Vol. 5(4), pp. 114-130, July, 2013 DOI: 10.5897/JEIF12.051 ISSN 2006-9812 2013 Academic Journals http://www.academicjournals.

org/JEIF

Journal of Economics and International Finance

Full Length Research Paper

China-US interest in Africa: The implications for peace and development

Odey, Acha Francis1, Eneji Mathias Agri 2,3 and Shi Li Rong4
2

China Foreign Affairs University Beijing, 100037 P.R, China. China-Africa Science and Technology Foundation, Beijing, China. 3 Department of Economics, University of Jos, Nigeria. 4 Shanghai Pudong Hanwei LTD, China.
Accepted 3 May, 2013

Apart from the China-US relations, one of the most important bilateral relations that have attracted the attention of analysts in the field of international relations today is the triangular Africa-China-US trilateral engagements. Scholars, practitioners, business community and citizens from the three sides could in one way or the other express their own anxieties, with some imaginary conclusion about the implications of this relationship. All these go to remind us about the interesting, disturbing and complex nature of Africas geopolitical economy. This paper critically and briefly examines China US interest in Africa: their activities, and the implications for African peace and development. The article gives a brief overview of Africas situation and the anxiety created by the engagement of China and the United States in the contemporary geopolitics and political economy of Africa. Questionnaires were used to elicit responses from diplomats, citizens and regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) and ECOWAS. Simple percentages and pie charts are used for data analysis, presentation and discussion of results. The article finally makes some recommendations and concludes that the peace of Africa will also be the peace of China and the United States as well as that of the international community. Key words: Development, geopolitical economy, natural resources, integration, peace and security, trade.

INTRODUCTION China-US engagement in Africa represents one of the most influential diplomacy in determining the future of African states. Their engagement has manifold dimensions; economic, political, security, infrastructural, environmental, health, education, social, cultural and others. Conflict of interest between these two super powers could possibly result in economic conflict, gravitating to economic warfare and possibly even to military conflict in Africa. Africa, the sub-Saharan Africa in particular, possesses substantial strategic, untapped reservoirs of the world most essential development- integrated natural resources; ranging from oil, timber, gems, bauxite, cobalt, *Corresponding author. E-mail: agrieneji@yahoo.com. uranium, gold, diamond, crude oil, gas, chromium, platinum, copper, phosphate rock, manganese, titanium and many more. All these deposits of natural resources that are spread across many African states make the continent a major supplier of these commodities. In the areas of oil and gas, the continent has continued to attract unprecedented interests of developed and developing countries such as the United States and China respectively. However, it is almost six decades since most African states got their political independence, but their development pace is far below their natural, material and human endowments. This has earned the

Odey et al.

115

continent such appellation as the least developed, the underdeveloped, the backward, the poorest continent, etc. There is obvious contradiction in Africas endowments and the attendant crisis, abject poverty, diseases, corruption, despair, hunger, and starvation which are the characteristics of Africa in the mainstream media (Deborah, 2009). Africas unthinkable squalor conditions have continued to attract the attention of the international community, from those that mean well and those that do not. In spite of its natural endowment, Africas name was synonymous with poverty, hopelessness and despair, political instability, war, tribal and religious violence, war over natural resources and the so-called national cake, poor governance with corruption infested system, waste, social and economic insecurity with some states heading for failed states and some like Somalia already considered as so (David, 2011; Jonathan and Sara, 2010). Resource-rich areas have become controversial in Bakassi, Darfur, and South Sudan etc. At a particular time, the continent became insignificant in the scheme of international affairs, lacked genuine appeal and attraction for investors, except for furthering the old imperialistic activities of the industrialized world. The search for markets and sources of secured raw materials for industrial advantage of various countries competing for economic and market expansion and sustained growth. Therefore, as Eskor (2000) has rightly noted, the need for market and raw material was the only source of attraction and relevance in Africa. Recently, however, the world began to witness another phase of intensive and extensive economic development activities in some emerging countries like China, Brazil, India, Russia, and South Africa, now known as BRICS, making an unprecedented giant stride in what was dominated by cartels of North America, Western Europe and Japan. This is very promising for Africa, seeing that their fellow African country (South Africa) is among these 5 of BRICS; this brings a ray of hope to the continent. Like all phases of industrialization from the 18th to the 20th century, these new emerging economies championed by China have brought about an overwhelming phenomenal transformation in the outlook of the global economy, both in practice and process, and have impacted tremendously on the geopolitical economy of Africa (Alfredo, 2002). It has introduced another phase of competition for African markets and natural resources between the traditional, industrialized West and the emerging BRICs members. Worthy of note is the attention it has caught among media practitioners, civil societies and scholars in the field of political economy, international relations and foreign policy observers and analysts in the ongoing fierce competition between Washington and Beijing with its attendant mixed feelings, interpretation and conclusions. Both US and China are world leading energy consumers and they import crude oil from Africa. According to the US Energy Information Administration, China accounted for 40% of total growth

in global oil demand (Wood, 2009). Also, in 2009, China became the second largest importer of oil at 4.3 million barrels per day, behind US with 9.6 million barrels. Analysts still struggle to comprehend the full-scale and the trajectory of Chinas engagement in Africa, as they accuse China of not being transparent (Machiko and Marie, 2012). Others say Chinas engagement in Africa is characterization of Chinas global hunt for energy (Zweig and Jianhai, 2006). However, since the inception of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in the year 2000, its interest in Africa is widening and getting stronger by the years. The United States engagement with Africa is channeled through the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD), and the US agencies such as African Command (AFRICOM), African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Millennium Challenge Cooperation (MCC), the Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Africa Education Initiative (AEI) and The African Peace Initiative (API). Each country uses its establishment(s) for policy re-engineering, and strategic diplomatic networks in order to assert their full presence and to maximize the best opportunities that abound in resource rich Africa (CAITEC, 2010; CD, 2010). At the same time, their renewed interest has also called for serious worries and concerns especially in the areas of peace, stability and development of Africa. Most of these US African foreign policy instruments are a demonstration of American thoughtfulness; it is also seen as American rethinking about Africa and consequently the new significance it attached to the continent. Amongst the concerns that stir the minds of international development analysts is the fate of Africa. In the changing landscape of Africas relationships, can Chinas engagement make a difference to Africas development? Has the situation added true relevance to the continent? Is there any prospects that the activities of China and U.S. in Africa will facilitate the emancipation of the continent economically and also hasten its integration into the global economy, or does this mean another scramble for the continents natural resources or the promotion of neo-colonialism and mercantilism that further the exploitation of Africa for the benefit of the capitalist imperialists? Eskor (2000) described this as operating under the umbrella of the so-called national governments and institutions/agencies in-charge of the natural resources of various African states? Also, are the concerns for peace and stability in the region? Williams (2004) noted that, the new global system does not involve the earlier geographical expansion, such as new territorial conquest; the new enlargement of capitalism is not as visible as one may think. It exchanges relations with deepening rather than the enlarging of the systems domain. It invades and co-modifies all of those public and private spheres that previously remained outside its reach. Given the question marks on these engagements, it is pertinent to find answers to the true interest of the United

