In Part 2 I discussed the importance of economic growth to the CCP’s continued power. In order to sustain this essential economic development, China needs large and secure sources of energy, and Beijing has increasingly turned towards Africa for this essential.

In order to secure access to these resources, China has been pursuing an aid-for-oil strategy where it exchanges infrastructure and sometimes weapons for energy. An indication of this strategy’s success is that almost thirty percent of China’s 2004 oil imports came from Africa. Compare this with the US, who receives ten percent of its oil imports from Africa. Such changes require serious diplmoatic effort; President Hu visited Algeria, Gabon and Egypt in 2003. Between 2005 and 2006, senior Chinese delegations have visited Nigeria, Namibia, Sudan, South Africa, Uganda, Republic of Congo and Angola to discuss resource deals. All of which comes during a time when American diplomatic attention has been consumed with mediation and goodwill missions.

Some look at this situation and see insidious Chinese schemes to undermine American power. While that can be a proximate need (Sinopec cannot drill oil already sold to Exxon), I have been making the case that one of the CCP’s ultimate interests (and consuming concern) is continued regime stability through unbroken economic growth. Therefore, Beijing won’t necessarily use its increased African influence to harm American interests. In fact, China’s increasing role as a contributor of peacekeepers to UN African missions indicates just how prepared it is to join international SysAdmin efforts.

One area for potential mistrust revolves around Beijing’s laisez faire approach to human rights. It uses arguments of sovereignty and the dichotomy between business and politics to deflect questions of the human rights record of its African partners (similar to the arguments it uses to deflect criticism from itself!). While all states will fail in one way or another to live up to their ideals, some argue that China’s “shame-based” culture is less concerned about applying principles for their own end and more worried about the consequences of breaking a given principle. Contrast this with “guilt-based” cultures (such as the West), which emphasize the idea that a principle has worth by itself and ought to be followed because it is correct (very Kantian). Also in One Billion Customers, James McGregor goes on to make a related argument that China is ideologically bankrupt. Communism tore down all competing ideologies and the market eruption has destroyed any vestiges of popular support for the Communist ideology. It is understandable, then, that a regime populated by people coming from such a history might put less of a priority on human rights and more of a priority on making sure the gravy train keeps rolling. I am not interested in morally relative justifications here; I am very concerned with not mistaking a hostile perspective for a different perspective.

None of the specific policies Beijing is pursuing in Africa (Foreign investment in the gap - $175 million in the first ten months of 2005 alone, military deployments to support international peace missions and increased global trade) are fundamentally counter to American principles or interests. We could choose to view the world as zero-sum game and therefore conclude that China’s advantage must necessarily mean our loss, and position ourselves as yet another obstacle in China’s challenging path towards prosperity and stability. Such a choice is not necessary. Such a choice is also not the proper course for America. There are ripe opportuntities for collaboration. For example, we are concerned about African stability because of our war with al Qaeda, while China is concerned about African stability because that’s where it’s getting an increasing amount of its oil from. Think each of us couldn’t benefit from some cooperation on such fronts?

This is part of why I believe that China will not inexorably evolve towards an opponent. Without framing policies in the context of the national interests that spawned them, one can soar off in any direction one pleases and create quite the frightening nightmare scenarios. To make wise decisions, and properly weigh the inevitible tradeoffs, we need to strive for this context.