While you were gone...

Dearest Readers: I apologize sincerely for the rather embarrassing lack of posting in recent days (or has it been weeks, already?). I have several writing projects on my plate at the moment (not to mention the mammoth beast that is the PhD), all of which have served to hamper my desire to blog when I manage to steal away some ever-fleeting moments of spare time. That said, I have not abandoned you and will continue to post in this space when I can (hopefully more frequently going forward!).

Now, let's get back to business, shall we? It seems that among the golden rules governing the IR world is the ever-wise maxim, "don't blink or you'll miss it." Much has happened in the way of Sino-African relations since I last wrote. To that end, I've collected a not-so-brief list of stories which have surfaced during my absence, and which I deem especially worthy of note:

• The FT last week ran a special report on Kenya. Whilst many "special reports" of such a nature have previously been written, I found this one especially well crafted and comprehensive, covering issues ranging from the country's leadership crisis to its extreme (and extremely fickle) climate
• Always sharp, always informative, Elizabeth Dickinson asks whether China's Guinea deal is for real. Emerging evidence suggests that the deal may actually amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the Guineans, though given the shroud of secrecy under which the Chinese (and by and large Guineans) operate, the actual reality of the matter is anyone's best guess. I find it perfectly typical, though: Guinea is embroiled in turmoil and gross human rights violations; the international community is ready to impose sanctions; and China is soldering on with its oil and investment deals. Where have we seen this before?
• Unsurprisingly, an increasing body of experts are calling for heightened transparency in China's Africa investments. I wouldn't be surprised if Beijing will over time begin declassifying a select pool of documents surrounding its African activities - not because it will have suddenly decided to operate within the international regulatory framework, but for the very reason that by appeasing Western demands in this regard it will be able to continue doing as it pleases. Give a little, take a lot seems to be the name of the game.
• In the name of fairness, however, if one is to be critical of the Chinese for their African oil investments, one should seemingly be equally condemnatory of the Bush family....
• A sad twist of irony in our technologically advanced world: phones appear to be more widespread than food. Might we - in our constant pursuit of all things bigger, better and faster - be losing sight of the basic needs of the world's poor? Food for thought (no pun intended)
• An interesting glance into the DRC's 2009 budget (HT: Texas in Africa). As Texas in Africa aptly notes, the best thing about the budget is how easy it is to see where the money is being stolen. The whole thing reads quite like a satirical novella. Well, almost.
• The 2009 Forum on China Africa Cooperation is due to take place in Egypt on 8-9 November. I look forward to reading the newly revised China Africa strategy which, I'm quite certain, will read exactly like the old one
• A most harrowing account of human rights violations in North Korea from The Economist. While North Korea is generally discussed solely in terms of its nuclear ambitions and contentious behavior on the international stage, one often forgets of the country's population, which is suffering under the most atrocious and deplorable conditions
• On the near-eve of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Brahma Chellaney puts 1989 in global comparative perspective: Europe got freedom, Asia got rich. And, twenty years later, China's authoritarian capitalism stands to challenge the global spread of democratic values. How much happens in such a short period of history.

Noteworthy...

• CNOOC wants a stake in Ghana's oil field. So does Exxon Mobil. A showdown in the making...
• Anti-Chinese sentiment appears to be escalating in the DRC. The Chinese firm Sinohydro suffered an attack earlier this month by unidentified gunmen. This is unfortunately one among a growing number of such instances in the DRC
• "Conservative Egyptian lawmakers have called for a ban on imports of a Chinese-made kit meant to help women fake their virginity and one scholar has even called for the 'exile' of anyone who imports of uses it." And here you thought China was engaged in resource extraction alone...
• Yet another reason why I'm skeptical that China will ever do anything about North Korea. *Sigh*
• Last week the Mo Ibrahim Foundation released its annual index of governance in Africa. You can find the rankings here, and several of Elizabeth Dickinson's reflections here
• China is in a push for Guinea's resources - minerals and [the hope of] oil. Guinea is one of the poorest states in West Africa, with a seriously dubious human rights and governance record.
• The Gates Foundation is exploring securitizing aid. Securitization seems to be a dirty word these days, but Gates may be onto something...

Noteworthy...

