New World Order Neo-Colonialism: A Contextual Comparison of Contemporary China and European Colonization in Africa

Abstract

Introduction This research attempts to answer the research question of how current Chinese engagement with Africa compares with past European colonialism of the continent? It achieves this via a historical comparison of European colonialism, using the British and French colonial models against the ongoing Chinese engagement in Africa. Thus, a critical assessment of the aforementioned factors, leads to the logical characterization of China's engagement with Africa as neo-colonialism, devoid of the unbridled territorial control and its attendant direct political and economic control of African countries. This is not because of Chinese altruism but rather a pragmatic response to a new world order shaped by international norms and institutions that guard statehood and sovereignty. Hence, a research perspective that is important because it puts the increased Chinese attention for Africa in a proper context to demonstrate that while the rationale for foreign interest in Africa has not changed, the circumstances and modus operandi of foreign power engagement in Africa has. And in this mix, this work provides a literature review about Chinese and European engagement in Africa; theoretical and conceptual framework; method; similarities and differences in Chinese and European engagements in Africa; observations, and conclusions. Literature Review Contrary to the current media narrative about China's engagement in Africa as a recent phenomenon, China has been engagement with Africa for centuries. Hence, Power et al (2012) debunks this presentism narrative and argues that contemporary Sino-Africa relations are anchored on a longer history of interaction and cooperation. They also reject the portrayal of China's engagement in Africa as a recent and random opportunistic phenomenon. In fact, China's interaction with Africa dates back to over two thousand years ago via the indirect exchange of products when Chinese officials were first sent to Africa, and the latter welcomed an African magician. Contemporary Sino-African diplomatic relations can be traced to the late 1950's with the signing of the first bilateral trade agreements between China and Egypt, Algeria, Guinea, Somali, Morocco and Sudan. This was followed up with a ten-country African tour by Zhou Enlai in 1963 and 1964 which culminated in increased Chinese economic, technical and military assistance to newly independent African countries and liberation movements (Muekalia 2012). The Bandung Conference of 1955 is viewed as the seminal moment in Sino-African relations as it brought together China and newly independent African and Asian countries to establish the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in order to withstand the turbulence of the Cold War. This relationship shifted from that of equal partners to one based on power relations with the formation of the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization which saw the beginning of Chinese economic aid to Africa (Achberger 2010:369). The strength of Sino-African relations proved pivotal to African support for China membership and securing the United National Security Council seat in place of Taiwan in 1971 (Chang, 2006). The volume of trade between China and Africa increased 700% in the 1990s (Servant, 2005) and currently, China is Africa's largest trading partner, surpassing traditional Western trading partners of the continent (Chen et al 2015). China's engagement with Africa has generated a polarizing binary debate among scholars and policy makers along the lines of the positive as well as the negative impact of the relationship. Oshodi (2012) terms this dichotomy as Sino-Optimism and Sino-pessimism. On the Sinopessimism front are scholars and major Western policy actors who talk of a Chinese colonization of Africa. These analysts argue that Chinese policies in Africa are set to economically and/or politically colonise Africa. China's engagement is seen as nothing but a second scramble for Africa's resources, and an eventual colonisation (Lee 2006; Nwoke 2007). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.