BBC: Close your eyes and try to imagine the scenes of jubilation across Africa if a team from the continent were to win the 2010 World Cup.

A celebration like no other, one billion people reveling in one of the greatest sporting and cultural achievements.

For the first time in its 80-year history, football’s blue riband competition is coming to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped land.

How better to mark the occasion than with a first African champion?

“Winning the World Cup would be one of the proudest moments in the history of that country and our continent as a whole,” former South Africa striker Shaun Bartlett told BBC Sport.

“Every African nation has its internal problems but football can do wonders for people and nations, which is a huge incentive.”

Nobody is saying it is going to happen but the groundswell of opinion suggests South Africa 2010 is the best opportunity yet. [ READ MORE ]

The Genius of Pele

The 2010 Draw:

Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, Korea Republic, Greece

Group C: England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia

Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon

Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia

Group G: Brazil, Korea DPR, Côte d’Ivoire, Portugal

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile

[ READ MORE ]

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Before the September 11 attacks, Washington’s Neo-cons had waited in frustrated hope for an event that would serve as the excuse needed to enable them to rouse public support for a war against Iraq and other “rogue states” where they were sure American power could easily dispatch. Their project for the New American century proposed to remake the oil-rich-Middle-East in America’s image. Vice President Dick Cheney was also dreaming to restore the imperial presidency that had been lost with Richard Nixon’s Watergate.

In 1999, when George W. Bush was considering for the Presidency, he contracted with Houston Journalist Micky Herskowitz for a ghost-written autobiography. No more than two months passed before Bush’s team of advisors dismissed Herskowitz. The gregarious governor was telling Mickey too much. What’s interesting about the Russ Baker interview with Mickey Herskowitz is the reasons Bush gave for wanting to attack a small country: he wanted to emerge from his father’s shadow and become more popular.

From a strategic point of view the most effective way to fight terrorism is by intelligence operations and police work. However, for all the above reasons, militarizing the fight into a perpetual state of “war” would most easily facilitate the expansion of presidential powers.

On the other side of the world, the extremist Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were also making their plans. The people and government of Muslim nations from Algeria and Egypt, to Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, wanted to run the extremists out of their country, because they were inflicting violence to those they considered “not Muslim enough.” In Algeria the radicals had began eliminating each other over perceptions that many of their own members were not “pure enough.” For these reasons extremist Osama bin Laden had been chased from Saudi Arabia to the Sudan and then back to the caves of Afghanistan. Even in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, concerned for the well-being of his Taliban government, had ordered bin Laden to quit giving interviews to the western press declaring jihad against Israel and the U.S.A.

Rudyard Kipling had described “Afghanistan” as the “place where empires go to die.” Bin Laden knew that, and believing that Israel and its supporter, the United States, were instruments of oppression for the muslim people, was looking for an opportunity to drag the United States into a long and costly war similar to that they had engaged the Soviet Union in the 1980s. They hoped to slowly wear Americans down as they had already succeeded with the Soviet forces. Their goal was to provoke such a heavy military response from the Americans that would offend the Muslim world, destabilize the region, and increase the oil prices (which were cheap through the previous two decades) bringing further damage to the American economy while the Middle East was prospering.

Of course Bin Laden was taking the risk that Americans would strike and destroy al-Qaeda in a way it would not alienate U.S. from the rest of the Muslims. But that did not happen. The Bush administration was not focusing its attention on bin-Laden, because they were planning to attack Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Instead of using U.S. troops to seal the border, President Bush relied on hired Pakistanis, who were receiving money also from Al-Qaeda! In the battle of Tora Bora the local “allies” who had mixed sympathies towards al-Qaeda, let many of them escapeâ?¦ Marine officials, who foresaw Al-Qaeda’s strategic withdrawal from Tora Bora were not allowed to patrol the border and seal off bin Laden’s caves. Some reports suggest that bin-Laden had escaped by the end of November, 2001. A witness present in the Tora Bora claims that Osama escaped around December 10, 2001.

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. March 13, 2002. Six months after September 11.

President Bush should be grateful to Osama Bin Laden for his re-election in 2004, when the race for presidency was neck-to-neck with Democrat Kerry. While the Neo-con political adviser Karl Rove was orchestrating Bush’s image as “resolute” and Kerry’s as “weak flip-flopper,” Osama bin Laden released a tape saying “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.” Bin Laden knew that by demanding the Americans to surrender, they would proudly want to fight back and consequently vote for the “resolute” presidential candidate Bush instead of the “weak” Kerry. Bin Laden knew that Bush would continue his clumsy war in Iraq that depleted our economy and deteriorated diplomatic relations with Middle East.

The war on Iraq was not as easy as Americans had expected. Sad to admit, the “war on terror” made Americans fall in bin Laden’s trap, resulting to all the things that Bin Laden had wanted. One of the things that bin Laden demanded years ago was the oil should cost $144 barrel, Charles Edmund writes in “W got his war” of The Coyote Report.

—————————————————————————-
About The Author: Coddie Adwar writes exclusively for THE COYOTE REPORT, a POLITICAL NEWS BLOG, the home of “GOOD RIDDANCE BUSH, THE END OF AN ERROR“ bumper stickers. and “W GOT HIS WAR” e-book written by Charles Edmund Coyote Get a FREE CHAPTER on how we let bin LADEN escape from Tora Bora.
—————————————————————————-

by Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad Shamsaddin

A shameful and disreputable representative of America’s most racist elites, who is a former ambassador to several African countries, gave – a few days ago – two speeches in order to embellish the role played by America in Africa. This inimitable person is Phillip Carter III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

To go through his two speeches, one may momentarily imagine that Africa reached such development and prosperity that is going to adhere to the ….. European Union.

This is the role of the missionaries of evil: they promise eudemonia and they deliver pestilence. The representatives of hypocrisy and prefab disaster see positive development everywhere, even where unspeakable degradation is obvious to all the locally concerned people who after all are the ultimate reality to be taken into consideration.

Read the criminal lies of the apostle of hypocrisy and the defender of the utmost criminality, Phillip Carter III!

