Legitimizing China’s Growing Engagement in Africa
Change Within Continuity of Official Discourse
Ilaria Carrozza is a Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Norway.
Carrozza, Ilaria (2021) Legitimizing China’s Growing Engagement in African Security: Change within Continuity of Official Discourse, The China Quarterly, 1-26. DOI 10.1017/S0305741021000242.
Volume I, Issue 1
Editor, Remy Mauduit
ABSTRACT
Peace and security were once marginal in Sino-African relations. Recently, however, reflecting China’s more proactive role as a global security actor, they have become central. Yet while China’s actions mirror this shift, the official China–Africa discourse has not changed. This article, based on fieldwork interviews and discourse analysis of official Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) documents, proposes a theoretically grounded study of China’s African discourse to account for the role it plays in maintaining continuity through time. It makes a threefold claim. First, while the China–Africa discourse has not been given much attention in the literature, it is crucial to explain the overall success of China’s engagement on the continent. Second, changes in the official discourse do not mirror the shift in China’s policies towards greater participation in peace and security. Third, and related, this is owing mostly to the successful articulation of the link between the promotion of economic growth and the achievement of stability—the security-development nexus—and to the positive reception, the discourse has found among African leaders.
Keywords: China, Africa, FOCAC, security-development nexus
China’s assertive foreign policy in the last few years under the leadership of President Xi Jinping 习近平 has prompted new debates over its rise. Discussions about China’s growing global engagement focus on the country’s military expansion abroad and its emergence as a global security actor. [i] While in the past China lacked the resources and confidence to broker security beyond Asia, it is now ready to expand its military power. [ii] Among the regions where the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has increased its security and military presence, Africa occupies a prime position. Alongside the PRC’s more traditional engagement in trade and infrastructure building, peace and security, which once played marginal roles, now feature prominently in the policy agenda. Since 2011, when China evacuated thousands of its workers from Libya amid civil war, Beijing has paid more attention to issues related to Africa’s security environment, and this has been reflected in growing funding of a range of activities including in-kind and financial contributions to the African Union (AU), greater participation in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions, and the provision of military training and arms.
This shift in China’s approach to African security reflects the broader shift in the country’s foreign policy globally. Yet this shift is not mirrored by changes in its official African discourse, which continue to emphasize mutual benefits and a common path toward economic growth. This begs the question of how Chinese leaders continued to maintain the continuity of the China–Africa discourse while gradually making space for increased engagement in peace and security. In addressing this puzzle, this article starts from the premise that the success of China’s interactions with most countries across the continent is owing not only to attractive economic incentives but also to the coherent official discourse which articulates China and African countries as fellow members of the Global South, united in the struggle against Western hegemony. Investments are indeed important, but they alone cannot explain the breadth of China’s engagement. The continent is far from short of investors. [iii] Rather, in China, Africa has found a new partner offering alternative opportunities. Against this background, the article contends it is by creating the image of a reliable partner and cultivating personal relations with African leaders that China’s overall success on the continent can be explained beyond material drivers. [iv]
The image of China as a friend and partner has been conveyed through an official discourse that creates a sense of belonging and “common destiny” for leaders in developing countries. Created in 2000, the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has contributed to building the idea of a shared community and is a good example of China’s efforts to create Chinese-led institutions to increase its influence abroad. Using Lene Hansen’ and Ole Wæver’ concept of layered discourse, [v] the article shows that while the country’s foreign policy towards the continent has geared towards greater engagement in peace and security, this shift has not been accompanied by changes in the basic discourse (first layer); rather, leaders have built on existing discursive representations and have added more narratives (in the second and third layers). It is mostly thanks to China’s use of the security-development nexus as a key discursive representation that the country has maintained a coherent discourse, despite the ebbs and flows in Sino-African relations while introducing the novel security element. Since the concept entails a close link between the promotion of economic growth and social development and the achievement of stability, growing security and military commitments appear legitimate and reasonable to both China and African countries. The positive reception the discourse has found among African leaders enhances its endurance.
This article contributes to the existing literature on Sino-African relations in four ways. First, it addresses Chris Alden and Daniel Large’s concern that “despite the vast amount of research produced in recent years on China-Africa relations, the work has remained under-theorized and fragmented.” [vi] The article takes up this challenge by proposing a theoretically grounded study of China’s African discourse that goes beyond the “events of the day” normally driving existing research on the topic. [vii] Second, in joining several scholars who similarly see the value in adopting discourse (or rhetorics) as the main object of analysis[viii], it proposes a more accurate methodological toolbox to interpret China’s foreign policy as a “discursively enacted normative ideal,” adding to predominant analyses focusing on material and economic factors. [ix] Third, it builds on the increasingly rich debate over China’s growing engagement in African security by focusing not on what China is doing but on how it is doing it. [x] Fourth, it places the FOCAC at the center of China–Africa relations and highlights its role both as the primary locus for defining the discourse and practice of China’s African policies and diplomacy, and as an exclusive China–Africa platform allowing for their relations to develop outside of the West. [xi]
The article thus proposes a study of China’s African discourse and its main representations, as well as their persistence through time, and explains how Chinese leaders have gradually introduced increased engagement in peace and security. Since states are verbal entities that communicate widely, both domestically and internationally, foreign policy discourses are identified through the reading of texts. [xii] Because the relationship between discourse and politics is co-constitutive, not only do discourses hold power over politicians and policymakers, but the latter can shape the discourse and use it to justify their preferred policies. As Hansen notes, states may not always follow the policy they publicly declare, and the process of foreign-policy making happens both in public and in private. However, the assumption behind discourse analysis is that “representations and policy are mutually constitutive and discursively linked.” [xiii] Therefore, when investigating the linguistic aspects of foreign policy, one must begin with descriptions of such policy through the language of state officials–i.e. statements in which decision-makers explain foreign policy goals and which are typically found in speeches, government, or semi-government publications, and official meetings. These statements, together with those made by members of the state apparatuses and those appearing in the media, are important as they provide clues to the content of the official foreign policy. [xiv]
Following Hansen’s research methodology, the article focuses “on political leaders with official authority to sanction the foreign policies pursued as well as those with central roles in executing these policies, for instance, high-ranked military staff, senior civil servants (including diplomats and mediators), and heads of international institutions.” [xv] In particular, the texts were selected based on three criteria, namely that “the clear articulation of identities and policies characterizes them; they are widely read and attended to, and they have the formal authority to define a political position.” [xvi] I collected and read over 250 FOCAC documents including action plans, declarations, and speeches given by Chinese and African leaders and top officials (in both English and Chinese), and China’s Africa White Papers, from the period 2000 to 2019. I also collected official statements and coverage in state-sponsored media. They sourced the texts from the FOCAC official website, the Central People’s Government of the PRC website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and official state media, such as Xinhua and People’s Daily. I read all documents in Chinese and translated the excerpts cited in this article, which are the most exemplary and significant. While reading the texts, I dissected the official Chinese policy discourse, focusing on China–Africa relations and security cooperation. The article further draws on fieldwork interviews conducted in Beijing, Addis Ababa, and New York during the period 2016 to 2018. These interviews granted me more direct access to sources close to foreign policy processes and provided a window through which to look at the reception of China’s discourse among African elites.
Through the analysis, several elements emerge, including a focus on the security-development nexus; continued assistance for developing countries in promoting development as well as increased militarization and securitization of foreign relations; and the promotion of certain norms and practices, such as the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, via both existing organizations and new institutional arenas. In terms of China’s peace and security strategy in Africa, a long-term vision takes shape, which includes a bigger commitment to peacekeeping operations, financial and in-kind contributions to the UN and the AU, and a growing military footprint. It is thus important to analyze the discursive basis upon which the PRC’s African policies rest and the changes and continuities in the official discourse, to understand the future direction of China–Africa policies.
The article proceeds as follows. First, it shows how official discourse is constitutive of Sino-African relations. It then illustrates the discursive layers that form the basis of the discourse. It continues by mapping the discourse’s main representations and the persistence of these representations since 2000. The fourth section unpacks how the discourse has gradually made space for a shift in China’s approach to include more peace and security activities, although no major change in the basic discourse is detectable. Fifth, it shows that the discourse has found broad acceptance among African elites, which contributes to the discourse’s endurance. Finally, it concludes with a reflection on the future of China’s African discourse and policy.
