October 30, 2008
Courtesy Of Asia Times Online
The European Union (EU), traditionally suspicious of China's business-first, pragmatic approach to Africa, has released a groundbreaking policy paper which proposes sharing the responsibility for the continent's great challenges, marking a great step forward in Europe's approach to Beijing's many engagements in Africa.Bernt Berger is a research fellow at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, Hamburg (IFSH).
"The EU, Africa and China: Towards trilateral dialogue and cooperation", was released by the European Commission on October 17. It combines a clear political re-orientation with pragmatic policy options, and in so doing constitutes Europe's first advance towards cooperation with both China and, hopefully, the African Union.
While China has so far remained silent diplomatically on the EU's new policy proposal, sources say Beijing is giving trilateral cooperation serious consideration. But it may take a long time for the Chinese government to make a formal response as the cooperation would involve major policy changes.
During the past two years, commentators have portrayed China's engagement in Africa as successful and a challenge to traditional donor policies and geostrategic interests. On the surface, China's bilateral and unconditional dealings with African governments seems to have undermined European efforts towards sustainable development. But Chinese and African officials claim China's "soft" diplomacy has been more preferable and successful than Europe's conditional overtures. In light of such developments, the EU has increasingly found itself under zugzwang, a position in which a chess player is compelled to move.
The new policy paper clearly offers China cooperation based on pragmatism and complementary approaches. Differing principles and geopolitical outlooks are not an issue. In so doing, the EU has made a submission to China which may have to work out a reasonable response to the overtures.
So far, Beijing has regarded bilateral cooperation with Africa as a chance to support its own development. Although necessity seems to guide policy-making, the EU Commission's agenda now takes on China's engagement as a chance to create comprehensive development approaches.
The question remains whether Beijing is ready to accept the EU's offer as an opportunity to boost its own efforts, as Beijing has so far regarded the European concepts of trilateral cooperation and effective multilateralism with skepticism.
Concerns exist about whether closer association with European players could undermine China's soft approach toward developing bilateral relations with African governments. The combination of soft power and a clear differentiation to Western approaches has earned Beijing great appreciation and credibility on the continent.
But Beijing also has increasingly good reasons for closer cooperation. China's Africa Development Fund, a $5 billion fund approved in 2007 to support local agriculture, infrastructure, Chinese industrial parks and extractive industries, has found it difficult to find suitable, local project-partners.
With the allocation of projects to primarily Chinese companies, Beijing is also confronted with the problem of lacking local partnership for development projects. Generous soft diplomacy that promises mutual benefits runs the risk of falling into the recurrent dependency trap of donor policies. In African countries, assaults on Chinese workers and institutions are on the increase. Practically, circumstances force Beijing to modify its course of action.
Regarding Europe's offer, the chances are good that Chinese institutions at least consider piecemeal pragmatic cooperation as a chance. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs initially adopted a hesitant position. Concerns with the country's image after the Tibet crisis and criticisms during the August Beijing Summer Olympic Games have added to the unassertive stance.
China's mission to the EU in Brussels disapproved of a recent communication on China-Africa development cooperation, and fear of additional criticism of its African engagement makes keeping a low profile on the issue look more preferable. Especially after the European parliament on April 23 drafted a resolution on China's effects on Africa, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has become cautious. The paper critically (yet with a cooperative outlook) highlighted the challenges coming from China's policy.
In China, the main responsibility for developing external business ties officially lies with the Ministry of Commerce (MOC). Despite internal struggles for competence, the MOC remains the main addressee for bilateral dealings with the subject. According to internal sources, trilateral cooperation now is under MOC consideration as an option.
Voices critical of the EU's new approach are mainly heard inside Europe. At the center of debates now is whether China should be dealt with from a pragmatic or an ethical approach.
The lack of concern for human rights and good governance issues in the EU policy paper was identified as the main shortcoming. However, the strategy of complementing approaches based on principles such as pragmatism, shared responsibility and effectiveness gives leeway for new options rather than closing doors by pressurizing Beijing.
Among EU member-states, ignoring human rights and good governance can be an issue since policy mainstreaming in this area is one of the pillars of its Common Foreign and Security Policy. Yet, the onus is on the commission to convince human-rights advocates that pragmatic dealing with ethical concerns is the way forward.
Other voices state that the EU has been too careful in its dealings with China, and skirted around confrontation. The crux of the matter is that the EU does not represent its own interests with enough determination, and is therefore running the risk of not being taken seriously by Beijing.
The EU's biggest problem might not be development policies but integrating common foreign policy, a lack of unity among member-states on all kinds of issues, including aid policies, is surely a shortcoming that tarnishes the EU's international credibility. In recent years, this has especially become visible in dealings with China.
Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the trilateral outlook with clear preferences and defined principles on all sides neither offers much leverage over the parties involved nor scope for a more offensive approach.
Correspondingly, the argument that China has taken the EU's African policy hostage is anchorless. The EU has defined its own Africa strategy. Cooperation with other important states takes place inside the framework of the OECD-DAC (the Development Assistance Committee under Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Only India remains outside any cooperation framework and has shown little interest in joining forces on the African continent.
The challenges ahead are beyond the critique. Whereas the EU Commission suggests common objectives for sustainable development in Africa, such as securing peace, building infrastructure, management of natural resources and the environment as well as promotion of agriculture and food security, the most imminent challenges are at the tipping point of success or failure.
Convincing African governments to join the trilateral setting will be difficult as suspicion of renewed paternalism might arise. At the same time, Europe faces two major challenges to its development policies. Aid effectiveness, lacking oversight over existing initiatives and institutions among member-states, and the lack of a unified approach, are obfuscating otherwise elaborate policy concepts.
At the same time, the offer of complementing policy approaches needs to be taken seriously. This involves serious research on the role of foreign direct investment (FDI) in sustainable development. Since China emphasizes the role of FDI in development, cooperation strategies need to be developed on how it can be incorporated into existing approaches.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.)
No comments:
Post a Comment