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

[KingJaja]

David,

I think you may be overlooking a significant part of the difference between the Chinese and Western approaches: the Chinese can deploy state-directed investment as a tool of policy; the west cannot. Western States can direct aid, but investment in enterprise, whether light industry or resource extraction, is purely in the hands of the private sector. The US government can provide some incentives, which are not necessarily followed, but the bulk of the US private sector doesn't seem particularly interested in the African market. That may be at least in part because manufacturing of consumer goods, especially low priced consumer goods, is not a specialty of US industry: even the US gets them from China.

What do you think the French have been doing for the past 50 years? Or do you think Total (the major French oil company) - is not some form of state-directed investment?

Europe has advantages in Africa that the Chinese cannot even dream of - French have preferential rights to Niger's Uranium mines & control the money (CFA) of fourteen African nations - these are advantages the Chinese wouldn't even dream of.

I'm not going talk about preferential trade policies/tariffs (a colonial legacy) that Europe & the USA benefit immensely from.

Western media has done a great propaganda campaign on how the Chinese have a great advantage over the West doing business in Africa - that it is believed by many, doesn't make it true. It is not.

Most mining companies in Africa still come from the West - Rio Tinto does big business here - but Western media makes it look as if only the Chinese are gobbling up everything.

[davidbfpo]

Citing Bill (due to my length):

What is Europe's current approach to developing nations? What are the lessons for the U.S.?

Yesterday's prologue: Europe, especially as the EU gained momentum alongside increasing trade flows within the EU, in effect largely turned inward. Yes there were frequent summits, diplomacy meandered along, sometimes military might was deployed - for short periods, some trade, a lot of aid, holidays in the sun (in a few places) and growing immigration. It is remarkable how many of the rich and powerful, plus those in opposition, frequent some cities in Europe - not that governments talk to them much (Islamists from Tunisia are cited as an example).

OK, Europe's approach is a mix of national and EU priorities. As a number of EU members were never colonisers that helps; the Irish gain being a former colony in their easy access.

Firn no doubt knows far more, but many ex-colonies have very little non-natural resources to trade with us. Oil and gas is the exception, which affected the UK's stance on Biafra's attempt to secede from Nigeria (France covertly took a different stance).

Aid I think remains large, although in the UK three times more is provided via charities & NGOs. Remittances, no idea. I suspect many former immigrants keep their money here.

Very few colonies are significant to national security. Terrorism is often cited, although rarely impacting back here. India has a major internal issue, but rarely impacts here. The ex-colonies in the Sahel are large and thinly populated.

For the USA and developing nations then.

The USG must take into account a good part of the relationship is not controlled by the USG, i.e. private companies particularly in oil & gas. Multilateral financial and trade institutions maybe influenced. I know from a little reading that the prescriptions of the IMF, World Bank and development banks are often unacceptable.

'Think small, act small'. Limit USG actions to small things. In the economic and aid field that is already happening. Clearly state the agreed objective, engage in partnership and have an end date.

Wherever possible use locals, contractors and not USG staff. Westerners are often seen - by the public - as unwelcome intruders, riding around in 4x4s, staying in expensive hotels, lack language skills, empathy and don't stay long (many of these vices are very understandable form a Westerners viewpoint).

Assume that one day the public and politicians at home will be disgusted or frustrated with USG actions. Breaching human rights is one "big hole" to fall into. Always be prepared to exit quickly, painful I know.

Look at how many countries in East Africa prefer Western involvement to be restricted. Kenya appears to be moving that way, Tanzania has long followed this and Ethiopia is a "half-way house".

[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.