Dear Readers: I will be on the road much of this week, so I'm afraid my blogging will be limited to... well, to be perfectly honest, I doubt I will be blogging at all! I'll be back next week with more news, analysis, and quips about this crazy field of international relations. Until then, today's Noteworthy reads:

Taking Africa beyond Aid. Yet another review of Moyo's book, Dead Aid, and a loud call for the development of African financial markets. As interesting as the piece itself are the comments, which inevitably turn to discussion of the Chinese presence on the continent

How can struggling countries break out of poverty if they're trapped in systems of bad rules? Paul Romer suggests "charter cities" as a possible solution

Something stinks. Must be Scotland's deal with Libya...

Osei Kofi on Africa's lagging contemporary art scene (and what to do about it)

Hugo Restall has an interesting piece in today's WSJ on the threesome that is Latin America (any country will do, really), the U.S. and China. While I tend to disagree with much of his analysis, it is an interesting argument nevertheless

For those among you who believed that China's alleged withdrawal from the deal with the Congo signaled China's retreat from the continent.... I hate to say 'I told you so,' but I told you so: China was never intending to withdraw, it was merely revising its strategy

Have a great week everyone!

Whither America's Africa policy? No, seriously. Where is it?

I really can do no better today than to direct you to Shashank's well thought out post in which he concludes:

After seven months, a presidential visit and now this major trip, it's still unclear what the Obama administration wants to do differently in Africa. The most important U.S. agency that works on Africa, USAID, still has no leader. Clinton's trip was full of the same hopeful but canned rhetoric about "good governance," "food security" and "helping Africans help themselves." Folks who care about Africa hardly expect the continent to be the Obama administration's No. 1 foreign policy priority. But they will be disappointed with this trip.

Not only is it disappointing, but it's actually quite laughable - and not in a joyous laughter sort of way. I really don't understand how anyone is meant to take US policy towards Africa (the presently non-existent policy, mind you) seriously when the country's own Secretary of State makes such ridiculous statements as her proposal for camcorders in the Congo, and her lending of support to Somalia's Sheik Sharif - evidently unaware of the consequences - among others. Her utterly distasteful outburst in the Congo doesn't do much to bolster her, or American, credibility either (surely there was a classier, more professional way of handling the matter, even if it upset you, Madame Secretary), and neither does her outlandish comparison of the 2000 Florida recount to Nigeria's rigged elections. I am terribly sorry to discover that she is still seemingly bitter over the matter, but drawing such faulty moral equivalences jeopardizes the advance of democracy in countries like Nigeria and others across Africa where corruption is rampant. To draw my own comparison, the ridiculousness implicit in such a statement is tantamount to that which would compare women's rights in, say, Sierra Leone - the worst place in Africa to be a woman according to the 2008 UN Human Development Report - to those in the United States. Think on that.

While Secretary Clinton may be dancing away across the continent, the U.S. missed a prime opportunity to seriously engage with African leaders on matters of trade, foreign assistance, human rights - heck, even the objectives behind AFRICOM - and other matters of actual consequence to the continent. It's little wonder that African leaders are more seriously engaging with the Chinese as regards their countries' needs and policies. I probably would, too.

Of rape, video cameras, and Clinton in the Congo. What did I miss?

I forthrightly admit that neither am I an expert in matters pertaining to the Congo, nor do I know much about preventing or otherwise dealing with cases of rape - in the Congo or elsewhere. Having said that, I'm quite certain that I'm not the only one absolutely baffled (floored is more like it, actually) by Hilary Clinton's announcement yesterday of a $17 million plan to combat the abysmal levels of sexual violence in the Congo, part of which entails "supplying rape victims with video cameras to document the violence." Really? Video cameras? To rape victims? Hmm.....

Texas in Africa and the ladies at Wronging Rights have virtually summed up my thoughts on the matter quite well, raising among other matters questions pertaining to who, exactly, will be receiving said camcorders; where the footage will be sent (do bear in mind that both the Congolese government and military hierarchy are quite generally unwilling to prosecute rape perpetrators); and indeed how the camcorders will be charged given that the country lacks a power grid on which to charge portable electronic devices (a most astute observation). Might I also add that it is most, most improbable that a rapist will cease his evil actions upon being confronted with a recording device. Again, while claiming absolutely no expertise on the matter, intuition leads me to believe that he might indeed become more violent in his actions.

Given all of these considerations and quandries, what on earth would lead someone to believe that video cameras are part and parcel of the solution to combatting rape in the Congo? Having brought my initial frustrations over the matter under control, I began to ponder the logic by which one could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. A cursory glance through my Google history is enough to frighten just about anyone, with phrases like "rape victim, video"; "rape, congo"; "rape, video, persecution" floating about - evidence of my feeble attempt at discovering existing cases (in the developing world) where video cameras effectively served as preventative measures or lead to the prosecution of the perpetrators; or otherwise research suggesting that the distribution of such devices may indeed be the way forward. Presumably Clinton's statement is premised on some research that someone must have conducted at some point in time, right?

