4 June 2008: The so-called “paradox of plenty” that has plagued Sub-Saharan African nations for centuries is being introduced into a new post-colonial atmosphere. Though Africa’s abundance of natural resources has for centuries made it vulnerable to foreign exploitation and prone to domestic mismanagement, recent trends of Asian investment have prompted enthusiasm about relationships based on reciprocity rather than wholesale theft or manipulation. The nature of this investment, which has been an overwhelmingly Chinese venture but includes India as well, has raised many red flags and caused some to suggest that this is a case of more of the same, calling it neo-imperialism rather than a mutually beneficial relationship as touted by Chinese officials. They say that China’s generosity is simply a ruse to corner valuable resource markets and political allies while simultaneously contributing to the persistence of irresponsible African regimes.

Others claim that funding is funding. If China wants to extend aid to even the most unsavory of governments that is their prerogative, a luxury of not having U.S.-like standards. If China wishes to pump money into improving some of the poorest countries in the world, even for their own benefit, so be it, they are better off because of it no matter China’s motives. But what kind of consequences does this method of investment have in the long run?

As China ascends to the top of the world’s economic food chain its appetite for raw materials becomes ever more insatiable. For years China has been actively seeking opportunities to secure supplies of global energy resources, particularly oil, in order to ensure the smooth operation of its economic machine. The Chinese depend on Middle Eastern oil greatly but that has been compromised by the American war on terror. The current conflict and instability in the region along with China’s wish to diversify its markets have encouraged a very business-oriented administration to pursue dealings elsewhere, particularly in oil rich African countries often overlooked by much of the world due to their myriad of logistical challenges and political insecurities.

Despite the risks, China has proven determined to make Africa a viable and profitable trade option. To date, China’s investment in Africa has topped $55 billion mostly in oil exploration projects and infrastructure rehabilitation. However, more and more is finding its way into an array of industries including mining and manufacturing, leading experts to speculate that China’s interests go beyond simply the hunt for natural resources.

Despite the fact that China has diplomatic and economic relationships with a number of African nations, due to its so called “oil for aid “strategy, 80% of its capital investments have been channeled into the continent’s leading oil suppliers, Sudan, Angola, and Nigeria. In most cases, multi-billion dollar aid packages including projects ranging from building roads and schools to laying fiber-optic networks, to training telecommunications workers have been paid for with African oil.

Not only has this cooperation made Asia Africa’s third largest trading partner, it has created new opportunities for development. Chinese ventures in Africa not only create jobs, they transfer knowledge, technology, and capital that can be harnessed by African entrepreneurs to diversify into more sophisticated markets, making them more competitive.

Infrastructural investments do not just serve the interests of the Chinese firms operating in Africa, they establish foundations that many of these countries have never had, foundations that can secure future loans and investment that will contribute to further development and change. The politically infused development strategies of the West have created many barriers to simple infrastructure improvements by focusing first on the establishment of democratic ideals as a primary mode for development. China’s hands-off approach when it comes to internal affairs has emphasized political stability and state sovereignty above political alignment and many African leaders find China’s debt exempting deals to be more attractive than doing business with the West and its formal banking institutions.

This method of investment has come under fire, however, for being too business oriented and devoid of moral obligation to the environment and to Africans themselves. Many have accused China’s indiscriminatory aid and investment of propping up abusive regimes and leaving the door open for the siphoning of the continent’s resources for the benefit of corrupted leaders. China has been chastised for continuing massive oil operations in Sudan without addressing the government about the situation in Darfur, and it has been criticized for its idleness pertaining to the unrest in Zimbabwe. Critics have reproached China’s “strictly business” practices for undermining democratic gains by dealing with bribes and weapons trade, further distorting what little transparency has existed in some of these countries.

There are some in Africa who accuse Chinese firms of discrimination and predation. However, most have noticed the positives. In 2005, Africa registered its highest growth rate ever of 5.2%, in many respects thanks to increased trade and investment from China. There are roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, all bought with African resources. Billions of dollars have been spent to make African countries—Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of Congo—some of the poorest in the world, fit to participate in world commerce. China has never claimed to be in the business of philanthropy; they have engaged Africa in a partnership where they both get what they need—infrastructure and oil. The process of development must begin somewhere, and we will soon see if the cosmetic changes can inspire progress throughout African societies.