Noteworthy….

Bansky, the British street artist, has left his mark on the African continent. This Flickr page has a wonderful collection of his images which highlight Western perceptions of Africa

China is now an empire in denial, according to the FT's Gideon Rachman

Kindles, iPods and the end of cultural snobbery? Oh dear, this can't possibly be good.

Starbucks has opened an office in Kigali, Rwanda, and is set to partner with local coffee farmers. I wonder if this means that I can get my sugar-free vanilla soy latté fix next time I'm in Rwanda?

According to this projection, China will be the second most populous country in the world by 2050 (it is currently first), followed by the U.S. and Nigeria. India will be the foremost populous, while the Congo will be ninth-most.

China's minority problems in (visual) perspective

New violence erupted in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang Province, today as Chinese police shot dead two Uighur men. Despite an attempted return to normalcy, tensions in Xinjiang - and in China more generally - remain high. Jonathan Fenby has an excellent opinion piece in today's FT in which he explains how these recent events in Xinjiang highlight the nature of (and problems with) China's governing structure. Certainly worth a read.

The NYTimes also had a great graphic over the weekend showing the parts of China with significant minority populations. Minority here refers to one of the 55 recognized groups other than Han Chinese. The linked graphic enables you to view regions in China that have from 10 to 70% minority populations. The image below highlights the counties where at least half of the population is something other than Han:

While the graphic is somewhat misleading in that the Western provinces are very lightly populated compared to the highly populous eastern Han region, it nevertheless provides a very good visual of the control issues faced by China's central government. The very issues that Fenby does so well to outline in his OpEd piece, and the ones that stand to challenge the CCP's 'One China' ideology.

Humming a familiar tune

Barack Obama delivererd his speech to Ghana's Parliament this past Saturday (full text of the speech may be found here) in what was his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa. A collection of opinions on the speech may be found at the BBC's fantastic 'Africa Have Your Say' program.

What I have to say is this: While there is little denying the significance of Obama's trip or the importance of his now oft-repeated statement that "Africa's future is up to Africans," the content of his speech was altogether unsurprising and contained nothing that hasn't already been said. Like other Western leaders who have addressed African nations in the past, Obama came touting the need for Africans to embrace democracy and market capitalism; to battle corruption, cease the ongoing violence, work with the West to combat disease and - in short - embrace the 21st century. This is all well and good, but such catch-phrases amount to no more than empty suits when not substantiated with specifics. Even his claim that Africa's future rests with its own people has been made numerous times in the past; most recently by the likes of Bill Easterly, President Kagame of Rwanda, and Dambisa Moyo in her ever-controversial book Dead Aid.

There was a welcomed shift in tone when Obama promised to cut down on funding American consultants and administrators and instead put resources and training into the hands of those who need them (i.e. resident Africans), as well as when he highlighted the economic possibilities implicit in African entrepreneurship (which, again, Kagame has been stressing for some time). But overall the speech diverged little from previous U.S. policy statements on Africa, no less so given Obama's insistence on continuing Bush's terrible idea of Africa Command. As Bill Easterly aptly notes in today's post, "[...] goodwill for U.S. military is nonexistent after a long history of Cold War Africa interventions, post-Cold War fumbles, reinforced by the more recent fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan. Africans will never see US military (or any other Western force) as a neutral and benevolent force." *Sigh* When will we learn?

Of course the speech was inspirational - as may of President Obama's speeches are - and quite empowering for many Africans (and, apparently, for the UK Times' Libby Purves who sees a fantastic "new start" where those who understand African history and politics see none). Yet it pales in comparison to the speech Obama gave in Cairo when he addressed the Islamic world, and fails to represent much in the way of a novel shift in U.S. policy towards Africa and its people. Yes, Africans must pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they are to make anything of themselves, but didn't we (and they) know that already?

"We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans"

President Obama delivered his speech before the Ghanian parliament in Accra today. Full text of the speech may be found here. I will circle back with comments (and perhaps criticisms) on Monday; until then, do enjoy a lovely weekend!

The most environmentally friendly transport you will (likely ever) find

Bamboo bicycles! Yes, you read correctly: bamboo bicycles.

Established by two Californians and two Zambians, the company Zambikes has taken to producing bamboo-made bicycles in Lusaka and then selling them in the United States. These bamboo bikes are sold for around $475 (£290) for road or mountain bike frames, and more than $900 (£550) for a finished cycle - fitted with wheels, pedals, handlebars and brakes.

