Tag: China
China and the U.S. in Africa
I’m at the Chinua Achebe Colloquium on Africa at Brown this weekend. I thought this session on “China and the United States in Africa: Cooperation or Confrontation” would be of particular interest:
- Robert Rotberg, Harvard: Chinese goods and traders are ubiquitous in Africa, Chinese growth is Africa’s great hope but Chinese human rights record in Africa is appalling. China’s focus is access to resources: trying to convince Khartoum and Juba to settle pipeline issues (which is a good thing), helping with the Zimbabwe crackdown on protests. Chinese and Americans in Africa have different agendas and will have to find a mutual accommodation.
- Walter Carrington, former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria: China offers trade and aid without onerous Western conditions. But United States also is there for its own interests, and it was indifferent to moral considerations throughout the Cold War. U.S. business would gladly see Washington behave the way Beijing does. Africom assures access to African oil supplies. We should avoid competition with China, which behaves like the capitalists we hoped they would one day become.
- James Hentz, VMI: Strategic framework is important: either realist, in which China challenges the U.S. (power transition model) and tries to deny U.S. resources, especially oil, metals; or liberal, in which growing trade and commerce is a good thing, Chinese construction of infrastructure benefits other powers as well. China and U.S. both have huge stakes in stability in Africa, but China does not like American advocacy of democracy. Chinese will want good governance and transparency in Africa, but not American-style democracy.
- Scott D. Taylor, Georgetown: U.S. and China so far moving along parallel tracks. How do Africans view the two? China viewed favorably in most countries. Even in Zambia, China has traction. Views of China are approaching the highly positive levels of views of the U.S., which are slipping because of Africom, hunt for Lord’s Resistance Army, use of drones in Somalia, reduction of PEPFAR funding, toppling of Qaddafi. Anti-U.S. sentiment is growing, to the benefit of the Chinese.
- Omer Ismail, Enough! China and the U.S. compete for resources and markets. The approaches are different: China leads with the state, the U.S. with the market. China has now passed the U.S. in trade with Africa, in corporate deals with Africa, in percentage of oil imports from Africa, supplying weapons to all sides. Possible areas for cooperation: agriculture, security and diplomacy, and environment. What is in it for the people of Africa? That is what U.S. and China should focus on. There is a real possibility for cooperation.
- Deborah Brautigan, American University: China represents a big challenge that echoes for Americans the Cold War and Japanese economic competition. It is a developing country with low labor and environmental standards. Chinese foreign policy emphasizes mutual benefit and non-interference. But China is changing rapidly, we often exaggerate Chinese activities in Africa and have little understanding what they are actually doing. Chinese credit practices can be good because they guarantee that the Chinese get what they pay for, which is better than much Western foreign assistance has done.
Overall message: some competition is inevitable, but the Chinese role in Africa is already more positive that many think (finance, infrastructure) and more like U.S. private sector behavior than we like to admit. There is a negative side: supporting unworthy rulers, use of veto at the UN, Chinese racial attitudes, and company exploitation of diamonds in Zimbabwe. But Chinese are evolving in a direction that may allow more cooperation on Africa in the UN and in an Africa that is increasingly democratic and resistant to exploitation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Getting ready for post-Assad Syria
While my enthusiasm for nonviolent revolution in Syria has not waned, some of the best pieces of the past week have focused on the risks involved.
International Crisis Group (ICG) weighed in with an analysis of where things might go wrong:
- the fate of the Alawite community;
- the connection between Syria and Lebanon;
- the nature and implications of heightened international
involvement;- the long-term impact of the protest movement’s growing
militarisation; and- the legacy of creeping social, economic and institutional
decay.
Patrick Seale offered a more generic warning of civil war and a far-fetched (or is it imaginative?) proposal for BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) mediation to avoid it (with thanks to Carne Ross for tweeting it).
Meanwhile, back at the Arab League they imposed in principle serious sanctions on Syria, including a ban on transactions with its central bank as well as travel by regime big shots and a halt to Arab development projects in Syria. As usual, some of the important stuff is not mentioned. Commercial air transportation with Syria will continue, assets in the Gulf have not been frozen, and neighbors Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan have not committed to complying with the sanctions, which will probably be implemented slowly and incompletely. Even if all were willing, the regime would find ways of taking advantage of sanctions to enrich its least savory characters.