Maybe I'm not a very diligent Googler (though this is highly doubtful; of the countless skills one acquires whilst writing a Master's dissertation and subsequently tackling a PhD, Googling ranks quite high among them), but the results of my several hours of searching are indeed just as laughable as the proposition in question. Among my findings/musings:

• Video footage of rape acts has in some cases lead to the persecution and conviction of the perpetrators (see here, here, here and here, for instance), but in all such cases the acts were documented by either the perpetrators themselves or their cronies, or otherwise a passerby who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - or indeed the right place at the right time, depending on your perspective. I wasn't able to find a single case in which a rape act was prevented or otherwise persecuted in which the victim was the one pressing the 'record' button. Perhaps Secretary Clinton has a CCTV-style system in mind, but then where would you install the cameras?
• According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, a significant percentage of rapes in the Congo are committed by senior army officials, over whom the government and donors have little leverage. This ties into the earlier point regarding where footage would be sent and how it would be handled upon receipt. It moreover leads one to conclude that the focus should be on combatting the overall culture of corruption, rather than the supplying of video cameras. Alas.
• Suggesting video cameras as a means by which rape victims can "document the violence" operates on the assumption that the victims will bring such videos forward as evidence (though we still haven't established to whom). The problem with this, though, is that rape victims in the Congo - and elsewhere in Africa - are often grossly stigmatized, and in some cases jailed. Given such a reality, documenting the act (especially by the victim) may prove quite counterproductive.
• If the surrounding culture is one laden with corruption and embodying "entrenched notions of gender hierarchy and the sexual entitlement of men" (to quote Prof. Rachel Jewkes of the Medical Research Council speaking on South Africa's culture of sexual violence), video footage isn't going to assist victims in any significant way. Such measures will only be effective if the external environment is one in which such acts are outrightly condemned, of which the Congo isn't (yet) one.

I really could go on, but would nevertheless fail to understand how the camcorder proposition makes sense - or indeed discover any research suggesting its merits in the developing world. The effective use of camcorders for such means in the Western context is a moot point in my opinion, precisely because the surrounding culture is one in which acts of sexual violence are not only regarded with contempt, but are severely punished. While I'm sure Clinton's suggestion is well-intentioned and put forward with all the right motives, I cringe at such cases of "headless hearts" - arguably my favorite of Paul Collier's phrases - who fail to properly understand the realities of the countries they are somehow hoping to save. Inevitably, the law of unintended consequences always prevails. And while I certainly am no expert on the Congo, even I can make out the blatant flaws implicit in such a proposition. One would hope that the U.S. government could, too.

But then again, I'm no expert. Will someone please kindly inform me: what did I miss? ....

Update: For a different perspective on the issue of "Camcorders for the Congo," see Shshank Bengali's post. I'm not sure that it lends any credibility to the proposition, but it does well to suggest that this isn't the craziest U.S. initiative for Africa. I'm sure it ranks up there, though...

Noteworthy...

My goodness, where to begin? ....

Harvard (yes, that Harvard) is branching out beyond the world of academia to establish its own 'preppy' fashion line. I suppose it's quite safe to say that the university's economic woes must truly be taking a toll...

Adam Hothchild's "Rape of the Congo" from this edition of the NYRB. Quite apropos given Secretary Clinton's current visit there

Iran and China have just signed a $3 billion oil deal, wherein which China is to help develop Iran's refinery capacity in Abadan and the Gulf. Nearly one-fourth of Iran's petroleum exports already go to China

Buying mines in Africa and the question of China's soft power. Alternatively titled: Chinese adventures in the African resource market, as told by Sheishi (whoever she may be)

Slightly tardy (on my end), though nevertheless most worthwhile: via Aid Watch a review of Michaela Wrong's book, It's Our Turn to Eat: The Story of a Kenyan Whistle-Blower

On IR theory and the African challenge

Via Ryan C. Briggs I happened across a great site - Theory Talks - which serves as an interactive forum for discussion of debates in IR (international relations) with especial emphasis on the underlying theoretical issues. If you're like me, teasing out the appropriate theoretical framework for one's work is often the most challenging part of any research project, which is why I greatly appreciate what Theory Talks is trying to do. While the site certainly won't help to sort a framework for individual projects, it does present interesting perspectives and raise fascinating debates on issues surrounding the ever-evolving discipline that is IR.