Try to find in his speech the persecuted Nubians of Sudan who are asked to leave their homelands so that the Sudanese dictator builds a dam in the Nile; try to read a reference to the massacred Ogadenis of the criminal, terrorist pseudo-state ‘Ethiopia’ which gave Hitler an unsurpassed lesson on how inhumanity works! Search for a denunciation the well financed by colonial England and the pro-English American establishment warlords of Somalia!

In vain! Phillip Carter III has no time for them, and after all, they don’t disturb him at all; they serve him and his invisible masters. And their target to exterminate a great number of African masses through various methods.

Phillip Carter III hates Africans, and more particularly the Hamites and the Kushites of the North and the East.

Why?

Ask him!

Search in his speeches for a sentence in which Phillip Carter III condemns the racist Amhara and Tigray elites that propagate the criminal and inhuman program of ‘Ethiopianism‘, aiming at the cultural, national or physical extermination of a dozen of Kushitic African nations!

You will find nothing!

Why?

Because they are his (and his invisible masters’) servants.

Do your ingenious best to find in his speeches a clause for the independence of Darfur, the self-determination of Oromia, and the liberation of Kabylia from the Pan-Arabist pestilence of the colonial regime of Algiers, the puppets of the French…..

Again nothing!

Make an effort to detect the idea Phillip Carter III has about the oppressed tribes of Nigeria that struggle for independence! Attempt to imagine what this false prophet of American help intends to deliver to the multi-divided Afars and how he plans to terminate the criminal involvement of Rwanda and Uganda in Congo.

You will find nothing; all Phillip Carter III cares about is how he will identify new gangsters of nations like Meles Zenawi, new puppets like Kibaki, and new renegades like Rayale and AbdillahiYusuf of Somalia.

He will call them ‘new leaders of Africa“, and they will prove to be the latest gangsters.

At a certain moment, you will find his comical words about ‘democratic institution building’; this shows what excellent skills the disreputable ambassador has in Science Fiction.

It is up to you to denounce the felony Phillip Carter III; in fact, every African and every Human must.

Protest against his fallacious purposes, write to express your indignation; call his office (Bureau of African Affairs (AF) 6234) in the State Department: 202-647-2447 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/112065.pdf). I republish here his two speeches, and his official biographical sketch.

Do not let him believe that you don’t know him — as one of America’s foremost enemies of Africa.

The United States’ Unprecedented Commitment to Africa, 2000 to 2008 and Beyond
Phillip Carter III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

The World Affairs Council of Arizona
Washington, DC
November 20, 2008

Good evening and thank you.

Since 1918, the World Affairs Council has opened the door for local citizens to engage in diplomacy through education and awareness of international issues — and through hosting global leaders.

The U.S. Department of State is proud to partner with you — and looks forward to continuing this successful relationship.

I would like to note that the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of African Affairs is celebrating our 50th Anniversary this year. Created in 1958 by President Eisenhower, the bureau sought to change what had been a traditionally Eurocentric policy view of Africa.

We at the State Department are proud of the anniversary, and look forward to working with our sub-Saharan partners and organizations like your own, to advance Africa’s future as we transition into our next half century.

U.S. Policy in Africa

Over the past eight years, the United States has made an unprecedented commitment to Africa — this current Administration has gone further than any previously in engaging and assisting the continent. We are working with our sub-Saharan partners to pioneer a new era of growth and development in Africa.

The partnerships and programs forged during the past eight years have supported significant African progress — and have laid a foundation for sustaining that support in subsequent administrations.

Tonight — I would like to highlight these partnerships and programs — but also sneak a peak — towards the future and potential of the continent in the 21st century.

Over the past eight years, the United States has changed its approach to Africa. As part of our broader mission to build and sustain a network of democratic states that respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system – we have partnered with African leaders, governments, and civil society organizations to combat disease, build peace, expand prosperity, and improve governance.

We have defined success not just in the narrow terms of resolving specific crises, but in the broader sense of supporting Africans in building institutions and adopting policies that sustain long-term growth, freedom, and justice.

The U.S. commitment to Africa reflects a recognition that our success and security increasingly depend on conditions in distant lands, and that we are at greater risk if Africa is a place where extremist ideologies are fostered, states are failing, and violence and instability spread across borders.

To challenge these potential risks, the United States has committed to fostering growth and development in Africa. At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit, President Bush announced that the United States would double its assistance (bilateral and multilateral) to sub-Saharan Africa from a base of $4.4 billion in 2004 to $8.7 billion by 2010.

By increasing investments in health and education, stimulating growth, improving the investment climate, and making trade work for Africa — the U.S. is on track to meet that pledge.

Programs and Initiatives

I would like to highlight some of the programs initiatives that have spurred African growth and development.

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)

The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) is a revolutionary foreign assistance program that seeks to reduce poverty through sustainable economic growth by awarding sizeable grants — not loans — to countries that practice good governance, seek to take responsibility for their own development, and are committed to achieving results. Of the 18 compacts signed to date – eleven totaling over $4.8 billion have been signed with sub-Saharan African countries.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is a program that rewards reforming African countries with U.S. trade preferences — this initiative has helped to reduce barriers to trade, increase exports, create jobs, and expand business opportunities for African and U.S. entrepreneurs.

With 41 countries presently qualified, AGOA has helped increase two-way trade between the U.S. and eligible African economies to over $50 billion — more than six times the level in 2001, the first full year of AGOA.

Agriculture and Food Security

The United States is also the world’s largest donor of food aid, providing over $5.5 billion to fight global hunger in 2008 and 2009. The Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA) is a multi-year initiative launched in 2002, providing a total of $1 billion for 2006-2010, and aims to increase agricultural growth and raise rural incomes.

PEPFAR

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the largest commitment ever by a single nation toward an international health initiative.

When President Bush launched PEPFAR, approximately 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Today, PEPFAR supports lifesaving treatment for over 1.7 million people worldwide, care for 6.6 million people living with HIV/AIDS, and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission during nearly 12.7 million pregnancies, allowing nearly 200,000 children to be born HIV free.

The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)

The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) was established in 2005. The U.S. has committed $1.2 billion in new malaria funding to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 African countries. In 2007, the Malaria Initiative reached more than 25 million people with effective prevention and treatment interventions.

