What should Washington's relationship with the developing World be?

[davidbfpo]

KingJaja,

I don't dispute your remarks and my knowledge of Africa does not include knowledge of trade.

Now three decades ago I recall a conservative South African journalist remarking that sub-Saharan Africa had been written off by the West except for natural resources. It is hard now to disagree.

As for the French I know not. I would have expected after the Ivory Coast debacle that many expat French nationals calculation about life in Africa changed; were there not 50k French nationals living there IIRC.

[KingJaja]

David,

KingJaja,

I don't dispute your remarks and my knowledge of Africa does not include knowledge of trade.

Now three decades ago I recall a conservative South African journalist remarking that sub-Saharan Africa had been written off by the West except for natural resources. It is hard now to disagree.

As for the French I know not. I would have expected after the Ivory Coast debacle that many expat French nationals calculation about life in Africa changed; were there not 50k French nationals living there IIRC.

The two most important French colonies in West Africa are Ivory Coast & Senegal. I call them colonies because the relationship between France and Francophone Africa would be unthinkable in the Anglophone world.

But I need to add that trade was the driving factor for colonization & the Scramble for Africa. Trade has ALWAYS been central to the West's relationship with Africa - and we need to understand it from that foundation.

It was the oil palm of the Niger Delta (which fed the British Industrial Revolution - used as soaps, lubricants for machinery) that led to the Royal Niger Company which eventually led to the colony of Nigeria.

It is a pity that the US got to Africa in a big way when ideology, not trade was the major policy issue in Africa. (Carter spent half of America's aid budget to Africa on Mobutu - topic for another day).

For France & Britain (Shell in Nigeria), trade has always been the primary focus.

I think US finds it difficult to deal with China in Africa because this is not a battle of ideology, this has to do with trade - and US cannot compete with China on trade in Africa.

A common accusation leveled against the Chinese is this: "the benefits of Chinese trade aren't trickling down". To which the Chinese can very easily respond: "show us the benefits of US trade"? And truth is, there are next to none.

[KingJaja]

My point is that the trading relationship between Africa and China is infinitely more complex than the "Zambian copper mine" stories Western Media is so fond of.

And every year this relationship deepens. It is a great pity that US diplomats are usually the last to fully grasp it. From my experience in Nigeria, it's clear the British know what's up, not sure about the Americans.

According to him, test runs of the facility have also been successfully completely, paving the way for the grand launch of the facility to the general public.

The plant, comparable to any automobile assembling facility in the world, assembles imported vehicle parts from China and other parts of the world, including locally manufactured ones.

http://www.myjoyonline.com/business/...the-market.php

[Dayuhan]

I think people who are paying attention (limited number, but that's always the case) see and understand what's going on, but really, what of it? It's not a threat or a challenge or a problem for the US, so there's no need for a response; it's not a model the US can reasonably expect to emulate, so there's no need to try to compete. Better just to sit back and watch how it plays out.

The pattern of US "aid" to Africa, and to most places, is easier to understand when you realize that it's not designed to help the recipient, it's designed to make Americans feel good about themselves.

[KingJaja]

I think people who are paying attention (limited number, but that's always the case) see and understand what's going on, but really, what of it? It's not a threat or a challenge or a problem for the US, so there's no need for a response; it's not a model the US can reasonably expect to emulate, so there's no need to try to compete. Better just to sit back and watch how it plays out.

The pattern of US "aid" to Africa, and to most places, is easier to understand when you realize that it's not designed to help the recipient, it's designed to make Americans feel good about themselves.

Africa/China trade was $10.6 billion in 2000. It is now $210 billion. If the US doesn't have a response to that, then it should consign itself to future irrelevance in Africa. It is that simple.

And I don't have a problem with that, but the US still wants to feel important in Africa - without having a clear 10, 20, 30 year vision of what they want to accomplish here - but the Chinese do.

[Dayuhan]

Africa/China trade was $10.6 billion in 2000. It is now $210 billion. If the US doesn't have a response to that, then it should consign itself to future irrelevance in Africa. It is that simple.

$210 billion sounds like a lot until you realize that total US foreign trade in 2013 was over $5 trillion; China was over $4 trillion. African trade is a drop in the bucket.

Look at the actual composition of African trade with China, and you see that it's already largely irrelevant to the US. US imports of African oil are down 90% since 2010, and now run under 200,000bpd, a pittance. The Chinese economy relies heavily on primary industry and imports large quantities of base metals and other primary materials. The US uses much less and most of what it needs is available in the Western Hemisphere. Why would you ship bulk materials like iron, copper, manganese, chromite etc from Africa when they are available much closer to home?

Look at what China exports to Africa... is it really realistic for the US to even try to compete? Textiles? The US hasn't manufactured them for generations, we get them from China. The African market consumes a lot of machinery, equipment, and manufactured goods, but the market is cost sensitive and on a pure cost basis there's very limited space for US competition. As economies develop and buyers become more sophisticated it's likely that US and European brands will become more popular, but that's a fair ways off.

How much Chinese industrial development in China is funded by government loans? US companies can't compete on those grounds; the government financing just isn't there.

Add in impediments like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is a serious issue for US companies considering entry in the African market, and you pretty quickly reach the conclusion that the best move the US can make is to sit back and let the Chinese do as they will. If individual companies want to go in, fine, but on a policy basis I see no point at all in the US trying to compete with China in the African market.

And I don't have a problem with that, but the US still wants to feel important in Africa - without having a clear 10, 20, 30 year vision of what they want to accomplish here - but the Chinese do.

I actually think the US, for the most part, doesn't give a damn. There are sporadic efforts to put on a show of concern, but as an overall policy priority it's very low on the list.

[KingJaja]

$210 billion sounds like a lot until you realize that total US foreign trade in 2013 was over $5 trillion; China was over $4 trillion. African trade is a drop in the bucket.

That isn't how business men think

$210 billion could grow to $1 trillion in ten years if trade is aggressively pursued.