Among the more curious "talks" I found (and there are quite a few!) is that by Kevin C. Dunn, visiting professor at Mbarara University in Uganda, who has written extensively on African politics with especial focus on the Congo. Dunn argues that images of countries (like the Congo, for instance) are often social constructions, which renders field work for the "white man" a very biased field, indeed:

The identity of the Congo, like other social identities, has been formed by being located within the narratives that we use to know, understand, and make sense of the social world. Narratives of national identities are formed by a gradual layering on and connecting of events and meanings, usually through three steps: the selection of events themselves, the linking of these events to each other in causal and associational ways (plotting), and interpreting what the events and plots signify. The example of the Congo is illuminating because it shows how these identity-constructing narratives are rarely the exclusive product of a state’s policy makers. External forces are constantly at play, seeking to select, plot and interpret the events and meanings by which identities are narrated.

The central thesis of Dunn's talk is that IR scholars are political actors as much as the phenomena they study. Being as such, it is inevitable that their research and findings are biased based on their constructed perceptions of their respective subject matters. Such bias, Dunn argues, is particularly pronounced in research focused on Africa, much of which is approached from a North American/Western European perspective where an idealized North American/Western European state is taken as the norm. Dunn's is an interesting discussion, and certainly one worth reading for any IR scholars with a focus on Africa.

For all African-centric theoretical debates see here.

Africa does not need more hot air

I must admit that I've been rather disappointed with the present US administration's policies towards Africa. To be perfectly frank, I was much happier with America's African policies under Bush (*gasp* yes, I said it), with few exceptions (AFRICOM, which I have spoken about in the past) is indubitably one of them. What Bush tried to do - and was moderately successful in achieving - was positively engaging with the continent: increasing development assistance where needed, introducing programs to reduce the burden of AIDS and malaria, AGOA, working to secure a peace deal between north and south Sudan in 2005, etc. His policies weren't perfect - many were seriously flawed - but there appeared to be a genuine sense of engagement and interest. Whether that was driven by humanitarian goodwill or geopolitical interests I will leave for you to decide; the point is that the US appeared to be active in creating opportunity for Africans. In short, they not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.

Not only does the Obama administration appear disinterested, but it is seemingly failing to capitalize on opportunities where they exist. I bring this up because Hilary Clinton is presently in Africa. Like many others, I am following the news hoping to discover something - anything - of substance (indeed, something to blog about!), but am seemingly failing in this endeavor (if someone has managed to stumble upon anything worthwhile pertaining to Clinton's time in Africa, do please send it my way). Her rhetoric - much like President Obama's in Ghana earlier this year - is filled with the same empty jargon uttered by Western politicians of yore. Yes, Kenya needs to reform; and yes, we all know that the continent has "enormous potential for progress;" and we all understand the importance of stability in Somalia. Blah, blah, blah. By the by, overemphasizing agricultural policy to the neglect of manufacturing and entrepreneurship does little to foster sustainable development across the continent. And publicly making promises to Somalia's Sheik Sharif is tantamount to wishing death upon his administration. While I do understand that the trip was all quite last minute, there are some things on which a Secretary of State must absolutely be briefed.

While I do further realize that Africa isn't much of a priority for the US government at present (a grave flaw, indeed, given especially China's growing influence across the continent!) and is constrained by the financial crisis and domestic politics, there are things the administration can do besides simply blowing about hot air: increasing diplomacy with leading economies, improving foreign assistance and trade, and being actively involved in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, are foremost among them. Indeed, if the United States seeks genuine relations with African nations, it is in the interest of both parties to move beyond the one-dimensional quality that characterizes them today. One of my favorite bloggers, Texas in Africa, has an absolutely brilliant open letter to Secretary Clinton posted today in which she stresses precisely this point, and goes even further to suggest how the US might actively work to aid the continent. The post is focused primarily on the Congo, but several of the points are indeed quite applicable elsewhere around the continent. Its message even more so.

Where do I sign?

[image: the NYTimes]

Chinese agricultural techniques and African development: a hope for better things to come

China has been having a bit of a rough go here on China in Africa this week. First it's found to be de-industrializing other developing nations, then peddling fake drugs in Africa, its media outlets producing questionable maps, and today victimizing African labourers. Not at all a very rosy picture! There is good news, however: a report commissioned by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) and prepared by my colleagues at the Centre for Chinese Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, finds that the very technologies employed in China's agricultural boom might be appropriate - and indeed highly beneficial - in the African context.