Africa Education Initiative

In 2002, President Bush established the Africa Education Initiative (AEI), a multi-year $600 million initiative focused on increasing access to basic education in over 40 Sub-Saharan African countries through scholarships, textbooks, and teacher training programs. By 2010, AEI will have trained nearly one million teachers, provided 550,000 scholarships for girls, and distributed 15 million textbooks.

Peacekeeping

The United States has been the most important contributor to African force generation efforts through our Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program and large scale provision of peacekeeping equipment. Since 2005, the United States has directly trained nearly 60,000 African peace keepers in 22 countries. Of these troops, over 82% have deployed to African Union and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Terrorism

The Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Partnership is a multi-year effort, funded at about $150m per year, to leverage and coordinate military, law enforcement, development, and public diplomacy elements to enhance the capacity of the trans-Sahara region to deter and defeat terrorism, and counter extremist ideology. We are seeking to build on the success of this program with a parallel East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative, to counter the terrorist elements that destroyed our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam ten years ago, and continue to threaten regional stability.

Conclusion

Over the past eight years, a renewed commitment to the African continent has been started or carried forward in large part on a fundamental, bipartisan agreement of what needs to be done — such as brokering peace agreements, training African peace keepers, PEPFAR, or MCC. While much has been accomplished, the United States Government will continue to build on the foundation laid by this and previous administrations. We still have a way to go — but with greater security, disease prevention, and political and economic freedom, the African continent of the 21st century can strive to reach its potential.

Thank you very much.

Released on December 3, 2008
———————————————————-

Address to the First Annual International Conference on Africa
Phillip Carter III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

The Africa Initiative Project,
Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
November 21, 2008

Good afternoon and thank you all for being here. I would like to thank Arizona State University for hosting us this afternoon — and especially The Africa Initiative Project for bringing us together for their first annual conference.

This conference is very important – it not only allows for a deeper understanding of African history – but contemporary U.S.–Africa Affairs. Combining a rich historical perspective – with an interdisciplinary vision and awareness for the future – provides a great means to address challenges on the African continent.

We at the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs are also celebrating an important milestone this year – our 50th Anniversary. Building upon a half century of accomplishment, the Bureau looks to the next fifty years with great hope and excitement.

U.S. Policy in Africa

Over the past eight years, the United States has made an unprecedented commitment to Africa — this current Administration has gone further than any previously in engaging and assisting the continent. We are working with our sub-Saharan partners to pioneer a new era of development in Africa.

This afternoon, I would like to highlight our policy priorities on the continent.

Democratic Institution Building

The first defining priority is Democratic Institution Building — we are engaged in supporting the rise of freedom and democracy throughout sub-Saharan Africa. During the past two decades, progressive democratic reform has adapted to local values, customs, and practices. Outgrowths of democratic, well-governed states that adhere to the rule of law, support the will of their people, and contribute responsibly to the international system are developing.

We have partnered with these nations to build democratic institutions, conduct free and fair elections, and govern justly. These outcomes mark an important historical shift. In the past four years alone, there have been more than 50 democratic elections throughout Africa. Almost three-quarters of sub-Saharan nations are now classified by Freedom House as ‘Free’ or ‘Partly Free’ – up from less than half in 1990.

Despite significant progress, recent elections in Kenya and Zimbabwe have hindered these advances. These elections, marked by voting irregularities, contestable results, and post election violence, demonstrate that the path to democracy is often challenging.
Notwithstanding these impediments, the United States will continue to work with our international partners to support democratic institutions, promote free and fair elections, and expand freedom and prosperity for the benefit of all.

For example, we will continue to strongly support the democratic transition in Liberia — and to strengthen democratic institutions in post-conflict countries, such as the DRC and Burundi.

Although conflict resolution is an essential part of our foreign policy objectives, we believe that to sustain long term peace and stability on the continent – it is not enough to just end wars – but we must move beyond post-conflict transformation to consolidate democracies.

Economic Growth and Development

Our second foreign policy priority is the expansion of Economic Growth and Development.

At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit, the United States committed to doubling its assistance (bilateral and multilateral) to sub-Saharan Africa from a base of $4.4 billion in 2004 to $8.7 billion by 2010 — We are on track to meet that pledge.

To accelerate growth in Africa, the United States implemented the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a revolutionary foreign assistance program that seeks to reduce poverty through sustainable economic growth by awarding sizeable grants — not loans — to countries that practice good governance, seek to take responsibility for their own development, and are committed to achieving results. Of the 18 compacts signed to date since the programs inception in 2004, eleven totaling over $4.8 billion have been signed with sub-Saharan African countries – Senegal and Malawi are in the process of developing compacts – and another eight African nations have MCC threshold programs to help them qualify for full compact.

The United States Government has also enacted the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a program that rewards reforming African countries with U.S. trade preferences — this initiative has helped to reduce barriers to trade, increase exports, create jobs, and expand business opportunities for African and U.S. entrepreneurs.

With 41 countries presently qualified, AGOA has become a cornerstone of our trade and investment policy in Africa — it has helped increase two-way trade between the United States and eligible African economies to over $50 billion — more than six times the level in 2001, the first full year of AGOA.

Programs such as MCC and AGOA are strengthening African economic health and underscore our cardinal interest in the continent’s economic affairs. Not surprisingly, in 2007, sub-Saharan Africa experienced a growth rate of 6.5% – one of its highest in decades.

Disease

The third U.S. foreign policy priority in Africa is the fight against Disease. As the leading cause of death on the continent, disease is one of the greatest challenges to Africa’s future. Rising to meet this challenge – the United States is partnering with sub-Saharan nations to target the prevention, care and treatment of disease — most especially HIV/AIDS, malaria and neglected tropical diseases.

To address the severe and urgent HIV/AIDS crisis, President Bush led the world into action with The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR is the largest commitment ever by a single nation toward an international health initiative. Through PEPFAR, the U.S. Government has already provided $18.8 billion in HIV/AIDS funding, with a reauthorization of up to $48 billion for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria over the next five years.

When President Bush launched PEPFAR, approximately 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Today, PEPFAR supports lifesaving treatment for over 1.7 million people worldwide, care for 6.6 million people living with HIV/AIDS, and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission during nearly 12.7 million pregnancies, allowing nearly 200,000 children to be born HIV free.

