Over 100 U.S. lawmakers recently called for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, demanding that the government of China discontinue its financial and diplomatic ties to Sudan. According to these legislators, along with the “Save Darfur” campaign and its celebrity supporters like George Clooney, Chinese support for Sudan has given international cover to what they deem “genocide” in the western region of Darfur.
Although these organizations speak in the name of “human rights”—and never explicitly on behalf of the White House or the Pentagon—their criticisms of China are deeply political in nature. China has emerged as a major player in African development projects, and likewise, in African politics. It has been said by bourgeois economists and political analysis that China is using its “soft power” in Africa—meaning using loans, technology, and infrastructure agreements to curry favor and improve its position in the world economy.
In 2006, China committed $8 billion to Nigeria, Angola, and Mozambique, while the World Bank provided only $2.3 billion to all of Sub-Saharan Africa. In many African countries, China has become the leading trade partner and lender of choice because its trade agreements and aid come without all the strings attached by the imperialist Western financial institutions.
World Bank loans are often tied to Structural Adjustment Programs and other austerity measures, which destroy local agriculture, privatize government infrastructure, wipe out social programs, and convert the indebted countries into playthings of the world capitalist economy. Chinese aid, on the other hand, has gone into many countries to improve infrastructure and develop advanced technologies. With China’s help, Nigeria recently launched its first satellite into space.
Although its foreign policy is not determined by any sort of revolutionary orientation or by feelings of anti-imperialist solidarity, China is not a member of the small club of imperialist powers. Unfortunately China’s foreign policy is driven by nationalist rather than revolutionary internationalism. The capitalist Nigerian government, for example, is exceedingly corrupt and anti-worker. It could never be confused for left-wing.
From a Marxist point of view it is entirely proper for China to deepen its economic relations and trade with capitalist countries, especially those in the formerly colonized and semi-colonized world. It also would be fitting, however, to show solidarity with the Nigerian working class in its struggle against oppression. This essential support is entirely absent from China’s orientation.
China versus imperialism
China is motivated primarily by a desire to have access to resources from Africa. It also seeks to develop bilateral relations with many African governments to counter the influence of U.S., British and French imperialism.
Unlike the imperialists China has no reason to fear independent economic development in other countries. For the U.S. and European imperialists, it is not enough to receive a large share of the raw materials and resources through trade. They need to be able to control how those resources are distributed. They do not simply seek an exchange of goods and services; they seek to dominate the development and destiny of all African countries. It is all done to maximize profit for the imperialists and their backers.
Comparatively, China provides a very attractive alternative for Africa. With people’s struggles escalating in Guinea, South Africa, and many other countries, China’s influence could grow as a trading partner and ally to countries that come into conflict with western imperialism.
This has caused great concern within the U.S. ruling class. In order to combat Chinese influence in Africa, one of the most resource-rich parts of the globe, the U.S. propaganda machine has fully mobilized to cast a dark shadow on China—particularly, its role as the primary buyer of Sudanese oil.
The “Save Darfur” alliance, which calls for a western “humanitarian” intervention in Darfur, has become a pillar in this developing campaign against China. Its website features an action item called, “Sudan and China: A deadly partnership,” which happily marries anti-Arab imagery and racism with Cold War anti-communism.
All socialists and progressive people must be clear: the real enemy of the African people is U.S., French and British imperialism. An intervention in Sudan would serve imperialist aims, and would not fundamentally differ from the invasions of Somalia, Yugoslavia or Iraq—all were launched under false “humanitarian” pretenses.
The United States—not China—has bombed Somalia three times thus far in 2007. The U.S. government also backed the Ethiopian invasion and occupation of that country.
The Pentagon—not China—is establishing its own African Command. The command will give the United States a large, permanent military apparatus from which they can extend their reach over the continent. The Bush administration has deemed Africa a continent of “strategic national concern”—meaning that the U.S. is willing to wage wars in order to extend and defend U.S. “interests.”
Economic development is at the top of Africa’s agenda. China can embrace and welcome such economic progress. This puts China in the position of a strategic rival of the western imperialist countries that want to use “modern” means to maintain their four-century long quest for domination over the continent.