The report - "The Relevance of Chinese Agricultural Technologies for African Smallholder Farmers: Agricultural Technology Research in China" - finds that of particular benefit are water-saving technologies and soil-related techniques such as tilage and planting methods. Evidently, small-scale African farmers face similar challenges as do their Chinese counterparts, and there is much in the way of technology and knowledge exchange that might benefit the former. According to the report, Chinese experts are especially focused on seed and rice technologies, particularly in Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Rapid advances in seed technology and new plant varieties have been a major factor in China's crop production increases, and it is believed that similar advancements may facilitate an agricultural boom across Africa.

In Mozambique, a 52 hectare agricultural demonstration centre is planned west of Maputo, at Boane. According to the report, crops will be planted this year to test whether the Mozambican climate is suited for various varieties of seeds, including maize, rice, vegetables and fruit. In Kampala, Uganda, Chinese contractors are building an aquaculture demonstration centre. The centre is envisaged to generate knowledge for fish farmers, fishers and researchers in the country.

The agricultural sector employs approximately 65% of Africa's population, and is the largest private sector on the continent. Poor agricultural planning, weak land tenure policies, and a low capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and markets have, however, generally hindered the sector from becoming a productive, profitable business. While the Chinese are incapable of ameliorating all these troubles, they may do well to provide the relevant technologies to farmers and place Africa's agricultural sector back on track to success. Fingers crossed.

Noteworthy….

Bansky, the British street artist, has left his mark on the African continent. This Flickr page has a wonderful collection of his images which highlight Western perceptions of Africa

China is now an empire in denial, according to the FT's Gideon Rachman

Kindles, iPods and the end of cultural snobbery? Oh dear, this can't possibly be good.

Starbucks has opened an office in Kigali, Rwanda, and is set to partner with local coffee farmers. I wonder if this means that I can get my sugar-free vanilla soy latté fix next time I'm in Rwanda?

According to this projection, China will be the second most populous country in the world by 2050 (it is currently first), followed by the U.S. and Nigeria. India will be the foremost populous, while the Congo will be ninth-most.

A new take on the bottom (three) billion

Three billion individuals. That's the approximate number of people that would be scrapped if we were to eliminate the bottom 5% global GDP contributors, the vast majority of which are found in either Africa or Southeast Asia. 81 countries comprise this bottom 5%. Together they represent half of the 192 UN member states and nearly 43% of the world population.

What would the world look like without them? Via Strange Maps we are offered a glimpse:

In reverse order of magnitude the 81 countries are:

Zimbabwe, Burundi, DR Congo, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Malawi, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Afghanistan, Togo, Guinea, Uganda, Madagascar, the Central African Republic, Nepal, Myanmar (Burma), Rwanda, Mozambique, East Timor, the Gambia, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Mali, Lesotho, Ghana, Haiti, Tajikistan, the Comoros, Cambodia, Laos, Benin, Kenya, Chad, the Solomon Islands, Kyrgyzstan, India, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Ivory Coast, Zambia, the Yemen, Cameroon, Djibouti, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Nigeria, Guyana, the Sudan, Bolivia, Moldova, Honduras, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Bhutan, Egypt, Vanuatu, Tonga, Paraguay, Morocco, Syria, Swaziland, Samoa, Guatemala, Georgia, the Congo, Iraq, Armenia, Jordan, Cape Verde, the Maldives, Fiji and Namibia.

It is equally curious to note which countries are not included among the bottom 5%. Any surprises?

More on contemporary land grabs: the case of the DRC

A brief follow-up on my previous post, if I may.

While it is true that the vast majority of farmland investments in Africa are those of foreign entities, this is not always the case as an interesting piece in the WSJ makes clear:

[South African farmers] are scrambling to get on board an ambitious venture to reclaim farmland in Congo's interior and help relieve that country of a reliance on food imports. Already some 70 farmers have booked a Congo tour and more than 3,000 have expressed interest, said Agri-SA, the South African farming group organizing the venture.

... According to a draft memorandum of understanding, Congo is willing to sign long-term leases and provide tax breaks and waivers on duties of imported supplies for approved projects. The South Africans in turn would build infrastructure, employ locals and instruct them in modern farming techniques. People familiar with the matter say the initial focus will be on restarting state-owned farms abandoned in 1992.