Responding to the malaria crisis, the President launched the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) in 2005. The U.S. has committed $1.2 billion in new malaria funding to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 African countries. In 2007, the Malaria Initiative reached more than 25 million people with effective prevention and treatment interventions.

In the fight against what we call ‘neglected tropical diseases,’ – the President – in February 2008 – announced a five year – $350 million initiative to eliminate the burden of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) as a major threat to health and economic growth in the developing world. Focusing on seven major diseases, from snail fever to hookworm, this initiative aims to provide integrated treatment for more than 300 million people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Through the prevention and treatment of disease, programs such as PEPFAR and PMI are touching the lives of millions. In collaboration with our regional partners, we will continue to develop sustainable healthcare infrastructure so African nations can address these challenges through their own national institutions.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict Resolution represents our final foreign policy priority on the continent. In the past seven years we have seen the end of major conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, North-South Sudan, Ethiopia-Eritrea and Angola. Although the current peace is fragile in several of these countries — and challenges persist in Darfur, Eastern Congo and Somalia — Africa has demonstrated a trend toward conflict resolution and stability.

I would like to highlight three distinctive areas demonstrating this trend – peacekeeping, counter-terrorism and maritime safety.

Firstly – through our participation in the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), the United States, along with our G8 partners, is committed to building global peace and security by training and equipping 75,000 peacekeepers worldwide by 2010. The United States has been the most important contributor to African force generation efforts through our Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program and large scale provision of peacekeeping equipment. Since 2005, the United States has directly trained nearly 60,000 African peacekeepers in 22 countries. Of these troops, over 82% have deployed to African Union and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Secondly – to combat terrorism, the United States is pursuing a multidisciplinary regional approach in the trans-Sahara region, as well as the Horn of Africa.

The Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Partnership is a multi-year effort, funded at about $150m per year, to leverage and coordinate military, law enforcement, development, and public diplomacy elements to enhance the capacity of the trans-Sahara region to deter and defeat terrorism, and counter extremist ideology. We are seeking to build on the success of this program with a parallel East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative, to counter the terrorist elements that destroyed our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam ten years ago, and continue to threaten regional stability.

Lastly – the United States is also partnering with African nations to support progress in strengthening maritime security — particularly — anti-piracy measures – in sub-Saharan Africa. The ability of African nations to control their coastal waters is critical to regional trade and economic growth – control of sovereign natural resources, including fisheries – the delivery of critical humanitarian assistance to Somalia – and efforts to stem the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and humans on the continent.

Conclusion

In closing, the United States Government is committed to work with our African partners to promote democratic institution building, conflict resolution, economic growth and development, and the prevention, care and treatment of disease throughout the African continent.

When African nations cultivate freedom, prosperity and justice, their populations are more likely to reject extremist ideology, build strong economies that benefit all people, and replace disease and despair with healing and hope. These are unwavering priorities of the United States Government today, tomorrow and in the months and years ahead.

Thank you very much.

Released on December 3, 2008
———————————————————-

Phillip Carter – Official Biographical Sketch

Phillip Carter was appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs in August 2008. He previously served as Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea. Mr. Carter has also served as the Director for West African Affairs and the Deputy Director in the Office for East African Affairs at the U.S. State Department.

Prior to that assignment, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) at the U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar and DCM in Libreville Gabon. Before his arrival in Gabon in 1997, he was an international financial economist in the State Department’s Office of Monetary Affairs in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. During this period, he dealt with international debt and capital matters and served as the Department’s point-person on International Monetary Fund issues with Africa.

From 1992-1994, he served as the Economic and Commercial Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Prior to Bangladesh, Mr. Carter was the Economic and Commercial Officer in Lilongwe, Malawi for three years. From 1987-1989, he worked in the Department’s Office of Caribbean Affairs as a desk officer responsible for bilateral matters concerning the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and the Eastern Caribbean, as well as regional economic issues such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative. From 1982-1986, he served as the Deputy Principal Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Winnipeg, Canada and as vice consul at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

Mr. Carter received a Masters degree in International and Development Economics from Yale University and earned a Bachelors degree in Economics and History from Drew University where he was a member of the International Economics Honor Society (Omicron Delta Epsilon). He is the recipient of a Superior Honor Award, The Franklin Award, and several individual and group Meritorious Honor Awards. He speaks French and Spanish. A member of the Senior Foreign Service, Phillip Carter holds the rank of Counselor.

———————————————————-

By Khamati Shilabukha

In the past few years, there have been efforts to re-position Africa in the globalising world to take care of relationships among its states and the rest of the world.

The association of African states was restructured from the Organisation of African Unity, to the African Union. Many would argue that this is merely a change in name and not in the character of the organisation.

Proponents of the “new” outfit argue that it is meant to generate a new awareness of who we are. Many also hold the view that Africans are too divided to evolve into a meaningful regional identity.

This argument stems from the myriad conflict situations in the continent. The conflicts are both intra-national and international, with the former more prevalent.

Intra-national conflicts are often the result of internal (political/economic) power squabbles. Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Rwanda, Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Algeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya are some examples of countries that have experienced such conflicts. They have all received adequate media coverage. But the other genre of conflict has not received the same kind of coverage, yet it is crucial in the pursuit of a global and modern Africa.

This conflict derives from all forms of discrimination including racism and xenophobia. It is vicious and has gone on for some time. These forms of discrimination are serious, and efforts have been made to put them on the global agenda.

The most appropriate example is the current attacks on foreigners in South Africa. The question that begs answers is, why at this time in Africa? All sectors of a society have an obligation to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. We need to examine the extent to which as leaders, scholars and policy makers, we can intervene in this scourge called xenophobia.

It is argued that xenophobia is a result of poor intercultural communication. Members of one culture do not understand, appreciate and accommodate those from another culture. They lack adequate information to deal with such people with the least stress and threat.

But acquiring such information does not come easy and the poor management of communication often leads to strife. This could be the case in South Africa. One major source of information that allows us a wide world view and a more holistic perception and appreciation of others is the mass media. But the mass media, as inanimate objects, cannot do anything. It is those who use and manipulate them that can make the difference.

