Differences of U.S. and Chinese presence in Africa
Initially, the Bush administration did push for Africa's economic self-reliance, but its "war on terror" offset that goal.
The Obama administration's rhetoric failed to disguise the dramatic collapse of U.S. trade and investment in Africa in the mid-2010s.
In 2014, the U.S. pledged to invest $14 billion in Africa over the next decade. With the most protectionist administration since the 1930s, this may prove unlikely. The Trump administration's penchant for trade wars shuns efforts to contain collateral damage in Africa. Remedies simply aren't viable as long as protectionism remains the White House's primary weapon.
Moreover, the $252 million funding cuts to Ebola response efforts in early 2018 illustrate the gap between the stated goals and effective actions. Finally, expectations should also be cautioned by the Trump administration's racial bias.
For all practical purposes, the U.S. Africa strategy is largely dictated by the concern that China has become Africa's largest economic partner. That's why Washington misrepresents China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Africa and elsewhere.
In the postwar era, U.S.-led globalization did not occur without significant mistakes. In the early 21st century, the BRI is going through its own birth pains. But unlike past globalization, the BRI seeks to boost industrialization in emerging and developing countries - that is, countries that have been largely ignored by the advanced West.
In the final analysis, economic development is a win-win game; geopolitics isn't. Africa is a case in point.
Dan Steinbock is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (U.S.), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore).
This commentary was originally published by China-U.S. Focus on August 29, 2019. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.