... South African commercial farmers, mostly the descendants of Dutch and French pioneers who began settling the continent's southern tip centuries ago, are renowned for their ability to coax food out of African soil. Eager for their expertise and capital, African countries from Ghana to Nigeria have offered them incentives to set up shop. South African farmers have turned Mozambique into a banana powerhouse. Zambia became self-sufficient in maize after welcoming farmers from Zimbabwe and from South Africa.

As with foreign (i.e. non African) land investments/grabs, such programs are equally controversial, as they raise the very same issues of land tenure, colonialism, and eviction as do those by China, the United States, Saudi Arabia or any other countries. According to the contract governing the investment, South African farmers will enjoy a five-year holiday on corporate tax and the dismantling of taxes on the import of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizer and machines. The farmers will be allowed to take all their profits out of the country and are under no obligation to sell their output on the domestic market. Oh dear.

[HT: The Meaningfulness of Little Things]

My humanitarian crisis is bigger than your humanitarian crisis

Earlier this month I grumbled (ever so slightly) over the selective coverage of humanitarian crises in the mainstream press (I was then alluding to the dearth of coverage regarding Sri Lanka). Another case in point: Congo v. Darfur:

According to Julie Hollar of Fair and Accuracy in Reporting:

To put the death rate in perspective, at the peak of the Darfur crisis, the conflict-related death rate there was less than a third of the Congo’s, and by 2005 it had dropped to less than 4,000 per month. The United Nations has estimated some 300,000 may have died in total as a result of the years of conflict in Darfur; the same number die from the Congo conflict every six and a half months. 

And yet, in the New York Times, which covers the Congo more than most U.S. outlets, Darfur has consistently received more coverage since it emerged as a media story in 2004. The Times gave Darfur nearly four times the coverage it gave the Congo in 2006, while Congolese were dying of war-related causes at nearly 10 times the rate of those in Darfur. 

Hollar goes on to suggest several potential explanations underpinning such a media disparity, among them: journalist access to the conflict zone (or lack thereof); celebrity attention (or lack thereof, until recently); and U.S. political interests which, Hollar argues, are the foremost drivers of where the West happens to invest its attention. While there may be some merit to this claim, my understanding is that the crisis failed to attract much initial attention in the U.S. and beyond, which weakens her argument. Thoughts on this, anyone?

On a somewhat unrelated, albeit related note, Texas in Africa has a great post examining why the Congo remains an "anarchic war-zone" despite all humanitarian, Western, peacekeeping, democracy promotion, and celebrity awareness efforts. Definitely worth a read.

Noteworthy….

A new alliance between Rwanda and Congo is drawing many former Hutu guerrillas home to live at peace among their former enemies. 

Freedom is not always good and the Chinese need to be controlled, says actor Jackie Chan. Is he being racist/cynical/horrible [insert accusatory adjective here], or did he merely articulate what many (wealthy) Chinese feel?

New research released by the London Councils suggests there are not enough places in London's schools for new pupils. Third world (education) problems are evidently not confined to the third world alone.

The biggest electoral show on earth is now under way in India. Despite the country's growing role on the international stage, foreign policy appears to play only a marginal role in the decisions of nearly 714 million voters.

Human Rights Watch data on the crisis in the Congo

Human Rights Watch has released new data on the atrocities being committed in the Congo.  According to the report, at least 90 women have been raped and 180 villagers killed by Rwandan rebels in the past two months alone. Upwards of  250, 000 people have fled the country: 

The Rwandan Hutu militia called the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) attacked and burned dozens of villages and towns in Masisi and Lubero territories (North Kivu) as well as in Kalehe territory (South Kivu) in recent weeks, committing numerous deliberate killings, rapes, and acts of looting. Blaming government military operations, the FDLR deliberately targeted civilians, used them as human shields, and accused civilians of having betrayed them. According to witnesses and victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch, the FDLR have been implicated in the killings of at least 154 civilians since January 23.

 In the meantime, the Congolese leadership has decided to go ahead with a $9 billion Chinese mining and infrastructure program, which will bring much-needed roads, railways, schools and hospitals to the country. In return, the Chinese are acquiring billions of dollars worth of copper and cobalt reserves needed to feed the country's export-driven economy. It would appear that China hasn't entirely abandoned its 'non-interference' principle just yet.

One China, indeed

It really is amazing, isn't it: you step away for a few days and the world seemingly shifts beneath you. Having returned from what was a beautiful wedding in Nashville, I sat down this morning for my daily perusal of the news to discover that the Chinese are running a cyber spying ring (this is admittedly not at all surprising); Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills are arguing that the DRC does not exist; having refused the entry of the Dalai Lama, South Africa is now awarding Fidel Castro the country's highest honor; El Salvador is switching its diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China; the United States is becoming the new China; and, as if such news wasn't sufficiently overwhelming, it would appear that things are looking up in Zimbabwe. My goodness!