Xenophobia is a global problem. Although the phenomenon is ubiquitous in contemporary societies, its targets vary across countries and nations. It is such that even those who have been a subject of hate also develop hatred for others. But how does this hatred come about? Anthropologists and other social scientists posit that a population composed mainly of foreigners is an environment in which xenophobia can easily thrive.

They distinguish three theoretical approaches to the rise and diffusion of hatred. The first relates to socio-economic status of individuals, the second pertains to their cultural identity and the third the general attributes of society.

Source of hatred

The first approach derives from the “power theory” — a paradigm that views the relationship between groups as a function of their competitive positions. This concept suggests that a threat of one particular group to another is a source of hatred. When people feel insecure in the face of threat, they portray resentment and hate. But here, the intensity of hate need not necessarily depend on real competition on the job market but on the perception of threat. This is sufficient ground to induce animosity. Much of this is absent in the South African situation.

The cultural symbolic approach holds that animosity towards the other is not a consequence of economic competition between rival groups. It is a product of early political and value socialisation. The main issue here is the fear of loss of social status and identity.

Thus, cultural differences among people could be responsible for conflicts and hatred. In this approach, it can be explained that people would prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than be exposed to “strangers”. Defining a group of people as “un-belonging” to the national “we” deprives them of the right to belong. Much of this is also absent in South Africa.

The third approach, termed phenomenology, attributes xenophobia not to economic strains or cultural divergence but to general attributes of society. When society experiences deep crises, which occur intermittently, anomic tensions encroach upon social postures.

This leads to a crisis of collective identity “so that the calm self-certainty which might enable unproblematic relations with the minorities gets lost”. Under this approach, xenophobia is interpreted as a way of reassuring the national self and its boundaries, as an attempt at making sense of the world in times of crisis. This could be happening to indigenous South Africans.

To start with, the impeding fallout between President Thabo Mbeki and Africa National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma could be disillusioning to many ordinary citizens of African descent.

Many of them subscribe to ANC with a passion yet they find themselves on the sidelines when major party decisions are being made. At the same time, they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of their country.

Many South Africans still live in squalid conditions and the dream of land reform has turned into a pipe dream. These issues run so deep in their collective psyche that they need reassurance of economic and social survival. But they are directing their anger at the wrong enemy.

Many of the low class Zimbabweans, Malawians, Zambians and nationals of other countries are escaping economic hardship and political violence which South Africa has refused to acknowledge as a problem, especially in Zimbabwe.

They should commit themselves to assisting them to the best of their capacity. And this applies to other countries with a chance to host other Africans in need of refuge and sanctuary.

Introduction
 
Africa’s rise to prominence in the geopolitics of the 21st century is explained largely by the renewal of great power interest in the region of the world once dismissed as the “forgotten continent.” This great power concern reproduces the same power-play which is reminiscent of the Cold War when inter-locking and overlapping interests of great powers significantly shaped the outlook of international politics. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union gave rise to a new environment which President George H.W Bush called a “New World Order” in 1990. This new World Order or globalization as it came to be called, saw the expansion of capitalism across regional and continental boundaries at the expense of its reeling rival, communism.

Barely a decade after President Bush’s ordination of a new global environment, another world order was gradually emerging. This “Third World Order” as it has also been named, is championed by a rising eastern giant, China. The unprecedented rise of China as an economic power capable of steering the course of the global economy provides a credible alternative to the western-driven concept of globalization. The imagined rivalry between these two power blocs is the concern of this article.

In the course of expending its economic and political power, China has embraced Africa in an economic alliance which is proving to be worrisome to the West. Africa on its part, hit by the pressures of globalization and frustration following several centuries of unrewarding ties with the West has been more than enthusiastic in courting with China. This Sino-African alliance is at the core of the “Third World Order” which China is today leading. The impact of this alliance is conjured in the words of William Wallis. “The contours of a new order are still being drawn, but China’s growing stake in the continent has already shaken up an old and fraying one dominated by cautious western donors and former colonial powers”

Prelude to the “Third World Order”

Modern Sino-African cooperation or the “Third World Order,” is the full-blown stage of a relationship that traces its history as far beak as the 10th century and beyond. To fast forward this story, the most convenient and agreeable point from which to pick up an analysis of this relationship is the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. This period which was largely characterized by the politics of the Cold War, saw the young communist China struggling against the odds of western capitalist domination. The shared historical, economic and cultural experiences between China and Africa marked the beginning of what Chairman Mao Ze Dong called a “Third World alliance” against western oppression.

As China and Russia struggled to battle against the forces of capitalism in the Cold War, Africa became a theatre for this fray. The resultant “proxy wars” in the continent provided an opportunity for China and Russia to extend military assistance to anti-colonial forces throughout Africa. During this period of massive Sino-Soviet military assistance to Africa, economic considerations were minimal. The relationship was shaped largely by ideological and strategic imperatives which were the defining features of the Cold War.

China gained another significant edge in Africa following disputes with Russia over the leadership of the communist world and differences over the international orientation of communism. The Sino-Soviet split as this difference came to be known, gave China considerable leverage to carve out its own “sphere of influence” in Africa. A practical manifestation of this Sino-Soviet gulf was seen in the nature of assistance given to the liberation forces in Zimbabwe in the 1970s. While China offered training to Zimbabwean guerillas in the manner of a People’s army, Russia did it in the light of a regular army. This difference not withstanding, the bottom line remained the struggle against western oppression of what China saw as “the masses of the third world.” In this military connection, Soviet arm sales to Africa rose from US $150 billion in the 1960s to US $2.5 billion in the 1970s. China on her part, sold $142 billon worth of military equipment to Africa between 1955 and 1977

Besides the Sino-soviet split, China reaped considerable diplomatic gains in Africa with the waning of Moscow’s influence due largely to the growing dissention within the Russian empire. When Russia ceased to exert any significant influence in Africa, this vacuum was immediately filled by China. This diplomatic triumph was followed up on three major fronts-economic, diplomatic and technical. Sustained dialogue through an unbroken chain of visits by Chinese officials to Africa has remained the strong point of China’s diplomatic offensive. Way back in the 1960s, Premier Zhou En Lai vowed to support African people in what he called “their struggle to oppose imperialism and old and new [forms of] colonialism and to win and safe guard national independence”

This spirit of cooperation, fraternity and support constitutes the foundation of modern Sino-African alliance, an illustration of Third World and South-South cooperation. It was re-echoed in 2006 in a policy document which Beijing called “China’s Africa Policy.” This document called for “sincerity, equality, mutual benefit and common development,” and emphasized the need for a beneficial “cultural exchange” between China and Africa. This is the strength of the “Third world Order” that faces the “New World Order” in the 21st century.

