By the time you have finished reading the first two
paragraphs of a bizarre article that came under the title: “Into Africa:
China's Wild Rush,” you'll be scratching your head wondering if the writer who
goes by the name of Howard W. French, is not trying to screw you in the head –
and if so, why? You don't know this journalism professor; you don't owe him
anything, yet here he is pumping toxic sewage into your head as if you were an
enemy he wants to snuff out. The said article can be located in the May 17,
2014 edition of the New York Times.
In general, it is mind boggling to read the works of
Americans – be they journalists or journalism professors – and realize there is
a big question left hanging out there that no one is answering: When these
people write about foreign countries, who the hell do they write for? It is not
too difficult to imagine that the foreigners they write about will want to use
the print edition as doormat on which to wipe their shoes before entering a
dwelling. As to the American audiences, the question remains: Why are they
doing this to them?
Howard French tells his readers that “China has peppered the
continent [Africa] with newly built stadiums, airports, hospitals, highways and
dams.” Instead of saying that these are the infrastructures every
industrializing country needs to achieve a good rate of growth – which by the
way Africa has achieved – the writer goes on to say that “these projects have
also left many countries saddled with heavy debt and other problems, from
environmental conflict to labor strife.” He does not stop here but goes on to
say: “As a consequence, China's relation with the continent is entering a new
and much more skeptical phase.”
If you are an American businessman looking for opportunities
overseas, this is the kind of talk at the start of an article that will scare
you about Africa. And no matter how much the writer tries to backtrack later in
the article to make the presentation look balanced, the damage has already been
done, and Africa is left for the Chinese and other Asians to monopolize because
the Americans love – just love – to do it to themselves and to each other.
Still, you go through the article looking to see how Howard
French elaborates on what he says are the consequences of Africa's unhappiness
with the Chinese investments. But you find very little about the debt, the
environmental conflict and the labor strife he mentions at the start. Instead,
you bump into a long and meaningless dissertation about subjects concerning
Western foreign aid to Africa, interference in their affairs, democracy and
universal human rights, the creation of civil societies, the Chinese form of
government and so on and so forth … enough of it to tire you and confuse you.
Eventually, you bump into something that feels like the
thing you're looking for. Here is the telling passage: “After a decade, China
seems aware that it needs to improve the substance of its push in Africa. Last
week, at the start of a four-country African trip, Prime Minister Li Keqiang
acknowledged 'growing pains' in the relationship, and the need to assure our
African friends that China will never pursue a colonialist path.” So, this is
what the Africans are worried about. The Chinese know it and they are
addressing the issues involved whereas the Americans have only people like
Howard French to tell them fairy tales and repeat old stereotypes.
Nevertheless, he explains that this event came about in
response to a sea change which began with an essay by former governor of
Nigeria's central bank, Lamido Sanusi who wrote in the Financial Times: “In
much of Africa, they [the Chinese] have set up huge mining operations. They
have also built infrastructure. But, with exception, they have done so using
equipment and labor imported from home, without transferring skills to local
communities. So China takes our primary goods and sells us manufactured ones.
This was the essence of colonialism.” French goes on to tell that the essay
prompted critical assessments of China's involvement in Botswana, Namibia,
Ghana, Tanzania and Senegal.
He also reveals something about Africa that has heretofore
remained unknown to Americans. It is this: “Independent media have played an
important role in demanding more scrutiny of government deals with Beijing. A
recent article in a leading newspaper questioned whether a huge new investment
in a railroad was truly a good deal. The project's first phase will increase
Kenya's external debt by a third.” This was an article in which the African
writer presented a balanced argument for and against the project. With people
like him writing in media as independent as those you find in Africa, who needs
the advice of outsiders?
This prompts our writer, Howard French, to try and balance
the negative things he said about Africa by discussing the positive side of
China's investments in that Continent. Thus, he reveals that: “I find the
assessment in the [Financial Times] too pessimistic … The booming,
fast-changing China offers potentially extraordinary upsides to Africa. Without
question, the continent is badly in need of more and better infrastructure.”
Still, because an American article about Africa must have
the obligatory “but” stuck after every positive remark made about the
Continent, Howard French maintains the tradition. Here is his but: “But because
China is often seen to be looking out for itself, the potential downside for
Africans have begun to stand out: the stalling of the continent's
democratization … This isn't simply a matter of Beijing's doing business with
odious dictators ... From Zaire to Equatorial Guinea to Rwanda, the West has
its own acknowledged history of doing much the same.”
He explains that the problem is corruption at the top of the
governing body. But then, ignoring what he said earlier about an alert and
independent press in Africa questioning what the leaders are doing, he goes on
to offer the American solution to Africa's corruption problems. He says
Washington should encourage the foreigners who invest in Africa “to abide by
higher transparency standards.” Does he believe that those foreigners will
restrain themselves from landing a kick at the rear end of the American envoy
who will utter those words to them?