Listening to Chinese and African leaders pronounce so passionately about Sino-African relations, one gets the impression that the citizens of China and Africa now walk hand in hand in that kind of love, peace and harmony which is preached only by the Holy Bible. Advocates of this alliance have blown it out of proportion, further creating the false notion that China has agreed to inherit all of Africa’s troubles, including the perennial problem of migration. This single problem without doubt, is the most visible manifestation of frustration among Africa’s youths. The Beijing Olympic Games provided an opportunity for a proper reassessment of China’s attitude towards African migrants.

China won the bid to host the Olympic Games in July 2001. Since then, Beijing and other co-host cities have been beehives. China’s entire economic, political/diplomatic and security machinery were activated to ensure a blemish-free Olympics. The construction of giant stadiums, roads, railways, new airport terminals and hotels all attest to the importance China attached to the XX1X Olympiad, the first event of such magnitude in the history of modern China.

Besides such visible projects, the invisible but potentially devastating problem of security remained a major worry for Beijing. Directly linked to this was the omnipresent population crisis especially as China despite its demographic burden had to make space for an estimated 1.5 million more people from around the world. On the eve of the Games, China’s capital, Beijing, held about 250,000 foreign nationals. To ensure the smoothness of the Games therefore, and to protect life and property during this trying period, Beijing invested considerable energy on security.

The mass mobilization of security personnel and equipment in the months preceding the Games came along with a volley of laws. These laws touched on an old problem-migration which logically is a by product of China’s economic boom in recent years. China’s rise to economic prominence has made it a center of attraction for migrants from all over the world. Africans increasingly count among this rising number of foreign migrants. This population pressure from outside has added to an even bigger problem of internal migration from China’s country sides to its bulging cities. This population crisis was therefore the basis of the series of immigration laws which Beijing dished out in rapid succession in the months preceding the Olympic Games.

In a previous article titled “The long road to the east: African immigrants in China.,” I observed that African migrants greatly differ in their opinions about China. Theses opinions depend largely on the opportunities exposed to them. By extension of this logic, such opportunities would depend on whether these migrants find themselves in what I called “Afro-friendly” or “Afro-phobic” provinces, cities or towns. However, much has changed since then. Whether In “Afro-friendly” or “Afro-phobic” places, the message is clear. The possibilities and chances for African migrants in China are becoming slimmer and slimmer. The remaining possibilities are; sinking underground in the face of police checks (for those without papers), proving their worth and loyalty so that they can be covered by their employers (for those in regular employment), switching to other visa categories (which are easy to renew) or return home voluntarily or otherwise.

The African continent has been part of China’s Olympic story in many ways. Cordial diplomatic relations and firm economic ties were the twin forces shaping Sino-African relations when Beijing won the bid to host the Games in 2001. This relationship grew stronger over the years, attracting the scorn of the West. In very bitter terms, the West criticized China on grounds of undermining democracy and human rights by supporting rogue and Pariah states in the continent. Western human rights activists and pro-democracy lobbyists used the cases of Sudan and Zimbabwe to brand the Beijing Games as “genocide Olympics.” The call for the boycott of the Games was very strong in the west. But as the world came to realize, “high politics” triumphed. The opening ceremony saw the conspicuous presence of Presidents George Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, two western leaders whose nations had stood at the fore of the boycott controversy. President Bush’s excuse was that he did not want “to politicize” the Olympics.

While the West took China head on in ferocious debates about democracy, human rights and other abuses in Africa, Africa stood firmly by China’s side. In a true spirit of solidarity, not one African country raised a finger about China’s hosting of the Games. Since 2000, African leaders made several visits to Beijing while Chinese leaders also returned these visits to rekindle the flames of this cooperation. In the several accidents and disasters that struck China in the months preceding the Games, Africa showed sympathy to China in kind and cash. In the Sichuan earthquake of May 12 for example, the poor African Island of Mauritius provided China with an aid package worth $300,000 while Morocco responded with $1 million. Except for a few isolated cases of anti-Chinese protests in Africa, the continent continues to welcome waves of Chinese migrants who comb through every available economic opportunity in the continent from agriculture through mining to trade. African migrants face a completely different reality in China.

In all fairness, China’s Olympic laws did not discriminate against any race, color or nationality. The laws were justified on grounds of security especially given that crime rates are already on the rise in China’s major towns and cities. According to security records, foreigners have been implicated in many of these crimes especially those including fake documentation, theft, financial fraud, drugs and even extreme crimes such as murder. These Olympic laws also sought to ensure stricter vigilance on foreigners at a time when western criticisms forced China to raise its security antennae. The spiral of protests that greeted the Olympic touch relay in western capitals, western sympathy for the Tibetan course and China’s fear of outside conspiracy in insurgent activities, especially in the restless Xingjian province, all inspired these laws.