Zambikes' mission is to "provide high quality bicycles and educational training to unprivileged and service based Zambians." The company produces sturdy cargo bikes, a bike trailer and a bike-drawn "zambulance," now used in 10 clinics around Lusaka. Zambikes also provides technical skills training, business coaching and discretionary loans to its employees. Says Mwewa Chikamba, one of the company's founders: "It was never just about bikes. We wanted to give our workers practical skills and reward their dedication. We want to change lives."

With environmentally friendly bicycles, job creation, job training and useful products, I'd say Zambikes is en route (pun entirely intended) to success.

photo credit: www.bbc.co.uk

IMF finds Asia's growth projections better than anywhere else

The IMF has recently revised April's World Economic Outlook growth projections for 2009 and 2010. The revised summaries for emerging and developing economies are as follows:

• Growth projections in emerging Asia have been revised upward to 5.5 percent in 2009 and 7.0 percent in 2010. The upgrade owes to improved prospects in China and India, in part reflecting substantial macroeconomic stimulus; and a faster-than-expected turnaround in capital flows. However, the recent acceleration in growth is likely to peter out unless there is a recovery in advanced economies.

• Growth projections for Latin America have been lowered by 1.1 percentage points in 2009, primarily because production has been hit much harder by the global trade slowdown than initially expected. However, the region is benefiting from rising commodity prices, and growth projections have been revised up by 0.7 percentage points in 2010.

• The growth projections for central and eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have been revised downward by 1.3 and 0.7 percentage points in 2009 and upward by 0.2 and 0.8 percentage points in 2010, respectively. Developments differ appreciably across countries but many have been badly affected by the global financial crisis, with capital flows reversed and commodity exports sharply contracted, although the recent recovery of commodity prices is forecast to raise demand in key CIS economies.

• Growth projections for emerging Africa and the Middle East have been revised downward by 0.3 and 0.5 percentage points in 2009, respectively, while those for 2010 are broadly unchanged. Both regions have been more negatively affected by the drop in global trade than previously expected, with Middle Eastern oil exporters using their financial reserves to prop up domestic demand.

China's growth projection has been revised upwards by 1%, with the country expected to register 8.5% growth in 2010.

[HT: Duncan Green]

Iraqi oil goes to China

Via Forbes we learn that a week after China was granted a license to develop Iraq's largest known oilfield, CNPC, Sinopec and CNOOC - three major Chinese oil companies - are already warming up to bid for 11 other oil and gas field contracts in Iraq that will be auctioned off later this year:

Chinese oil giants have turned to Africa and other developing countries to explore oil. With 115 billion barrels in proved remaining recoverable reserves, about 10% of the global total, Iraq has the world’s third-largest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia and Iran, and is China’s latest investment target.

To avoid unnecessary political pressure and to increase their chances to win the unprecedented oil projects, China Daily said Chinese companies might team up with foreign companies to form consortia to bid in Iraq’s second auction, continuing the strategy they used in the first round.

All the three Chinese major oil enterprises, paired with different overseas partners, took part in the bidding for all six oilfields and two gasfields contracts last Tuesday at Iraq’s first auction since the U.S.-led invasion.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

Business Action for Africa recently released a new report on what businesses can do to sustain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) in Africa. The report brings together insights from various business leaders and NGOs, as well as from the likes of Paul Collier, Kofi Annan and Lord Malloch-Brown, among others. Many of the contributions seemingly follow the standard protocol of touting transparency, governance, business environment reforms, effective public-private partnerships, investments in the private sector, and other well-known policy prescriptions. As Richard Laing, Chief Executive of CDC aptly notes:

Much has already been said about the impact of the global downturn on Africa, but a great deal of the talk about solutions has been empty rhetoric full of generalisms that regard Africa as one homogenous place. Any simple prognosis for the continent’s economic future ignores the fact that there are 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with differing economies and at varying stages of development. It is action, not talk, that is required.

That said, there is one particularly worthwhile analysis, written by Dr. Peter Eigen, Chairman of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Eigen writes:

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. When it comes to knowing how the global financial crisis will affect Africa we are all living in the land of the blind. Usually we can rely on the IMF to be the one-eyed man, but the IMF’s growth predictions for 2009 give such a mixture of signals that it is impossible to form a clear overall picture. We do know, however, that 2009 will see a series of difficult social and political changes in Africa: elections, strikes, civil unrest, rising fuel and food prices, and a more challenging environment for exports. Because of Africa’s unique finance and liquidity circumstances, and due to volatile exchange rates and commodities prices, it is safe to assume that the financial crisis will be felt differently in Africa than elsewhere.

