Chinese Economic Engagement in Africa from the Perspective of International Law: The Practice of Anti-Neocolonialism

Abstract

In recent years, with the convening of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in 2000 and the deepening of economic and trade relations between China and Africa, Chinese economic engagement in Africa has attracted greater attention from politicians, media and scholars in Western countries, and has been branded or characterized by "neo-colonialism" from time to time. It is impressive that the former U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had provoked discord in 2011 by warning Africans of Chinese "neo-colonialism." With the introduction and in-depth implementation of the “Belt and Road” Initiative, some Western media and politicians are more worried about China, trying to vilify and distort the "Belt and Road" initiative, rendering the assumption of the so-called "Chinese neo-colonialism" with color, and describing China-Africa economic cooperation as "neo-colonialism". For example, on December 30, 2014, CNBC criticized Chinese investment in Africa through raising colonialism questions. The English version of the New York Times put forward similar questions on May 1, 2017 when reporting Chinese investment in Africa, these were, "is China the world's new colonial power?" and "is China presenting a new model of development to the world”, or is the "Belt and Road" itself a new type of colonialism?" Even more alarming was the statement "China in Africa: neo-colonialism?" which was the subject of a hearing before a subcommittee of the United States Senate in 2018. Further, the New African Strategy of the United States used the phrase "predatory" practice while blaming China, but in essence, it is only another expression of "neo-colonialism". It is very visible that criticism from the western countries on Chinese "neo-colonialism" became regular after the "Belt and Road" initiative was proposed in 2013. Under the propaganda of Chinese "neo-colonialism", even exceptional officials from African countries echo this argument, and the writings of some scholars portray China as a greedy resource grabber who came to Africa without bringing economic growth opportunities to Africa. The fallacy that China's economic engagement in Africa is "neo-colonialism” will not only bring about the loss of Chinese image, and cast a shadow over China-Africa political relations, it will also bring obstacles to trade and investment between China and Africa, and thus ultimately affect the development of Africa. At present, "Chinese investments in Africa are becoming the target of hostile propaganda and are suffering attacks". Therefore, it is of theoretical and practical significance to examine the nature of Chinese economic engagement in Africa. This topic cannot be circumvented when studying the economic cooperation between China and Africa, however there is little research on this theoretical issue from a legal perspective. The term “neo-colonialism” is used primarily to describe situations in which the former colonies are politically independent but their economies are still under the control and exploitation of the former suzerains. As is well known, modern China   became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, and suffered from aggression, oppression and exploitation by the imperialist powers. The new China has effectively co-operated with the vast number of developing countries, especially African countries to oppose colonialism in all forms resolutely after the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Obviously, the accusation of "neo-colonialism" against Chinese economic engagement in Africa has no historical and realistic basis, and is an attempt of shitting the blame. In view of this, based on discussing the development of anti-colonialism and anti-neo-colonialism international law, this paper establishes that Chinese economic engagement in Africa is an innovative practice of anti-neo-colonialism international law, and then discusses the direction of international rule of law under the concept of Sino-Africa Community of Shared Future.