The economic foundations of the “Third World Order”

The concept of globalization is rooted mainly on the economic strength and expansion of capital. As agreed by Bonaglia, Pinaud and Wegner, globalization comprises entirely of “the deepening of financial and trade integration associated with technological progress and multilateral liberalization.” So too is the economic regime of the “Third World Order.” Sino-African economic cooperation involves several facets, the most important among them being trade, investment, aid and infrastructure development. Among these, trade has a pride of place and a long history in this alliance. When China started buying cotton from Egypt in 1956 very few observers could foresee a possible Chinese trade domination of the entire continent in less than half a century.

Today, China imports a wide range of commodities from Africa. These include oil, iron ore, cotton, diamonds, logs and several other minerals. African agricultural products which have suffered from the cruelty of globalization now find profitable markets in China. Burkina Faso, Benin and Mali provide China with 20 percent of its cotton imports. The Ivory Coast and Ghana are important sources of cocoa and Kenya sells large quantities of coffee beans and tea to China. Namibia provides large shipments of fish and fishmeal.
 
The figures about China-Africa trade illustrate the depth of this economic cooperation. This trade rose by 700% in the 1990s. In 1999, the trade volume stood at US $6.5 billion. From 2002 to 2003, trade doubled to US $18.5 billion. In 2005, it stood at US $39.7 billion and again jumped to US$50 billion in 2006. A year later in 2007, it rose to $55 billion. In February 2008, Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao optimistically predicted that Sino-African trade would reach $100 billion in 2010 removing China from its current third position into being Africa’s first trading partner. “The opening of new trade and investment corridors between developing countriesâ?¦confirmed as a growing phenomenon in UN figuresâ?¦is a discovering sight for the old powers,” says Conal Walsh.
 
Trade in oil is among China’s priority areas in Africa. Projected to become the world’s biggest oil importer soon after 2010, China seeks to expand its foothold in the African oil sector at all cost. In Nigeria, Africa’s largest exporter of crude, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has paid $2.7 billion for the right to explore oil. In Angola, China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC) gained a 50% stake in the BP operated Greater Plutonic project. In Sudan where the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) helped develop Sudanese oil fields (in the chaotic 1990s), China receives 60% of Susan’s oil output. In Somalia, CNOOC has signed a production sharing deal with the transnational government of Somalia, one of the world’s most volatile countries. China already stands on the doorsteps of Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo, Africa’s frontline oil producers.

In the mineral sector, China stretches its hands very far into Africa. President Hu jintao’s inauguration of an African economic and Trade Zone during his Africa tour of 2007 is proof of China’s emerging monopoly in the mineral trade in Africa. The Chinese –controlled Chambisi Copper Smelter in Zambia is at the heart of this economic zone and is a joint venture between China Nonferrous Metal Mining (CNMC) and Yunnan Copper Industry (YNCIG). China also lays claims on vast mineral resources in neighboring Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe, spited by the west, has passionately embraced a “look east policy” with inspiration from China.

In other areas of the continent, China remains the talk of the day. In Angola, China outbid Brazil in 2005 for the sight to tap into iron ore deposits. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, China struck a deal last year with 8 $ billion dollars which gives China 68 percent stake in Grecamines, the state copper mining company and costs would be repaid in minerals over 30 years. In the Ivory Coast, China exercises control over a manganese mine at Lozoua where it exports manganese to the Chinese market. In Gabon the state owned China National Machinery & equipment Import & Export Corporation struck a $ 3 billon deal to mine Iron ore in Belinga. In Mauritania, China’s Transtech Industry (together with a Sudanese company) agreed to invest more than $600 million in the construction of a railway line in exchange for an estimated 165m tons of phosphate used in the production of fertilizers. While China imports cobalt from the DR Congo, South Africa remains China’s largest supplier of ore and manganese. China’s push into the African mineral market continues to grow despite western outcry.

Besides trade in oil, minerals, agriculture and manufactured goods, aid is another key pillar in Sino-Africa economic cooperation. The most Significant difference between China’s aid to Africa and that of the west is that Beijing does not attach too many strings and “conditionalities” on its loan packages. These “soft loans” to Africa do not follow along the lines of western bureaucracy nor do they respect the western “equator principles” of lending. Estimates put Chinese loans to Africa at $19billion as of 2006. These loans despite western outcry on humanitarian grounds have been seen as positive instruments for Africa’s development. “What the Chinese are doing is taking a long term perspective of the ability to repay debts” says Donald kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank. “Take a country with [a] rich subsoil that is emerging from war. In terms of its static numbers it doesn’t look good. It would be a HIPC case or a grant case from the traditional donors,” he said. The Chinese are looking at it and saying ‘what is the capacity of this country which is not exploited?’ So they exploit that capacity, build infrastructure. It is a different analysis,” Kaberuka concluded.

Since the 1990s, the range of Chinese investment in Africa has broadened significantly. It has evolved from a few sectors such as resource development, including oil, agriculture and fishing to other areas such as textiles, consumer electronics, tourism telecommunications and road construction. By the end of 2006, the accumulated amount of Chinese investment in Africa totaled $11.7 billion. In 2005, the total Chinese Direct investment in Africa was $400 million, constituting 1.3% of total inflow of direct investment in Africa in that year. This investment driven by China’s booming economy is having a significant impact on Africa’s economic growth “China’s fast rising demand for commodities, spurred by industrialization is having an increasingly significant impact on world commodity markets as well as the resource rich regions of the world-particularly Africa and Latin America,” says Tamara Trush, Senior economist at Deutshe Bank.