What made Beijing’s immigration laws different from previous immigration laws was the panic and shock wave it generated among the foreign migrant population in China, especially Africans. Hitherto, such laws (which were either imagined or real) were as many as the sands in the sea. It was more of street talk than laws. Each day had its law, each city, each province and indeed each situation had its law as far as immigration was concerned. This is what Chinatravel.net, an official source for immigration news meant when it said “Ask 100 people a question and get 100 different answers, or ask 100 people a question and get the same answer.”

To better grasp the essentials of this piece, a brief discussion about visa categorization in China is instructive. There are basically four categories of visas for foreigners living in China. Tourists are expected to apply for an L visa. Students are issued an X visa. The F visa is for business people while workers need a Z visa. Of the four, the “F” used to be called the “golden card Visa” because of its numerous advantages. It was easy to get, good for up to a year and easy to extend. In April 2008, the validity of this visa was reduced to between 5-30 days. It was automatically replaced in this importance by the Z visa which now remains a treasure among foreign migrants.

The task of issuing a Z visa is the responsibility of two important administrative bodies- The Foreign Experts Bureau (FEB) and the Public Security Bureau (PSB). The FEB assesses the academic, professional and health credentials of the applicant and issues a Foreign Expert’s Certificate which is a precondition for obtaining a Z visa from the PSB. As a rule, once approved by the FEB the applicant is qualified for a Z visa or work permit. But in recent months, especially after the Beijing immigration laws there are mounting cases of applicants successfully passing through the FEB scrutiny only to be denied visas by the PSB for reasons that never go beyond “a new law.” This is where African migrants because of ingrained prejudice suffer most. During visa-festive periods Africans have to criss-cross Chinese towns and cities to identify places where laws are lax. The unfortunate ones (these being the majority), end up with expired visas, opening another painful chapter in their sojourn in China.

Facing the new ordeal

Although on the surface, China’s Olympic laws did not target any country or race, it is not difficult to identify elements of anti-African bias in them especially at the level of implementation.

There is a vast difference between the making of laws and the implementation of these laws in China. In many cases, the high level of inconsistency and ambiguity exposes these laws to several interpretations, reinterpretations and sometimes conscious or inadvertent misinterpretations. In many “Afro-phobic” towns, cities and provinces, these laws are interpreted and implemented by the boss in his/her office and not by any official text. This explains why obtaining work visas before, during and after the Olympics was a function of many things. The most important of them being the bargaining power of the applicant or his employer. There are few cases of luck and of course there are Chinese employers who will defend their African workers to any extent. This again is the exception not the rule.

It is interesting or surprising to find that many schools still carry job adverts prohibiting Africans from applying. The more cautious require applicants to send a recent picture. This is the short way of filtering black from white, or Filipino from westerner. In cases where the desired color or nationality is not forthcoming, Africans are reluctantly employed. Here, they face challenges that range from “accent” to questions that run back to the poverty and misery in Africa. The question of wage discrimination between Africans and whites is an open secret. Only very few Africans can count among those who have successfully paved their way through all the established barriers to reach the height of self esteem.

In the every day vocabulary of “new laws,” China in April 2008 published a list of countries whose nationals were no longer eligible to apply for visas from Hong Kong and Macau. The African countries involved were; Tunisia, Algeria, Congo, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Libya, South Africa, Morocco, Nigeria, Sudan and Sierra Leone. These laws also introduced some drastic changes. F visas issued in China could no longer be renewed in China. Given the large number of Africans involved in trade with China, the difficulties created for the African business community were enormous.

The law also made it impossible to switch visa types from L to F and it suspended the issuing of multiple entry visas. The cumulative effect of these laws was the emergence of a black market for visa trade. Because of the colossal sums that changed hands, many dishonest visa agents joined the fray. African migrants in large numbers have continued to lament in agony as they helplessly watch themselves sink into that dreaded group of wanted illegal immigrants hunted night and day by China’s police forces. The situation has worsened recently because foreigners are subjected to instant checks and it is almost impossible to carry out any official transaction without valid papers.

It is impossible to estimate the number of Africans awaiting deportation in China’s cells and prisons. It is difficult to estimate the number that is on the run. It is equally very hard to tell which new laws will come out tomorrow to spell out the fate of Africans. But one thing is certain; things will never be the same again in this country where Confucius once had fine words for foreigners. “What a joy it is to have friends coming from afar.”

To deny the positive role China has played in the lives of some African migrants would be gross dishonesty. It would be what is known in proverbial terms as eating and wiping one’s mouth on the ground. Many Africans still attest to the kindness of the Chinese people. Many more are still in regular employment, earning wages they could never dream of getting back home. Africans have also been part of the large community of foreigners who have enjoyed unimaginable privileges and immunities in China.

