopped for the final game in the British football league. Interestingly British Airways has the only flight that comes to Ghana from the US connections or Europe. Ghana is also marked by the English language - anglophons surrounded by francophones. The BBC is a top source for news in Ghana. The education system also is very English. One of the very prominent and important colonial legacies is religion. Almost 70% of Ghanaians are Christian and that shows from the motto and phrases pasted on the backs of taxis, trotros, trucks, and storefronts: 'Trust God', 'Triumph', 'God's Will', 'All to Him', or 'God is Great.' These British footprints have a colonial legacy that is amplified by the political and economic implications of colonialism for Ghana.

Politically the Ghanaians adopted the English parliamentary system of governance. They even used to have a governor general like Canada and Australia, but eventually got rid of that stain by adopting the more American system with a Presidency along with a Parliament. The development story of Ghana has largely already been told in a earlier posting on the development of Ghana, but this is what I have been taught and seen from being in Ghana. From the colonial time period Ghana was made to produce cocoa and now they are trapped in that mono-crop (cocoa) production of raw goods. In the 1970s Ghana attempted some ISI (import substitution), but it failed to have an impact because this was just not possible with Ghana's situation of having limited abilities for industry. From 1970 - 1980 is what is called the 'lost decade of development' for Ghana. Ghana began to liberalize its markets with the involvement of the IMF and World Bank and their Economic Recovery Programs (ERP). Ghana still struggled and had difficulty and was soon named an HIPC (highly indebted poor country). This title limited their possibilities for development and aid. Ghana was relieved of its HIPC status later when its debts were forgiven and it began taking, "ginger steps toward standing on our [its] own (Prof. Johnson). This is what Ghana is working on now. The ginger steps of development in this globalized economy driven world. As a few points of interest on development: the government has nothing to do with land ownership - only taxes on businesses, China is Ghana's number one foreign aider (rogue aid? - see earlier post on subject), and so far I have only seen a handful of micro-finance and lending groups.

I have noticed that the only real developed region is the Accra region, where most ofthe people and aid organizations reside. The other areas to the north and even to the immediate south are left under-developed and neglected. Cocoa is their number one export, but if the country is to develop they need an industry established to produce a finished good with that cocoa. That is impossible however because that role is already set up in the Western industrialized countries. How is Ghana to develop? More foreign aid? I have noticed that there is an interesting relationship with Iran and some development projects. Not surprisingly the US has withdrawn its aid and has nothing to do with Ghana besides USA rice.

Our second lecture was more interesting, maybe because the lecturer was more interested in passing her knowledge to us. The topic was the role of the media in the political system and political change of Ghana. The media was huge in Ghana's political development. It was first used to combat colonialism, then was controlled by the newly independent state government, used during this time as a public voice for dissent, and finally as a promoter and grower of democracy. In 2000 Ghana experienced, for the first time, a peaceful transition of power to a new administration. The new administration was the politicians who had opposed the government since 1992. This administration had fueled the media's public dissent and made alliances with the media. The question now is: 'Is the current media as critical of the new administration since it had alliances?' Ghana has a very multi-lingual media and this allows for a more participatory democratic system and society.

After lectures we headed to Makola market. Now you see whenever we tell anyone of our Ghanaian friends that we are going to Makola market they laugh, ask us if we are serious, and then tell us 'goodluck,' so we were a bit afraid and interested at the same time to go. After arriving it is easy to see why we got such a response - Makola market is pure insanity of commerce. Even though Makola market may seem like pure insanity there is definitely an order and control to the confusion. In the market everything has its place, there is a section for candies, clothing, luggage, seafood, crabs, fufu, pretty much anything you are looking for in Ghana is here. This is the real super (duper) market, the commercial center of the country. Most of us just went to look and experience It was actually very fun and not at all a bad experience as friends had warned. Navigating the alleyways and the crowds and seeing the extent of the market was amazing. So far this is the only place where I have experienced the real hustle and bustle and hurry. Girls with empty bowls rush back to their stands in the alley to refill and sell more, every second seems to be a lost opportunity to sell, so I often get out of their way quickly. Women call and haggle, sellers bother Obrooni and Obibini alike to make a sale. This was the first place where I heard the call "Obrooni! what are you doing here?" We responded with 'Obibini' and some other Twi that we had learned to the surprise of the market women. I saw quite a few Obroonis around the market that day.