Discourse as Constitutive of the China–Africa (Official) Story
Drawing on Michel Foucault’s work, discourse is described by Kevin Dunn and Iver Neumann as “a system producing a set of statements and practices that, by entering institutions and appearing like normal, constructs the reality of its subjects and maintains a certain regularity in a set of social relations. Or, more succinctly, discourses are systems of meaning-production that fix meaning, however temporarily, and enable actors to make sense of the world and to act within it.” [xvii] Within a discourse, representations construct regimes of truth or knowledge; they not only make up identities but also foreign policies and their outcomes. [xviii] Representations are phenomena filtered through the existing fabric between the world and ourselves. [xix] In this context, discourse can show how certain representations are constituted and prevail over time since, within specific discourses, certain paths of action become possible while others are made more unlikely or even unthinkable. [xx] While discursive representations precondition foreign policy, they are also “(re)produced through articulations of policy.” [xxi] Or, as Wæver puts it, making debates and actions of a certain country more intelligible to other observers is made easier by systematically presenting patterns of thought. [xxii] Therefore, a study of discourse implies the study of both language and practices. As defined by Barry Barnes, practices are “socially recognized forms of activity, done based on what members learn from others.” [xxiii] While discourse refers to preconditions for action, practices are socialized patterns of action, and “as long as people act following established practices, they confirm a discourse.” [xxiv]
Other scholars have developed an interest in studying the apparent continuity of the political rhetoric on China–Africa relations. For instance, Bjørnar Sverdrup-Thygeson suggests that narratives recalling historical links between the Middle Kingdom and African countries are especially important tools in China’s foreign policy. [xxv] Narratives, which are among the modes of discourse arranging information in a logical order, can be defined as “linguistically mediated temporal syntheses” [xxvi] which do not simply list events but order them in a story. [xxvii] Julia Strauss uses the concept of rhetoric (and subsequently layered rhetorics) to navigate through the changes and continuities of Chinese official and semi-official texts. [xxviii] She suggests that these are based on a set of logical supporting ideas underlining a developmental model that is thought to be both different from and better than the West. The consistency of such rhetoric makes it possible for China to make credible claims to be Africa’s friend. [xxix] She further maintains that it is unlikely for the rhetoric, which includes amity, equality, win-win, common development, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to change substantially in the future. [xxx] Adding to these arguments, this article argues that if one wants to identify the reasons for the persistence (or not) of certain linguistic representations in China’s African discourse, one must go deeper and uncover the different discursive layers that structure Sino-African relations. In particular, since rhetoric is an art of discourse, it does not exist before discourse. [xxxi] The current article builds on these studies by proposing a theoretically grounded and methodologically accurate analysis of China’s African discourse and how it has adapted to changes in both the international environment and the specificity of China–Africa ties and focuses on peace and security and the security-development nexus to illustrate this.
The Layered Discourse
As this article seeks to unearth China’s African discourse, how it has gradually included peace and security, and how it has contributed to creating an image of China as a reliable partner, discourse analysis applies to identify the dominant representations of China–Africa–what Dunn and Neumann call an “inventory of representations.” [xxxii] In this sense, Chinese politics presents researchers with unique challenges. China’s official discourse is imbued with a language that, according to Gloria Davies, “reflects not only the constraints of prolonged, ongoing state censorship but also a poetics of anxiety constitutive of the very discourse that seeks to articulate it.” [xxxiii] However, as William Callahan contends, while “[o]fficial Chinese discourse is often very vague, repetitious and unwieldy,” official slogans are “crucial in organizing thought and action in Chinese politics.” [xxxiv] Looking for repetitions of representations is especially useful for constructing such an inventory of representations. [xxxv] The current article uses the concept of layered discourse, which can “specify change within continuity” by referring to “degrees of sedimentation: the deeper structures are more solidly sedimented and more difficult to politicize and change.” [xxxvi] Each layer of the structure adds specificity and constraints to the analysis. According to this understanding of discourse, scholars can make contingent “predictions” and establish, for instance, that when the discursive system is under pressure, several policies may be presented as possible; while these may differ from each other at the surface level, they are all logically possible constructions based on the basic discursive elements available to policymakers. Change is always possible, at least in principle, given that these structures are socially constituted. The post-2011 refocusing of China’s policy towards African security thus did not represent a rupture producing a radically new agenda “where several basic premises have changed.” Rather, it was a variation on the basic premise of the deeper discursive layers. [xxxvii]
Drawing from Dunn and Neumann, the discourse-analytical process used in this article to uncover China’s African discourse follows several steps. The first is mapping the main representations as they appear in official policy documents, as well as their persistence. [xxxviii] This is done by reading texts from the FOCAC, which provides an ideal space for China to promote its discourse. The approach focuses on “the identity of linguistic signs and tropes or the persistence of particular metaphorical schema” seeking to uncover an organizing principle within a discourse. [xxxix] In particular, this article is concerned with the continuity and longevity of representations of China as a fellow member of the Global South and as a developing country of China and Africa as friends, brothers, and partners; and of China and Africa as united in the struggle against the imbalances of a system dominated by the developed North. A discourse analyst should also be able to show change within continuity. [xl] Thus, starting from the basic discourse representing China and Africa as fellow members of the Global South and progressively focusing on peace and security, the security-development nexus has been a constant feature of official rhetoric but the securitization of development only becomes prominent from 2011. The second step is layering the discourse, namely showing how the identified representations differ in historical depth, variation, and the degree of their dominance or marginalization in the discourse. [xli] How was it possible for Chinese leaders to incorporate increased engagement with peace and security while the issue had been marginal until then? Is such a shift in policies reflected by a change in the narratives utilized? The article suggests that to legitimize China’s extra security and military presence on the continent, leaders in Beijing have built on the existing discursive representations. The third step is tracing the development of the discourse through time. This is done by comparing official documents and speeches in the period from 2000 to 2019 to track changes in the narratives used to sustain the discourse.
As noted by Wæver, while there is a certain creative element in drawing the layered structure in different cases and its contents cannot be discovered by a formalized method, “this discourse analysis has a synchronous and diachronous part… The first establishes a model by fitting together material from different contexts, actors, and years into a structure, while the second moves through time with specified actors and studies how the structure shapes and how it is reproduced and changed.” [xlii] Therefore, in the first part of the discourse analysis, one creates a logic by finding powerful examples from different contexts that highlight a simple pattern; in the second, one focuses on context and interaction, for instance on how actors draw on the discursive structures or resist them. The structure created in the synchronous part of the analysis serves as an analytical instrument to follow the political process and actors in the diachronous part of the analysis. Based on this approach, I trace the foundational discourse at the root of China’s African policy, analyze its development in FOCAC documents over the last two decades, and establish how it frames contemporary policies. I identify the more specific representations of China and Africa as friends, brothers, and partners, as derived from the basic “South-South cooperation” narrative. I then track the change that led to the post-2011 increased securitization of development within the existing discourse and link that to China’s security policies on the continent.
Figure 1 illustrates how China’s African discourse unfolds. In the first layer, the discourse provides “an analytical perspective that facilitates a structured analysis of how discourses are formed and engage each other within a foreign policy debate” and offers an ideal type of the China–Africa partnership. [xliii] This first layer can be called the “South-South cooperation” discourse. It comprises the basic representation of China and African states as members of the same group of developing countries and also positions China within the group. This basic discourse, whereby China and Africa share a history of colonialism and Western encroachment and are united in the fight against the imbalances of an unjust world system, provides a series of possibilities and constraints in terms of how foreign policy may be presented, what kind of foreign policy options may be pursued, and how China–Africa relations may be (re)defined. The second discursive layer comprises several representations that are informed by the “South-South cooperation” logic: globalization is both a challenge to overcome together and an opportunity to be seized by China and Africa; they share a commitment to multilateralism and equal participation in international organizations; they abide by the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and their leaders believe that the security-development nexus is an essential policy tenet. The article specifically argues that the nexus not only provides a useful framework through which to understand China’s security practices in Africa, as Lina Benabdallah suggests, but it also plays a crucial role in underlying China’s Africa discourse: by understanding peace, security, and development as fundamental and interconnected features of a desirable political environment, it links stability to economic growth. [xliv] This entails that the inequality of the current international system represents a threat to the development and the security of countries in the Global South; hence, both development and security need to be pursued to achieve a more equal world order. The third discursive layer adds further specificity to the abstraction of the second layer by presenting more specific policies. This is where a certain change is allowed. While China’s focus until 2011 was on the developmentalization of security, premised on the belief that economic growth leads to stability, after 2011 the discourse includes a more pronounced securitization of development, whereby economic prosperity and social development can only be achieved in a peaceful and stable environment. Simultaneously, no changes are detectable in the first and second discursive layers.
The Discursive Representations of China–Africa Relations
This section maps the main representations that make up China’s African discourse and which have remained stable despite Sino-African relations developing constantly. It explores the construction of the security-development nexus within the existing discourse to unpack how the latter has made space for a change in China’s approach to peace and security on the continent. From reading official texts, China has moved from a policy of non-intervention and non-involvement to considerable engagement in a variety of security-related activities. While such change is detectable in the third discursive layer, the first and second discursive layers that sustain China’s African policies have remained the same.
As mentioned above, the basic official discourse constructs China and Africa as fellow members of the Global South and defines their relations in terms of “South-South cooperation.” The South forms the source of identity for both state and non-state actors, which encapsulates the common experience of colonialism and imperialism. It is used as a mobilizing strategy based on a critique of the asymmetries and inequalities of the contemporary international system, thus calling for change to the current structures of global governance. [xlv] On this basis, different representations define China–Africa relations, such as a shared experience with colonialism and Western encroachment and unity in fighting a hegemonic world order. Despite relations fluctuating, this basic discourse has remained stable and coherent. Arguably, the narratives that support it have not remained entirely unchanged; some have been dropped and new ones introduced to chime with changes in the relationship. [xlvi] However, it is possible to identify the representations that have contributed to articulating a stable and coherent discourse.
The basic “South-South cooperation” discourse pivots on the belief that the current world system is unjust and rooted in the economic, scientific, and technological gap between the North and the South. In 2003, the-then premier Wen Jiabao 温家宝 declared that “the gap between North and South has continued to widen… [and] has intensified, and maintaining economic security and achieving sustainable development in developing countries, especially in Africa, has become more arduous.” [xlvii] According to China’s leaders, the gap is a sign that “hegemony and power politics still exist. Safeguarding the sovereignty, security, and interests of developing countries remains daunting.” [xlviii] Hegemony is encapsulated in the control developed countries hold over global affairs and their exploitation of natural resources in developing countries. [xlix] In turn, “owing to long-term poverty and backwardness, coupled with the influence of various external factors, potential ethnic, religious and social contradictions have been intensified, conflicts and wars have continued to appear, and the stability and development of some developing countries have been seriously damaged.” [l] China, therefore, proposes to create a new world order: “As mankind is about to enter the new century, the establishment of a fair and reasonable new international political and economic order has become a requirement of changing times and the common voice of people all over the world. Let us… work together to promote the establishment of this new order and the noble cause of peace and development of humankind.” [li] Chinese leaders are careful to clarify that China does not intend to pursue a revisionist foreign policy or subvert the existing system. Rather, [lii]
The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and the principles and spirit of the Organization of African Unity Charter and other universally recognized norms of international law should form the political basis of the new international order. On the premise of consensus among peoples, new principles reflecting the spirit of the times should also be established in the development’s context and changes in the world.
Based on this, more specific representations emerge in the second layer. China and African countries are pictured as friends, brothers, and partners. While the first layer already implies friendship and partnership, this representation gains further nuances in the second layer, as multilateral engagement and equal participation in international organizations symbolize friendship. In the first FOCAC Declaration, Chinese and African delegates argue that given the “steady development of China–Africa relations over the past decades,” they are confident “in the prospects for cooperation” and believe that “the China–Africa traditional friendship has a long history and a solid foundation of friendly cooperation… [that] China and Africa belong to the group of developing countries and share fundamental interests, and… China and Africa’s close consultation in international affairs are of great significance for consolidating solidarity among developing countries and further promoting the establishment of a new international order.” [liii] In 2006, the-then president Hu Jintao 胡锦涛 gave the following address to the participants of the Third FOCAC: [liv]
Although China and Africa are far from each other, the friendship between the people of China and Africa has a long history, and it becomes stronger with time. Throughout this long history, the people of China and Africa have been striving for self-improvement and perseverance and have created distinctive and colorful ancient civilizations. In modern times, the people of China and Africa have been unwilling to be enslaved and have fought stubbornly. They have written a glorious chapter in the pursuit of freedom and liberation and safeguarding human dignity, creating a glorious history of nation-building and national rejuvenation.
The assumption here is that the China–Africa friendship is a long-lasting one, dating back to the early Ming dynasty. [lv] To be sure, this depiction of events hardly represents the historical reality of China–Africa ties, which are all but continuous. For instance, Zheng He’s 鄭和 expeditions may not have been as peaceful as Beijing likes to portray them. [lvi] China–Africa relations ceased after those early encounters, resuming only in their modern form during the Mao era. [lvii] Despite inaccuracies, the narrative serves the diplomatic purpose of depicting China and Africa as sharing a long friendship. At the 2018 FOCAC, Xi Jinping described China and Africa as being “family” in his inaugural speech and lauded their partnership for its authenticity and strength: [lviii]
China insists on sincere friendship and equal treatment in cooperation… always respecting Africa, loving Africa, supporting Africa, and insisting on achieving the “five nos”: not interfering with African countries in exploring development paths that suit their national conditions, not interfering in African internal affairs, not imposing one’s will on others, not attaching any political conditions to aid, and not seeking private political gains in investment and financing in Africa.… China will always be a good friend, partner, and brother of Africa.
The challenge and opportunity of globalization form another important discursive representation. The challenge discourse remained constant throughout the first three FOCAC meetings and was then afterward accompanied by concerns over the global financial crisis. [lix] The implication is that developed countries, which have shaped the current world order according to their norms and interests, are benefiting from globalization while developing countries are left with a series of arduous tasks. This is said to require even stronger China–Africa cooperation. Furthermore, “despite the difficulties encountered by China’s economic development because of the international financial crisis, China is committed to continuing the expansion of its help to Africa.” [lx] Both representations equally legitimize increasing economic contributions to the continent, with China portraying itself as an ally willing to continue, and even scale up, its financial commitments to ensure economic growth for the continent. [lxi] Globalization was then presented as an opportunity that developing countries need to seize as Chinese leaders came to accept that global economic integration could have a positive impact on economic development. [lxii] The 2018 Declaration calls upon the international community to “work together to promote development through trade and investment, and to promote economic globalization towards a more open, inclusive, balanced, and win-win direction.” [lxiii] The opportunity representation calls for greater inclusion of African countries in the UN Security Council (UNSC) and increased support for the UN and other multilateral organizations. Chinese leaders often stress the central role of the UN in promoting multilateralism and “democracy” in international affairs. [lxiv] The 2018 FOCAC Declaration states that China and Africa adhere “to the global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits” and advocate multilateralism and “the democratization of international relations, insisting that all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich and poor, are equal.” [lxv] The Chinese understanding of “democratization” here refers to equal participation in decisions taken at international organizations. In this vein, an undemocratic system prevents (certain) developing countries from actively taking part in international decision-making processes. China, its leaders argue, intends to use its position as a permanent member of the UNSC to advocate for developing countries’ further inclusion.
Finally, the principles of non-interference and respect for state sovereignty are ever present in China’s African discourse. China’s stance is that it supports “the leading role of African countries and regional organizations in resolving regional issues… [and] their efforts to independently resolve regional conflicts, strengthen democracy and building good governance, and oppose external forces interfering in African internal affairs out of their interests.” [lxvi] Additionally, “as an important norm in international relations, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs is not out of date. Especially for developing countries, the principle… is still an important guarantee for safeguarding their rights and interests.” [lxvii] Indeed, the question of China’s position on non-interference often crops up in China–Africa debates. China’s support of mediation efforts in Sudan, its alleged role in some countries’ change of leadership, and its growing contributions to the continent put these principles increasingly under strain. [lxviii] The next section aims to address the question of how peace and security policies and China’s increasing involvement in security and military activities on the continent fit into the basic discourse.
