Commentary
By burying disagreements in imprecision, the new deal risks same fate as its predecessors.
James M. Acton
{
"authors": [
"Josh Kurlantzick",
"Joshua Eisenman"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Sudan",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
In The Media
China's Africa Strategy
Published on May 1, 2006
Source: Current History
A decade ago, China’s influence in Africa was limited. Its aid programs were hardly significant, its diplomats relatively unskilled. And many Chinese were unsure about their country’s role as an international actor. In most international forums, China did little other than defend core interests, like the “one China” principle. Recently, however, continued strong economic growth, a more sophisticated generation of Chinese leaders, better scholarship in China on Africa, and a domestic population more confident in China as a global actor have encouraged Beijing to take a more proactive approach to foreign affairs.
Beijing’s motives are clear. China’s growing industries demand new energy and raw material suppliers; its exporters want markets; its diplomats require support in international organizations; and its propaganda still seeks support from allies to advance Chinese interests and, when necessary, to counter the United States.
For the full text of this article, please click on the link to the right.
This article originally appeared in Current History, May 2006.
About the Authors
Josh Kurlantzick
Former Visiting Scholar, China Program
A special correspondent for The New Republic, a columnist for Time, and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, Kurlantzick assesses China’s relationship with the developing world, including Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Joshua Eisenman
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the Past
- Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?Commentary
The United States and Israel may have unwittingly revived the Islamic Republic’s “zombie regime.”
Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
- The Overlooked Link Between Disaster Response at Home and U.S. Power AbroadCommentary
Natural disasters are no longer local incidents but sources of systemic risk that threaten vital infrastructure and the economy—and public support for international engagement.
Leonardo Martinez-Diaz
- Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?Commentary
When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- How to Ensure That Europe-Russia Talks Do Not FailCommentary
Reestablishing a dialogue with Moscow is not a goal in its own right. The goal is to guarantee the independence of Ukraine and the peace and security of Europe.
Arkady Moshes