I decided to not take any pictures while in the market because it had caused problems in the past - at least until we got back on the bus. Some pictures are a little blurry. Here in Makola, as in many places in Ghana and Africa, people everything on their head. At Makola I saw a new range of this skill as boxes and goods were stacked very high and carried aloft to the numerous stands. This market was nice and more fun and much more welcoming in comparison to the 'art market' in Osu. Probably because not many Obroonis dare to venture inside the beautiful chaos.

We arrived back at the hostel and toured the kitchen to see how we could save some money on eating costs. We decided to eat at Fresherz down the road, a very american-style restaurant with american foods. As per Ghanaian standards, after our drinks were ordered, it took nearly two hours for everyone to get their food. It was very tasty food after waiting two hours. Joseph later took us to a nice little market to get some inexpensive food. He got a taxi to take the seven of us for just 20,000 cedis ($2). First, the taxis here are very small cars, second, it is difficult to breath with someone on your lap in a small car. Five people crammed in the back, Don on my lap and two in the front. The bumps in the road were uncomfortable, but not a bad ride otherwise. Suddenly an unmarked black car drove in front of us and stopped. "Police?" we all asked, but Joseph said no. But it was the police and they began giving the driver an earful about taking seven people, Obroonis at that, in one taxi. They threatened to take his taxi sticker and asked if 20,000 cedis was worth his taxi career. In the end it was just a lecture for our driver and we were on our way again. Ghanaian police - don't mess with them.

As we entered the small market we noticed huge flying bugs. They were very large and interesting. However they became less interesting and more bothersome as their numbers increased rapidly and they were drawn to the market lights. Large-winged, meaty flies filled the air and swarmed the lights of the market as we attempted to buy food. In our hair, faces, and brushing our legs these flies were not done kicking until their wings fell off and they all scurried away. Joseph told us that after a big rain these bugs come out and that some people catch, fry with salt, and eat them. I had heard of this before and it sounds like a treat. Maybe I can try some here.

We frequent an internet cafe down the road a ways from out hostel. We often walk in the dark to the cafe. I noticed on this night that the american tunes played in the cafe unconsciously were stuck in my head on the walk back and unknown to me I hummed them aloud. I also realized that since we were Obroonis walking on the street in the dark that we must want a taxi ride. When a taxi is empty and wants to give you a ride they honk at you. We must have been honked at over a dozen times! Can't an Obrooni walk on the street!

the quest for development; aid to the rescue in ghana

Poverty: a state of being extremely poor; inferior in quality or insufficient in amount; our generation’s greatest problem; the world’s worst disease; a trap. The definition of poverty is one that is not difficult to grasp, yet so many do not understand how or why it plagues our world of riches. Our world is plagued by poverty and, contestably, Africa is the hardest hit due to it’s historical status of being relegated to unimportance. While poverty continues to take lives day after day the power wielding countries, institutions, and agencies argue over a solution. That solution is called development. Leaders, institutions, philanthropists all argue as to how development should be facilitated, what the best facilitator is, and how aid should be implemented. Is aid the best facilitator of economic development to bring an end to poverty?

Almost two years after Ghana’s President received word from the Group of 8 that aid would be increased to Africa, Ghana will celebrate being the first independent African country. Ghana is an African country that was very near economic collapse, but through the process of reform, gained economic stability. The current President is expected to step down after serving two years and it looks as though Ghana’s days of coups and unrest will long be over. Ghana has become an economically stable country by way of economic reform, which brought in foreign aid from the institutions and investment from the rest of the world. This is seen as a limited success as far as African countries. Ghana has shown itself to be a good reformer and much of that success has been attributed to aid. But why is Ghana such an isolated case of the success of aid from institutions?

The Trap or A Missing Right?

Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, claims that there is a poverty trap and that the only way to get out of it is by climbing up the ladder of development. He states that this is the greatest tragedy of our time; that one-sixth of the world is not even on the development ladder. The reason that one-sixth of the world is not on the ladder is because of the ‘poverty trap.’ They are trapped because of many reasons: disease, isolation, climate, etc., but why? Sachs tells us that this one-sixth is trapped because their families and governments lack the financial means to invest in their own development. The world’s poor need to get a foot up on that ladder, but how? How does one invest in themselves?