Eigen's acknowledgment of the uncertain is quite refreshing; for as much as we think we may know about Africa's future trajectory and development needs, there is indeed that much more than we don't. Eigen is also particularly prudent in his discussions of EITI - the very organization of which he is Chairman: "The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has long been held up as a shining example of how multi-stakeholder initiatives can address these kinds of challenges. But much of this praise has been premature. The initiative is still young." Such rhetoric comes in stark contrast to others in the development field who proclaim with overwhelming conclusiveness the merits of their formulaic approaches to poverty alleviation/aid/whatever, embryonic though these approaches may still be. Every now and again it's nice to be reminded that there are people in the field who are guided not by grandiose visions but by practical, thought-out solutions to given problems. Thank you, Mr. Eigen

In any event, do read the report; it will surely be worth your while.

China's ethnic turmoil

When we talk about polities marred by ethnic divisions and unequal modernization and economic growth, China is often not the first country that comes to mind. One is perhaps more inclined to picture a Nigeria or a Sudan, for instance. Yet ethnic tensions have been and remain among the defining features of the Middle Kingdom, which is why the recent unrest is rather unsurprising, though nevertheless quite upsetting.

From what I've been able to gather, no one appears to know exactly what triggered the Uighur violence. While some blame it on exiled Uighur Rebiya Kadeer, others suggest the violence was triggered by a brawl which took place in factory several weeks ago and has since escalated. Naturally, leaders in Beijing blame the West for masterminding the whole thing, though I find little basis for such accusations if for no other reason than the simple fact that the West has little political or strategic interest in China's Muslim community. There were/are twenty-two Uighurs captive in Gitmo, though I doubt the protests have anything to do with this. Rather, the strife seems to be a purely domestic matter, with a historically marginalized sector of the populace acting out against state policies that continue to leave them on the periphery of economic growth, especially since large numbers of Han Chinese have moved into the traditionally Muslim province and are usurping jobs from resident Uighurs.

Of course this is no justification for such awful acts of violence. Since the Uighur riots began on Sunday, 156 individuals have been killed and over 1,400 arrested in what is said to be the worst ethnic violence since the Cultural Revolution. Despite the fact that the population in Xinjiang comprises less than 1.5% of China's overall population, the State is heavily cracking down on the violence so as to preserve the "stability of the state," which is another way of saying 'One China'.

It is important to remember that Beijing's 'One China' policy is directed not only at Tibet and Taiwan, but any separatist movements, of which the Uighurs in Xinjiang are one. Many Chinese likewise uphold the notion of 'One China' which adds yet another element of complexity to the ongoing protests. One could say that the Uighurs are protesting against their marginalization and (perhaps symbolically) for separation, while the Han Chinese are protesting against the protests and for One China. In a curious way, these protests call into question the very notion of Han nationalism, which has long been regarded as a sort of ideological superglue holding together a united China. I seriously question the strength of this glue to begin with, but it seems to be wearing off - if it was even there to begin with.

As with the ongoing turmoil in Iran, the outcome of the unrest in Xinjiang is unclear. Fresh demonstrations have started in the capital Urumqi despite ongoing internet restrictions aimed at quelling the violence. Yet it does seem unlikely that all of this will amount to much. The government in Beijing certainly isn't likely to change its policies, and I don't know that the Uighurs are powerful enough as a group to continue with their tactics in the face of a powerful State. As was the case with 2008 Tibetan unrest, I sense that the protests may go on for a little while longer until the costs of violence will outweigh the benefits and all will be calm (at least on the exterior) once again. After all, the 60th anniversary of the Chinese Communist takeover is fast approaching and the CCP has other matters to tend to. Dealing with an ethnic minority who resents the loss of its culture, freedom and the ability to determine its future is not one of them.

photo credit: UK Times

Development in dangerous places (aka a symposium on Paul Collier and his policies)

In the July/August issue of Boston Review one can find Paul Collier's essay on development in dangerous places (which appears to be a fantastic cut-and-paste exercise from both The Bottom Billion and Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places), along with a host of commentary from the likes of William Easterly, Nancy Birdsall and Larry Diamond, among others.

