By: Thelma Nyarhi
It is no accident that we often hear politicians wooing potential voters or courting allies. The art of politics and the language of love have been used together to paint a clearer picture of power and influence. Power and influence are fundamental concepts that are crucial to decision-making processes. Power in most scholarship refers to material resources, whereas influence refered to the tools employed to convert one’s material resources into outcomes. By closely observing Chinese influence and power evolutions within the African continent, we may learn that in today’s world, things do not only happen due to force. Coercion can create resistance in the long run. As a result, curiosities often inquire how nation-states get to have power or influence in other states. I argue that a position of power does not simply translate to control. Political seduction – the art of wooing the other into political loyalty has been seen in some instances of foreign relations. In recent years, there has been contestation over emerging powers and their approaches to influencing the flow of raw materials in and around Africa. While some relations, such as the Africa-China and Africa-Russia, exemplify courtship resembling marriage – loyalty, provision, and interdependence, etc., the Africa-America relations, however, have been argued to be one treading close to a loveless marriage and, at times, absolute divorce – dissociation.
Before mapping global power influences within the continent, it is essential to establish what the continent has to offer. As a continent rich in coal, copper, and gold etc in the southern parts; petroleum, crude oil, etc in the northern parts; coffee, titanium, etc in the eastern parts; gold, iron, and cocoa in the western parts and diamonds amongst other resources in the central parts, it attracts global investors under the guise of ‘untapped’ economic potential. The African continent’s rich minerals are essential for the digital manufacturing, energy, and military production industries amongst many. In mapping out these global power influences, we must establish the approaches to influence by power structures other than China and their impact on African democracy. Secondly, is understanding the underlying causes of such influences is growing almost unabated despite the political and socioeconomic impacts on the continent. Lastly is determining Africa’s response to these approaches.
China’s influence has been closely tracked by international observers. Concerns over Chinese influence worldwide, as well as the impact on other world powers such as the United States, have been raised. Of importance has been its ability to exercise soft power to expand and assume a greater, more incredible international stage. While China’s interests in Africa are not new, considering its interests in the 1960’s and 1970’s centred on fighting against imperialism through a Chinese-style of communism, its interests have since evolved. From the 1960’s through to the 1970’s, it focused on developing an ideological solidarity with underdeveloped countries within the African continent against imperialism. Recently however, its interests have evolved to include those objectively seeking pragmatic pursuits for economic growth and sustainability through trade and investments. As a republic, it has adopted a friendly approach driven by financial objectives.
Its approach is best explained through its need to maintain and guard its reputation, ‘master the art of timing’ and ‘work on the hearts and minds of ‘others’ as explained by Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power. Timing is essential as it gets to position one in fruitful pursuits. For China, contributions towards military strengthening in Africa during the anti-imperialism pursuits in the late 1950’s to 1960’s in Zimbabwe, Algeria, and Guinea-Bissau established a sense of trust within the continent. This act of seduction created senses of loyalty, softening up any future resistance. The sense of trust further created a sense of dependency on China and with the maintained ‘friendly’ reputation, China has continued to establish many friendly relationships with African states. Russia has adopted a similar approach which is however militarized.
According the World Economic Forum, China has invested an estimated $1 trillion towards the Belt and Road Initiative – an infrastructural project aimed at linking multiple continents across sea and land. The project boosts the flow of capital, technologies, and goods among involved countries. Within Africa, technological advancements, road and railway infrastructure in poorer countries has given Beijing an added advantage in controlling minerals essential for renewable energy, and military defence productions, amongst others. With over 10 000 Chinese companies and approximately 2000 state-owned enterprises (SOEs), private security organizations in over 30 African countries, like South Africa, have been contracted to protect the burgeoning interests of the republic. Despite this, however, China has avoided high-risk conflict zones like Mali, revealing the republic’s cautious approach. These areas have on the other hand attracted the Russian Private Military Corporations (PMCs) who have come to provide military aid in exchange for economic and political concessions. This approach is best explained by law of power, which stresses boldness in actions and the ability to keep people dependent on you.
The Western governments have unfortunately used foreign aid, military interventions and suggested government reformations, which at the end, belittle the African states. This has overtime backfired and created resistance. Their efforts, though seemingly appearing to assist develop African nation states have unfortunately resulted in political instability, for example, America’s influence in Libya. Recently, the US has sought to recreate itself, for example its recent involvement in the Lobito Corridor project in Zambia, which many have argued resembles the China Belt and Road initiative. This is supported by the 38th law by Robyn Greene that urges one to think as they like but behave like others.
African Responses
Despite preferred “no-strings-attached” partnerships which are free of governance conditionalities, private security firm presence has been operating in the guise of protecting the burgeoning interests of investors. But what about the local security firms? Is Africa incapable or is it simply a means of invisible control? Civil societies and law organizations have come to question and demand transparency around foreign security firms within the continent. This approach should continue as it exposes the masked interests of foreign investments. Most of the attention has been focused on the extractive industries, where activity has been quite transparent. In Zimbabwe, coal mining by Chinese enterprises was banned due to litigation by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA).
Additionally, the Kenya-Adani airport deal proposing a 30-year lease and investing $1.85 billion to expand the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport had contenders such as the Kenya Human Rights Commission arguing against it. Similar litigation strategies have been implemented to target these SOEs and foreign private corporations and bring to the public attention the presence of security firms. Through this, transparency may be nudged, and intentions may be questioned.
Thelma Nyarhi is a researcher at the Democracy Development Program (DDP) and writes in her own capacity.