Capital is the answer to the poor’s problem – at least that is what Hernando de Soto believes. In his research on the ‘mystery of capital’ de Soto claims to have found that all the poor need is access or ability to use the land and property that they reside on. They have material things, but cannot use their land as a resource to create capital. De Soto says that, “Capital is the force that raises productivity of labor and creates the wealth of nations.” The problem here is that governments have to open up their property systems to the poor and many are not inclined to do so. The processes for land ownership are lengthy and difficult in many LEDCs, so for many people owning property is not worth their time. De Soto fights for an impractical approach to bringing the world’s poor out of poverty. Balaam and Veseth note that de Soto’s argument for property-rights reform could not alleviate LEDC poverty, however such as step may be necessary for the success of ‘the beautiful goal.’

De Soto’s argument is supported in a slightly more practical manner by C.K. Prahalad, who says that there must be a goal to ‘democratize commerce.’ He supports his claim by giving examples of the poor as micro-producers. Prahalad argues that, “We know aid is not the answer to that kind of mass poverty. Subsidies, grants, and philanthropy may have a role to play, but the real solution is local development of the private sector. That requires specific actions that take into account the historical background of the country at hand.” Prahalad makes an excellent point at that there needs to be an understanding of country situations. He tells us that aid has a place, but where is that place?

Property rights are seen by many to be central to investment and the economy of development. Like de Soto they argue for its quick implementation. In regards to property ownership and its use to become developed it seems that Ghana eased from communal to individually owned land system. In the Ghanaian culture property held high importance and even though Ghana had to move from a communal model to individualistic, it was smooth. Property rights were granted to those who had planted or cultivated certain sections of land. This changeover of property rights was facilitated by stable, well-defined laws and customs in regards to the governing of land. The courts also recognized the existence of ‘family land’ and land belonging to larger kinships. This preset tradition of land ownership allowed Ghana to easily transition and permit people to use land as a means of creating capital.

Whose Consensus Should We Use?

Governments can hinder development, people are restricted from development, and societal institutions push the criteria for development. The Washington Consensus is the list by which all must abide in order to receive foreign aid. The Consensus promotes a strong neo-liberal agenda to deregulate economy, privatize government enterprises, create low inflation, low government debt, and open to domestic and international markets. The institutions use the Consensus in a fair amount of disagreement in regards to implementation. The Washington Consensus was a form for economic development that pushed free trade and capital mobility. The issue of free trade versus fair trade is a complete other paper, but the for ‘free’ forces LEDCs to spend funds on making reforms as opposed to implementing programs to serve its people. This causes poverty to continue in LEDC and although the Consensus made an irresistible possibility within reach it also brought the possibility of devastating collapse and risk.

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank are very often criticized and reforms within the institutions are called for. However, outside the institutions stand NGOs who fill the gap and many times create longer-lasting and more effective results for the poor of the world. Easterly is a strong critic of the aid agencies and he makes a very strong and compelling argument against them. Ghana has received a large number of loans and aid from the institutions. Easterly notes that in many recent cases of heavy involvement by the aid agencies end in collapses into anarchy. Stiglitz tells us that the Washington Consensus assumes perfect information, perfect competition, and perfect risk markets – an idealization of reality has little relevance to LEDCs.

Sachs writes about Ghana’s poverty reduction strategy. He notes that the government of Ghana reached the conclusion that a major scaling up of the public investments in the social sector and infrastructure, which estimates a required donor aid around $8 million. The Ghana strategy was well designed and argued, but the donors dropped and rejected the plan. Sachs argues that there needs to be a harmonization of aid. The many bi-lateral aid groups need to work together for larger projects, but for smaller-scale projects a more specified aid is required.

The Downside of Backward

Aid has become a dangerous word in today’s globalized, polarized, prioritized world. Another problem is that aid, as a term, is a very broad topic. For the purposes here, aid refers to financial support to increase economic development. The ‘grandiose’ plan of making poverty history or ending poverty brings about the desire to create the ideal aid agencies, administrative plans, and financial resources. Over the past sixty years the West has pushed reform schemes, agencies, and numerous plans all to end poverty. This has created a massive $2.3 trillion failed push by the aid industry to meet this ‘beautiful goal.’ William Easterly has argued that, “this evidence points to an unpopular conclusion: Big Plans will always fail to reach ‘the beautiful goal.’ Easterly tells us that Planners will always fail and their plans will always fail because they ask the question of what does the end of poverty require of foreign aid? When instead we should be searchers and ask, “What can foreign aid do for poor people?”