Legitimizing the Securitization of Development through the Security–Development Nexus
The basic discourse and the main representations employed by Chinese decision-makers when constructing China–Africa relations within the “South-South cooperation” framework legitimize policies directed at promoting development and economic growth in Africa as a priority. Within this framework, security occupies an important place; however, the extent to which it has been a part of China’s African policy has changed throughout the years. While mentions of peace and security as one element of the China–Africa partnership are detectable from 2000, the first two FOCAC meetings only make vague and general references to the topic. Security issues gradually became more prominent as China took part in mediation efforts in Sudan. [lxix] But it is from 2011 that China’s position on security matters was clearly articulated. These developments coincide with the start of Xi Jinping’s term and his emphasis on military modernization. [lxx] The shift also responds to the need to protect Chinese citizens and interests abroad and a more general interest in contributing to international peace and security. [lxxi] It also follows a broader trend on the African side, where the political focus has moved from economic integration to security, and demands for China’s engagement have increased. [lxxii]
The understanding of peace and security that emerges from FOCAC documents is rooted in China’s domestic practices, where security is intimately connected to development: reducing poverty and improving living conditions are considered key elements for achieving peace and stability. [lxxiii] In the Western context, the security-development nexus is a familiar representation that has long been at the center of the “liberal peace.” According to Mark Duffield, it links development and security in the sense that “where development is able, for example, to reduce poverty, improve well-being or generate hope, it is also felt to have a concomitant potential to promote local and international security.” [lxxiv] In China, the nexus refers to how development can promote the stability of the regime foremost. As Benabdallah contends, “China’s history with political interference in economic development… has resulted in a firm belief in the necessity of economic growth to maintain internal order,” so that the governing elites are free from violent challenges to their rule. [lxxv] The focus of the Western approach is on democracy and human rights, whereas the “Chinese peace” privileges sovereignty and the legitimacy of the government. [lxxvi] While “liberal peace” and “Chinese peace” are not equal in terms of conceptual development or practice on the ground, the latter is not opposed to the assumption that democracies are more peaceful. [lxxvii] For this article, it should be noted that China intentionally brands its approach as different from that of Western powers. [lxxviii] This has helped to make China’s peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts more attractive to African leaders wary of foreign interference. Despite this distinction, establishing the nexus as a representation in China’s African discourse was possible also because the link between security and development existed in familiar discourses and policies already. As Xi Jinping argued in 2014, “sustainability means paying equal attention to development and security… Development is the foundation of security, and security is the precondition for development. A tree of peace cannot grow on barren land, and no fruits of development can be produced in the flames of war.” [lxxix]
In 2014, Premier Li Keqiang 李克强 insisted that “[w]ithout a peaceful and stable environment, the development will not be possible.” [lxxx] A joint statement by Chinese and African ministries issued in 2013 announced that “the relationship between peace, security, stability, and development should be handled in a balanced manner to resolve the root causes of conflicts. Comprehensive measures should be taken to address hotspot issues and their symptoms and root causes, and we should continue to pursue dialogue and consultations to resolve regional disputes.” [lxxxi] The nexus is, therefore, key to understanding the successful legitimization of increased security practices within the existing discourse. It frames peace, security, and development as fundamental and interconnected features of a desirable political environment. Since the inequality of the current world order represents a threat to both the development potential and the stability of the Global South, both development and security should be pursued to achieve a more equal international system. The nexus creates a sort of quasi-causal argument, which provides “warranting conditions” making a certain action or belief more reasonable, justified, or appropriate, given the beliefs and expectations of those involved. [lxxxii] Here, given that security can be achieved through development, it is considered acceptable that China provides economic aid to African countries to simultaneously promote stability. Crucially, the nexus is considered appropriate by African leaders, who welcome the Chinese approach. The discourse then legitimizes developmental, infrastructure, and logistics-related policies, considering the pursuit of peace and security.
Security issues have gained more prominence in China’s African policy. Both Chinese and African leaders seem to agree that “security forces can, and should occasionally, contribute directly or indirectly to development.” [lxxxiii] The third discursive layer thus adds further specificity to the abstraction of the second layer and results in more specific policies, including increased participation in peacekeeping missions and an expanded Chinese military footprint on the continent. While China’s policy focus until 2011 was on the developmentalization of security, premised on the belief that economic growth leads to stability since 2011 Beijing has embraced a change towards a more pronounced securitization of development, whereby economic prosperity and social development are only achievable in a peaceful and safe environment. Aware of the tension between respect for state sovereignty and increased participation in security activities, Chinese scholars are at work to conceptually redefine foreign policy pillars such as respect for state sovereignty and non-interference, to “keep them intact but adapt them retroactively.” [lxxxiv] Operating under the banner of the UN further helps China to resolve this tension, as UN resolutions give legitimacy to interventions. [lxxxv] Thus, the patterns of Chinese engagement and the discourse in the third discursive layer have changed, without being accompanied by changes in the first or second discursive layers.
For instance, the Declaration following the Fifth FOCAC maintains that Chinese leaders are “deeply disturbed by the current turmoil in some regions and reaffirm that we should jointly uphold the principles of the UN Charter and the basic norms of international relations, advocate the peaceful settlement of crises and disputes through political means, and advocate a security concept of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation.” Further, they commit to “strengthen bilateral exchanges and cooperation, promote the operationalization of the African Peace and Security architecture, and continue to support and assist African countries in increasing their capacity for maintaining peace and security, as well as enhance coordination and communication in the UNSC and other multilateral institutions.” [lxxxvi] In 2012, Beijing pledged 600 million yuan in aid and other measures to strengthen the practical cooperation between China and the AU. [lxxxvii] During the Sixth FOCAC meeting, Xi Jinping committed US$60 million in free military assistance over the following three years. [lxxxviii] In his speech during the Seventh FOCAC, Xi linked China–Africa security cooperation to China’s “new security concept.” [lxxxix] He proposed to: [xc]
Join hands to build a China–African community with a shared safe future… China advocates a common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable new security concept that firmly supports African countries and regional organizations such as the AU to solve African problems African… China is ready to play a constructive role in promoting peace and stability in Africa and support African countries in enhancing their capacity to independently maintain peace and stability.
He also committed US$100 million to support the African Standby Force and the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crisis and announced 50 security assistance programs to advance cooperation in the areas of law and order, UN peacekeeping missions, and fighting piracy and terrorism. [xci] Peace and security feature as one of the eight initiatives that will inform discussions at future meetings. During the China–Africa Peace and Security Forum meeting in 2019, China argued that “security in Africa is a barometer of the global security governance system” and that “for developing countries, development concerns security and holds the master key to solving security issues.” [xcii]
The above analysis of China’s African discourse across its three constitutive layers shows how engagement with peace and security, once marginal in Sino-African relations, has become central. Legitimizing increased participation in the continent’s peace and security architecture was possible thanks to the persistence of China’s official discourse. In particular, the security-development nexus plays a crucial role in justifying policies that envision greater participation in peacekeeping missions, an expanded military presence on the continent, and greater financial and in-kind contributions to the AU. The following section discusses how this approach has been mostly welcomed by African leaders.
Accepting China’s Discourse
The endurance of China’s image as a friend to African countries depends not only on Beijing’s successful articulation of such an identity when addressing African audiences. African leaders welcomed China’s discourse because it positions the China–African friendship as joined in opposition to colonialist practices. [xciii] This section draws on fieldwork interviews to illuminate these perceptions. African decision-makers identify with China’s discursive representation as belonging to the same group of developing countries, and the Chinese leadership seems to believe that African elites seek to emulate the PRC’s path to modernization. [xciv] China’s economic transformation is admired by the continent’s elites, who view it as a viable model to emulate and achieve domestic development. [xcv] Specifically, some interviewees argued that requests in the late 1990s to create the FOCAC came from African leaders who felt the moment was ripe to institutionalize bilateral relations with China. [xcvi] The PRC’s emphasis on stability rather than regime change, and the relatively few conditions attached to China’s assistance, made an engagement with China very appealing.[xcvii] China’s growing involvement in peace and security has also largely been welcomed because its approach is seen as “descriptive,” in contrast to the more “prescriptive” Western approach. [xcviii] Some interviewees emphasized the agency of African actors in negotiating with China, pointing out, for instance, that decisions on how to spend any Chinese funding to the AU rest solely with AU staff, underlining the independent decision-making process of the organization. [xcix] African leaders seem to appreciate China’s contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, especially in terms of personnel. [c] Establishing close relationships with African leaders and links with government officials is a key objective of China’s foreign policy in Africa. [ci] China cultivates relations with Africans through scholarships, high-level official visits, and capacity-building programs in a range of fields, all of which add to the attractiveness of Chinese engagement. [cii]
This article does not suggest that China’s African policies are solely motivated by generosity or that economic incentives play only a marginal role. The shift away from a strict understanding of non-interference reflects the realization that security is a prerequisite for investments. [ciii] Less positive views of China’s involvement can also be found. For instance, one African interviewee described how Chinese officials exhibited a sense of superiority, what he called “Middle Kingdom syndrome.” [civ] One downside of China’s descriptive approach is that it allows those African leaders who are not interested in the human rights of their citizens to take advantage and continue to operate within their countries as they wish. [cv] Regarding security issues, some interviewees related that China’s perceived lack of exposure to and understanding of African conflicts and their ethnic and religious roots makes it harder to achieve concrete results. [cvi] Others commented that when contributing to peace operations, China rarely goes beyond financial contributions, and rarely offers the policy advice that some European countries do.[cvii]
The overall positive reception of the official discourse by African elites has contributed to what we view as mutually beneficial and equal relations, although these remain asymmetrical in economic nature. By constructing China’s identity as a fellow benevolent country, Chinese leaders establish their interests; by accepting such a narrative, African leaders find themselves comfortable with their identity as partners in a shared community, and they, too, can pursue their agendas.
Conclusion: Looking Ahead
This article analyses China’s official African discourse to account for the role it plays in maintaining continuity throughout policy shifts. The discourse premised on “South-South cooperation,” positions China and Africa as long-term friends and partners and has remained relatively stable over the last two decades owing to a series of historical and political narratives which aim to create a sense of belonging and a “common destiny.” The analysis situates the FOCAC at the center of China–Africa relations, as an exclusive platform where Chinese leaders promote their approaches and practices and discuss them with their African counterparts. When China geared towards greater engagement in African security after 2011, radical changes in the basic discourse did not accompany this shift in foreign policy. Instead, the policy change (third discursive layer) represents a variation of the basic premise of the deeper discursive layers (second and first). Rather than fabricating an entirely new discourse to justify and legitimize the new policy, leaders in Beijing have built on existing discursive representations. The security-development nexus has played a central role in legitimizing the securitization of development in the discourse. Since it entails a close link between the promotion of economic growth and social development and the achievement of stability and peace, growing security and military commitments appear legitimate and reasonable. The overall success of the discourse depends on both the longevity of the main representations and the image of China as a reliable and legitimate partner, combined with the positive response they have encountered among African leaders.
The acceptance of China’s discourse has made it easier for Sino-African relations to absorb the shocks of diplomatic crises, such as the recent mistreatment of Africans in Guangzhou. [cviii] China’s experience on the ground suggests that the country has so far relied on a pragmatic approach and has learned from past mistakes. The unpreparedness for the Libya uprisings in 2011 was indeed a lesson learned for China and encouraged the move towards growing engagement in African security, alongside demands from the African side. While the basic discursive layer is considered to be highly resilient, it is not immune to change. [cix] External developments that challenge existing representations or single individuals and institutions that re-articulate basic concepts can exert pressure to change; this typically results in a (discursive) tension that the discourse cannot easily handle.
Conversely, while change is possible and traceable, deviations from or attempts to renegotiate the dominant constellation of representations would likely not attract recognition within the policy debate, owing to the solidity of the existing structure of meaning. [cx] Understanding these dynamics makes it possible to make “predictions” on the future of a dominant discourse that seems to be well functioning, or on one that is under significant pressure. [cxi] Hence, China–Africa relations could continue unscathed while pragmatically and gradually adapting to developing circumstances, or they could be substantially renegotiated. On the one hand, the stability of China’s discourse and the variables affecting it, including receptivity from the African side and learning through experience on the ground, suggest that a deeper discursive change is unlikely. The current strategic rivalry between China and the US poses a dilemma for countries that may have to pick a side (either on specific issues or on foreign policy), thus potentially prompting a clear rupture. While African countries have so far managed to stay out of the confrontation, this may be increasingly difficult in the future, since there will be greater demand for garnering diplomatic support for one’s preferred norms and practices. For the time being, there does not seem to be any major pressure on or anomalies in China’s African discourse. Simultaneously, cracks have opened on the surface of China–Africa relations, mainly owing to an increasingly vocal civil society that is less willing to accept the official story at face value. If there is to be any significant change in the basic discourse, it will probably be prompted by young and motivated netizens who already play a crucial role “in re-designing how China–Africa relations are experienced by people beyond the government elites and the Global South rhetoric” through social media. [cxii]
.
[i] Mazarr, Michael J., Heath, Timothy R. and Cevallos, Astrid Stuth. 2018. “China and the international order.” Rand Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2423.html. Accessed 23 May 2018.
Feigenbaum, Evan A. 2018. “Reluctant stakeholder: why China’s highly strategic brand of revisionism is more challenging than Washington thinks.” MacroPolo, 27 April, https://macropolo.org/reluctant-stakeholder-chinas-highly-strategic-brand-revisionism-challenging-washington-thinks/. Accessed 24 August 2018.
Zakaria, Fareed. 2020. “The new China scare.” Foreign Affairs Jan–Feb, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-12-06/new-china-scare. Accessed 21 February 2020.
[ii] Huotari, Mikko, Gaspers, Jan, Eder, Thomas, Legarda, Helena and Mokry, Sabine. 2017. “China’s emergence as a global security actor: strategies for Europe.” Mercator Institute for China Studies Paper No. 4, July, https://merics.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/China%27s%20Emergence%20as%20a%20Global%20Security%20Actor.pdf
[iii] Pairault, Thierry. 2020. “Investment in Africa: China vs ‘traditional partners’ – Part 2.” China Africa Research Initiative Blog, 3 August, http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2020/08/guest-post-investment-in-africa-china.html. Accessed 13 August 2020.
[iv] Kavalski, Emilian. 2018. “Guanxi or what is the Chinese for relational theory of world politics.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 18(3), 397–420.
Nordin, Astrid H.M., and Smith, Graham M.. 2018. “Reintroducing friendship to international relations: relational ontologies from China to the West.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 18(3), 369–396.
Benabdallah, Lina. 2020. Shaping the Future of Power: Knowledge Production and Network-building in China–Africa Relations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
[v] Hansen, Lene, and Waever, Ole. 2003. European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge.
[vi] Alden, Chris, and Large, Daniel (eds.). 2019. New Directions in Africa–China Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Duggan, Niall. 2020b. “Sino-African relations research.” In Duggan, Niall (ed.), Competition and Compromise among Chinese Actors in Africa: A Bureaucratic Politics Study of Chinese Foreign Policy Actors. Singapore: Springer, 9–28.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Strauss, Julia C. 2019. “Layered rhetorics and multiple realities: China and Africa.” In Hartmann, Christof and Noesselt, Nele (eds.), China’s New Role in African Politics: From Non-intervention towards Stabilization. Abingdon: Routledge.
[ix] Alden, Chris, and Large, Daniel. 2011. “China’s exceptionalism and the challenges of delivering difference in Africa.” Journal of Contemporary China 20(68), 21–38.
[x] Alden, Chris, and Large, Daniel. 2015. “On becoming a norms maker: Chinese foreign policy, norms evolution and the challenges of security in Africa.” The China Quarterly 221, 123–142.
