Is the Rhetoric of ‘South-South’ Development Cooperation a Cover Up for Chinese Neo-Imperialism in Africa?

South-South Cooperation (SSC) has broad connotations, however in simple terms it refers to development aid relationships between countries in the global South. It is typically characterised by mutually beneficial exchanges of resources and capital and is anchored in a rhetoric of shared (post) colonial relationships and identities (Mawdsley, 2019). This cooperation created an alternative for countries in the global South to traditional foreign aid given by Western countries which has historically often been policy conditional. China by contrast maintains a policy of non-interference (Qinmei, 1998). In response to increasing levels of SSC, there have been accusations levelled that it is little more than masked neo-imperialism. However, I will argue that the SSC between China and Africa does not constitute neo-imperialism on account of three key factors: the absence of violence and threat of military retribution for non-compliance, the importance of choice, and a model of mutual benefit rather than pure exploitation. In addition, the term neo-imperialism itself relies on the idea of continuity and a pre-existing legacy of engagement with imperialism in Africa, something China simply does not have. With the increased visibility of development practices, generating larger exposure to criticism, it is important not to reduce the term neo-imperialism to one simply thrown at any aid relationship with a power dynamic for fear of it losing its significance.

The relationship exhibited between China and its development partners is one more reminiscent of a transactional business relationship than a traditional imperialist one. It has been upheld through financial contracts rather than through military force or intervention. Non-compliance with loan agreements does risk the loss of key assets, which may allow China to gain a strategic advantage on the continent known as ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ (Brautigam & Kidane, 2020). Whilst this is a risk that a state faces when engaging with a Chinese loan, seizure of assets put up as collateral is simply enforcement of the terms of the loan and a far-cry from the threat of military intervention perpetrated by Western powers in response to violation of aid conditions. Equating this to neo-imperialism is an unjust vilification of China for abiding by the terms of the contract laid out. 

South-South Cooperation has destroyed the Western monopoly on aid and introduced choice for African nations (Mohan & Power, 2008). One criticism of SSC is that Chinese involvement is not truly voluntary, pointing out the lack of education states have on the nature of the deal, power dynamics and need for funding. However, I would caution against viewing African states as passive recipients of aid rather than autonomous actors in the fate of their countries. An assumption that African engagement with other states will always be misguided or ill-intentioned relegates Africa to the role of an acquiescent victim. One way to challenge this criticism is by looking at what Africans’ are saying about Chinese influence, particularly in comparison to their views of Western counterparts (Manji & Marks, 2007). On average across 34 African countries, 63% of Africans viewed Chinese influence on their country as positive, compared to only 46% in regard to the influence of former colonial powers (Sanny & Selormey, 2021). African nations are actively choosing to participate in SSC, an element that would be crucially missing for Chinese activity in Africa to constitute neo-colonialism.

SSC is built on a model of mutual benefit, having originally emerged from a discourse of the necessity of solidarity amongst the global South with Zhou Enlai, terming it the ‘poor helping the poor’ (Mohan & Power, 2008). Chinese ‘aid’ is specifically focused on infrastructure including contributions to aspects such as transport, power, public health and heavy industry with it currently being the leading provider of financial support for infrastructure development in Africa (Shepherd & Blanchard, 2018) (Eadie & Grizzell, 1979). The Tanzania-Zambia railway which was finished in 1975 is one of the largest examples of Sino-African solidarity, costing over USD 600 million. This provides a powerful contrast to Western encouragement of African states remaining in primary commodity production (Harris, 1975). 

South-south cooperation, specifically Sino-African, does not constitute neo-imperialism on account of the absence of violence, lack of policy intervention, choice and mutual benefit. To insinuate this is the case would cheapen the term, running the risk of reducing a very real problem to little more than a buzzword symbolising a power dynamic. 

Bibliography

Brautigam, D. and Kidane, W., 2020. China, Africa, and Debt Distress: Fact and Fiction about Asset Seizures. China Africa Research Institute, Volume 47.

Eadie, G. A. and Grizzell, D. M., 1979. China's Foreign Aid, 1975-78. The China's Quarterly, Volume 77, pp. 217-234.

Harris, D., 1975. The Political Economy of Africa: Underdevelopment or Revolution. In: D. Harris, ed. Political Economy of Africa. New York: Schenkman, pp. 1-47.

Manji, F. and Marks, S., 2007. African Perspectives on China in Africa. Cape Town: Pambazuka Publishing.

Mawdsley, E., 2019. South-South Cooperation 3.0? Managing the Consequences of Success in the Decade Ahead. Oxford Development Studies, 47(3), pp. 259-274.

Mohan, G. and Power, M., 2008. New African Choices? The Politics of Chinese Engagement. Review of African Political Economy, 35(115), pp. 23-42.

Qinmei, W., 1998. Sino-African Friendship in the Past Twenty Years. Chinafrica, Volume 10, pp. 16-22.

R. Avendãn, H. R. J. S., 2008. The Macro Management of Commodity Booms: Africa and Latin America's Response to Asian Demand. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Sanny, J.A.-N. and Selormey, E.E., 2021. AD489: Africans welcome China’s influence but maintain democratic aspirations. Available at: https://www.afrobarometer.org/publication/ad489-africans-welcome-chinas-influence-maintain-democratic-aspirations/ (Accessed: 8 Mar. 2024).

Shepherd, C. and Blanchard, B., 2018. China’s Xi says funds for Africa not for “vanity projects”. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3N1VO018/  (Accessed: 8 Mar. 2024).