Balaam and Veseth tell us that the nature of aid flows has drastically changed from the time of the Cold War until now. During that time less aid was given because of security reasons, but now multilateral aid is channeled through institutions such as the World Bank. In the 1990s the World Bank changed its priorities to “fill in the gaps” due to many projects being funded by the private market and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This shift made less economically developed countries (LEDCs) more dependent on other sources of funding.

If a LEDC has to depend on another source of funding besides the established institutions, as flawed as they may be, they will most likely look for the easiest way to get that funding. Ghana recently received, in June of 2006, a $66 million loan from China to fund its development projects. This is an extremely different and what some would call ‘backward’ step for Ghana. The Ghanaian experience with foreign aid has been to adopt reforms and partner with the institutions. In this case Ghana has strayed from the accepted conventions of the foreign aid industry. China is seen as a rogue aider in that they are undermining the development policy of the foreign aid institutions. By not placing restrictions on aid usage or democratic reforms, China is taking the foreign aid market by storm, as the World Bank is put out of business. China is not the only supplier of rogue aid, but it is the most prolific. What does this all mean for the aid industry?

It can only mean one thing and that speaks to the effectiveness of the aid institutions and the aid suppliers of the West. Ghana the star of economic reform, democracy in Africa, and years of peaceful independence is seeking rogue aid – there is no place anymore for utopias and institutions and big plans.

Utopia is Not Possible?

If the big plans won’t work than what will? Easterly says that the big problem with foreign aid is that is aspires to a utopian blueprint to fix the world’s complex problems. This is where we must refer back to Easterly and his explanation of a ‘searcher.’ Easterly helps us to understand that, “A planner thinks he already knows the answers; he thinks poverty as a technical engineering problem that his answers will solve. A searcher admits he doesn’t know the answers in advance; he believes that poverty is a complicated tangle of political, social, historical, and technological factors. A searcher hopes to find answers to individual problems only by trial and error experimentation. A planner also believes outsiders know enough to impose solutions. A searcher believes only insiders have enough knowledge to find solutions, and that most solutions must be homegrown.” Easterly pushes for giving more assistance and aid to searchers and not planners because the utopian plan is not possible.

Sachs states that, “One of the weaknesses of development thinking is the relentless drive for a magic bullet.” This is very ironic because at the end of Sach’s book he argues for a big plan to end poverty, a magic bullet? Sachs outlines four main points for what a donor should do. However he seeks to create an overarching plan for all developing countries to escape the poverty trap. Sachs criticizes the aid agencies as well as promotes their reform and continuation. Easterly on the other hand calls for the West to build a willingness to aid individuals rather than governments. He tells us in his book that the ideas thought to be crazy are the ones that work best and reach the people in need of aid. He outlines a plan for how aid should be used for development starting with development vouchers, which the poor could turn in at any NGO or agency for a vaccine, food, health check-up, etc. Easterly strongly emphasizes getting feedback from the poor on development progress and pushes for aid groups to go back to the basics and be accountable for individual, feasible areas of action.

In her Foreign Policy article, Esther Duflo notes that a good many people have qualms about foreign aid, but that we need to fund what works. “Governments and citizens of poor countries resent the us of aid as a means of buying political support, their lack of control over it, the development fads to which it is subject, and the administrative burden that accompanies it.” This idea of funding what works makes sense and many in the development field advocate for a focus on people.

Many people would like to advocate for the big push, an increase in foreign aid, to eradicate poverty throughout the world, however unfortunately the track record of aid institutions and aid in general shows otherwise. If we are to be donors and fighters of poverty, then we need to understand poverty’s complexity and understand that a pragmatic and effective approach is needed. We need to adopt more the idea of Easterly and support the searchers in their quest to actually save lives.