Alden, Chris, Alao, Abiodun, Zhang, Chun and Barber, Laura (eds.). 2018. China and Africa: Building Peace and Security Cooperation on the Continent. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walsh, Barney. 2019. “China’s pervasive yet forgotten regional security role in Africa.” Journal of Contemporary China 28(120), 965–983.
Wang, Xuejun. 2018. “Developmental peace: understanding China’s Africa policy in peace and security.” In Alden, Chris, Alao, Abiodun, Zhang, Chun and Barber, Laura (eds.), China and Africa: Building Peace and Security Cooperation on the Continent. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 67–82.
Kuo, Steven C.Y. 2015. “Chinese peace? An emergent norm in African peace operations.” China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies (01), 155–181.
He, Yin. 2019. Fazhan heping: quanqiu anquan zhili zhong de guifan jingzheng yu gongsheng (Developmental Peace: Normative Competition and Mutualism in Global Security Governance). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
[xi] For broad assessments of the FOCAC,
Alden, Chris, and Alves, Ana Cristina. 2017. “China’s regional forum diplomacy in the developing world: socialization and the ‘Sinosphere’.” Journal of Contemporary China 26(103), 151–165.
Taylor, Ian. 2010. The Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). Abingdon: Routledge.
Li, Anshan, and Yazini, April Funeka (eds.). 2013. Forum on China–Africa Cooperation. The Politics of Human Resource Development. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa.
[xii] Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xiii] Id., 25.
[xiv] Weldes, Jutta. 1999. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/31690. Accessed 9 August 2018.
[xv] Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, 60. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xvi] Id., 85.
[xvii] Dunn, Kevin C., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2016. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North–South Relations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, David. 1992. Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1982. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
[xviii] Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xix] Dunn, Kevin C., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2016. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
[xx] Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xxi] Hansen, as cited in Haugevik, Kristin M. 2019. Special Relationships in World Politics: Inter-state Friendship and Diplomacy after the Second World War. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xxii] Waever, Ole. 2003. “Identity, communities and foreign policy: discourse analysis as foreign policy theory.” In Hansen, Lene and Wæver, Ole (eds.), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge, 20–49.
[xxiii] Barnes, as cited in Neumann, Iver B. 2002. “Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31(3), 627–651.
[xxiv] Id., 637.
[xxv] Sverdrup-Thygeson, Bjørnar. 2017. “The Chinese story: historical narratives as a tool in China’s Africa poli Strauss, Julia C. 2009. “The past in the present: historical and rhetorical lineages in China’s relations with Africa.” The China Quarterly 199, 777–795.cy.” International Politics 54(1), 54–72.
Strauss, Julia C. 2019. “Layered rhetorics and multiple realities: China and Africa.” In Hartmann, Christof and Noesselt, Nele (eds.), China’s New Role in African Politics: From Non-intervention towards Stabilization. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xxvi] Ricoeur, as cited in Wood, David. 1992. On Paul Ricoeur: Narrative and Interpretation. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xxvii] White, Hayden V. 1987. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[xxviii] Strauss, Julia C. 2009. “The past in the present: historical and rhetorical lineages in China’s relations with Africa.” The China Quarterly 199, 777–795.
Strauss, Julia C. 2019. “Layered rhetorics and multiple realities: China and Africa.” In Hartmann, Christof and Noesselt, Nele (eds.), China’s New Role in African Politics: From Non-intervention towards Stabilization. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xxix] Id.
[xxx] Strauss, Julia C. 2019. “Layered rhetorics and multiple realities: China and Africa, 37.” In Hartmann, Christof and Noesselt, Nele (eds.), China’s New Role in African Politics: From Non-intervention towards Stabilization. Abingdon: Routledge.
This article differs from her work in a number of ways. It engages with the concepts of discourse and discursive layers (which denote hierarchical sedimentation of narratives), and it is grounded in a clear methodology that clarifies how and why the texts utilized were chosen. Furthermore, I focus on changes to a specific set of policies (related to peace and security), while Strauss is concerned with the general principles guiding China–Africa relations.
[xxxi] Rhetoric can also be a mechanism of coercion. See
Krebs, Ronald R., and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2007. “Twisting tongues and twisting arms: the power of political rhetoric.” European Journal of International Relations 13(1), 35–66.
Mattern, Janice Bially. 2005. “Why ‘soft power’ isn’t so soft: representational force and the sociolinguistic construction of attraction in world politics.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33(3), 583–612.
[xxxii] Dunn, Kevin C., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2016. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
[xxxiii] Davies, Gloria. 2009. Worrying about China: The Language of Chinese Critical Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[xxxiv] Callahan, William A. 2016. “China’s ‘Asia dream’: the Belt Road Initiative and the new regional order.” Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 1(3), 226–243.
[xxxv] Dunn, Kevin C., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2016. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
[xxxvi] Waever, Ole. 2003. “Identity, communities and foreign policy: discourse analysis as foreign policy theory.” In Hansen, Lene and Wæver, Ole (eds.), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge, 20–49.
[xxxvii] Id.
[xxxviii] Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xxxix] Dunn, Kevin C., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2016. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
[xl] Neumann, Iver B. 2008. “Discourse analysis.” In Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa (eds.), Qualitative Methods in International Relations. A Pluralist Guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 61–77.
[xli] Id., 73.
[xlii] Waever, Ole. 2003. “Identity, communities and foreign policy: discourse analysis as foreign policy theory.” In Hansen, Lene and Wæver, Ole (eds.), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge, 20–49.
[xliii] Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xliv] Benabdallah, Lina. 2016. “China’s peace and security strategies in Africa: building capacity is building peace?” African Studies Quarterly 16(3–4), 17–34.
[xlv] Alden, Chris, Morphet, Sally and Vieira, Marco Antonio. 2010. The South in World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Breslin, Shaun. 2013. “China and the South: objectives, actors and interactions.” Development and Change 44(6), 1273–94.
[xlvi] Strauss, Julia C. 2009. “The past in the present: historical and rhetorical lineages in China’s relations with Africa.” The China Quarterly 199, 777–795.
Sverdrup-Thygeson, Bjørnar. 2017. “The Chinese story: historical narratives as a tool in China’s Africa policy.” International Politics 54(1), 54–72.
[xlvii] Wen, Jiabao. 2003. “Wen Jiabao zongli zai Zhong-Fei hezuo luntan di er jie buzhang ji huiyi kaimu shi shang de jianghua” (Speech by Premier Wen Jiabao at the opening ceremony of the second ministerial conference of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation). China.com, 16 December, http://www.china.com.cn/zhuanti2005/txt/2003-12/16/content_5462219.htm. Accessed 29 August 2018.
[xlviii] Jiang, Zemin. 2000. “Zhong-Fei xieshou hezuo gong ying xin de shiji. Jiang Zemin zhuxi zai ‘Zhong-Fei hezuo luntan. Beijing 2000 nian buzhang ji huiyi’ kaimu shishang de jianghua” (China and Africa usher in the new century together: speech by President Jiang Zemin at the opening ceremony of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation, Beijing 2000 ministerial conference), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zflt/chn/xnyfgk/t155565.htm. Accessed 24 July 2018.
Xi, Jinping. 2018. “Xi Jinping zai 2018 nian Zhong-Fei hezuo luntan Beijing fenghui kaimu shishang de zhuzhi jianghua” (Keynote speech by Xi Jinping at the opening ceremony of the 2018 Beijing Summit of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation). Xinhua, 3 September, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2018-09/03/c_129946128.htm. Accessed 20 October 2018.
[xlix] Jiang 2000; Xi 2018.
[l] Jiang 2000.
[li] Ibid.
[lii] Id.
[liii] China Africa Civil Chamber of Commerce. 2000. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan di yi jie buzhang ji huiyi Beijing xuanyan” (Beijing Declaration of the first ministerial conference of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation), 13 October, http://www.cabc.org.cn/detail.php?id=202. Accessed 7 September 2018.