There's a unifying theme underlying at least two of these stories, which is worth teasing out in greater detail. With China now prominent on the global stage, attention tends to focus primarily on its economic and military activities (a very Western paradigm through which to examine international relations), often failing to account for the continued centrality of the "One China" policy in Beijing's dealings with the world. The recent happenings in El Salvador and South Africa are cases in point. Writing on South Africa's decision, the CS Monitor's Scott Baldauf notes:

A nation that freed itself from an apartheid government, South Africa would seem to have much in common with leading liberation figures like the Dalai Lama, who speaks for about 5.4 million Tibetans, who live under Chinese rule.

But as a nation that depends heavily on Chinese markets for buying its rich natural resources, South Africa has given the appearance of having chosen commerce over principle. It's a decision that could cost South Africa its moral voice on the global stage.

Todd Moss, quoting Nelson Mandela's grandson, organizer of the peace conference which was to host the Dalai Lama, observes:

This rejection by the government, to not issue a visa, is really tainting our efforts at democracy. It’s a sad day for South Africa. It’s a sad day for Africa…Where are we heading in the future?

Straight into the open arms of the Chinese, I would argue. Indeed, they must be quite pleased with themselves in Beijing, what with a growing number of countries wrapped around their finger - in Africa and beyond. While many countries are quick to pledge their allegiance to the Chinese for purely economic purposes, in some cases the reasoning is rooted in greater historical motivations, as appears to be the case in El Salvador:

The FMLN has never forgotten that ARENA founder Roberto D'Aubuisson, who organized and led the death squads which tortured and killed thousands of civilians and who directly ordered the assassination of Archbishop of San Salvador Monsignor Oscar Romero on March 24, 1980 that sparked the civil war, was trained in "police techniques" in Taiwan.

Moreover, unlike Nicaragua, Guatemala or Paraguay, Taiwan has been unable to develop solid political dialogue with the FMLN even under DPP President Chen Shui-bian.

Dual recognition appears to be out of the question for El Salvador, handing another diplomatic win (of sorts) to the Chinese. Indeed, it's important to recall that for the leaders in Beijing, national unity is of utmost importance, second only to economic growth. And for developing countries struggling to sustain their growth rates in the face of an ongoing economic crisis, acknowledging Chinese national integrity is a small price to pay for the goods handed in return. While scholars and policymakers alike sometimes tend to bypass the centrality of the "One China" principle, it remains a central tenet of Chinese foreign policy, not to be overlooked. 

As for South Africa awarding Castro the Order of Companions of O.R. Tambo in Gold award... your guess is as good as mine.

The beginning of the end of 'China in Africa'? Hardly.

I received an email from a friend yesterday directing me to this publication in the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief, and enquiring as to whether the end of 'China in Africa' (the phenomenon, not the blog!) might be on the horizon. I've opted to respond publicly, as this is not the first time that the question has crossed my desk.

The short answer is: no. 

In the Jamestown piece, Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills argue that the commodity price decline has adversely affected African export prices and growth, and subsequently African relations with China. They cite the withdrawal of Chinese entrepreneurs from Zambia and the Congo, and an overall Chinese strategic retreat from the continent, in turn suggesting that the market - and not grand strategy - is the main Chinese motivation in Africa. 

While this may be true to an extent, I fear that Herbst and Mills are overstating their claim. While some Chinese entrepreneurs have migrated out of Africa, Beijing continues to aggressively pursue its African relations, regarding the reality of a now waning West as the ideal opportunity to strengthen its influence across the continent. In the last month alone China has:

• Signed a $280 million deal with Mauritania to extend the port at Nouakchott 
• Agreed to build a hospital in Nairobi
• Offered $77 million to Uganda in a renewed bid to boost the East African country's development
• Installed government internet in Senegal
• Signed an aid and cooperation agreement to further ties with Rwanda
• Signed a 2.6 billion agreement to develop Liberia's iron ore mine, the biggest ever investment in the West African nation
• Signed another agreement (the Chinese do love their agreements!) with Nigerian Communications Satellite Limited to replace the nation's first communications satellite, which failed in orbit in November 2008
• Secured a $1 billion loan to Angola
• And built a national radio and television broadcast building in Congo

What's more, the floundering China-Congo deal Herbst and Mills cite is faltering not because of declining growth and commodity prices, as they suggest, but rather because western donors are threatening to renege on their promises of relief on the country's historic debt of $11bn if the Congo accepts Chinese financing on commercial terms. According to Barney Jopson in today's FT:

The focus of concern, according to western diplomats in Kinshasa, is that the deal would give the Chinese consortium unprecedented state financial guarantees, including some that earmark government revenues and make China a privileged creditor[...]