116

J. Econ. Int. Finance

States and China in Africa, and ascertain if their engagements will realize Africas development objective. This is necessary as such findings will help to support or refute the illusion made by some analysts that Africa would be more bruised than ever before, especially under the present strong influence of China. The remaining part of this paper is divided into 5 sections. In section 2, we present the theoretical framework; section 3 discusses the China-US interests in Africa. In section 4, we present the implications for Africas peace and development. Section 5 is the methodology of our research. Conclusion and recommendations are the last, section 6. In our field study, optimists still believe that China-US interest in Africa will contribute to the regeneration of African economies. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The Puerto Rican sociologist Ramon Grosfoguel (2008) offers a comparison of world systems and postcolonial analytical approaches. He argues that both share a critique of developmentalism, eurocentric forms of knowledge, gender inequalities, racial hierarchies, and cultural/ ideological processes that foster the subordination of the periphery in the capitalist world-system (Grosfoguel, 2008). However, according to Grosfoguel, postcolonial critiques focus on agents of colonial cultures, while worldsystem critiques focus on structures of capital accumulation. While postcolonial theory tends to be limited in its analysis of political-economic relations, world-systems theory (WST) tends to be limited in its analysis of culture: both literatures fluctuate between the danger of economic reductionism and the danger of culturalism. The WST emphasizes on development and unequal opportunities across nations in a capitalist world economy. It has roots in classical sociology, and Marxian political economy (Alfredo, 2002). In this perspective, many of the phenomena that have been called globalization correspond to recently expanded international trade, financial flows, and foreign investment by transnational corporations and banks (Anouashiravan, 2007; Gilroy, 2005). Trade globalization is both a cycle and a trend; the real integration of the interests of capitalists all over the world has very likely reached a level greater than at the peak of the 20th-century wave of globalization. This is facilitating stiff competition among center states for world hegemony and it is also turning into warfare. There is an apparent need to building of stronger, more cooperative and self-reliant social and economic relations in the periphery and semi-periphery. CHINA AND US INTEREST IN AFRICA Africas proven reserve has grown by 56% in the last decade, (Wood, 2009). Energy analysts generally believe

that Chinas oil investment in Africa may see some increase of about 70%, reaching about $50 billion by 2015. US ExxonMobil and Chevron have since completed a 3.7 billion pipeline carrying 160,000 b/d of oil from Central Chad through Cameroon to the Atlantic Ocean for onward shipping to the US. The US interest in Africas oil as it is affirmed by its controversial struggle to establish AFRICOM base in Sao Tome and Principe of the Gulf of Guinea is to assist it control the Oilfield from Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Gabon and Cameroon. This is a region that the US is very much concerned about, the Beijing inroad in African oil (Engdahi, 2007). The common questions we have often been confronted with and which we are certainly sure will continue to be, is the question of China-US interest in Africa. The answer is simply economic interest; natural resources, in which oil, gas, diamond, cobalt, wood, uranium etc are among the major articles in trade. This can be shown in Figure 1. In this chart, crude oil takes the lions share of 70%; iron, cotton and diamond, 11% while others, 19%. One does not need a seer to reveal this. The contemporary world powers geostrategic or geopolitics in Africa particularly, between China and the United States, the traditional Western actors, Japan, Russia, Brazil and India is centrally focused on African natural resources. Surya (2009) affirmed this when he noted that the concept of energy security occupies prominent place in the foreign policy of China and India. It is stressed that access to cheap energy has become essential to the functioning of modern economies, as such the competition over energy sources is a key issue in foreign policy of industrialized countries. Therefore, it will be a fallacy, or pretentious for one to believe that energy or natural resources and African fledging markets of over one billion potential consumers are not the major nuts in the USChina-Africa engagement. Table 1 shows some comercial deals of Chinas three largest oil companies in Africa. Generally, Chinas oil deals in Africa are characterized by loans and credit lines in connection with infrastructure projects. Between 1996 and 2006, CNPC has contracted about 20 projects in nine African countries. In 2005, CNPC won an engineering contract to build a $385 million Sonatrachs refinery in Algeria. The international import of Chinas net oil import is expected to jump from 3.5 million barrels per day in 2006 to 13.1 million barrels per day by 2030 (Stephanie, 2008). About 85% of Africas exports to China come from oil-rich countries which include Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Republic of Congo and Sudan. Data available indicate that China has built 27 million ton of oil production capacity, 3,500 km oil transportation pipelines in Sudan, China has assisted in building Sudans oil industry and trained about 6.000 management staff and skilled labor. While it also reveals that only 13% of African oil is exported to China and more than 30% goes to Europe and the United States. Chinas investment in African oil industry represents only one sixteenth of all FDI in the oil industry (Frank and

Odey et al.

117

Figure 1. Composition of US-china trade with Africa.

Table 1. Some commercial deals of Chinas three largest oil companies in Africa.

CNPC

Since 1996, China National Petroleum Corporation CNPC) has controlled a 40% stake in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company in Sudan; in 2003, CNPC purchased oil refineries in Algeria for 350 million USD and signed an exploration deal for oil in two blocks; in 2004, CNPC invested 1 million USD in an oil and gas exploration project in Mauritania; in 2006, CNPC and Sinopec teamed up to exploit newly discovered drilling rights to an oilfield in Sudan in a deal worth about 600 million USD. In 2002, China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) signed a contract for 525 million USD to develop oil field in Algeria; in 2004, Sinopec signed a technical evaluation deal for three onshore oilfields in Gabon to supply China with crude oil; in 2005, Sinopec purchased a 27% stake in an oil field off the coast in Nigeria; in 2006, Sinopec entered into a joint venture partnership with a local oil company to build an oil refinery in Angola; in 2006, Sinopec has been constructing a 1,500km pipeline to Port Sudan. In 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) paid 2.3 billion dollar for a stake in the Akpo Offshore Oil and Gas Field in Nigeria; In 2006, CNOOC signed a production-sharing contract in Equatorial Guinea; and bought a 45% stake in a Nigeria oil and gas field for 2.3 billion USD; also in 2006, CNOOC was allowed to explore in six blocks covering 44500 sq miles in Kenya; In 2008, concluded arrangement to lift Nigeria oil through South African Petroleum Co., which gives China access to about 175, 000 barrels a day. The $2.27 billion deals gave CNOOC 45 percent stake in the Nigeria off shore oilfield. In 2012, A commercial agreement between the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) and UNIPEC Asia Company Limited has committed the country to supply 13,000 barrels of crude oil daily, which is the share of Ghana's oil in the jubilee field, to the Chinese for fifteen-and-a-half years to pay for a $3 billion loan.

