China-Africa relations
Is the press choosing to wear blinkers?
Kizito Sikuka
The 21st century has witnessed growing economic relations between China and Africa, with
the Asian nation emerging as Africa’s leading trading partner. For example, trade between
Africa and China has increased exponentially over the past decade, rising from about US$10
billion in 2000 to more than US$160 billion in 2011, according to the Chinese Ministry of
Commerce. Political cooperation has also been strengthened with the two establishing a
formidable partnership that is calling for the review of the United Nations Security Council,
as well as the reform of world affairs that tend to be biased towards a few selected
countries at the expense of the majority.
However, this blooming relationship between China and Africa continues to receive its own
share of negative attention from the media. As Chinese Vice-Minister of Information, Wang
Guoqing once said at a media seminar for African journalists in Beijing, China in 2012: “We
know that there are some people who do not like our relationship. These people often try
hard to demonize the relationship.”
True to his assessment, China-Africa relations have to an extent received a lot of
mispresentation in the media, with the press being either for or against the partnership. A
snap analysis of the media coverage of China-Africa relations shows that the private media,
and in most cases the western press often portrays China’s increased presence and
engagement with Africa as prowling the resource-rich African continent.
Some of the key words used by the independent and private owned press to describe the
China-Africa relationship include “neo-colonialism, propping up of dictators and a new
scramble for Africa.”On the other hand, the government controlled press generally views
the relationship as the “best thing” to ever happen for Africa. For example, the government
press see the relationship as a “strategic partnership, a model for other partnerships to
emulate, and a friendship based on mutual trust and respect.”
But given the growing relations between China-Africa over the past years, it puzzles my
mind as to why the press has chosen to wear blinkers in its coverage of China-Africa yet
other relations such as Africa-Europe, Africa-America or China-Europe have never come
under intense scrutiny or have been grossly misrepresented by the media.Worse still, this
misrepresentation is happening at a time when China-Africa relations are now “too big for
anyone to ignore or even misrepresent”.
Various reasons have been identified by experts on why the media is choosing to wear
blinkers in its coverage of China-Africa relations, and not provide a balanced and factual
coverage of the partnership. “It could be by accident because of lack of knowledge,” Li
Anshan, a professor at the Center for African Studies, Peking University wrote in one of his
papers on China-Africa, adding that it could also be intentional to achieve certain goals.For
example, the public press usually glorifies the relationship to ensure that it is accepted by
all, while the private media generally demonizes the partnership in order to destabilize it.
Since most media in Africa operate along political lines, this may help to explain why the
private and pubic press has chosen to wear blinkers in their reporting on China-Africa
relations. A number of private papers in Africa usually regard themselves as watchdogs of
government, and therefore, tend to be sensitive to anything that the government may
vigorously support such as its relationship with China such that they refuse to see dew
where there is dew. On the other hand, most African governments control the public media,
hence the reason why the public press is more open to China-Africa relations, and provide
more positive coverage in an attempt to forge closer links and counter any criticism levelled
against the partnership.
Another reason for the varying coverage is that developed countries fear that increased
partnership between China and Africa will allow the two to develop strategic alliances that
may pose serious threats to their control of the global socio-economic dominance. During
his confirmation hearing in the United States Senate in January, Secretary of State John
Kerry seemed to validate these fears when he said “China is all over Africa,” adding that “we
have to be prepared because I think what we (US) bring to the table is frankly a lot more
attractive than what a lot of other countriesbring to the table.” He likened the competition
between China and the US for influence in Africa to a “game,” predicting that the US will
“win” the game. In this regard, this comparison helps to advance the “new scramble for
Africa” narrative and may also explain why the private press and the western press have
taken a stance to criticise and belittle the China-Africa relationship.
In order to address such representations regarding the China-Africa relationship, there is a
need to deal with the identified challenges. For instance, there should be more media
exchanges between the China and Africa. Such interactions and collaboration will help the
two to tell their true stories to the rest of the world. Currently, Africa mostly gets its news
about China from the western media while the same could be said about China getting its
news about Africa from western sources. This situation where China and Africa get news
about each other from third parties is not conducive as the news may be exposed to
manipulation.
It is also important to engage the western mediain the exchanges to ensure that it
appreciates the China-Africa relationship just like any other partnership. On the other hand,
the private and public press should also be objective in their reporting on China-Africa and
not see the partnership from one particular angle. Just like any other partnership,the ChinaAfrica relations is both good and bad, and as such the media must not choose to wear
blinkers and report on the good or bad things alone but should with supported facts and
arguments present the good and bad. That way, the story on China-Africa relations would
be balanced and factual.
(983 words)