China’s Second Continent: How a Million Migrants Are Building a New Empire in Africa 
by Howard French.
Knopf, 285 pp., £22.50, June 2014, 978 0 307 95698 9
Read More
Show All

You need to sign in or subscribe to read more articles

Subscribe and get unlimited access to our complete archive

Subscribe

In​ 1969, three years into the Cultural Revolution, China was not only poorer than most African countries but suffering from a massive famine. Mao Zedong and his colleagues decided to import vast quantities of wheat as a way to address the food crisis and, more radically, to change the staple of their 800 million countrymen: wheat has a higher nutritional value than rice. That year, a 25-year-old French grain trader, Jean-Yves Ollivier, travelled to Hong Kong and crossed the Sham Chun River, the natural border with mainland China, to enter the town of Shenzhen, then hardly more than a fishing village. The far bank was dotted with red flags, portraits of Mao and banners of Chinese ideograms luffing in the wind. In those days the passage over the river was the only way for a Westerner to enter the Communist Middle Kingdom other than by plane.

In Shenzhen, Ollivier found only one set of traffic lights, with the signals ideologically reversed: green for stop and red – the colour of progress – for go. He made good money there and went on to earn a fortune in Africa, a success story he recounts in his 2014 memoir, Ni vu ni connu – a mischievous way of saying ‘I got away with it.’* Ten years after his visit, Shenzhen was proclaimed China’s first Special Economic Zone, an experimental enclave for dirigiste capitalism. Today, it’s a megacity of 12 million people with an ultramodern skyline. It offers a clue to the present-day Chinese adventure in Africa, not so much a ‘new empire’ as a Special Economic Zone of continental proportions for a more ambitious dirigiste experiment in global expansion.

In the 1980s, Shenzhen became a testing ground for Deng Xiaoping’s new policy – ‘reform and open up’ – and once the success of the model was clear, it was replicated elsewhere. But towards the end of the decade, the Chinese leadership began to realise that an archipelago of capitalist islands in China would never be able to generate enough wealth and employment to lift the Chinese – already 1.1 billion – out of poverty. As state capitalism became the modus operandi throughout the mainland, the party cast around for an overseas ‘enclave’ that could measure up to the challenges they faced. What they needed was an abundant source of raw materials for China’s industrialisation, a sizeable market for mass-produced goods (neither too competitive nor too sophisticated), a large host space for outward migration from China and a great deal of land to put under the plough: with one fifth of the world’s population, China has less than 10 per cent of the planet’s arable land, and a looming food security problem.

Africa was the obvious target: a continent of one billion mostly young inhabitants – two billion by 2050 – and 60 per cent of the earth’s uncultivated land, plus one third of its mineral riches. The aftermath of the Cold War allowed Beijing to come in with a low bid for Africa. In the early 1990s, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of bipolar politics, the West withdrew from the continent. Washington, London and even Paris, once a thriving postcolonial metropolis, turned to more lucrative opportunities in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Europe. They scarcely noticed when, in 1996, Beijing issued a new watchword: zou chuqu, ‘go out!’ Abroad, nobody seems to have grasped at the time that Africa was the destination. In China, however, provincial party leaders immediately understood that success in Africa had become the sine qua non for a promising career at the highest echelons in Beijing. In a country where ‘the emperor is far away,’ ambitious cadres from the regions were more than happy to scramble for Africa and the prospect of promotion.

Please sign in or subscribe to read the full article.

Sign in

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 37 No. 7 · 9 April 2015

Stephen W. Smith says that the US and EU will continue to be significant players in sub-Saharan Africa for some time to come (LRB, 19 March). That is true: the US, for instance, has some military involvement in almost every African state; security concerns ensure the West still seeks to keep Africa in the Western orbit. Similarly, China may be very visible in Zambian copper mines, but when the mines were privatised, Western agencies made sure the lion’s share went to Western companies on tax terms scandalously deleterious to Zambian interests. But it has gone largely unnoticed that Western agencies such as the World Bank have in effect abandoned their ‘good governance’ programmes, the seemingly endless series of conditions imposed on African governments that could neither be implemented by Africans nor monitored by Westerners. They are now seeking to ‘work with the grain’: that is, to find a way of working in Africa ‘as it is’, rather than engage in wholesale cultural conversion.

Eoin Dillon
Dublin

Vol. 37 No. 8 · 23 April 2015

Stephen W. Smith’s excellent piece on China’s power, both hard and soft, in Africa touches on Beijing’s Confucius Institutes (LRB, 19 March). African academics starved of resources may well feel they have no choice but to accept Chinese gold. But there are also 25 such institutes in Britain – for example at the universities of Edinburgh and Sheffield and at SOAS – and they have no such excuse. Christopher Hughes, professor of international relations at the LSE, has expressed concern about his institution taking Chinese state money (it isn’t so long ago that it was caught up in a scandal over its acceptance of Qaddafi’s gold). He worried, too, about the LSE’s Confucian Institute being a ‘divisive’ and ‘illegitimate’ propaganda organisation, citing an online language teaching-aid video about the Korean War. The animated film, which is entitled ‘The War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea’, claimed that the US manipulated the UN Security Council to act against Korea, and described how Chinese ‘volunteers’ joined the fight and ‘crushed the imperialists’ aggressive ambitions’.

Thanks to Freedom of Information requests, we now know that the LSE has received £863,537.91 from the Chinese state for housing its Confucian Institute and gets a further $33,000 per year for teaching Chinese government officials in Beijing via BHP Billiton, a mining conglomerate not hitherto celebrated for fearless intellectual inquiry. The $33,000 is such a trivial sum that one wonders whether it masks a bigger and more complicated ‘cash-for-reputation’ trade. What does the LSE teach these government officials?

John Sweeney
London SE11

Stephen W. Smith refers to Chinese women selling beignets in Kinshasa. It is probably unwise to say something has never happened in that vast and varied city, but I think this is almost certainly an urban myth. Beignets, or mikate as they are called in Lingala, are popular in Congo – generally eaten with peanut butter and/or chillies. The maman mikate who cook them at the side of the road are a symbol of small-scale women’s economic activity: rather like lollipop ladies in the UK, they stand for something virtuous. The idea of the Chinese selling mikate was brought up humorously in a popular song by the group Wenge Maison Mère. From there I believe it has entered popular discourse as a motif for the way the Chinese are getting everywhere. As in Zambia, the Congolese are pretty hostile to the Chinese, and they freely associate the influx of Chinese running small shops with the support offered by the Chinese government to a regime that many perceive as illegitimate. This is understandable but unfair: Chinese with small shops selling plastic buckets are not responsible for their government or for the current miserable predicament of ordinary Congolese, just as Pakistani shopkeepers in the UK were not responsible for mass unemployment in 1980s Liverpool, however warm the relations between Thatcher and General Zia.

Joe Trapido
London N16

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences