The Telegraph has an excellent article and photo essay on Hu Jintao’s visit to Zambia, site of the troubled Chinese-run Chambishi copper mine. Last July, Zambian workers rioted in a wage dispute with Chinese managers that ended in the death of six workers. This weekend, Hu was forced at the last moment to cancel a scheduled visit to the mine when his handlers learned that workers were planning further protests over low pay and dangerous working conditions.
Hu came to Africa promising aid and economic development without the embarrassing lectures to African leaders about eliminating corruption and improving human rights and working conditions in their countries. Maybe it’s the Chinese that need the lecture. A Chinese state-owned company, the Chinese Non-Ferrous Metal Mining Company, reopened the Chambishi Mine eight years ago but workers say that conditions at the site and in neighboring towns have never been worse.
“The sprawling plant is now decked in Maoist-style slogans urging workers to make “vigorous efforts to make the company prosperous”, yet the way it is run is capitalism at its most raw.As well as the mine’s questionable safety record, workers’ benefits have been slashed, unions discouraged and employees are paid as little as £53 a month, despite rising copper prices.
One miner - who would not give his name for fear of losing his job - told The Sunday Telegraph: “We are glad that the Chinese re-opened the mine, as unemployment here was very high and there were problems with theft and drunkenness.
“But they are difficult to work for. Safety is still poor even after the explosion that killed my friends, and when we ask for more money, they threaten to sack us. I would prefer to work for white managers - they are better educated and they understand what a Zambian needs to live on.”
Two years ago an explosion at a subsidiary plant killed 51 workers and the lack of adequate training or safety equipment continues to plague the mine.
The poor conditions in the Chinese mine were highlighted in a Christian Aid report released last week. It said that while other foreign mine operators, including Swiss and Indian firms, were often slipshod too, they provided at least some social benefits, sponsoring anti-malaria programmes and football teams. The report also described how two miners were shot and injured during [the] wages protest outside the Chinese managers’ compound last year, either by Chinese-hired security guards or by Zambian police. The shooting, it said, “confirmed in the popular imagination the idea that Chinese bosses were uniquely brutal and exploitative, and that the Zambian state’s relationship to them was too close”.
For their part, the Chinese managers have learned a great deal from the European imperialists of the past century. They live isolated from the local community where poverty, crime, disease, and substance abuse continue to be endemic. Chinese investors in Zambia have however completed building a five-star hotel in Livingstone and are partying at a new Chinese casino opened this past year in Lusaka.
The integration of nearly 30,000 new Chinese residents into Zambian society has been rocky. Last March, riots broke out in Zambia’s capital with looters targeting Chinese-owned shops and businesses. Tensions remain high as many in Zambia continue to accuse Chinese businessmen of “underpaying their workers, ignoring safety rules and driving local companies out of business with cheap and shoddy goods.” News of ongoing problems at the Chambishi Mine would seem to do little to reduce anti-Chinese sentiment among Zambians.
In earlier posts, I suggested that it would be exceedingly difficult for the Chinese to do worse in Africa than the European imperialists and Soviet/American Cold Warriors who preceded them. And yet unfortunately it seems that the Chinese are intent on testing the limits of my theory. It should be remembered that nothing really can compare to the over four centuries of trafficking in human beings carried out by European, American, and Arab slave traders. Nevertheless, while China may have come to Africa refreshingly free of the colonial baggage of past imperialists, it seems determined to make up for lost time in acquiring its own. Sadly, it is still the Africans who suffer.
—————
Top right: Photograph via Sunday Telegraph, 2/4/07
10 responses so far ↓
1 davesgonechina // Feb 4, 2007 at 3:14 am
Y’know, I’m right there with you in criticizing Chinese exploitation in Africa. But I tend to take issue when it’s called “colonialism” or “imperialism”. I think it obfuscates the many differences between European historical involvement in Africa and the current wave of Chinese activity. There are numerous elements of western colonialism and imperialism that are missing here, including the establishment of colonial satellite governments, unequal legal rights, invading armies, private mercenary forces, missionaries and forced labor, not to mention slavery.
You mention that “the Chinese managers have learned a great deal from the European imperialists of the past century. They live isolated from the local community where poverty, crime, disease, and substance abuse continue to be endemic.” Is this learning from the imperialists, or is this more like Chinatowns or Chinese factories with their dorms and curfews anywhere else? Not that it makes them saints, but I think this is more a case of Chinese communities and businesses behaving like many now and before, at home and abroad.
Similarly this sort of coverage tends to elide what appears to be the central problem, which is a Zambian government unwilling or unable to confront Chinese factory abuses, or abuses at other factories. But the “Africans”, as if they were all the same, tend to be portrayed as helpless objects of victimization in this very common narrative in the media of Chinese “colonialism”.