Easterly for one is not particularly pleased, neither with Collier's policy prescriptions nor the means by which he arrives at them:

I have been troubled by Paul Collier’s research and policy advocacy for some time. In this essay he goes even further in directions I argued were dangerous in his previous work. Collier wants to de facto recolonize the “bottom billion,” and he justifies his position with research that is based on one logical fallacy, one mistaken assumption, and a multitude of fatally flawed statistical exercises.

[...] Collier’s convoluted stories are made up after the fact to fit whatever random collection of data points he is working with at the moment. So the specious rationalizations keep changing—too bad for those who took the precise recommendations in The Bottom Billion as gospel.

Larry Diamond adopts a more cautionary tone, stressing the salience of governance as a key to development:

None of these endemically poor countries can climb out of misery without better governance. Collier appreciates this, but he does not fully grasp the vital distinction between Asia’s developmental dictatorships and Africa’s dictatorial disasters. The classic authoritarian Asian tigers—Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia—all had near-death experiences with communism that led them to realize it was time to “develop or die. [...] Whatever their other faults, all of these countries’ ruling elites (and later the regimes in China and Vietnam) came to identify their own political interests with generating the public goods necessary for transformative development.

I strongly endorse Collier’s appeal for a much more serious and sustained international commitment to reinforce or guarantee security and peace in the world’s most fragile and miserable states. [...] However, I cannot go along with Collier’s suggestion that we implicitly threaten to tolerate a military coup against a civilian leader who has stolen an election. How would that have made Kenya or Nigeria better off? [...] The answer to any unconstitutional seizure of power—whether by a civilian in a rigged election or a soldier in a coup—is cutting off international aid; targeted sanctions against the overseas personal assets and travel options of the power-usurper, his family, and supporters; and a credible threat of indictment and prosecution by the International Criminal Court for predatory corruption, which should be made a crime against humanity—for that is surely what it is.

Much more commentary, criticism and insights may be found at the Boston Review link.

[HT: Marginal Revolution]

PS. Don't call Collier's policies colonialist...

Great expectations

Regarding President Obama's upcoming trip to Ghana, G. Pascal Gregory of Africa Works writes the following in Monday's Globe & Mail:

Scholars speak of “the empire striking back,” referring to former colonized peoples, such as immigrants from Africa and India, settling in Europe and North America and then challenging norms of race and identity. In his first official trip to Africa, U.S. President Barack Obama is striking back in a novel way. His visit to Ghana highlights the desirability of prominent people from the diaspora making a positive contribution to African affairs.

But Mr. Obama's visit, while heavy on symbolism, reveals the limits of his power. Burdened by economic problems in America and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he can't act boldly in Africa or make big promises.

There is certainly no denying the importance of Obama's trip to Africa... errr Ghana... but I am struggling to discover the novelty of the visit. Arguably the trip would have carried much more symbolism had he been 'returning' to Kenya, the birthplace of his father. As Kenya is the most corrupt state in east Africa, the President's decision to visit Ghana instead is being justified on the grounds that by his visit he is hoping to "lift up successful models of democracy" of which Ghana is surely one (and Kenya quite obviously not). If this truly is the objective, however, then he presumably should not have extended aid to Zimbabwe or made nice in Saudi Arabia or buddied up to Chavez, etc. etc. If one is keen to promote models of democracy, one would hope that this would apply on a global scale and not just in select regions.

I further hesitate to attach much significance to Obama's upcoming 'Africa' visit because a) he is in fact going only to one country which quite limits whatever impact he might have, even more so in light of the fact that he is not giving a speech as he did in Egypt when addressing the Islamic people. One would think that he would desire to address the people of Africa, if for no other reason to pay tribute to his roots. Moreover (point (b) as it were) as Gregory aptly notes, Obama cannot act boldly in Africa or make any big promises, though to be quite honest I haven't seen any signs signaling his intention to do so anyway.

While there certainly is much excitement surrounding the President's upcoming visit, much of it seems to stem from the symbolism surrounding the trip - a man born to a Kenyan father, elevated to the highest office in America, returning to his native continent. There is certainly much to be celebrated in this tale, but I fear that Obama's visit will be little more than that: another chapter in the history of a man. All the while, great expectations will be met with great disappointment.

Update: I stand corrected, President Obama will deliver a speech in Ghana, according to the White House blog. The speech is set to air at 6am EST on Saturday, 11 July for all of you early Americans risers (and at a much more reasonable hour for those in Europe and elsewhere!). The President's interview with allAfrica.com likely provides some insights into what we might expect from him. I very much look forward to learning what he has to say.