Sinopec

CNOOC

CNOOC

UNIPEC

Sources: Naidu and Davies, China Fuels its Future with Africas Riches; Scott-Meuser, Fuelling Development: China and Africa; Meidan Michal, Chinas Africa Policy: Business Now, Politics Later.

Nordensvard, 2011). In 2006, China also committed well over $8 billion to Nigeria, Angola and Mozambique and $2.3 billion to all Sub-Sahara Africa from World Bank. It is informed that Ghana has concluded negotiation for $1.2 billion Chinese electrification loan in 2011. Since 1999, CNPC has invested $15 billion in Sudan. It virtually own 50% of the countrys oil refinery. China takes about 65 to 80% of Sudans oil production of 500,000 barrels per day. As at 2009, energy analysts estimated Beijing investment in Sudan oil and related industries at $7 billion (Jerker, 2009). CNPC owns major part of Southern and Northern Sudan and produced about 300,000 b/d since 2006.

During the same period, Sinopec was noted to have completed the construction of pipeline, tanker terminal in Port-Sudan. While China has invested about $15 billion in oil infrastructure, 60% of Sudans oil is exported to China. In 2005, CNOOC paid $2.7 billion for a rich oil block in Nigeria (Taylor, 2012). In a similar quest for oil, Sinopec which owns 50% of Angola BP-Greater Plutonio project is believed to have invested more than $5 billion in Angolas infrastructure and oil related projects. In 2002, Sinopec secured a contract of $525 million to develop Zarzaitine oilfield in Algeria. In 2003, CNPC purchased Algerian refineries for 350 million with a deal to explore two oil

118

J. Econ. Int. Finance

Table 2. Percentage of Chinas imported crude oil by region (1995-2006).

Table 4. Composition of China's imports and exports from and to Africa (US$; 2010).

Regions Middle East Africa Asia-Pacific Others

1995 46 11 41 2

2000 53.6 24.0 15.0 6.7

2003 51.3 24.4 15.3 9.4

2006 45 32 8 15

Sources: Lai, 2007, Chinas Oil Diplomacy: Is It a Global Security Threat?, P522, cited from Yearbook of Chinas Economic Foreign Relations and Trade, 2002, 2003; Zhao, 2007, China-US Oil Rivalry in Africa.

Import sector Minerals Metals Stone and glass Wood, wood products Textiles Export sector Machinery and electrical Textiles Transport Metals Plastics and rubber

Import value $50.6b $6.2bn $2.4bn $1.3bn $0.7bn Export value $17.2bn $10.7bn $8.2bn $6.4bn $3.0bn

Table 3. China's top 5 trading partners in Africa (US$; 2010-2011).

Country Angola South Africa Sudan Nigeria Egypt

Trade value $24.8bn $22.2bn $8.6bn $7.8bn $7.0bn

Source: China Customs data; Frontier Advisory Analysis (2011).

Source: China Customs data; Frontier Advisory analysis.

blocks. PetroChina and Algeria Hydrogen Carbide also agreed to jointly develop oilfields and construct a refinery. In 2006, CNOOC signed a deal with Kenya to explore six oil blocks of about 44, 500 sq miles (Ian, 2012). Between 2005 and 2006, Angola received $3 billion loan in exchange for oil. In 2006, PetroChina and Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation struck a deal of $800 million to supply 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Table 2 shows Chinas imported crude oil by region. China-Africa business ties have witnessed interesting growth in size, structure and diversity. According to Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming, Trade between China and Africa hit a high record of $166bn (106bn) in 2011. Africa is an important source of raw materials to feed China's economic boom. By June 2012, China had invested US$45 billion in Africa, including over US$15 billion of direct investment. Over 2,000 Chinese companies of different types are operating in 50 African countries. The building of China-Africa trade and economic cooperation zones is making smooth headway, driving Africa's industrial growth. The fact and figure is shown in Chinas top 5 trading partners in Africa (Table 3, Figure 2). During her address at the Colombia University in 1998, the Assistant Secretary of State, Susan E. Rice made it very clear that the US relies heavily on the African Continent for petroleum and strategic minerals. In volume terms, more than 15% of US crude oil imports come from the continent (Table 4). The Continent is projected to be

the major source of US oil import in the future and the Wikileaks has revealed American unrestrained determination to do everything possible to secure and defend her interest in Africas natural resources, especially in the Nigeria oil. The information also revealed that it will employ all its powers to contend China in this regard. Americas economic and commercial interests in Africa are enormous. While as at 2008, its exports to SubSahara Africa was about $18.5 billion, making it the second largest industrial supplier to the region; its imports was put at $86.1 billion. Under the same period, import under Africa Growth and Opportunity Act was said to be 67,357.8 billion. As at 2007, the overall exports from SubSahara were put at $244.6 billion. The updates of the reports-imports 2009-2012 are shown in Table 5. Generally, the revived economic and commercial activity between the United States and Sub-Sahara Africa is making an impressive progress. According to the United States Trade Profile (2009), the two-way trade between the two sides as at 2008 was already $104.6 billion. However, it is pertinent to state that, besides the anti-terrorist campaign mission, one of the major missions of President Bush visit to Africa in 2003 was influenced by the Africa market which has remained one of the yet- to- be fully tapped in the world. In 2009, President Barack Obama visited Ghana which is connected to the latters strong democratic records. And perhaps, the most essential was based on Africas huge oil reserves which it believes will assist in fueling American economy as well as serve as counterweight to the influence of OPEC. The US trade balance with SubSaharan Africa from 2005-2008 is shown in Table 6. U.S. total trade with Sub-Saharan Africa (exports and imports) increased by 28.0% in 2008, as both exports and imports grew. U.S. exports increased by 29.2% to $18.5 billion, driven by growth in several sectors including: machinery, vehicles and spare parts, wheat, non-crude

Odey et al.

119

Figure 2. China-Africa Growing Trade Relations. Source: China Customs data; Frontier Advisory Analysis, 2011.

oil, aircraft, and electrical machinery (including telecommunications equipment). U.S. imports in 2008 increased by 27.8% to $86.1 billion. As has been the case throughout 2008, this growth continues to be due to a significant increase of 31.9% in crude oil imports (accounting for 79.5% of total imports from Sub-Saharan Africa). Of the top five African destinations for U.S. products, exports to South Africa rose by 17.6%; to Nigeria, 47.7%; to Angola, 62.6%; to Benin, 192.4% (due to a large increase in the export of non-crude oil and vehicles and parts); and to Ghana, 46.1%. U.S. imports from the oil producing countries grew in every case with imports from Nigeria growing by 16.2%; from Angola, 51.2%; from the Republic of Congo, 65.2%; from Equatorial Guinea, 89.5%; from Chad, 55.4%; and from Gabon, 4.4%. U.S. imports from South Africa grew by 9.9%. Declines in the import of platinum and diamonds from South Africa were more than balanced by strong growth in the import of ferroalloys and extremely high growth of over 350% in the import of passenger vehicles (caused by a surge in imports from South Africa as new car lines produced in South Africa came on the market at the end of 2007). In 2008, U.S. imports under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) were $66.3 billion, 29.8% more than in 2007. This figure includes duty-free

imports from AGOA-eligible countries under both the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the expanded AGOA GSP, plus textile and apparel items imported duty-free and quota-free under AGOA provisions. Petroleum products continued to account for the largest portion of AGOA imports with a 92.3% share of overall AGOA imports. With these fuel products excluded, AGOA imports were $5.1 billion, increasing by 51.2%. Much of this non-energy product increase was due to a 224.8% increase in imports of AGOA transportation equipment, virtually all from South Africa as mentioned above. AGOA minerals and metals also increased by 58.8% and AGOA chemical and related products by 38.7%. AGOA textiles and apparel imports declined by 10.4% and AGOA agricultural products by 7.9%. U.S. imports under AGOA are becoming increasingly diversified. Some of the more significant products include: jewelry and jewelry parts; fruit and nut products; fruit juices; leather products; plastic products; and cocoa paste. The top five AGOA beneficiary countries included Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Chad, and the Republic of Congo. Other leading AGOA beneficiaries include Gabon, Cameroon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Kenya, Swaziland, and Mauritius (Morry, 2010). The US trade with Sub-Saharan Africa has been on progression as shown in Figure 3. Imports dominate

120

J. Econ. Int. Finance

Table 5. Sub-Saharan Africa: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, imports for consumption and merchandise trade balance by major commodity sectors (annual and year-to-date from Jan March).

Million dollars U.S. exports of domestic merchandise Agricultural products Forest products Chemicals and related products Energy-related products Textiles and apparel Footwear Minerals and metals Machinery Transportation equipment Electronic products Miscellaneous manufactures Special provisions Total U.S. imports for consumption Agricultural products Forest products Chemicals and related products Energy-related products Textiles and apparel Footwear Minerals and metals Machinery Transportation equipment Electronic products Miscellaneous manufactures Special provisions Total U.S. merchandise trade balance Agricultural products Forest products Chemicals and related products Energy-related products Textiles and apparel Footwear Minerals and metals Machinery Transportation equipment Electronic products Miscellaneous manufactures Special provisions Total

2009 1,956 206 1,459 1,166 199 34 789 1,834 4,969 1,285 188 551 14,638 2009 1,459 79 988 37,674 943 1 3,813 226 1,549 81 135 210 47,159 2009 497 127 472 -36,508 -744 33 -3,024 1,608 3,420 1,204 53 341 -32,521

2010 2,304 267 1,596 1,493 236 29 1,136 1,990 5,330 1,205 245 604 16,437 2010 1,846 87 2,081 51,266 814 1 5,702 319 1,713 87 229 207 64,351 2010 459 181 -485 -49,773 -577 27 -4,565 1,671 3,618 1,117 16 397 -47,915

2011 3,043 317 1,916 1,959 261 35 1,407 2,108 7,043 1,217 276 716 20,298 2011 2,102 109 2,349 58,816 929 2 6,519 362 2,318 108 197 208 74,019 2011 941 208 -432 -56,857 -667 33 -5,113 1,746 4,725 1,109 79 508 -53,721

2011 YTD 672 77 446 414 57 8 740 424 1,426 283 47 179 4,774 2011 YTD 592 27 595 13,324 195 1 1,634 92 439 23 46 45 17,015 2011 YTD 80 50 -149 -12,911 -138 8 -895 332 988 259 1 134 -12,241

2012 YTD 605 80 529 362 66 7 245 655 1,616 348 65 181 4,762 2012 YTD 645 28 417 8,993 213 1 1,389 99 504 21 38 69 12,416 2012 YTD -41 53 113 -8,631 -147 6 -1,144 557 1,113 327 28 113 -7,654

Note: YTD= Year to Date. Import values are based on customs value; export values are based on f.a.s. value, U.S. port of export. Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

the trade, while exports progresses slowly. Like the United States, it has become obvious that China can no longer hide its intention; its core motive in

Africa is to be part of the beneficiary of Africas huge natural resources especially energy resources to fuel Chinas industrialization, in which it became a major

Odey et al.

121

Table 6. U.S. Trade with Sub-Saharan Africa ($ Billions).

Year U.S. exports U.S. imports U.S. net imports

2005 10,210.7 50,364.6 40153.9

2006 11,859.7 59,092.8 47,233.1

2007 14,296.1 67,357.8 53061.7

2008 18,471.9 86,052.7 67580.8

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

Figure 3. USA trade with Sub-Saharan Africa ($Billion). Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

importer since 1993. Presently, China is the second major consumer of Africas oil after the United States as shown in Figure 4. The graph depicts the United States and China as the leading trading partners in Africa are far ahead of other countries like Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Japan. In Table 7, we present the major African exports to China and the exporting African countries. China today has stakes in almost all the 54 African countries that have diplomatic ties with Beijing. Although, it is relatively new, compared with the US, in the field of Africas natural resources, but its growing impact in recent time is tremendous. Its investment in the oil sector and other solid minerals in countries like Sudan, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Ghana, Gabon, DCR Congo, Namibia, and Lesotho etc are remarkable. The trade figure between the two sides stood over USD 106 billion as at 2008. Generally, there is no doubt that the interest of the two economic giants go beyond natural resources in which energy is in the forefront. Both countries have shown keen interest in such areas as military cooperation, UN Peacekeeping, health sectors, agriculture etc. While US through Africa Growth and Opportunity Act has helped to

promote mutual benefits on both sides, especially in the provision of clean water, security, democratization process of Africa and such efforts as facilitating the integration of Africa economy into the global economy. China through FOCAC has not done less either. Premier Wen Jiabao during his 2006 address in South Africa stated that, as at 2006, the country has already provided over 900 infrastructure projects and dispatched 16,000 medical personnel to African countries (CD, 2006). IMPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT FOR AFRICAS PEACE AND

Clifford (2009), in his critical analysis of the present scenario, noted that if slavery as a source of labor in the past was acquired through conquests, then it should be expected that gas, oil, diamond, cobalt and other mineral resources that are integral to development would be acquired in a similar way. In line with the same thinking, Klare (2001), in one of his interviews, predicted that the next zone of crisis after the Middle East will be in the resource rich African continent. Klares prediction was no doubt informed by Americas increasing need for oil and

122

J. Econ. Int. Finance

Figure 4. Africas Principal Trading Partners, 2011 ($Billion). Source: Derived from IMF Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook, 2011.

Table 7. Major African exports to China and the exporting countries.

Major African exports to China Crude oil LOGS Iron ore and concentrates Diamonds Cotton Ores and concentrates of non-ferrous base metals Tobacco Iron/steel coils Platinum Manganese ores and concentrates Copper and copper alloys Aluminum and alumna Wood of non-coniferous species
Source: World Bank, Africas Silk Road.

Major exporting countries Angola, Sudan, Congo Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Liberia South Africa, Mauritania, Liberia, Mozambique South Africa main exporter Benin, Burkina faso, mali, Cote dIvoire, Cameroon South Africa, Congo Brazzaville, D.R. Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria Zimbabwe South Africa South Africa Gabon, Ghana, South Africa, Cote dIvoire Zambia, South Africa, Namibia, Congo Brazzaville South Africa Cameroon, Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, South Africa, Ghana 33

gas reserve, and other mineral resources necessary for its sustainable development. Besides, Klare must have also been influenced by Chinas unprecedented inroad to Africa and its voracious needs for energy and other natural resources to sustain its present development momentum. As the two largest consumers of natural resources and presently leading players in Africa, the peace and the development of Africa and global stability will to a large extent be influenced by the activities of these two economic giants. China and the US have in various forums and through their policy statements repeatedly wished Africa a peaceful and stable continent

necessary for sustainable development. However, in reality, anxiety has continued to mount between China and US, and the traditional players in Africa with each of them trying to assert or reassert its presence in the continent. Recent events in places like Congo DCR, Zimbabwe, Sudan and the activities of some of their multinationals in most part of Africa do not only call for some serious concern but the unguided interests of the US, France in Code dIvoire political impasse, the Libyan crisis in 2011 and the decision for the US/NATO led alliance with rebels in Lybia puts a big question mark on peace and democratic process in Africa. Like the case of

Odey et al.

123

Table 8. Major African imports from China and the importing country.

Major African imports from China Clothing and textiles Footwear Motorcycles Batteries and accumulators Rice Travel goods, handbags, suitcases, purses Electrical, electronics and telecom equipment Construction equipment/materials
Source: UN COMTRADE.

Major importing countries Benin, Togo, Gambia, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, cote dIvoire, Sudan, Madagascar, Ghana South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Togo Nigeria, Togo, Mali, Cameroon, Guinea Benin, Nigeria, Togo, Kenya Cote dIvoire, Liberia, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania Nigeria, Zambia, Ethiopia, Angola, South Africa, Uganda Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Benin, Kenya

Iraq, it is the interest for Libyan oil and the need to destroy the uncompromised Gaddafi to achieve NATOs hidden agenda. Was it not easier to capture Gaddafi alive and make him face justice than to use aircraft bombardment and incur huge debt on Libyan oil? Are the scores of human beings being killed in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain more or less important to those ones purported to have been killed by Gaddafi? The quest for oil and other natural resources and domination will continue to promote multiple standards by the imperial and former colonial powers that are now regrouping under the auspices of their dominated United Nation and all kinds of loosed and hijacked resolutions. As part of the efforts to ease the growing anxiety, Jendayi (2006), the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs once noted that, I dont think Chinas seeking for oil in Africa is a threat to the United States interests. Although, China and US may not engage in a physical confrontation that could lead to serious instability in Africa or global instability, but their competing influence, trade interests, political structure, policy and operational strategies such as promoting democracy and good governance, transparency and accountability, human rights, conditional aid and loans by the US and its Western led institutions, compared with the Chinese unconditional or low interest loans and aid, non-interference policy, non-admittance of human rights abuses and the beliefs that Africa can choose its own course as against the usual dictated Western styles, are at variance. This variance of the two super powers may continue to have serious implications on the peace and stability of Africa. METHODOLOGY In order to elicit sufficient information for our comparative analysis, and to achieve a balance and degree of reliability on a broad and politically intractable subject with all of its intricacy like this one, the study decided to conduct extensive interview and administer questionnaire randomly in the study areas in South Africa, Ethiopia,

Nigeria, Tanzania, China, regional organizations such as African Union Commission, ECOWAS Commission, Institute of Security Studies (Addis Ababa) and African embassies, the United States embassy, European Union Office accredited to the Peoples Republic of China. In the data analysis, the sample size is 248, except for the African perception of US-China engagement that is 500. However, the number of questionnaires sent out was more than these sample sizes. The sizes here represent not all the questionnaires administered but those that were returned, or with valid answers. For ease of analysis, the simple percentage is used as shown in the various tables and pie-charts. Table 8 is the result of the survey conducted in the study areas covering South Africa, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Nigeria and China (embassies and international organization). It tries to find out the reasons for Chinas engagement in Africa (Figure 5). The sample size is 248 and the calculation is based on simple percentage. 45% out of 248 respondents surveyed argued that the primary reason for Beijing engagement in Africa is for the extraction of natural resources. This can be seen where natural resources is used to back Chinese concessional loans in Africa. The other interests which act as the conveyer of its interest for natural resources are trade and economic. While 19 and 17% respectively argued that trade and economic are Chinas interest in Africa, 4% believed that China still has some degree of political interest in Africa vis--vis the search for diplomatic allies, multilateral and issues of common interests in international voting. China-Africa engagement may emerge as one of the critical building blocks in shaping the global economic and geopolitical landscape in the years to come. They recalled that it was Africas vote that gave China a seat in the United Nations Security Council which was held by Taiwan until 1971. It was argued that since the dawn of independence of Africa and coupled with improvement at the cross-strait relations, politics has become a fickle factor in China-Africa relations. The study noted that even though Beijing is interested in the peace and stability of Africa, it has little or no interest in

124

J. Econ. Int. Finance

Figure 5. Reasons for Chinas engagement in Africa.

Table 9. Reasons for Chinas engagement in Africa.

Reasons Response Percent

Natural resources 112 45

Trade 46 19

Economic 42 17

Politics 8 3

Democracy 0 0

Peace and Stability 6 2

Exploi tation 12 5

Mutual benefits 22 9

Total 248 100

Table 10. Reasons for the US engagement in Africa.

Reasons Respondent Percent

Natural resource 58 47

Trade 20 16

Economic 17 14

Politics 8 6

Democracy 9 7

Peace and stability 3 2

Exploit ation 7 6

Mutual benefit 2 2

Total 124 100

Source: Field survey 2010/2011.

the democratic message largely because its understanding of democracy is different from that of the West. However, the survey revealed that Chinas engagement in Africa has features of mutual benefits or the Win-Win approach. Chinese respondents argued that it is the sincere intention of Chinese to show a difference from the Western engagement by helping to facilitate Africas domestic development contrary to the usual multiple and complex route to resource exploitation. Table 9 is a survey of the reasons for the United States engagement in Africa. The result of the study also shows that the core reason for US engagement in Africa is natural resources in which oil is at the top of the list of interests in the continent. While interest in natural resources is 47%, followed by trade (16%) and economic (14%) respectively; politics and democracy was down the ladder of its interests in Africa (Figure 6). Respondents argued that apart from the fact that politics, democracy, peace and stability are, and should be seen as few of those cost- effective mechanisms for achieving the United States core interest in Africa, it is noted that the United States and its European allies have continued to pay lips services and multiple standards to the so-called

good governance and democracy. Tables 1 and 2 thus suggest that the central reason for China and US engagement in Africa is about economics of natural resources. However, both countries are using different methodology to pursue their interest in the continent. Research question 1: Does the Chinese engagement in Africa have any significant benefits for Africa? Answer; Yes. Table 10 tries to answer if the Chinese engagement in Africa has any significant benefits for Africa. The survey which covered the above study areas was to test the veracity of the above proposition. 64% of the 248 respondents surveyed are positive about the Chinese engagement in Africa. Based on the above result, the study noted that the Chinese engagement is beneficial to Africa especially in the area of infrastructure development (Figure 7). The reasons for their decision have since been reflected in the body of this work. Research question 2: Does the United States engagement in Africa have any significant benefits for Africa:

Odey et al.

125

Figure 6. Reasons for US engagement in Africa.

Figure 7. Benefits of Chinas engagement in Africa.

that apart from the weak negotiating capacity of African officials, the United States has placed too much emphasis and multiple standards on what it calls good governance, democracy and human rights at the expense of Africas infrastructural development and technology transfer. The study also shows that the mutual benefits in the Africa-US engagement have been very much unequal when compared to decades of interaction between the two sides. It also reveals that the United States has continued to meddle in the internal affairs of African countries, supporting authoritarians who do not only rule with fixed hand but protect the United States/Western interests such as continuous exploitation of Africas natural resources through unequal arrangement.
Figure 8. Benefits of US engagement in Africa.

Source: Field survey, 2010/2011.

Research question 3: Do Chinese activities in Africa suggest any act of colonialist, mercantilist, predator, or encourage authoritarian? From the result of the survey in Table 12, 56% out of the 248 respondents did not believe that Chinese activities in Africa are characterized with acts of colonialist, mercantilist, and predator or that China is the author of authoritarianism in Africa (Figure 9). It also suggests that

In the analysis in Table 11, out of the 248 respondents covering both one-on-one interview and valid questionnaire, 48% were positive about the United States engagement in Africa (Figure 8). However, the problem is

126

J. Econ. Int. Finance

Table 11. Benefits of Chinese engagement in Africa.

Country Respondent Percent

South Africa 38 16

Ethiopia 60 24

Tanzania 80 32

Nigeria 70 28

Total 248 100

Source: Field survey 2010/2011.

Table 12. Benefits of US engagement in Africa.

Country Respondent Percent

South Africa 40 16

Ethiopia 28 11

Tanzania 36 15

Nigeria 60 24

Total 248 66

Table 13. Chinese activities in Africa suggesting any act of colonialist, mercantilist, predator or authoritarian.

Responses Respondent Percent

No 140 56

It depends 46 19

Not aware 34 13

Probably yes 28 12

Total 248 100

Figure 9. Chinese activities in Africa suggesting any act of colonialist, mercantilist, predator or authoritarian. Source: Field survey 2010/2011

Chinas principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of Africa as often referenced in the case of Sudan and Zimbabwe was not sufficient enough as respondents also cited the cases of the falling and existing sit-tight dictators in Africa who have continued to exist as stooges and protgs of the United States and former European colonial capitals. Respondents argued that Chinese engagement in Africa has rather been blessing than curse. It was also argued that if there is any act of colonialism, mercantilist or predator, both China and the United States are not completely free as both of them take so much from Africa and leave just very little behind. Research question 4: Is there any divergent of interest between China and US in Africa and if yes, could their activities lead to conflicts? Table 13 shows that 51% out of the 248 respondents surveyed argued that China-US interests in Africa are

more convergence than divergence. This result is in consonance with the argument that they are all in Africa for common goal, and that is natural resources in which energy and other development- integrated minerals are in the forefront (Figure 10 and Table 14). The areas of divergent is associated with their different understanding, interpretation, the process and exercise of such issues as politics, democracy, human rights, and peace and stability, all of which has not only become foreign policy of the United States but economic instrument in the hands of the Western- American led side. To China, all of these deco-rations are largely a matter of cultural connotation. Respondents argued that the question of rival and possible conflict will arise when one party feels that its interests are being undermined by the other party and the inability of the two parties to agree to cooperate on what some Western analysts described as peaceful exploitation of Africa. This is the area where America sees China as a threat in Africa. It is then pertinent to

Odey et al.

127

Figure 10. Existence of divergent interest between China and US in Africa. Source: Field survey, 2010/2011

Table 14. Existence of divergent interest between China and US in Africa.

Response Respondent Percent

Common interest 126 51

Divergence 84 34

Conflict 38 15

Total 248 100

Table 15. General perception of Africans about Chinese engagement in Africa.

Options Responses Percent

Satisfied 260 52

Not very satisfied 150 30

Not satisfied 90 18

Total 500 100

suggest, in line with the result of this survey, that the central interests of China and US in Africa is common, and that is, that of securing of natural resources to sustain their industria-lization drive at home. The battle that is raging is not over Africas territory per se, but rather among Chinese firms and Western firms over their share of Africas markets. In this battle, Africa has not gained the ability to determine her own economic policies amidst a growing political disaffection and a rise in rebels cum extremist politicians. The Chinese firms are seen by the Western firms as a threat to their scope, profit and powerful autonomy in Africa. They are therefore in a competition to still retain their traditional and dominant role in Africas economic and political system. It is hoped that this competition in a short run will have major effects on efficiency and productivity, but the long run effect on conflict or peace is still possible. Research question 5: What is the general perception of Africans about Chinese engagement in Africa? In Table 15, the simple percentage analysis indicates that 52% of the 500 valid responses suggest that Africans are positive about Chinese engagement in Africa. Respondents believe that apart from the fact that China listens and understands Africas needs, Chinese engagement in

Africa has also put Africa back on track and that the engagement holds a lot of opportunity for African development quest if properly managed (Figure 11). While 18% of the respondents are not satisfied with Chinas engagement in Africa, 30% are also not very satisfied. They attributed this to some sensitive issues of environmental and safety standard such as Zambia copper mines, the issue of counterfeit products dumped in Africa by China, Chinese workers taking over jobs in Africa, alleged business misconducts, lack of due process and transparency in contracts, aid and loans etc. This group of respondents also accuses China of secretly and indirectly meddling with politics in some African States like Zimbabwe, Angola and Sudan. They complain about the inability of Beijing to separate between business, commerce and politics as well as their inability to stick to the traditional friendship by Chairman Mao Zedong and also to make the lay Africans understand where the role of Chinese engagement in Africa starts and ends. Research question 6: What is the general perception of Africans about Western/US led engagement in Africa? Table 16 shows that 32% out of 500 respondents are satisfied with the United States engagement in Africa.

128

J. Econ. Int. Finance

Figure 11. General perception of Africans about Chinese engagement in Africa. Source: Field survey, 2010/2011.

Table 16. General perception of Africans about Western/US led engagement in Africa.

Options Response Percent

Satisfied 160 32

Not very satisfied 200 40

Not satisfied 140 28

Total 500 100

Figure 12. General perception of Africans about Western/US led engagement in Africa. Source: Field survey 2010/2011

While 40% said there were not very satisfied, 28% said they were not satisfied (Figure 12). The reason for dissatisfaction ranges from politics to economic such as American poor responses to African development needs, exploitation, militarization, interferences in African internal affairs, control and manipulation of African politics with negative consequences on Africas peace stability and progress. Some of these respondents cited the example of America-NATO-led invasion of Libya in 2011, the US pivotal role in the splitting of Sudan and creation of South Sudan, and all the ethnic conflicts lingering between North and South Sudan etc. However, while respondents argued that American emphasis on good governance, democracy and human rights is good but with little contribution to Africas stability and development. Some respondents noted that Africans will see the US engagement as more positive as soon as the United States begins to give more practical attention to Africas development.

Conclusion Americas interest in Africa is still very minor, and it is largely energy-focused. Chinas involvement in Africa has since become a highly emotive debate in inter-state relations. Generally, this study has found that Chinas growing interest in Africa has acted as a multiplier effect on African economies, and at the same time causing traditional partners like the United States to step up its African engagements. Chinas demand for Africas commodities, together with the demand of other emerging economic powerhouse has improved trade terms. We found that though the trade between China and Africa has witnessed exponential increase especially in the area of mineral resources in countries like Sudan, Angola, Algeria, Nigeria, DRC, Equatorial Guinea etc, its investment in infrastructure and agribusinesses is of immense benefits to Africa. Africa is yet to achieve policy and diplomatic maturity, and self-reliance; this makes her

Odey et al.

129

relative peace in some countries very vulnerable to external influences. As observed by respondents on the question on Africas feelings about Chinese presence, some of the African leaders are believed to have records of human rights abuses, authoritarian and corrupt practices are presently taking solace in the Chinese noninterference policy, making it difficult to establish a standard of what is good governance in Africa. Regrettably, AU/NEPAD benchmark for democratic and economic good governance appears to have lost its original flavor. While it may not be possible to agree with the pessimists that African Renaissance has been a hallucination, it may be appropriate to suggest that AU/NEPAD and other relevant protocols such as the protocol of the Constitutive Act and its Peace and Security Council (PSC) need to be reignited by the same zeal in which it was born. It is pertinent to state that most of the crises that have occurred in Africa and the lingering Darfur-Sudan crisis, Congo DRC, Libya and Code dIvoire etc could be attributed to both internal and external factors. While the internal factors range from ethnic and religious divide, negligence, underdevelopment, identity issue, quarrel over the distribution of proceed from natural resources, leadership tussle etc. Often time, these internal problems are triggered by external factors. Like Susan E. Rice rightly observed, most of the crises in Africa are proxy in nature (the use of internal tools), where neighbors are pitted against neighbors. It is quite unfortunate to note that, the most common knowledge about the continent is its richness in natural resources, poverty and crisis. However, while it may suggest that Africa will not be different from that of Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Perhaps the difference is that both China and the US, and other players in Africa are yet to decide when it is due for Africa to enjoy peace, stability and development. Until those who benefit from African crisis realize that there will be more benefits in a peaceful, stable Africa that is developed than a crisis infested Africa, the continents hope for peace and development will remain an illusion. On the other hand, Africa should on its own decide to purge itself of those cheap characters that are self-endemic in nature and in practice. The present security network aimed at preventing the spread of terrorism has little or nothing to offer in terms of real stability in Africa. True peace, stability and genuine development in Africa may not come until Washington and Beijings interests in Africa are sufficiently under control. And this also applies to other European partners especially, France, UK and Belgium. Therefore, any business interest that is capable of undermining the unity of Africa should be revisited by all peace loving nations and people. All acts that promote tacit exploitation of Africas natural resources, corporatesponsored corruption or crisis are inimical to stable peace and development in Africa. Therefore, it is pertinent to state that Washington and Beijing as well as the so-called traditional players and their various multinational