By all means, call out the Chinese government for not being stricter on these companies. Point out the lack of campaigns in China for social responsibility, at home as well as abroad. But I think calling it colonialism is inaccurate, and disparages the far greater crimes perpetrated during European expansion and conquest. And a better approach that needs to be encouraged in discussing these problems would consider the Chinese mines such as the Collum and Chambishi as symptoms of problems with Zambia’s government and economy, not the cause.
The Chinese government and businesses in Zambia are no doubt a part of this, but so are others. I’d point out that a great deal of Zambians are part of South Africa’s migrant labor pool for mining, a migrant labor pool higly at risk of HIV infection and, in the news today, a virulent TB strain. South Africa’s migrant labor system is literally a creation of colonialism and apartheid. So too, is Zambia. It was created by the mercenary armies of Cecil Rhodes.
2 花崗齋之愚公 // Feb 4, 2007 at 3:32 am
Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, I can see that this is an issue that concerns you a great deal as well.
Perhaps my choice of the term “colonialism” could have been a cheap shot, but I do think there are elements of economic imperialism at work here, namely the extraction of resources under unfair conditions and the importation (if not dumping) of finished goods.
I might suggest also that the difference between the Chinese managers at Chambishi and the Chinatowns of the world, is that many of the Chinatowns started as ethnic ghettos where Chinese were forced by local governments to live in one place. Here, we have a group of managers, not unlike their European predecessors, who are in the manager class and choose, for reasons of comfort, to live apart from their workers. It makes sense, but it does mean they are removed from the problems faced by their workers.
Clearly Zambian elites deserve some of the blame for not pressuring Chinese companies to do more to protect workers’ rights and safety. (Not unlike American companies could do more for their Chinese employees, pethaps.) I thought I made a distinction in my post between the elites and leadership of Zambia and the workers. Perhaps it could have been clearer.
Agreed that comparing Chinese influence in Africa to the horrors of the age of European colonialism is difficult. I’ve repeatedly said that it would be nearly impossible for the Chinese to do more damage than the Europeans and Americans (though with tongue in cheek I’m starting to qualify that a bit) and, as I mentioned in my last ‘graph, at the very least there’s not much that can compare to the horrors of the slave trade.
3 Hui Mao // Feb 4, 2007 at 4:30 am
If buying natural resources and selling finished goods is considered economic imperialism, then pretty much every nation that trades with Africa is guilty of this, including the US and Europe. Despite the recent upsurge in trade between Africa and China, the West still does far more business with Africa than China. So what exactly is the Western criticism for China here? That she is doing the same thing that the West is also doing at this very moment?
4 花崗齋之愚公 // Feb 4, 2007 at 5:21 am
Hui Mao,
Thanks for stopping by. You raise an important point, and one that YJ raised with me as well.
I think the Western criticism is a response to China’s claims to be “different” in their policies toward Africa when, in fact, it would appear to be more of the same. As I’ve said repeatedly, it would be difficult for the Chinese to do worse in Africa than the Europeans and Soviet/Americans before. That said, a report cited in the Telegraph article notes conditions at the mine under Chinese ownership to be worse than comparable mines under Indian and European management.
5 davesgonechina // Feb 4, 2007 at 5:57 am
J: Just to clarify, I’m not critiquing your post so much as the way the “China in Africa” story is repeatedly framed in the media. It’s always in terms of colonialism and imperialism. It also nearly always fails to distinguish African countries from one another, never mind discuss the current socio-political picture in those countries.
You talk about Chinese companies extracting resources under unfair conditions. But what exactly is meant by unfair? Why the particular scrutiny of Chinese practices? What about Anglo-American, DeBeers or, say, Exxon-Mobil in Chad and Cameroon? Why single out the Chinese for what seems to be standard practice on the continent?
You say that China has claimed to be different. Well, technically, they have been. They have not carved out any countries, set up apartheid, or tried to spread Confucianism. Yet. But I imagine the lack of lecturing really does hold a bit of appeal. I personally find the self-congratulatory condescension of Live8 or Christian Childrens Fund commercials revolting.
As Binyavanga Wainaina wrote in his article How to Write About Africa:
“Bad Western characters may include children of Tory cabinet ministers, Afrikaners, employees of the World Bank. When talking about exploitation by foreigners mention the Chinese and Indian traders. Blame the West for Africa’s situation. But do not be too specific.”