Trade between China and Africa is at an all time high. Hu Jintao is touring the continent this week, stressing the importance of Sino-African ties and shoring up African good sentiment. Deals continue to be signed. And this is meant to be the end? No, I'm afraid this is only the beginning.

Noteworthy….

Lessons of Zimbabwe, from the London Review of Books

More on Obama's Africa policy, from U.S. News

What's up with the LRA, Anyway?, from Wronging Rights

Best African books of the century [HT: Chris Blattman]

What positive spillovers?

An article in today's Business Day drives home the point that China's recent adventures into Africa aren't about Africa -- they're about China, driven entirely by Beijing's opportunistic motives. Those who continue to optimistically muse over the ways in which China might bolster Africa's economic development may quickly find themselves out of arguments: not only has the commodity 'super-cycle' created by the Chinese imploded (or finds itself close to doing so), but with the recent economic downturn, Chinese investors who previously flocked to the continent are now exiting faster than they entered, seeking economic opportunities elsewhere: 

TWO pieces of conventional wisdom have been overturned in recent months. First, that the commodity “super-cycle” of the past five years would, if not last forever, plateau at a higher level than ever before, based on demand from India and China.

This has not happened, with potentially disastrous results for some African countries, which have enjoyed, on average, growth rates of 5% or more for the past few years. Such growth has been based on economic reforms, but fuelled by the large increases in commodity prices.

Second, that the Chinese were in Africa to stay, as part of a long-term strategy. In practice, Chinese entrepreneurs have been the first to leave when the market turned. More than 60 Chinese mining companies have left the mineral-rich Katanga province in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the past two months, as cobalt and copper prices have more than halved. More than 100 small Chinese operators are reported to have left Zambian mines for the same reason.

The implications for Africa are many. Economic growth will be slashed. Indeed, the price declines have been so sudden and so brutal many African leaders, who believed they were doing what the west recommended, suddenly find their economies again in tatters.

Affleck: not a headless heart

In Collier's Bottom Billion, Collier refers to those he calls "headless hearts" - well-meaning but misguided campaigners who oppose measures such as cutting trade barriers, attaching tough conditions on aid, or sending troops, which could actually help the poorest countries. When you think about it, many celebrity activists fall squarely into this category. While I would love to believe that Angelina Jolie or [insert activist celebrity name here] knows the first thing about development policy, I somehow doubt it. 

Alas, my faith in celebrity activists has been restored (somewhat, and perhaps momentarily) by a movie that Ben Affleck made about the crisis in Kivus for UNHCR's awareness campaign:

Wronging Rights actually had a great post on this a few days ago, and I must agree with Chris Blattman's claim that it is (nearly) worth posting in full: 

I know what you're thinking.

Or rather, I know what I was thinking: "Oh for god's sake, ANOTHER vanity project using the Congo's striking back-drop of AK-47s and sobbing rape victims to set off some celebrity's pointedly un-ironed 'I'm in a refugee camp' ensemble and newfound commitment to helping the less fortunate / more browner."

But let's run down the list of typical offenses:

1. Shots of aforementioned celebrity kneeling caringly next to tear-stained refugee child: None.
2. Voyeuristic footage of teary teenage girls haltingly narrating the circumstances of their violation: None. In fact, nobody cries at all.
   
3. Ominous images of black men clutching semi-automatic weapons in a menacing manner: Alright one, but it accompanies text noting that there are 22 recognized armed groups operating in the region so I'm going to let it slide.

Affleck instead makes the shocking choice to show people going about their daily activities in the camps, experiencing the normal range of human emotion. This shouldn't be so striking, except when was the last time you saw footage of a Congolese man patiently bathing his child?

Remember celebrity photographer Rankin's insistence that glamour shots were needed to raise awareness of the IDPs because people "have become anaesthetised to traditional photographs of conflict victims"? Turns out portraying them as thinking, feeling human beings will do the trick just as well. (And the awesome soundtrack - "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones - doesn't hurt either.) Way to go, Affleck!