But when all is said and done, African migrants have a right to demand for more in terms of better treatment. At a time when the entire world frets about Sino-African cooperation, at a time when China claims to be Africa’s protector, at a time when Beijing claims to owe a collective social responsibility towards Africa, the first people to feel the impact of this high-pitched language should be the Africans on Beijing’s doorsteps. By virtue of the supposed closeness between China and Africa, these Africans expect a pride of place when it comes to dealing with foreigners.

One asset which Africans have, and which not even history has succeeded in taking away from them is the ability to resist, adapt and develop survival instincts. Africans have survived the worst forms of repression in human history. They have endured discrimination of all forms. African migrants have faced torture, repression and repatriation in all imaginable parts of the world. They are therefore no strangers in this game. But as Niccolo Machiavelli once observed, “diseases are difficult to diagnose but easy to cure when they are young. At an older stage, they become easy to diagnose but difficult to cure.” This is where Chinese immigration authorities have to do some thinking when it comes to dealing with African migrants.

Writes: Njogu Ndungu

The issue of leadership and governance in Africa raises more questions than answers. It is tragic that many leaders have failed in their duties. It has been argued in a maxim that a country gets the leaders it deserves. Africa’s case is, however, mind-boggling. It is shrouded in mystery, political intrigue and an unrivalled trail of governance accidents.

One wonders what ails our leaders, making most selfish, merciless, greedy, corrupt, power-hungry and human rights abusers. Ideally, leaders should be caretakers or stewards who steer the people towards collective prosperity.

But on attaining power, most African leaders become ‘deities.’ They seek to be worshipped by the people they lead. They consequently lose touch with the electorate and do absurd things with far-reaching consequences.

One common method the leaders use to cement their god-like status is acquire lengthy titles and other symbols of honour to separate themselves from the masses.

Several literary writers have examined this “power syndrome.” And they have few kind words for this “worship-me-disease” that mostly infects leaders in the Third World.

Congolese writer, E B Dongala, in his short story, The Man satirises a rogue leader in an unnamed country. Dongala sarcastically describes the leader in countless names of adulation, such as invincible, infallible and worthy of great honour. One description reads: “the-beloved-father-of-the-nation-the-supreme-and-enlightened-guide-the-commander-in-chief-of-the-armed-forces-and-beneficent-genius-of-mankind.”

The same leader is further described as “the founding father of the nation, the president-for-life, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and beloved father of the people.” Although these generous praise names are satirical, they still reflect reality, where one leader holds so many titles and posts.

It is despicable that a leader would hold so many posts in a country that has talented, educated and able-bodied people. Leadership by a sole individual only results in grave mistakes, which translate into misery for the ruled majority.

Chinua Achebe in A Man of the People also talks of the numerous praise names for a Prime Minister character. They include “the Tiger,” “the Lion,” “the One and Only,” “the Sky,” and “the Ocean.”

Achebe says in one of his short stories that most Third World leaders use their office to amass wealth and honorary degrees among others. Kenya’s Ngugi wa Thiong’o, in Wizard of the Crow, too ridicules rogue leaders. He narrates about a character named, the Ruler, who has no other name. He says “The Ruler had sat on the throne for so long that he could not even remember when his reign began.”

Many African leaders dread leaving office and cling to power, at the expense of the masses.

Ngugi gives the Swahili words like “Mtukufu Rais”, which depicts the leader as worthy of praise. This is then changed to titles like “Mtukufu Mtakatifu,” (His Holy Mightiness) which is both wild and untenable.

Power, the maxim goes, corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Despots, oligarchs and autocrats have ruined many countries around the world.

Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka laments in his memoir, You Must Set Forth at Dawn, on the abuse of power by the late dictator Sani Abacha. In mourning the execution of fellow writer Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995, he writes: “Power had mounted the head of the dictator; it needed its periodic nourishment in blood.” Soyinka describes Abacha as “a monster (that) had reduced (Nigerians) collectively, into a plantation of slaves.” He says leaders drunk with power have little regard for human life because they kill and maim with glee.

Africa’s leadership tragedy deserves serious attention. Leaders should realise people who give them a chance to lead them do so because they hold them in trust.

These lessons offered by our writers, thinkers and philosophers should be taken seriously. It is a privilege to be a leader, and leaders should put self-interest behind the agenda of the people who elect them. Any person who negates this rule is unworthy of holding any leadership position.

Leaders must endeavour to offer selfless services and not pursue personal interests like wealth, power and honour at the expense of the people they are supposed to lead.