One other thing is also certain: the longer it takes to get rid of Assad, the more difficult the transition to a democratic regime will be. No one can pretend that the Syrian National Council (SNC) is yet ready to govern, even if Libya and France have recognized it (the latter as a partner for dialogue and not a government). It needs to hasten its preparations, which so far seem rudimentary. The SNC (and other elements of the opposition?) will reportedly meet in Cairo within a week to elaborate its vision and plans for the transition. The Syrians could do worse than take that ICG list of issues and work on serious plans to resolve them.
PS: The UN Human Rights Commission “Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic,” published this morning, makes grim reading. Here are a couple of randomly chosen paragraphs:
48. Several defectors witnessed the killing of their comrades who refused to execute orders to fire at civilians. A number of conscripts were allegedly killed by security forces on 25 April in Dar’a during a large-scale military operation. The soldiers in the first row were given orders to aim directly at residential areas, but chose to fire in the air to avoid civilian casualties. Security forces posted behind shot them for refusing orders, thus killing dozens of conscripts.
49. Civilians bore the brunt of the violence as cities were blockaded and curfews imposed. The commission heard many testimonies describing how those who ventured outside their homes were shot by snipers. Many of the reported cases occurred in Dar’a, Jisr Al Shughour and Homs. A lawyer told how security forces took positions in old Dar’a during the operation in April. Snipers were deployed on the hospital rooftop and other buildings. “They targeted anyone who moved”, he said. Two of his cousins were killed on the street by snipers.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next week’s peace picks
Tuesday, November 29th
6:00 – 7:00 PM
Registration and Networking Reception
7:00 – 8:00 PM
Panel Discussion and Q&A
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest
Speakers: Steve Hayes
Speakers: The Weekly Standard
Speakers: Josh Rogin
Speakers: Foreign Policy
Moderator: Elise Stefanik
Moderator: Foreign Policy Initiative
Michael D. Swaine, David Lampton, Geoff Dyer Wednesday, November 30, 2011 – Washington, D.C.
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM EST
Register to attend
As the world’s predominant political, economic, and military force, the United States faces a significant challenge in responding to China’s rising power and influence, especially in Asia. This challenge will require more effective U.S. policies and a reassessment of America’s fundamental strategic assumptions and relationships.
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson Center
Jonah Blank, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Polly Nayak, Chair, Woodrow Wilson Center Working Group on Pakistan
Robert M. Hathaway, Asia Program Director, Woodrow Wilson Center
Others to be announced
Daniel W. Drezner will be speaking on his new book from Princeton University Press, called Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest. Prior to Fletcher, he taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Drezner has received fellowships from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Harvard University. He has previously held positions with Civic Education Project, the RAND Corporation, and the Treasury Department.
- Host:
- School of International Service
- Contact:
- Catherine Favier Kelly
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s “peace picks”
-
Deputy Special Representative, Department of State
-
Former U.S. Secretary of State
-
Public Policy Scholar“International Reporting Project Journalist-in-Residence” at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies
-
USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Scholar
-
Journalist and Author of seven books, most recently “Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World”
-
Professor of International Politics, Tufts University
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS
Adjunct Professor
George Washington University
Washington, DC
Senior Research Fellow
International Food Policy Research Institute
Washington, DC
President and CEO
The Corporate Council on Africa
Washington, DC
J. Peter Pham, director of the Michael S. Ansari Africa Center at the Atlantic Council, and Bronwyn Bruton, deputy director of the Ansari Africa Center. For more information, contact itolber1@jhu.edu or 202.663.5676.
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
The Honorable Johnnie Carson
Assistant Secretary of State
Bureau of African Affairs
U.S. Department of StateMs. Sharon Cromer
Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator
Bureau for Africa
U.S. Agency for International Development
Mr. Mark Schneider
Senior Vice President
International Crisis GroupMr. Paul Fagan
Regional Director for Africa
International Republican InstituteMr. Dewa Mavhinga
Regional Coordinator
Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
- Ambassador Riaz Muhammad Khan, panelist
former Foreign Secretary, Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Author, Afghanistan and Pakistan: Conflict, Extremism and Resistance to Modernity - Pamela Constable, panelist
Staff Writer, The Washington Post
Author, Playing with Fire: Pakistan at War with Itself - Zahid Hussain, panelist
2011-2012 Pakistan Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Author, The Scorpion’s Tail: The Relentless Rise of Islamic Militants in Pakistan – and How it Threatens America
- Andrew Wilder, moderator
Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Programs
United States Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
There are worse fates
The annual EU Forum, a confab sponsored by the Paris-based European Union Institute for Strategic Studies and SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, convened Thursday and Friday in Washington to focus American and European luminaries on the thing we all call the Arab Spring, even though we know it started last winter, varies from country to country and may not have results as upbeat as the appellation implies. Almost entirely missing from the day and a half conference were Arab voices. This was an opportunity for the “the West” to put its heads together, not for the revolutionaries or the oppressive regimes to offer their narrative.
