EU puts Africa ball in China's court
By Bernt Berger
The European Union (EU), traditionally suspicious of China's business-first,
pragmatic approach to Africa, has released a groundbreaking policy paper which
proposes sharing the responsibility for the continent's great challenges,
marking a great step forward in Europe's approach to Beijing's many engagements
in Africa.
"The EU, Africa and China: Towards trilateral dialogue and cooperation", was
released by the European Commission on October 17. It combines a clear
political re-orientation with pragmatic policy options, and in so doing
constitutes Europe's first advance towards cooperation with both China and,
hopefully, the African Union.
While China has so far remained silent diplomatically on the EU's
new policy proposal, sources say Beijing is giving trilateral cooperation
serious consideration. But it may take a long time for the Chinese government
to make a formal response as the cooperation would involve major policy
changes.
During the past two years, commentators have portrayed China's engagement in
Africa as successful and a challenge to traditional donor policies and
geostrategic interests. On the surface, China's bilateral and unconditional
dealings with African governments seems to have undermined European efforts
towards sustainable development. But Chinese and African officials claim
China's "soft" diplomacy has been more preferable and successful than Europe's
conditional overtures. In light of such developments, the EU has increasingly
found itself under zugzwang, a position in which a chess player is
compelled to move.
The new policy paper clearly offers China cooperation based on pragmatism and
complementary approaches. Differing principles and geopolitical outlooks are
not an issue. In so doing, the EU has made a submission to China which may have
to work out a reasonable response to the overtures.
So far, Beijing has regarded bilateral cooperation with Africa as a chance to
support its own development. Although necessity seems to guide policy-making,
the EU Commission's agenda now takes on China's engagement as a chance to
create comprehensive development approaches.
The question remains whether Beijing is ready to accept the EU's offer as an
opportunity to boost its own efforts, as Beijing has so far regarded the
European concepts of trilateral cooperation and effective multilateralism with
skepticism.
Concerns exist about whether closer association with European players could
undermine China's soft approach toward developing bilateral relations with
African governments. The combination of soft power and a clear differentiation
to Western approaches has earned Beijing great appreciation and credibility on
the continent.
But Beijing also has increasingly good reasons for closer cooperation. China's
Africa Development Fund, a $5 billion fund approved in 2007 to support local
agriculture, infrastructure, Chinese industrial parks and extractive
industries, has found it difficult to find suitable, local project-partners.
With the allocation of projects to primarily Chinese companies, Beijing is also
confronted with the problem of lacking local partnership for development
projects. Generous soft diplomacy that promises mutual benefits runs the risk
of falling into the recurrent dependency trap of donor policies. In African
countries, assaults on Chinese workers and institutions are on the increase.
Practically, circumstances force Beijing to modify its course of action.
Regarding Europe's offer, the chances are good that Chinese institutions at
least consider piecemeal pragmatic cooperation as a chance. China's Ministry of
Foreign Affairs initially adopted a hesitant position. Concerns with the
country's image after the Tibet crisis and criticisms during the August Beijing
Summer Olympic Games have added to the unassertive stance.
China's mission to the EU in Brussels disapproved of a recent communication on
China-Africa development cooperation, and fear of additional criticism of its
African engagement makes keeping a low profile on the issue look more
preferable. Especially after the European parliament on April 23 drafted a
resolution on China's effects on Africa, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has
become cautious. The paper critically (yet with a cooperative outlook)
highlighted the challenges coming from China's policy.
In China, the main responsibility for developing external business ties
officially lies with the Ministry of Commerce (MOC). Despite internal struggles
for competence, the MOC remains the main addressee for bilateral dealings with
the subject. According to internal sources, trilateral cooperation now is under
MOC consideration as an option.
Voices critical of the EU's new approach are mainly heard inside Europe. At the
center of debates now is whether China should be dealt with from a pragmatic or
an ethical approach.
The lack of concern for human rights and good governance issues in the EU
policy paper was identified as the main shortcoming. However, the strategy of
complementing approaches based on principles such as pragmatism, shared
responsibility and effectiveness gives leeway for new options rather than
closing doors by pressurizing Beijing.
Among EU member-states, ignoring human rights and good governance can be an
issue since policy mainstreaming in this area is one of the pillars of its
Common Foreign and Security Policy. Yet, the onus is on the commission to
convince human-rights advocates that pragmatic dealing with ethical concerns is
the way forward.
Other voices state that the EU has been too careful in its dealings with China,
and skirted around confrontation. The crux of the matter is that the EU does
not represent its own interests with enough determination, and is therefore
running the risk of not being taken seriously by Beijing.
The EU's biggest problem might not be development policies but integrating
common foreign policy, a lack of unity among member-states on all kinds of
issues, including aid policies, is surely a shortcoming that tarnishes the EU's
international credibility. In recent years, this has especially become visible
in dealings with China.
Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the trilateral outlook with clear preferences
and defined principles on all sides neither offers much leverage over the
parties involved nor scope for a more offensive approach.
Correspondingly, the argument that China has taken the EU's African policy
hostage is anchorless. The EU has defined its own Africa strategy. Cooperation
with other important states takes place inside the framework of the OECD-DAC
(the Development Assistance Committee under Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development). Only India remains outside any cooperation
framework and has shown little interest in joining forces on the African
continent.
The challenges ahead are beyond the critique. Whereas the EU Commission
suggests common objectives for sustainable development in Africa, such as
securing peace, building infrastructure, management of natural resources and
the environment as well as promotion of agriculture and food security, the most
imminent challenges are at the tipping point of success or failure.
Convincing African governments to join the trilateral setting will be difficult
as suspicion of renewed paternalism might arise. At the same time, Europe faces
two major challenges to its development policies. Aid effectiveness, lacking
oversight over existing initiatives and institutions among member-states, and
the lack of a unified approach, are obfuscating otherwise elaborate policy
concepts.
At the same time, the offer of complementing policy approaches needs to be
taken seriously. This involves serious research on the role of foreign direct
investment (FDI) in sustainable development. Since China emphasizes the role of
FDI in development, cooperation strategies need to be developed on how it can
be incorporated into existing approaches.
Bernt Berger is a research fellow at the Institute for Peace Research and
Security Policy, Hamburg (IFSH).
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