[liv] Hu, Jintao. 2006. “Hu Jintao zhuxi zai Zhong-Fei hezuo luntan Beijing fenghui kaimu shi shang de yanjiang” (President Hu Jintao’s speech at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, 4 November, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/123/wjdt/zyjh/t278761.htm. Accessed 30 August 2017.
FOCAC (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation). 2006. “Yadesiyabeiba xingdong jihua 2004–2006” (Addis Ababa action plan, 2004–2006), http://www.gov.cn/ztzl/zflt/content_428690.htm. Accessed 7 September 2019.
FOCAC. 2009. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Shamushayihe xingdong jihua 2010–2012” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Sharm el-Sheikh action plan, 2010–2012), http://www.focac.org/chn/zywx/zywj/t626385.htm. Accessed 28 July 2018.
MFA. 2006. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Beijing xingdong jihua 2007–2009” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Beijing action plan, 2007–2009), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zflt/chn/ltda/bjfhbzjhy/hywj32009/t584788.htm. Accessed 30 July 2017.
MFA. 2015. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Yuehanneisibao xingdong jihua 2016–2018” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Johannesburg action plan, 2016–2018), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1323148.shtml. Accessed 24 April 2018.
[lv] Sverdrup-Thygeson, Bjørnar. 2017. “The Chinese story: historical narratives as a tool in China’s Africa policy.” International Politics 54(1), 54–72.
[lvi] Holmes, James R., and Yoshihara, Toshi. 2008. “China’s naval ambitions in the Indian Ocean.” Journal of Strategic Studies 31(3), 367–394.
[lvii] Shinn, David H., and Eisenman, Joshua. 2012. China and Africa: A Century of Engagement. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Alden, Chris. 2007. China in Africa. London: Zed Books.
Strauss, Julia C. 2009. “The past in the present: historical and rhetorical lineages in China’s relations with Africa.” The China Quarterly 199, 777–795.
[lviii] Xi, Jinping. 2018. “Xi Jinping zai 2018 nian Zhong-Fei hezuo luntan Beijing fenghui kaimu shishang de zhuzhi jianghua” (Keynote speech by Xi Jinping at the opening ceremony of the 2018 Beijing Summit of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation). Xinhua, 3 September, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2018-09/03/c_129946128.htm. Accessed 20 October 2018.
[lix] MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). 2000. “Zhong Fei jingji he shehui fazhan hezuo gangling” (China–Africa Economic and Social Development Cooperation Programme), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zflt/chn/bjzl/t400129.htm. Accessed 31 August 2018.
FOCAC. 2009. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Shamushayihe xingdong jihua 2010–2012” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Sharm el-Sheikh action plan, 2010–2012), http://www.focac.org/chn/zywx/zywj/t626385.htm. Accessed 28 July 2018.
[lx] Id.
[lxi] MFA. 2015. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Yuehanneisibao xingdong jihua 2016–2018” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Johannesburg action plan, 2016–2018), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1323148.shtml. Accessed 24 April 2018.
[lxii] Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2008. Social States. China in International Institutions, 1980–2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[lxiii] MFA. 2018a. “Guanyu goujian gengjia jinmi de Zhong Fei mingyun gongtongti de Beijing xuanyan” (Beijing declaration on building a closer China–Africa community with a shared future). FOCAC Summit, http://focacsummit.mfa.gov.cn/chn/hyqk/t1591944.htm. Accessed 5 December 2018
[lxiv] MFA. 2012. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan di wu jie buzhang ji huiyi Beijing xingdong jihua (Beijing action plan for the Fifth ministerial conference of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zflt/chn/ltda/dwjbzzjh/hywj/t954617.htm. Accessed 30 July 2018.
[lxv] MFA. 2018a. “Guanyu goujian gengjia jinmi de Zhong Fei mingyun gongtongti de Beijing xuanyan” (Beijing declaration on building a closer China–Africa community with a shared future). FOCAC Summit, http://focacsummit.mfa.gov.cn/chn/hyqk/t1591944.htm. Accessed 5 December 2018
[lxvi] MFA. 2012. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan di wu jie buzhang ji huiyi Beijing xingdong jihua (Beijing action plan for the Fifth ministerial conference of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zflt/chn/ltda/dwjbzzjh/hywj/t954617.htm. Accessed 30 July 2018.
[lxvii] Zhai, Jun. 2012. “Waijiao bu fu buzhang di juan zai di qi jie ‘Lanting luntan’ shang de jianghua” (Speech by vice-foreign minister Zhai Jun at the 7th “Lanting Forum”), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/ziliao_674904/zt_674979/dnzt_674981/qtzt/ltlt_675065/dqjltlt_675079/t950390.shtml. Accessed 28 June 2019.
[lxviii] Hirono, Miwa, Jiang, Yang and Lanteigne, Marc. 2019. “China’s new roles and behaviour in conflict-affected regions: reconsidering non-interference and non-intervention.” The China Quarterly 239, 573–593.
Large, Daniel. 2008. “China and the contradictions of ‘non-interference’ in Sudan.” Review of African Political Economy (115), 93–106.
Li, Jason. 2019. “Conflict mediation with Chinese characteristics: how China justifies its non-interference policy.” Stimson Center, https://www.stimson.org/2019/conflict-mediation-chinese-characteristics-how-china-justifies-its-non-interference-policy/. Accessed 25 March 2020.
[lxix] Barber, Laura. 2014. “Chinese Foreign Policy in the ‘Going Out’ Era: Confronting Challenges and ‘Adaptive Learning’ in the Case of China–Sudan and South Sudan Relations.” Ph.D. diss., London School of Economics, http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3129/.Google Scholar
Large, Daniel. 2009. “China’s Sudan engagement: changing northern and southern political trajectories in peace and war.” The China Quarterly 199, 610–626.
Large, Daniel. 2011. “China and post-conflict reconstruction in Africa: the case of Sudan.” SAIIA China in Africa Project Policy Briefing No. 36.
[lxx] Xi, Jinping. 2014. “Xi Jinping: jiji shuli Yazhou anquan guan gong chuang anquan hezuo xin jumian” (Actively establish an Asian security concept and create a new situation for security cooperation). Xinhua, 21 May, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-05/21/c_126528981.htm. Accessed 24 June 2019.
[lxxi] Duchâtel, Mathieu, Brauner, Oliver and Zhou, Hang. 2014. “Protecting China’s overseas interests: the slow shift away from non-interference.” SIPRI Policy Paper No. 41.
Duchâtel, Mathieu. 2016. “Terror overseas: understanding China’s evolving counter-terror strategy.” European Council on Foreign Relations Policy Brief, https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/terror_overseas_understanding_chinas_evolving_counter_terror_strategy7160. Accessed 24 March 2020.
Mariani, Bernardo, and Wheeler, Thomas. 2011. “China’s growing role in African peace and security.” Saferworld, January, https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/500-chinas-growing-role-in-african-peace-and-security. Accessed 11 February 2021.
[lxxii] Francis, David J. 2006. “Linking peace, security and developmental regionalism: regional economic and security integration in Africa.” Journal of Peacebuilding and Development 2(3), 7–20.
Chitiyo, Knox. 2010. “African security and the securitization of development.” In Kitchen, Nicholas (ed.), Resurgent Continent? Africa and the World. London: LSE IDEAS Reports, 24–28; interview with senior official 2, Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Division, AUC, Addis Ababa, February 2017.
[lxxiii] Benabdallah, Lina. 2016. “China’s peace and security strategies in Africa: building capacity is building peace?” African Studies Quarterly 16(3–4), 17–34.
[lxxiv] Duffield, Mark. 2010. “The liberal way of development and the development–security impasse: exploring the global life-chance divide.” Security Dialogue 41(1), 53–76.
[lxxv] Benabdallah, Lina. 2016. “China’s peace and security strategies in Africa: building capacity is building peace?” African Studies Quarterly 16(3–4), 17–34.
[lxxvi] For more on how the understanding of liberal peace and peacebuilding has changed over time, see
Richmond, Oliver. 2012. A Post-liberal Peace. Abingdon: Routledge.
Richmond, Oliver. 2015. “After liberal peace: the changing concept of peace-building.” RSIS, Nanyang University, Singapore, https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/co15272-after-liberal-peace-the-changing-concept-of-peace-building/#.XzOphTOxVaR. Accessed 12 August 2020.