They were nevertheless much present in the minds of the participants, who leaned towards enthusiasm for the values of the protesters, as well as their energy and determination, while worrying about the impact on Western interests. The three big areas of worry arise from
- the Islamists: what do they really mean by sharia law? will they really play fair in democracy?
- increased Arab support for the Palestinians: will it make the Israel/Palestine equation even more difficult to solve?
- sectarianism (will it lead to civil wars and possible spillover to other countries, especially in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen?
Underlying all was a sense that the West has precious few resources with which to respond effectively to the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, to the continuing repression in Syria and Yemen, or to the reforms in Jordan and Morocco, never mind the still solid autocratic regimes in the Gulf or the fragmented polity in Palestine. No one seemed to feel Western credibility or influence was strong, especially in light of the long-standing support (and arms) both Europe and the U.S. had given to Arab autocracies in the past (and continue to provide to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others even now). And everyone was aware that the Chinese, Turks, Brazilians, Indians and other emerging powers will play increasing roles in the Middle East, offering contracts and aid on terms far less complex and burdensome than those of the West.
The Europeans nevertheless came with a strong sense that the Middle East is their “southern neighborhood” and they need to up their game in response to changes that will affect their interests directly, whether through immigration, economic interdependence, oil and gas supplies, contracts, investment and myriad other ties. Precisely what they are going to do about it was not clear, and there was a strong sense that European policy on the Arab Spring has been re-nationalized. The British and French in particular are carving out their own distinct approaches, taking advantage of their forward role in the NATO military action against Qaddafi, while other countries are lagging and the EU itself is still contemplating the interior walls of the Berlaymont.
The Americans would like to focus more on Asia, not only Afghanistan/Pakistan but also China and North Korea as threats to national security. It was clear to all that Europe would not share this Asian interest to the same degree, but yesterday’s talk of Chinese financing to back the euro might change a few minds on that score. The problem for the Americans is that the Asian challenge requires a very different set of policy instruments from the Arab Spring, which apart from Egypt and Yemen Washington might rather leave primarily to the Europeans (no one of course says this quite so bluntly, but if you follow the money that is what they mean). Everyone expects, though, that NATO will remain somehow important and in the end the only real military instrument capable of effective power projection available to the Europeans.
There were lots of other points made. Trade and investment are far more important than aid. We need to be talking not only with secular women but also with Islamist women. Liberal economic reform, associated in Egypt and other countries with the old regimes, is in trouble, at least for the moment. Civil society in the Arab Spring countries needs Western support, but it should not be done through governmental channels but rather by nongovernmental organizations like the American National Endowment for Democracy (and the talked about European Endowment for Democracy). Western conditionality should focus on transparency and accountability rather than specific policy prescriptions.
I could go on, but I trust the sponsors will be doing a far better job of writing up in due course, and tweets are available from EUISS for those really interested. Bottom line: the West is fading even as its values spread. There are worse fates.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
There are still things to do about Syria
I’m an enthusiast, as most Americans I know are, for our ambassador in Damascus, Robert Ford, so here is his Skype performance with Andrew Tabler yesterday at The Washington Institute:
TWI is good about writing up its events quickly, so I won’t attempt that. Just a few high points:
- There is a lot of chatter about revolutionary violence, which inevitably will lead to more regime violence, alignment of minorities with the regime and ultimately sectarian conflict;
- The newly established Syrian National Council (SNC) needs to develop a serious program for how it will govern that promises protection for minorities, establishes broad legitimacy within Syria and attracts international support;
- Concerted multilateral pressure targeting regime individuals, the central bank, the state-owned Commercial Bank and oil sales will hamstring the regime and weaken the allegiance of both the merchant class and some military elements to the regime;
- Regional pressure and openness to refugees, especially from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, can also help.
While Russia and China blocked a UN Security Council resolution, they are now urging reforms and might be convinced to go along with international monitors focused on establishing the facts of what is going on. If Bashar al Assad then refuses them, it will reflect badly on him.
Policy conclusions:
- Discourage violence, help the opposition with the tactics of nonviolent civil resistance, including general strikes;
- Help the SNC develop its governance program, with ownership clearly staying with the Syrians;
- Tighten up sanctions;
- Form a regional Friends of Syria including neighboring countries;
- Talk with the Russians and Chinese about international monitors with a UN mandate.
PS: Some courageous Syrians, said to be demonstrating Friday in Damascus:
RSS - Posts