Attracted by the improved political and economic climate in Africa and Africa’s untapped resources, there are currently between 800 and 900 Chinese enterprises doing business in Africa. The pressures of globalization and liberalization have also forced many African countries to open up to the outside world, thus embracing “easy-coming” investment from Chinese companies. A bulk of these companies are privately owned and driven largely by commercial motivations. These commercial motivations and their resultant constraints are some of the reasons for the rise of anti-Chinese sentiments in certain parts of Africa as workers clamor for higher wages and better working conditions.

In response to this budding resentment, Beijing has adopted or modified the language of “corporate social responsibility” to (re)define its economic ties with Africa. “For the Chinese enterprises, there is a growing awareness of this importance,” says Yang Guang, Director of the Institute of West Asian and African Studies. “This is not only for Africa but they [Chinese companies] are also aware that without achieving a kind of win-win solution, without helping the local people to see the result of development, investing counties will not sustain their achievement in this continent.” Continued Guang, “so we can see especially the large scale Chinese companies, they have already begun to pay attention to this and are doing a lot of things in this regard. For instance, many of them are involved in building schools and hospitals for the local people where they have their investment, and they also pay attention to the localization of labor to hire local laborers.”

To illustrate his thesis of China’s corporate responsibility in Africa, Guang pointed out that Chinese companies doing business in Africa have created a record number of 70 thousand jobs. He also cited the case of China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), the leading company in Africa which began its first report on corporate responsibility since 2006. “If they want to be good competitors in the market, they will have to fulfill better their corporate responsibilities,” Guang concluded.

China’s corporate responsibility and investment in Africa are largely facilitated by the flow of capital in the form of Foreign Direct Investment. Besides its record $7600 billion worth of investment in Africa, FDI is spreading across dozens of African countries as Chinese companies expand their search for raw materials in Africa. In recent years, China’s largest acquisitions have been in Africa. The monumental $5.5 billion offer by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) to buy 20.5 percent share in South Africa’s Standard Bank is proof of this South-South economic vibrancy. This deal between the largest bank in China, and the largest bank in Africa seeks to establish what Jacko Maree, Standard Bank Chief Executive calls a “financial services gate way” linking these two regions.

In an effort to strengthen this flow of financial capital and promote what analysts call a “go out” policy, Beijing has encouraged state-owned banks to look for overseas acquisitions in order to gain expertise and improve China’s relatively unsophisticated banking system. In this regard, the Chinese Export-Import Bank (EXIM Bank), China’s biggest Africa-related lender, said by the end of the first half of 2007, it had authorized loans worth $13.3 billion for African projects and had disbursed half of that money. This is the financial muscle which Beijing is flexing in Africa, pricking the conscience of the West and in the process provoking hostile criticisms.

These criticisms as they continue to grow fall on deaf ears as China remains defiant and unwilling to let go of its gains and prospects in Africa. Observes William Wallis, “for Africa’s traditional allies in the West, which as recently as the 2006 Summit of industrialized nations at Gleneagles were overhauling their own commitment to the continent, the terrain has shifted. Chinese funding of infrastructure, trade and development in Africa has grown to rival theirs, surpassing lending by multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and IMF.” Continued he, “the unmatched firing power of Chinese state companies and their willingness to secure supplies at all cost are at the same time driving competitors away,” Wallis affirms emphatically.

The physical impact of China’s presence is seen in the transformation of the African landscape through infrastructural development and technology transfer. This infrastructural transformation is considered vital to the economic development of Africa which had before now been hampered by the absence of infrastructure. The most significant developments in the infrastructural and technological history of modern Africa took place with the coming of China. Among these achievements are the Chinese constructed TAN-ZAM railway line in Southern Africa, a hydroelectric dam in Ghana and a mobile phone network in Ethiopia. China helped Nigeria in launching its satellite into space, one of the rare technological successes in sub-Saharan Africa. These gigantic achievements add to the list of roads, railways, bridges, dams, hospitals, airports, schools stadiums and legislative building constructed by Chinese engineers.
 
Except for the skeptics, there is unanimous agreement that China’s part in infrastructure development could help open up the continent and make business more competitive. It also leads to the transfer of technology which holds long term economic benefits for the continent. “Chinese companies are not only investing in Senegal, but transferring technology, training and know-how to Senegal at the same time. China which has fought its own battles to modernize has a much greater sense of the personal urgency of development in Africa than many western nations.” Said Senegalese President Abdoulage wade. “Todayâ?¦economic relations are based more on mutual need and the economic reality that the EU and U.S. cannot compete with China,” Wade said.

President Wade is one of the several African leaders who have given a warm embrace to Chinese trade, investment and infrastructural development. In praise of Chinese infrastructure, Wade contends firmly that “these are improvements â?¦that stay in Africa and raise the standards of living for millions of Africans, not just an elite few.” The vocal Wade has on many occasions juxtaposed Chinese benevolence with western hypocrisy towards Africa. “If Europe does not want to provide funding for African infrastructure- it pledged $15 billion under the Cotonou Agreement eight years ago; the Chinese are ready to take up the task, move rapidly and at less cost.” In Wade’s words, China has lessons to offer both Africa and Europe. “Not just Africa but the West itself has much to learn from China. It is time for the West to practice what it preaches about the value of market incentives,” Wade wagged at the West.

How strong is the “Third World Order”?

Despite western outcry about Sino-Africa economic cooperation, there is abundant evidence to suggest that these fears are highly exaggerated. China’s trade, loans and infrastructural projects have been the central objects and targets of criticism. China is blamed for flooding African markets, destabilizing local economies and selling goods of inferior quality to Africans. China’s loans are said to overlook human rights abuses and thus encourage corruption in Africa. The West also frets about China’s closeness with oil and mineral rich countries in Africa such as Sudan and Zimbabwe and its military connections with these rogue and pariah states. Chinese infrastructure projects in the continent are also predicted to end up as white elephant projects.

How justified these claims are, remains an object of intense debate. This debate notwithstanding, it could be grossly misleading to assume that this alliance goes without friction. Available evidence also suggests that western estimates about the scale of Chinese expansion in Africa is more apparent than real and China has not (yet) gone the distance it is believed to have covered in Africa.