What does this all mean for Ghana? The country will continue to receive large aid packages from the foreign aid institutions for its stability and rogue aid states for their economic successes. Ghana has become a stable economy and even though the Ghanaian people’s pride is very strong they remain chained to the aid institutions and donors when it would be better for sustainability for their development to have their searchers be supported. Aid funding needs to be linked to the implementation of a successful program to avoid waste by governments. Creating an accountability for foreign aid that provides results will justify the increase of aid to LEDC and Ghana. Today’s society has the access and ability to distribute effective aid that actually helps those in need. The greatest problem that we will face is if our government will have the political will to restore confidence in the abilities of foreign aid. Ghana is a success story of Africa as far as economic development and building a stable government, their success was backed by foreign aid from institutions, and yet many of their people remain unserved. The direction and continuation of poverty reduction in Ghana will depend on the country’s ability to recognize and support searchers with effectively implemented aid.

Bibliography:

Anonymous. “Chinese PM announces Ghana loan.” BBC News, 19 June 2006. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5094384.stm>. (accessed 3 May 2007).

Anonymous. “Proud Ghana still depends on aid.” BBC News, 15 June 2006. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5071320.stm>. (accessed 3 May 2007).

Balaam and Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. Pearson Education Inc, New Jersey: 2005.

Besley, Timothy. “Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana.” The Journal of Political Economy. The University of Chicago Press, 1995. < http://www.jstor.org/view/00223808/di980616/98p0254z/0?frame=noframe&userID=230 b82ac@msu.edu/01cc99332500501bd065d&dpi=3&config=jstor>. (JSTOR accessed on 3 May 2007).

De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital. Basic Books, New York: 2000.

Doyle, Mark. “Can aid bring an end to poverty?” BBC News, 4 October 2006. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5407770.stm>. (accessed 3 May 2007).

Duflo, Esther. “Fund What Works.” Foreign Policy Magazine, May/June 2007. 43

Easterly, William. The White Man’s Burden. The Penguin Press: 2006.

Naím, Moisés. “Rogue Aid.” Foreign Policy, March/April 2007. < http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3732>. (accessed 3 May 2007).

Sachs, Jeffrey. The End of Poverty. The Penguin Press, New York: 2005.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. Making Globalization Work. W.W. Norton & Company, New York: 2006.

Tsikata, Yvonne M. “Aid and Reform in Ghana.” World Bank. Preliminary Draft Working Paper, May 1999.

Prahalad, C.K. “The World for Sale.” Foreign Policy Magazine, May/June 2007. 50

Index of blog post series on Ghana.

the politics of genocide

Genocide continues, people continue to be murdered, lives continue to be lost. The next month will mark the anniversary of the Darfur Peace Agreement. The crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur is only getting worse. The Sudanese government claims to be making it easier for aid groups to provide humanitarian support, yet aid groups are at times allowed to work and later denied. Under-staffed and under-supported African Union troops are being threatened and killed. The US deputy secretary, John Negroponte, sees this as the last opportunity to bring in a hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force as hope seems to be running out for a solution. As Negroponte travels to Sudan he will be bringing the message that Washington's patience has run out. Ban Ki-moon says that he thinks a misunderstanding with the Sudanese government is holding up the peacekeeping force.

The Sudanese economy has boomed with the backing of China, but now China is knocking. China has strengthened military ties with Sudan and so far has been behind the blockage of a peacekeeping force in Sudan. As a permanent member on the Security Council, China has vetoed previous efforts to put peacekeepers in Darfur. Currently there is a 7000 troop AU force trying to secure an area the size of France with limited supplies and no mandate. However, China is now urging Sudan to accept a peacekeeping force. For the past two years China has vetoed sanctions and peacekeeping forces for Sudan. Now as the 2008 Bejing Olympics are fast approaching more pressure has been placed on China to resolve the Darfur crisis. From the New York Times article: "But in the past week, strange things have happened. A senior Chinese official, Zhai Jun, traveled to Sudan to push the Sudanese government to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. Mr. Zhai even went all the way to Darfur and toured three refugee camps, a rare event for a high-ranking official from China, which has extensive business and oil ties to Sudan and generally avoids telling other countries how to conduct their internal affairs."

Pressure from the Olympics has been the tipping point for Chinese authorities. There are efforts to call the 2008 Olympics the 'Genocide Olympics' from prominent advisors to the Chinese goverment dealing with the Olympics. The Olympics are a great source of pride for the Chinese people. The growing pressure over Darfur has made the Chinese worry that the crisis is hurting their image. This large push is coming from the activist community and hollywood, where people are saying that China needs to be a responsible partner in the Olympic Games. There is still plenty of time before the 2008 Olympics for China to persuade Sudan or accept sanctions.