Noteworthy….

"The continent must not be like a beautiful fruit tree by the wayside. Every passer-by plucks a share and the fruit tree seems to forget that it could one day grow old.." Words of caution to Africans as both Russian and American leaders make trips to the continent

African leaders have denounced the ICC and refuse to extradite Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir, while others attempt to decipher what, exactly, this means

Niall Ferguson and James Fallows discuss the influence of China on the U.S. economy at the Aspen Ideas Festival

Win in China: a great documentary on the rise of entrepreneurship in China

Let freedom ring

Here's to a weekend of family & friends, fireworks, food on the grill and... hot dog eating contests.

Happy 4th of July, from China in Africa.

A new take on the bottom (three) billion

Three billion individuals. That's the approximate number of people that would be scrapped if we were to eliminate the bottom 5% global GDP contributors, the vast majority of which are found in either Africa or Southeast Asia. 81 countries comprise this bottom 5%. Together they represent half of the 192 UN member states and nearly 43% of the world population.

What would the world look like without them? Via Strange Maps we are offered a glimpse:

In reverse order of magnitude the 81 countries are:

Zimbabwe, Burundi, DR Congo, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Malawi, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Afghanistan, Togo, Guinea, Uganda, Madagascar, the Central African Republic, Nepal, Myanmar (Burma), Rwanda, Mozambique, East Timor, the Gambia, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Mali, Lesotho, Ghana, Haiti, Tajikistan, the Comoros, Cambodia, Laos, Benin, Kenya, Chad, the Solomon Islands, Kyrgyzstan, India, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Ivory Coast, Zambia, the Yemen, Cameroon, Djibouti, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Nigeria, Guyana, the Sudan, Bolivia, Moldova, Honduras, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Bhutan, Egypt, Vanuatu, Tonga, Paraguay, Morocco, Syria, Swaziland, Samoa, Guatemala, Georgia, the Congo, Iraq, Armenia, Jordan, Cape Verde, the Maldives, Fiji and Namibia.

It is equally curious to note which countries are not included among the bottom 5%. Any surprises?

And if the Chinese scramble wasn't enough, Russia wants a piece now, too

Via the WSJ, Ariel Cohen writes:

[...] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and more than a hundred Russian businessmen last week visited Egypt, Nigeria, Namibia and Angola on the longest tour of Africa a Russian leader has undertaken since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unlike President Obama, who is going to Africa next week for a brief stop to talk about global warming, Mr. Medvedev and his team targeted oil, gas, diamonds and uranium. Mr. Medvedev is trying to score points before his G-8 meeting with Western leaders in Italy July 8-10.

[...] By all appearances Mr. Medvedev and, by extension, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are reviving the old Soviet Africa strategy. The Soviet Union maintained friendly relations with many African countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique.

[...] Africa lost its significance as an ideological chessboard after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the current volume of trade between Africa and Russia is trivial. But the continent remains an economic prize. China has spent billions of dollars in the past few years gaining friends, influencing dictators, and tying African countries to Beijing.

Now the Kremlin is trying to regain its status as a global player, including re-asserting itself in Africa. Mr. Medvedev's visit to Africa appears to be the first coordinated attempt by Moscow to do so. Where once the Soviet Union sought political hegemony, today's Kremlin is after economic objectives like trade and access to raw materials. But a shift in Africa's relationship with Russia will have consequences for many.

Indeed, it will surely be fascinating to observe how Russia's Africa policy will unfold and the extent to which - if any at all - the Kremlin will seek cooperation with China, which currently has the upper hand in the continent - arguably even more so than do either the U.S. or Europe.

Debunking the 'China retreat' theory

Recent speculation over China's alleged disengagement from Africa (see earlier posts here and here, for instance) could not be further from the truth. While pundits continue to tout China's withdrawal from the continent in light of growing (global) economic troubles, the data seemingly suggests quite a different reality.

A report released yesterday by South Africa's Standard Bank (download pdf here) lends much credence to this claim. Among the report's key findings:

• Premature conclusions regarding China’s perceived reduction of interest in Africa due to a realignment of its global priorities in light of cyclical economic uncertainties should be guarded against.
• In stark contrast to Africa’s traditional partners, China’s diplomatic engagements of Africa have been escalated in H01 2009 in anticipation of the Forum on China Africa Cooperation Summit (FOCAC) in Egypt in November. Following this, bilateral assistance from China to Africa has remained steady in 2009.
• The large infrastructure-based component of China’s ambitious stimulus plan has bolstered demand for African commodities in 2009, averting potentially greater declines in Sino-Africa trade volumes. Meanwhile, African demand for low-cost consumer goods from China has remained relatively resilient. '

With respect to the DRC deal which initially lead some to raise red flags over China's withdrawal, the report notes the following:

Chinese firms are also taking the opportunity to re-price several of their commodity-based investments in Africa in order to ensure that valuations reflect current realities rather than those in place during the height of the commodities boom in 2007, when many of the investments were initiated. This prudent recalculation has been perceived in the DRC and Gabon as a cooling off of interest from relevant Chinese investors, where in truth it is a calculated strategy by Beijing to leverage its competitive advantage in still being able to engage commercially to negotiate more favourable terms.

I hate to say 'I told you so,' but I told you so. Rather than retreating, China is merely shifting its strategy in the continent in response to ever-changing economic realities. If nothing else, the Chinese are exceptionally quick on their feet. With that said:

Any discussion on the sustainability of bilateral ties is deficient without a realisation that a withdrawal of China from Africa presents only one side of a complex picture. It is not in Africa's interests, particularly in today's liquidity starved international environment, to see China withdraw from Africa. Neither [...] is it in China's interests to do so.

China extends $950 million loan to Zimbabwe

Well, the post title says it all. Not to be outdone by recent American and U.K. offers of foreign aid, China has today agreed to a huge loan for Zimbabwe. The figure is nearly double what Prime Minister Tsvangirai received on his visits to the US and Europe earlier this month, and is meant to help the country revive its economy.

China has also promised increased investments in Zimbabwe, with more companies moving in to set up shop. While the obvious concerns over propping up rogue regimes persist, few appear interested in articulating them. What's more, where before Western nations were lambasting China for its assistance to questionable regimes, they now appear to be following suit (to an extent, mind you). It would seem that China is perhaps reshaping the international aid architecture after all.

U.S. vs China, as played out in Africa

As President Obama gets ready to make his first trip to Ghana this July, one cannot help but wonder how he will be received. Of course quite warmly, I imagine, especially in light of his Kenyan roots, but it will be quite curious to see how - if at all - China's growing influence on the continent has shifted African perceptions of American assistance. Bear in mind that this trip will be Obama's first to sub-Saharan Africa (and during his 8 years as President, Bush II visited the continent only twice); Chinese President Hu has visited 15 sub-Saharan states since 2004. And I needn't remind you of the litany of recent Chinese investments in the continent, dubious though some of them may be.

The question of U.S. versus Chinese influence in Africa is brought home quite nicely by Ken Maguire. In his article today, Maguire expounds on this battle of authorities, if you will, ultimately concluding that the U.S.-China relationship in Africa can be cooperative. There is no denying that it can't; the question, I feel is much more one of degrees. Obama's upcoming trip may indeed prove quite central in shedding light on this issue, along with countless others.

More on international land purchases (and what to do about them)

Further to last week's post on international land purchases in developing countries (mainly in Africa, really), an interesting piece in today's VoxEU suggests that such purchases could be good news "if the objectives of the land purchasers are reconciled with the investment needs of developing countries." Quite an obvious statement, really, but how does one go about ensuring that this is the case?

According to authors Denis Drechsler and David Hallam:

Apart from improving the conditions of land deals, several looser contractual arrangements should also be considered. In fact, the purchase and direct use of land resources is only one strategic response to the food security problems of countries with limited land and water. A variety of other mechanisms can offer just as much – or even higher – security of supply, such as contract farming and out-grower schemes, bilateral agreements including counter-trade, and improvement of international food market information systems.

Investment could be in much-needed infrastructure and institutions that currently constrain agriculture in developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. This, together with efforts to improve the efficiency and reliability of world markets as sources of food could raise food security for all concerned through an expansion of production and trade possibilities.

What Drechsler and Hallam are effectively proposing is a "binding code of conduct" which would govern land purchases, as well as a thorough search for alternatives, as noted above. What neither they nor anyone else have been able to tease out, however, is what a regulatory framework will look like, should there be one. Will each recipient state have the authority to establish its own guidelines, or will they be enforced through an agency like the UN FAO, for instance?

While many questions abound, it's heartening to see that the debate on land purchases and food security is finally being brought to the forefront, where it arguably should have been several years ago.

Oh baby give me one more chance

Apologies, I couldn't help myself. Happy Friday everyone.