He also has this gem:
“Describe, in detail, naked breasts (young, old, conservative, recently raped, big, small) or mutilated genitals, or enhanced genitals. Or any kind of genitals. And dead bodies. Or, better, naked dead bodies. And especially rotting naked dead bodies. Remember, any work you submit in which people look filthy and miserable will be referred to as the ‘real Africa’, and you want that on your dust jacket.”
That’s sort of snark I identify with when it comes to how Western media talks about Africa.
6 花崗齋之愚公 // Feb 4, 2007 at 6:15 am
Dave,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that Western companies have been equally, if not, in many cases, more exploitative than Chinese companies and, as I’ve said three times now, the Chinese today would have to go a really, really long way to equal the horrors of past imperialists. Looking back over my post, at least, I’m not sure where I make a value judgement that Chinese companies are significantly worse than, say, DeBeers. If I wrote a blog about European or American business, perhaps my post would be about diamonds or oil. As it is, I write about China and, as you mentioned in your earlier comment, Chinese actions in Zambia deserve a bit of criticism especially in light of Hu’s visit.
Thanks for the Wainaina link, it does indeed put recent reporting on Africa in a different light.
7 Lao Lu // Feb 5, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Very interesting post and comments., and though I appreciate Dave’s erudition and digging below the surface, I tend to side mostly with J’s arguments.
Economics will always be economics and the imperative rule there is “profit”. So I don’t expect a lot of difference to show between European, American or Chinese companies in that respect.
Where I do believe differences ARE showing is in the fact that the West has come to understand that Africa can’t be left to the Africans to rule. Let me rephrase that: if Africa is to become a place where it is good to live for all Africans, their leaders will need to be supervised. The African continent has been, is and probably will be for some time to come, pervaded with tribal warfare as we see it now for instance in Iraq between the Sunni’s and the Shiites.
Western forces have been involved in these wars, have shared in the casualties (well, let’s say, have incurred casualties) of for instance the genocide in Rwanda between Hutu’s and Tutsi’s and as a result of this (and of their knowledge acquired during their colonial past) have come to understand better the utterly complex social fabric and political sensitivities that govern the continent.
As a result of the all the havoc wreaked in so many of the African countries, the Western powers have started to adopt a “quid pro quo” attitude (which, I admit, hasn’t always been very rigidly followed and hasn’t resulted in anything much yet), but which at least sends the message that there is no free lunch and that if Africa is not to remain the “lost continent”, it will require a change of attitude from their side too.
I don’t see any sign of this on Chinese side and I believe it is wrong not to use the leverage they have with a lot of those countries. More, I think it is criminal to promise the president of Sudan a new palace (as I read in a paper today), without forcing his arm on Darfur.
8 davesgonechina // Feb 6, 2007 at 2:25 am
@J: See it’s not your argument that worries me. It’s ones like Lao Lu.
“Africa can’t be left to the Africans to rule”
Lao Lu, are you facetiously trying to prove my point?
9 Lao Lu // Feb 6, 2007 at 6:04 am
@ Dave:
I fully realized that line was over the top and also didn’t reflect what I wanted to express, so I rephrased my thought in the next line. I would appreciate, if you quote me, that you quote me in extenso and not try to make me look like the colonialist which I am definitely not.
On the other hand, around the world, there are checks and balances for governments in order to prevent them to let a country glide down in anarchy. Whether it’s a parliament, commissions, the institutions of the European Union , the Worldbank, even the army, you name them, government leaders are, and should be, always on some kind of leash. There are those that shed the leash and then we call them dictators. From that point of view, I see no issue with arguing for positive supervision of African governments. And I believe this is happening more and more and I think it is good. I think it has made possible the elections in Congo, empowering the people for the first time since long to cast a vote (I will not go as far to say “democratically elect their leaders”, as with all the behind-the-scene machinations, that may sound like too positive a statement).
I don’t see China playing the game along the same lines. They may prove me wrong in the end, but I am weary from what I see and I thought that sentiment was close to what J. expressed. China coming to the black continent may have the best leverage ever to change things for the best (and again, it is too early maybe to judge), not hampered by colonial history, with money to spend, with investment … and I don’t see them use it, which is what I regret.
10 davesgonechina // Feb 7, 2007 at 9:09 am
@Lao Lu: Fair enough. Your rephrase was:
“if Africa is to become a place where it is good to live for all Africans, their leaders will need to be supervised.”
This suffers the same flaw. There are 54 countries there. You can’t say “their leaders” need to be supervised. You can certainly point to individual governments (Sudan is an obvious one), but to generalize about the continent is precisely what I find inappropriate.
Certainly a great deal of African nations have corrupt governments and dictators. But in the English-speaking world, too often people refer to “Africa” having problems. That was the point of my link by Binyavanga Wainaina.
Leave a Comment