The past eight Forum on China-Africa Cooperation summits, since 2000, have not resulted in mutual gain, particularly in trade and industrialisation for Africa.
The China-Africa cooperation forum [that takes place in Beijing at the beginning of Septmber] has become the most important event on the African international relations calendar. More African leaders attend these summits than the United Nations general assembly. Data shows that the forum attracts 40 to 60 African heads of state and government, far more than any other regular summit with a single country.
[…]
Although the EU, France, South Korea and the US are important to the African continent, they do not have the same ambition that China has. Nor the kind of free hand that China’s authoritarian system allows its leaders. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation is therefore important for African leaders because it often leads to big promises which outweigh anything that can be promised by other partners in one sitting.
It has become clear, however, that the forum is a platform for China to dole out aid and loans to African countries, and to articulate priorities that serve its own broader ambitions. Africa’s voice is minimal in the agenda-setting, due mostly to the multiplicity of African states, African Union weakness and competing needs among African countries.
[…]
Unequal gains likely to persist
The result of a lack of an African strategy is the imbalanced terms of trade between China and African countries. This is seen most notably in the trade surplus that China enjoys: most recently measured at US$64.1 billion as of 2023 and still seemingly growing (having been at US$46 billion the previous year and US$42 billion in 2021).
Over the past ten years, the structure of that trade has not changed either, despite China’s pledge to help Africa industrialise.
African countries still largely export raw minerals and agricultural goods to China, while it sends back advanced manufactures, such as electronics, machinery and vehicles. Without an African strategy, the same pattern looks set to continue.
They have now, if and when they coordinate and cooperate between themselves, according to the researcher:
Africa’s voice is minimal in the agenda-setting, due mostly to the multiplicity of African states, African Union weakness and competing needs among African countries.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I don’t think they had much choice when the Europeans rocked up.
The initial phase of colonisation in Africa (until the 17th century) involved mostly religious propaganda, unequal trade and miltary alliances with existing political powers in Africa. Look, for example, how Portugal, and later the Netherlands, slowly eroded the sovereignty of the Kindgom of Kongo and compare it to what China is doing today.
They have now, if and when they coordinate and cooperate between themselves, according to the researcher: