Authors, journalists, analysts, and activists have released recent articles mostly about the China-Africa summit 2024 (FOCAC IX ). It is interesting to read about how more focused we are on potential economic, social, and political benefits compared to the economic, political, and social traps that might be technically set through contracts signed between China and Africa.
READ RELATED: China’s Big Bet on Africa: Strategic Partnerships or Debt Trap?
As a member state of South-South cooperation, Great China has no intention of interfering with the politics and governance of other South countries. However, its strategic engagement with these countries may alert Western countries to ways to protect their exploitative channels at all costs.
So here, the danger might not be solely posed by China but by the key players in the global economy who benefit from Africa’s suffering.
Let’s recall what history holds. When the Cold War divided the world, Africa, Asia, and Latin America had social, political, and economic advantages, such that the superpower had to buy loyalty through the provision of loans and grants, scholarships, military support, and more.
Western countries gamely presented problems that Third World countries face and invented ways to end them; that is when democracy and development were considered sides of one coin and financial support from multilateral agencies, and Western countries were under one principal condition: democratisation.
To the USSR, a third-world country’s underdevelopment was due to political interference through colonialism, neocolonialism, and an international economic system that was planted to support exploitation. Was USSR support for poor countries genuine or because the global order was not in her favour?
ALSO READ: FOCAC 2024: What Tanzania Stands to Gain from President Samia’s Visit to China
USSR and the then little China have had to stick to supporting development without democratisation and assisting third-world countries to realise political independence by supporting Western countries to fund undemocratic governments such as Mobute of Zaire, Idd Amin of Uganda, Mengistu of Ethiopia and Samuel of Liberia among others
So, to one side of the Cold War, the problem for African underdevelopment was traditional institutions that are undemocratic, while to the other side of the Cold War, the source of African underdevelopment was political interference, how blind our freedom fighters were not to discern and come up with actual problem that might support one side or positioned at the middle of the Cold War adversaries,
History concluded that the end of the Cold War made third-world countries unpopular and a non-partner in building a better world. The ending of the tension made Africa and Latin America suffer from the very support that was intended to help them.
Early this year, the Italy-Africa summit demonstrated how the African government takes a serious external approach to handling their local problems. The summit was intended to settle massive immigration from Africa by providing funds to boost investment in energy, healthcare, and education in Africa. Unfortunately, the objectives of the summit have not yet been realised.
As an intergovernmental organisation, the Africa Union (AU) failed to represent entities to the extent that the cost allocated to transport delegates to international summits per year might exceed the local budget for health or education. It’s sad to see the proponents of AU representation of its entities in international forums are the first persons to appear with royal outfits and big smiles.
FOCAC IX holds no social, political, or economic conditions that might jeopardise the sovereignty of African governments; its sole intention is to see Africa strive and rise through diplomatic relationships within China.
However, it’s worth questioning ourselves as Africans if these international gatherings have any potential to end our suffering. Italy is a member of the UN, so why not provide assistance through UN agencies or the World Bank?
China is a member of BRICS, so why pursue an independent approach to assisting Africa instead of collective support from BRICS or other South-South cooperation formal channels that connect more than one donor? The answer is no free lunch, and if it is, it must be poisoned.
