If you’re a student of China in Africa and haven’t read Howard French’s “China’s Second Continent: How A Million Migrants are Building a New Empire in Africa”, you need to remedy that.
French was probably the best correspondent the New York Times ever posted to Africa between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Sahara. The newspaper then made him bureau chief in Shanghai where he mastered Mandarin and was struck by the growing flow of visiting African bigwigs. That led to scores of interviews in six African countries, and the book.
To see China’s involvement as a “raw materials play” is “a failed appreciation of China’s ambition with regard to Africa and, indeed, the world”, he said at a forum here this week. “What China is really after is the development of markets”.
To illustrate his point, he held up his iPhone. Continue reading “Markets, not minerals”
It’s common to hear people who should know better call the African Growth and Opportunity Act an agreement. It isn’t. It’s a one-way grant of preferential access to the American market for African countries that meet certain criteria. The recipients made no binding concessions of their own to secure these preferences. The donor calls the shots. That’s life.
The US wanted to negotiate a free trade agreement with South Africa after AGOA went into effect. The negotiations failed in 2006 leaving a sour taste in Washington’s mouth. South Africa says they failed because the US was asking for more than its South African Customs Union partners — Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho — felt able to give. That’s not an excuse that’s universally accepted on the US side. The feeling here is that South Africa preferred to keep getting without giving.
Now come the consequences. What’s given unilaterally can also be taken away unilaterally. The US is threatening denial of AGOA benefits to get what it wants. That includes a share of the SA market for frozen chicken legs and wings. SA says US exporters were dumping their surpluses on SA at less that the cost of production before punitive duties were imposed in 2000.
Were it so inclined, the US government could take SA to the World Trade Organisation over those duties. Why hasn’t it? Two reasons. One, success is by no means certain. Two, Washington has another tool to work its will: the threat of dropping SA from AGOA.
Now, as a result of the chicken dispute, it looks likely that the US Congress will renew AGOA with a clause obliging the US Trade Representative (the person, Michael Froman, and the agency he runs) to launch a review of South Africa’s eligibility within 30 days of the the renewal legislation becoming law.
The legal language mandating the review calls for it to be conducted with reference to a specific subsection — highlighted in italics below — of AGOA’s section 104: Continue reading “Home to roost”
“People are saying it may be time throw South Africa under the bus”. That’s what I recently heard from a household name in Washington Africa policy circles, closely associated with the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
The context was a conversation about AGOA, the centrepiece of America’s official engagement with the Africa Rising narrative. Specifically we were ruminating on whether and under what conditions SA would continue to enjoy AGOA’s benefits when it is renewed, as it must be by September.
What my interlocutor was picking up was not a tactical talking point. It was not a line designed to pressure Kevin Lovell and the SA Poultry Association into letting American Big Chicken violate his industry with surplus drumsticks. It expressed a larger and more important frustration.
The Zumacrats may treat this as a feather in their caps, but Washington, on a bipartisan basis (and to the extent it can be bothered), is growing tired of them, their sanctimony, their statism, their graft, their time-warped loyalty to the discredited ghosts of Bandung, their BRIC fixation, their pandering to autocrats and other violators of principles for which thousands of South Africans died, their ill-concealed resentment of the West; in sum, what is perceived as their utter lack of Mandela-liness. Continue reading “Wearying of the Zumacrats”