Tom, Patrick. 2017. Liberal Peace and Post-conflict Peacebuilding in Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
[lxxvii] Kuo, Steven C.Y. 2020. Chinese Peace in Africa: From Peacekeeper to Peacemaker. Abingdon: Routledge.
Zhao, Lei. 2011. “Two pillars of China’s global peace engagement strategy: UN peacekeeping and international peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 18(3), 344–362.Google Scholar
[lxxviii] Kuo, Steven C.Y. 2015. “Chinese peace? An emergent norm in African peace operations.” China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies (01), 155–181.
[lxxix] Xi, Jinping. 2014. “Xi Jinping: jiji shuli Yazhou anquan guan gong chuang anquan hezuo xin jumian” (Actively establish an Asian security concept and create a new situation for security cooperation). Xinhua, 21 May, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-05/21/c_126528981.htm. Accessed 24 June 2019.
[lxxx] Li, Keqiang. 2014. “Li Keqiang: kaichuang Zhong-Fei hezuo gengjia meihao de weilai. Zai Fei meng huiyi zhongxin de yanjiang” (Li Keqiang: create a better future for China–Africa cooperation. Speech at the African Union Conference Center). CPC News, 7 June, http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2014/0506/c64094-24978451.html. Accessed 30 May 2018.
[lxxxi] MFA. 2013. “Zhong Fei waizhang di san ci zhengzhi cuoshang lianhe gongbao” (Joint communiqué of the third political consultation between Chinese and African foreign ministers), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/fz_677316/1206_678746/1207_678758/t1080310.shtml. Accessed 30 July 2018.
[lxxxii] Fay, cited in Weldes, Jutta. 1996. “Constructing national interests.” European Journal of International Relations 2(3), 275–318.
[lxxxiii] Chitiyo, Knox. 2010. “African security and the securitization of development.” In Kitchen, Nicholas (ed.), Resurgent Continent? Africa and the World. London: LSE IDEAS Reports, 24–28.
[lxxxiv] Interview with senior SSRC program director, New York, March 2018; interview with former Chinese special representative on African affairs, Beijing, 2016. See also Zheng, Chen. 2016. “China debates the non-interference principle.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 9(3), 349–374.
[lxxxv] Interview with Peking University professor, Beijing, June 2016; interview with UN senior policy officer, Division of Policy, Evaluation, and Training (DPET), New York, April 2018.
[lxxxvi] Xinhua. 2012. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan di wujie buzhang ji huiyi Beijing xuanyan” (Beijing Declaration of the fifth ministerial conference of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation), 20 July, http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-07/21/content_2188621.htm. Accessed 30 July 2018.
[lxxxvii] MFA. 2012. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan di wu jie buzhang ji huiyi Beijing xingdong jihua (Beijing action plan for the Fifth ministerial conference of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zflt/chn/ltda/dwjbzzjh/hywj/t954617.htm. Accessed 30 July 2018.
[lxxxviii] MFA. 2015. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Yuehanneisibao xingdong jihua 2016–2018” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Johannesburg action plan, 2016–2018), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1323148.shtml. Accessed 24 April 2018.
[lxxxix] Xi, Jinping. 2014. “Xi Jinping: jiji shuli Yazhou anquan guan gong chuang anquan hezuo xin jumian” (Actively establish an Asian security concept and create a new situation for security cooperation). Xinhua, 21 May, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-05/21/c_126528981.htm. Accessed 24 June 2019.
[xc] Xi, Jinping. 2018. “Xi Jinping zai 2018 nian Zhong-Fei hezuo luntan Beijing fenghui kaimu shishang de zhuzhi jianghua” (Keynote speech by Xi Jinping at the opening ceremony of the 2018 Beijing Summit of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation). Xinhua, 3 September, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2018-09/03/c_129946128.htm. Accessed 20 October 2018.
[xci] Id.
MFA. 2018b. “Zhong Fei hezuo luntan Beijing xingdong jihua 2019–2021” (Forum on China–Africa Cooperation: Beijing action plan, 2019–2021), https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/ziliao_674904/tytj_674911/zcwj_674915/t1592067.shtml. Accessed 30 August 2019.
[xcii] “Shoujie Zhong-Fei heping anquan luntan: xieshou hezuo gongzhu anquan” (First China–Africa Peace and Security Forum: working together to build security). Xinhua, 15 July 2019, http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2019-07/15/c_1124754986.htm. Accessed 30 August 2019.
[xciii] For popular views of China in Africa, see
Lekorwe, Mogopodi, Chingwete, Anyway, Okuru, Mina and Samson, Romaric. 2016. “China’s growing presence in Africa wins largely positive popular reviews.” Afrobarometer, http://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Dispatches/ab_r6_dispatchno122_perceptions_of_china_in_africa1.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2016.
Devlin, Kat. 2018. “5 charts on global views of China.” Pew Research Center, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/19/5-charts-on-global-views-of-china/. Accessed 30 January 2019.
Wang, Fei-Ling, and Elliot, Esi A.. 2014. “China in Africa: presence, perceptions and prospects.” Journal of Contemporary China 23(90), 1012–32.
Selormey, Edem. 2020. “Africans’ perceptions about China.” Afrobarometer, https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2020.
[xciv] Alden, Chris, and Large, Daniel. 2015. “On becoming a norms maker: Chinese foreign policy, norms evolution and the challenges of security in Africa.” The China Quarterly 221, 123–142.
[xcv] Interview with senior researcher 1, Addis Ababa, January 2017.
[xcvi] Interview with China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs official, Beijing, April 2017; interview with Peking University scholar, Beijing, June 2016; interview with senior researcher 1.
[xcvii] Interview with the former head of the Policy Development Unit, Peace Support Operation Unit, AU Commission (AUC), Addis Ababa, January 2017.
[xcviii] Interview with the senior researcher, Institute for Peace and Security Studies, January 2017, Addis Ababa.
[xcix] Interview with senior official 1, Crisis Management and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Division of the Peace and Security Department, AUC, Addis Ababa, February 2017; interview with senior official 2; interview with the former head of Political, Press and Information Section, EU delegation to Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, February 2017.
[c] Interview with senior official 1.
[ci] Interview with senior researcher 2.
[cii] Benabdallah, Lina. 2020. Shaping the Future of Power: Knowledge Production and Network-building in China–Africa Relations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
[ciii] Interview with National Defence University scholar, Shanghai, July 2016.
[civ] Interview with senior researcher 2, Institute of Security Studies (ISS), Addis Ababa, February 2017.
[cv] Interview with senior researcher 1; interview with AUC senior officials 1 and 2, Addis Ababa, February 2017.
[cvi] Interview with senior researcher 2; interview with research professor, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), Beijing, May 2017.
[cvii] Interview with researcher, ISS, Addis Ababa, February 2017.
[cviii] Marsh, Jenni. 2020. “Beijing faces a diplomatic crisis after reports of mistreatment of Africans in China causes outrage.” CNN, 13 April, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/asia/china-guangzhou-african-blacklash-hnk-intl/index.html. Accessed 21 August 2020.
[cix] Waever, Ole. 2003. “Identity, communities and foreign policy: discourse analysis as foreign policy theory.” In Hansen, Lene and Wæver, Ole (eds.), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge, 20–49.
[cx] Hansen, Lene. 2003. “Introduction.” In Hansen, Lene and Waever, Ole (eds.), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge, 1–19.
[cxi] Waever, Ole. 2003. “Identity, communities and foreign policy: discourse analysis as foreign policy theory.” In Hansen, Lene and Wæver, Ole (eds.), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. Abingdon: Routledge, 20–49.
[cxii] Carrozza, Ilaria. 2020. “The Global South in times of crisis: a China–Africa relations view.” E-International Relations, https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/14/the-global-south-in-times-of-crisis-a-china-africa-relations-view/. Accessed 21 August 2020.
.
Defense & Security | International Relations & Politics | Irregular Warfare & Terrorism | Africa | Asia & Pacific | Europe | Latin America | MENA
.