Thabo Mbeki, South African President and one of the leading figures in African diplomacy was one of the many Africans to raise concerns about unguided optimism in Sino-African relations. He is considered as the most prominent case of African “push-back” when it comes to dealing with China, especially in the area of trade. “The challenge is that you could develop a relationship between China and African states which in reality isn’t different from the relationship that developed between Africa and the former colonial powers,” Mbeki warned.

As proof of his determination to restrain China’s unbridled trade advances, Mbeki’s government imposed quotas for Chinese textiles in an effort to revive and protect South Africa’s staggering garment industry which is threatened by cheap Chinese textiles. Mbeki’s move was a warning signal to China, and a lesson for the rest of Africa on how to deal with the “new guest.” Mr. Mbeki had earlier warned that African states run the risk of getting stuck in “an unequal relationship” with China.

Recent anti-Chinese protests in Zambia in 2006 also point to the fragility of this alliance. Poor safety conditions left 50 workers dead in a Chinese owned mine where 55 workers had earlier fallen ill from poisoning in 2003. The Chinese-owned Chambisi copper smelter has been the scene of repeated strike actions as African workers clamor for better pay and improved working conditions. Michael Sata, the opposition leader in Zambia accused China of transforming Zambia into what he called a “dumpling ground for their human beings.” Zambia’s capital Lusaka holds about 30.000 Chinese who are often viewed with scorn as exploiters especially as they pick up jobs from street hawking to industrial manufacturing. This is a growing phenomenon throughout Africa as William Wallis observes “it is possible to find Chinese foot massage parlors in Chad, doughnut hawkers in Cameroon and vegetable producers in Khartoum’s market”

Elsewhere in the continent African leaders are caught between embracing a new comer and retaining traditional alliances. Nigeria, one of America’s biggest oil suppliers in Africa is moving towards China with a lot of caution. Nigeria has made it clear that China will have to face competition from western energy companies and also national companies from India, South Korea and Malaysia. “Nigeria had been keen to cooperate with the Chinese in oil and gas but the government hasn’t given them the level of special treatment the Chinese would have wanted,” says Dapo Odesanya. Despite China’s overtures her citizens have been caught up in the spade of kidnappings that characterize the volatile Niger Delta region. Ethiopian rebels also killed nine Chinese oil workers in the Ogaden region in April 2007

In the oil sector where dissenting voices are loudest, facts and numbers on the ground tell a different story. Chinese national oil companies produced about 267.000 barrels of oil equivalent a day in Africa only one third of the amount produced by Exxon Mobil the largest foreign producer in the continent. Being a late comer, Chinese oil companies still stagger behind western oil giants in Africa. In 2006, Africa accounted for only 8.7% of China’s total oil imports as compared with 36% for the EU and 33% for the U.S. These western oil interests together with their home governments which cry out loud against China continue to enjoy the advantage of time, space and efficiency in the African oil market. “While keeping an eye out on China,” says Firose Manji, “Africans should not be distracted from paying attention to the West’s continued exploitation of the continent including the use of military might to protect its economic interests.”

Firosi maintains strongly that China is still a small player in Africa when compared with others from the West and elsewhere. She insists that Asian players such as India, Singapore and Malaysia are stronger powers in Africa in terms of FDI. These countries are the principal sources of FDI to Africa. On the other hand, when put together, the entire flow of FDI from Asia is completely eclipsed by that from the capitalist West. Borrowing from UNDP figures of 2007, Firosi compares the amount of western investment in Africa with that of China. As of 2003, the UK possessed $30 billion worth of FDI stock in Africa, the U.S. $19 billion, France $11.5billion and Germany $5.5 billion. China trailed behind with only 3% of its FDI destined for Africa while 53% of Chinese FDI went to Asia. Though recent estimates show that China has closed this gap to become Africa’s third trading partner, it highlights the contention that western criticisms have been based more on fear than fact.

Another emerging phenomenon which has the possibility of intensifying the existing crack in Sino-African relations is the problem of migration. Population movements between China and Africa have increased steadily since the 1990s. While the estimated 900 thousand Chinese migrant workers in Africa invade jobs ranging from agriculture through street peddling to industry, it is a different situation for Africans in China. These Africans who live under the constant fear of deportation are subjected to color prejudice in the job market where teaching is their only option. To secure these jobs and keep them, are the twin challenges facing African migrant workers in a society where “native speakers” are preferred irrespective of academic or professional qualifications. Obtaining and or renewing work visas for Africans is the mother of all problems, besides discriminatory salaries they receive on basis of their color. For many of these educated Africans, driven from home by harsh poverty and uncertainty and wandering in a wilderness of thorny discrimination, Sino-African cooperation remains a farce.

Conclusion

The tussle between the two rival blocs in Africa reached climax when the World Bank which has exercised unrivalled, albeit counter-productive control over Africa before the coming of China, started calling for the latter to be more transparent about its African plans. Earlier in 2006, Paul Wolferwitz, then President of the Bank accused China for ignoring human rights and environmental standards when lending to Africa. Bob Geldof, the Live 8 campaigner also warned that attempts to stamp out corruption in Africa risk being undermined by soft loans and naked mercantilism from China.

When the World Bank, the backbone of globalization joined this fray on the side of the West, it unvealed the significance of this rivalry in the geopolitics of the 21st century. In response, China has challenged the credibility of the World Bank. “The World Bank always wants countries to join them and follow their processes. But is the record of the World Bank so good?” asks Zhong Jianhua, China’s Ambassador to South Africa. “To work together is good. But you do not expect others to follow instructions” he affirmed.

Behind the shadows of this war of words is the emerging “African renaissance” declared by President Thabo Mbeki in 2000. Its symbolic instruments- African Union and NEPAD attest to Africa’s resolve to take its destiny into its own hands. It also confirms Africa’s right to carve out its own path and shun what Coral Walsh calls “finger-wagging lectures from their former colonial masters.” Former South African President Nelson Mandela reminds African leaders of the need to pick their friends with utmost care as this might prove to be a decisive moment for Africa. “Africa is beyond bemoaning the past,” Mandela said. “The task of undoing that past is on the shoulders of African leaders themselves, with the support of those willing to join in a continental renewal. We have a new generation of leaders who know that Africa must take responsibility for its own destiny, that Africa will uplift itself only by its own efforts in partnership with those who wish it well.”