Part V
Liberal Theory in explaining Sino-African relations
Liberal theory, advocating limited state jurisdiction and promulgating the intimate relation between individual freedoms and private property, fails to adequately explain the nature of China's role in Africa. This is so because China's own model of economic development and conduct of international relations, which in turn determine the constitution of its engagement with Africa, can best be characterized as "illiberal" (Barma and Ratner 61). This illiberal development model comprises two key elements: the first, internal element can best be described as "illiberal capitalism" and epitomizes China's very own path of economic development- namely that of a state-civil society compact through which the government provides a certain measure of economic growth in return for having its authority unchallenged. Freedom and civil liberties are forfeited for social order and wealth, and to the degree that the regime continues to deliver on its socio-economic promise, it is unlikely to moderate (Barma and Ratner 62). The second, external element of the model represents a rejection of the liberal hypothesis that the international community should have a say in the internal affairs of a state and advocates the preponderance of state sovereignty. It is characterized by a permissive foreign policy "predicated on principles of absolute sovereignty and non-intervention" (Barma and Ratner 64). The Chinese model thus severs the link between capitalist economic freedoms on the one hand and political liberties of democratic representation on the other, exhibiting a sharp contrast to the doctrine of liberal modernization theory.
Because this strategy is "conveniently portable, emphasizing the nationalist and pragmatic nature of the development project rather than prescribing specific ideological rules for political and economic management", it has had profound influence in shaping the development paths of African countries in the wake of China's emergence as a key partner (Barma and Ratner 62). For instance, the extenuation of the advancement of Structural Adjustment Programs, as a consequence of China's unconditional trade, aid and investment policies, undermines the very mechanism through which the West has sought to advance liberal practices worldwide. "Unlike the United States and Europe, China does not subscribe to evolving international norms of multilateral intervention on the grounds of human rights and political freedoms, does not promote democracy overseas, does not demand open markets from its trading partners, and does not advocate selective violations of a nation's sovereignty" (Barma and Ratner 64). Instead China's foreign policy is predicated on comprehensive "packages" that include trade and investment, military assistance, highly visible aid projects, debt relief, technical expertise, and educational and cultural ex-changes, all backed by China's influence in international bodies like the U.N. Security Council. Moreover, in employing its diplomatic leverage, as in the case of Darfur, in dissuading international institutions like the UNHRC - institutions that are based, at least theoretically, on liberal principles - from political confrontation on human rights and other grounds, China's behavior is antithetical to that of the United States and other liberal democracies that espouse intervention in the protection of liberal entities (Barmer and Ratner). Lastly, there is evidence of the emergence of a new international structure, entrenched in the norms of illiberal capitalism and sovereignty, and in dialectic and ideological opposition to traditional models of liberal development. Multilateral associations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization suggest "an alternative international architecture "in which the United Nations, NATO, and the Bretton Woods institutions no longer set the principles that govern international politics" (Barma and Ratner 66).
Radical Theory in explaining Sino-African relations
In the context of a capitalistic framework, radical, in particular Dependency theories postulate that "economic domination runs across north-south geoeconomic patterns" (Maswana 2). Central to the dependency framework in the current global economic framework is the inability of the periphery to develop an autonomous process of technological innovation. While this dynamic does exist in current Sino-African relations, it is perhaps the only factor that points to relations of Dependence.
China, in its relations with Africa, does not fit the theoretical category of either a core or a periphery nation (Maswana 2). As well, Dependency theory assumes that development and underdevelopment constitute two opposite poles of one and the same process; in other words, development of the 'core' capitalist countries presupposes and even necessitates underdevelopment of the 'peripheral' dependent countries. A seminal feature of radical Dependency theory is the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis which posits the "persistent deterioration in the net barter terms of trade between primary products and manufacturing" (Maswana 4). Contrastingly, "China‘s tremendous economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented improvement in Africa‘s "net barter terms of trade [to] 106.6 points as compared to the base year 1995" (Maswana 11). Moreover, even though Africa does supply China with relatively cheap minerals and serves as a repository for manufactures, because "China itself is a cheap-labor country, the expected supply of cheap labor and agriculture commodities commonly found in dependency relationships barely apply in this case" (Maswana 10). Another important feature of Dependency theory is the political and ideological control by the core of the periphery. A Dependency posture on Sino-African relations would previse the establishment of Chinese "military presence as a means of preserving potential risks of expropriation/nationalization and preventing any challenges" (Maswana 13). China's virtual military absence from the continent (barring international peacekeeping missions) is a rebuttal of this prognosis. As well, center-periphery relations of dependence are inconceivable without their financial mediums and channels (Maswana 13). There is no evidence however of Chinese attempts to influence the monetary policies of African nations it transacts with. Nor are African countries enmeshed in Chinese related debt burdens that would otherwise have provided the latter the opportunity to impose its own structural adjustment policies on Africa (Maswana 13). China's policy of non-interference also does not coincide with conventional mores of peripheral elite control adopted by core countries. Dependency theory posits that, more often than not, local elites, as intermediating agents between the capitalist class in the center and local workers in the periphery, collude with the former at the expense of the latter (Maswana 13). Yet, China "is dealing with the local elite not through forceful domination but through the consensus-based means of economic and diplomatic leadership" (Maswana 13).
In sum therefore, the argument fails to support the idea that China-Africa relations can be explained by radical theories of Dependency. Rather, the case represents an anomalous instance of "inter-system dependency", one that is characterized by south-south dialectic and a differentiating technology gap. This is illustrated by the crucial shift of Africa "from its traditional raw material exports into a basic manufacturing integration in its relationship with China" (Maswana 14). The verdict hence is that neither the Liberal nor the Radical theory succeed in offering a sufficiently satisfactory explanation of the complex realities that characterize the Sino-African engagement.
Conclusion
To conclude, a relationship or consociation may be deemed exploitative if the actions or decisions of one party result in a relative deterioration in the position of the other. China's involvement in Africa, while admittedly not ideal, has thus far not exhibited the features of a dominant, exploitative partner. Certainly, it has not led to any further abasement of Africa's status from its already ignominious position following decades of colonial and neo-colonial plundering. If anything, it has led to a small, yet tangible improvement. Much of what appears in western media today is little short of "China-bashing" (Obiorah 39). Yet, by providing Africa with crucial newfound leverage (Janneh), China has in fact aided the economic, political and social development of Africa (albeit to a limited extent) and therefore its relationship with Africa cannot be judged exploitative.
x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x
All Rights Reserved: Rage