companies must change their old way of thinking. While businesses in Africa must adopt international standard, the 21st century interstates relationship and diplomacy must transcend the old schools of deception, lies and placatory remarks that are often informed by uncontrolled greed and selfishness. Recommendation In order to achieve the desired peace, stability and development in Africa, China, US and European traditional players and other stakeholders in the continent must be transparent, avoid undue heat, expand investment in the areas of infrastructure, health, education, power generating sectors, agriculture, and plough back part of their dividend in the various national economy where they conduct their businesses. China and the United States must avoid a fitful approach in their engagement in Africa, as it does not project the true attitude of a true partnership and the true wishes that Africa should develop. They must be sensitive to negative public opinions on such issues as business malpractices, adhered to international Corporate Social Responsibility standard and take note of the alleged hands in some African countries resource crisis. In the modern interstates practices, states are morally urged to be mindful of the way they pursue their national ambition and to do so with necessary precaution, in order to avoid attaining their national goals at the detriment of the other parties. Non-interference can be violated in several ways; it could be through the unjust support for the incumbent government at the detriment of the entire country, or particular region and ethnic groups. This is more dangerous in a multi-ethnic country with tendency for power chauvinism. We would like to remind China and US and perhaps, other major industrialized nations not to pursue energy security and other mineral resources at the expense of peace and stability of their smaller partners or turning blind eyes to injustice, suffering and sometimes death of ordinary citizens. We all know where we have done wrong; the most important thing is to be more conscious of sensitive issues that may inflame crisis and to do everything possible to avoid it. And that is to guide the way we go about pursuing our various national interests and appetite for development integrated natural resources. NEPAD and other Africas think-tank should aim at the following rules of engagement; technology transfer, human capital and physical capital development, FDI, industrial restructuring, growth in Africas trade with the rest of the world, economy diversification, expansion of service industry including financial, legal, managerial, and information services. Finally, Africa on its own must realize that peace and stability is the only ingredient that can provide the most needed environment for foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic growth. There can be no progress in the

130

J. Econ. Int. Finance

midst of pervasive conflicts. Africa must be conscious of its potential and strive to acquire the necessary professional and technical capacity to enable it deal efficiently with contemporary interstate relations, bilaterally and multilaterally. The various stakeholders in Africa must demonstrate their genuine commitment to helping Africa build its own capacity necessary for sustainable development in all spectrums of the economies. However, Africans must understand that their own destiny is in their hands. While America or China may not afford to do more or less (Bob and Gallup, 2009), Africans and especially their leaders must demonstrate the courage to go the extra miles to take the continent to its next level. That is, peaceful and stable industrialized Africa with market economy. As we strive to develop physically, our minds must be allowed to develop too. Revenue from the natural resources must be invested on people; infrastructure and other long terms profit generating projects. Leaders, officials and local businessmen and women must be prudent, discipline and above all put up true nationalistic spirit, a sincere commit-ment to their various national greatness and pride. Like Susan E. Rice has rightly admonished, the United States and China must continue to work in concert with Africans to help secure the continents future if they are to be smart about securing their own. If Africa succeeds, China, the US and other countries stand to benefit. If Africa fails, we will all pay the price.
REFERENCES Alfredo SF (2002). Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism. Routledge, Taylor &Francis Group, London and New York. Anouashiravan E (2007). Globalization and Geopolitics in the Middle East: Old Games, New Rules, Publisher, Routledge New York and Canada. Bob Tortora, Gallup (2009). Opinion Briefing: Achieving gains in Africa, Council of Foreign Relations. CAITEC (2010). China-Africa Trade and Economic Relationship Annual Report; China Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation Beijing. CD (2010).Different Development Path: Imbalanced World is as a result of Western Mode of growth, which puts developing countries in unfair position (China Daily September 29. Clifford ES (2009). Energy and International Wars: from Babylon to Baghdad and beyond and beyond. David HS (2011). Areas of Convergence and Divergence between China and US in Africa, China and US in Africa: Advancing the Diplomatic Agenda (Journal of Foreign Relations November 14.

Deborah Brautigam (2009). The Dragon Gift: the real story of China in Africa. Oxford University Press. Decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies. Revista Critica de Ciencias Sociais, 80. Available at http://www.eurozine.com/ articles/2008-07-04-grosfoguel-en.html. Last accessed April 11, 2011. Engdahi FW (2007). China and USA in New Cold War over Africas Oil Riches, May 20, 2007. Eskor Toyo (2000). Background to Globalization, Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Zanda Communication Agbowo, University of Ibadan. Frank Urban, Nordensvard John (2011). China and the African Oil Sector: Channels of Engagement, Motives, Actors and Impacts, Institute of Development Working Paper Volume 2011, No.374, Brighton BNI 9RE, UK, 2011). Gilroy BM (2005). Multinational Enterprises, Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in Africa: South Africa perspectives, Publishers (PhysicaVertag Heidelberg, Germany). Grosfoguel R (2008). Trans-modernity, border thinking, and global coloniality: Ian T (2012). In: Richard Soares(Ed), Oil and Politics in the Gulf of Guinea, China returns to Africa. St Andrew University, Pretoria 2012. Jendayi F (2006). Chinas Interest in Africa, not a Threat. Jerker H (2009). Chinas Emerging Role in Africa, A Strategic Overview, May 2009. Jonathan H, Sara VH (2010). The Limits of Socialization: The search for EU-China Cooperation. Towards Society Challenges in Africa (Publishers, Brussels Institute of Contemporary China Studies. Machiko N, Marie S (2012). The Changing Landscape in Aid Relationships in Africa: Can Chinas Engagement makes a difference to African Development? Michael TK (2001). Resource Wars: the new landscape of Global Conflict Metropolitan Books, Henry Holts & Company New York. Morry M (2010). Selling Big to China Negotiating Principles for the Worlds Largest Market, (Publisher, John Wiley and Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd. Stephanie H (2008). Council on Energy Relations, June 9, 2008. Surya NY (2009). India, China and Africa: New partnership in energy security (Jnanada Prakashan P&D Publishers New Delhi. Susan ER (1998). US Interest in Africa: Todays perspective. Released by the Bureau of Africa Affairs, October 28, 1998. William IR (2004). A theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Wood M (2009). In: Mike Hodel (Ed), The Scramble for Energy: Chinas Oil Investment in Africa, (The Journal of International Policy Solutions California). Zweig D, Jianhai CB (2006). Chinas Global Hunt for Energy. Foreign Affairs, September/October.