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

[KingJaja]

Davidbfpo

There is merit in examining how China's relationship with the developing world, in places, notably Africa, has developed recently. If only as it suggests "trade works" and appears to be minus any security relationships (except weapons sales). I do not doubt China has relationships with those who possess political power, which so far ensure trade and a measure of emigration.

Given that the USA does not trade extensively with Africa in particular, except for oil & gas, maybe some minerals (diamonds and iron ore for example), what does the USG offer? It is easy to portray it as "Drones, Guns and Spies". All of which may affect US national security, do they impact public and national security needs?

US relationship with Africa hasn't changed that much since the Cold War, very little innovation, no new thinking - nothing new really. It all boils down to aid, oil & gas and security.

China has brought a lot of new thinking with it - examples:

1. Focus on trade. Obama's just concluded Africa/US summit is in response to China/Africa summits (5 have been held since 2000).

2. Focus on Infrastructure: China introduced innovative infrastructure financing - infrastructure for commodities. This limits cases of money simply being siphoned away to the Dictator's Swiss account. You see the value for the money.

China is building three very important dams in Africa - Bui in Ghana (400MW), Grand Renaissance in Ethiopia (6,000MW) and Mambilla in Nigeria (3,000MW).

Most importantly, China gives Africans greater bargaining power - the West was the only game in town during the 80s & 90s - and trust me, Africa wasn't better off for it.

Now, does the US really want to be a major player in Africa? I'm not sure.

[Dayuhan]

There is merit in examining how China's relationship with the developing world, in places, notably Africa, has developed recently. If only as it suggests "trade works" and appears to be minus any security relationships (except weapons sales). I do not doubt China has relationships with those who possess political power, which so far ensure trade and a measure of emigration.

Trade does work... but that doesn't mean it works for the US and Africa. US companies make their own decisions on trade and investment; government input is limited. The US government can't make US companies buy from or sell to Africa. The synergies between the respective economies are in fact limited. Unlike China, the US does not need large quantities of basic commodities, and what it does need is available closer to home in less risky investment environments: why would you invest in uranium mining in Niger when you can buy all you need from Canada? Also unlike China, the US does not produce large quantities of manufactured goods appropriate for sale in cost-sensitive markets: to put it bluntly, cheap stuff. US exports tend to be at the top of the price range in any given category. As a middle class develops and as consumers become more quality-sensitive, more opportunities may open up, but at the moment there are real limits to what the US can expect to sell. Wheat, yes... but no competition from China on that score; the Chinese also import wheat from the US.

Given that the USA does not trade extensively with Africa in particular, except for oil & gas, maybe some minerals (diamonds and iron ore for example), what does the USG offer? It is easy to portray it as "Drones, Guns and Spies". All of which may affect US national security, do they impact public and national security needs?

US oil and gas purchases from Africa are dropping fast, and Africa is no longer a major supplier. The US buys its iron ore from Canada and Brazil. How badly do we really need precious stones and cocoa?

When we ask "what does the USG offer", we have to ask as well "offer in return for what"? What has the US to gain? The offer is "drones, guns, and spies" because all that's seen is a series of headaches that don't really threaten the US but that get enough attention to merit a show of "doing something".

China has brought a lot of new thinking with it - examples:

China has a different set of interests. I don't know that this involves "new thinking", they are just pursuing their own interests.

1. Focus on trade. Obama's just concluded Africa/US summit is in response to China/Africa summits (5 have been held since 2000).

Was the US summit really about trade, or was it just about putting on a show? Again, trade is not directed by policy, it's directed by economic synergies. China needs raw commodities from Africa, the US doesn't. China produces the low cost/low quality manufactured goods that are in demand in cost-sensitive economies, the US doesn't. Opportunities for trade are thus limited. US private investment is not directed by the state and is determined by private entity assessments of risk and profitability. Summits won't change those assessments.

2. Focus on Infrastructure: China introduced innovative infrastructure financing - infrastructure for commodities. This limits cases of money simply being siphoned away to the Dictator's Swiss account. You see the value for the money.

That works for China, because they need the commodities. The US doesn't need the commodities. So they would offer infrastructure for... what?

China is building three very important dams in Africa - Bui in Ghana (400MW), Grand Renaissance in Ethiopia (6,000MW) and Mambilla in Nigeria (3,000MW).

So what? Should the US compete with China to see who can build more stuff for Africa? Why? What's in it for us? There is not some sort of competition going on to see who can win the affections of Africans.

Most importantly, China gives Africans greater bargaining power - the West was the only game in town during the 80s & 90s - and trust me, Africa wasn't better off for it.

I'm sure that bargaining power is better for Africans... but again, how does that affect the question of how the US should engage with developing nations?

Now, does the US really want to be a major player in Africa? I'm not sure.

I would say no, the US doesn't really want to be a major player in Africa. Why should they?

[davidbfpo]

The USA offers Africa and I assume other parts of the developing world an odd mixture - the teachings of a dead economist, John Kenneth Galbraith and loads of US$ investment:http://thinkafricapress.com/economy/...aith-us-summit

This passage reminds me economists should not write:

....the US-Africa summit ended with a promised $14 billion in new US private investments in areas such as energy and infrastructure. This was also served up with the potential carrot of extended trade preferences under the US African Growth and Opportunity Act, and bathed in a thick glaze of philanthropic feel goodery sprinkled with a sugary, anodyne dash of corporate social responsibility. Africans might want to consider taking this meal with a lorry load of salt.

[KingJaja]

The USA offers Africa and I assume other parts of the developing world an odd mixture - the teachings of a dead economist, John Kenneth Galbraith and loads of US$ investment:http://thinkafricapress.com/economy/...aith-us-summit

This passage reminds me economists should not write:

US driven policy prescriptions for Africa - championed by IMF/World Bank, failed woefully during the 1980s/90s. That is one reason why China is quite popular here. Africa's affinity for China isn't totally irrational - but Westerners, as usual don't listen to Africans - they more used to doing all the talking.

[Dayuhan]

US driven policy prescriptions for Africa - championed by IMF/World Bank, failed woefully during the 1980s/90s. That is one reason why China is quite popular here. Africa's affinity for China isn't totally irrational - but Westerners, as usual don't listen to Africans - they more used to doing all the talking.

Of course Africa's affinity for China is rational, nobody's questioning that. How that works out down the line remains to be seen, but for Americans that's not a particularly important question. Again, China's involvement in Africa poses neither threat nor useful example to the US, so I'm not sure how it relates to the question of how the US ought to deal with developing countries.

It's easy to promise investment in a meeting, but whether or not those investments emerge is another question. US companies do not invest according to directions from the government, but on the basis of their own projections of risk and reward.

Coming from Asia I am sometimes surprised at what the Chinese get away with in Africa: here there is no way that foreign nationals would be allowed, for example, to engage directly in retail trade, or that a Chinese enterprise would be allowed to import Chinese laborers... but again, that's up to Africans to work out. Certainly Africans won't get a "better deal" from the US, which is not engaged in a competition to give anyone a better deal, but any time you rely on outside help - from anyone - to spur development, there will be a piper to be paid down the line.