The foreign policy of the United States (US) is undergoing a transition of sorts. Plagued by domestic issues, economic constraints, and various public policy challenges, the US has been forced to evolve its foreign policy to be more efficient, focused, and strategically dynamic.

This paper examines the multidimensional nature of US foreign policy with specific attention being given to the US foreign policy ‘pivot to Asia’ and what it means for Africa. In particular, the focus is on the growing tensions with China and the geopolitical effects of such tensions in Africa. However, while both countries claim to promote socio-economic development and mutually beneficial trade structures in Africa, US and Chinese interests on the continent are considerably more complex. Both China and the US are major players in Africa and maintain a number of strategic economic and security interests in the region, but a maturing US foreign policy has wider implications for Africa.

Pivot to Asia

Since as early as 2009, the US has focused on furthering diplomatic relations with East Asian and Southeast Asian nations. The so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ in US foreign policy contains a range of political, social, economic and security-related dimensions. It involves an all-encompassing strategy rooted in maximising influence in the region and thus securing opportunities for further economic gain. As Hilary Clinton noted, the development of the Asia-Pacific region is vital to the economic and strategic interests of the United States.⁽²⁾ With half of the world’s population and an expanding middle-consumer class, the region – with China as the most dominant player – is quickly transforming into the leading global economic centre.⁽³⁾ In this regard, the Asia-Pacific region offers bountiful opportunities for trade, investment, and access to technologies, and if capitalised upon, is thus likely to play a greater role in the well-being of the US economy.

What is important here is an apparent paradigm shift that highlights the departure from hawk-like military-security policy centred on the Middle East, to an economic-based policy that focuses on diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region. While US involvement in the Gulf region during the last 25 years did involve economic considerations (primarily resource-based), there has been a greater emphasis on national security interests and humanitarian obligations. As such, the pivot to Asia and change in rhetoric is necessarily important for two reasons. First, it is politically significant in appeasing the prevalence of war-fatigue of the domestic audience. Second, it is essential to pursue an economic-driven approach in order to repair the economic troubles that surfaced as a consequence of the foreign policies of previous administrations. However, the repositioning of US foreign policy comes with a particular set of challenges and involves much more than is apparent. It requires 1) continued military involvement for ensuring stability in a sometimes volatile region and 2) extensive efforts to counter-balance the rising influence of China. Thus, deterring aggression and conflict with increased military presence must be carefully balanced with strategic engagement that is dedicated to fully integrating China and other major developing players into existing international institutions and discouraging them from challenging the norms of the international community.⁽⁴⁾

A number of cautions have been expressed in relation to America’s Pacific shift, though. Harvard professor Robert Ross is concerned that US foreign policy “unnecessarily compounds Beijing’s insecurities and will only feed China’s aggressiveness, undermine regional stability, and decrease the possibility of cooperation between Beijing and Washington,”⁽⁵⁾ meaning: greater US involvement in the Asia-Pacific region may be counter-productive and may in fact harm US interests. Further, redirecting US military and diplomatic resources away from existing responsibilities throughout the Middle East to the Pacific seems premature.⁽⁶⁾ For example, the Syrian civil war, Iran’s nuclear programme, tensions in Israel, instability in Egypt, and the ongoing struggle with the Taliban and al-Qaeda demand greater attention and arguably have more significance than China and the Pacific from a security perspective.

Shift to Africa

However, what is being witnessed with the ‘pivot to Asia’ is a subtle fracturing of US foreign policy, in that a pivot to Asia, in turn, must result in a shift to Africa as well. The security dynamic in East Asia has two layers; one consists of regional actors pursuing their own interests, and the second consists of “global influences which are propelling China into a geopolitical contest against the United States.”⁽⁷⁾ The US’ rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region poses certain impediments to China’s strategic advancement in the region.⁽⁸⁾ Not only have tensions over the status of Taiwan and the applicability of international law to the region sparked a geopolitical contest between the US and China in the region, but territorial disputes between China and its smaller neighbours have left many Asian nations eager for US protection against local threats - which is why the US has been able to forge such successful alliances in Asia.⁽⁹⁾

There is no danger of the US being driven out of East Asia, and in response, China is shifting its attention to South Asia, the Middle East and Africa in order to expand its political and strategic arenas of influence.⁽¹⁰⁾ These regions are particularly important to China because of dormant or declining US involvement, and it is in Africa especially that China is moving beyond the pursuit of economic benefits and is looking to increase and reinforce its strategic presence through political and diplomatic means.⁽¹¹⁾ As reported in a recent publication by the Brookings Institution titled ‘Top Five Reasons Why Africa Should Be a Priority for the United States’, “The failure to perceive and prepare for China’s moves would be dangerous, unwise and potentially detrimental for the United States in the near future.”⁽¹²⁾

Thus, the US foreign policy on Asia on the one hand necessitates a presence in the region, and on the other hand, necessitates measures to counter or balance the rising influence of China in other key areas, like Africa. The greater the economic and, by extension, the ideological or political influence China maintains in Africa, the more strategically important it becomes for US foreign policy to reflect the need for increased involvement on the continent. “Seven out of the world's 10 fastest growing economies are African” and in the first decade of the 21st century, the rate of return on foreign investments in Africa was higher than in any other region.⁽¹³⁾ And Africa’s biggest economies have grown faster than their Asian counterparts in recent years.⁽¹⁴⁾ China has been quick to capitalise on the opportunities and boasts US$ 198.5 billion in trade volume for 2012, compared to US$ 108.9 billion from US-Africa trade volume.⁽¹⁵⁾ Despite trailing the US in overall value of aid and foreign direct investment (FDI), China maintains the highest relative growth rate of inward FDI to Africa. Observers point out that the American involvement in the Middle East has allowed China to work at establishing trade and investment relations across Africa.

While President Obama,⁽¹⁶⁾ and countless others before him,⁽¹⁷⁾ have denied that America feels threatened by China’s growing influence on the continent, commentators propose that a new Cold War with China over Africa is slowly developing.⁽¹⁸⁾ Africa’s richness in natural resources is attractive and important for both the US and China in order to fuel continued growth, yet does not accurately reflect or describe the dynamics of Sino-Africa relations. Rather, “Beijing's ‘one-China’ policy continues to shape its African investments” where “aid is primarily a diplomatic tool.…part of a historical and diplomatic narrative, not simply a stratagem for snapping up Africa's resources.”⁽¹⁹⁾ Further, only 29% of China’s FDI to Africa in 2009 went towards the extractive industry, in contrast to 60% of American FDI.⁽²⁰⁾

As such, China’s approach to Africa is much less one-dimensional and less focused primarily on resource control. World Bank Economic Adviser, Harry Broadman, explains: “there is far more than oil that is being invested in — and this is an important opportunity for Africa's growth and reduction of poverty because Africa's trade for many years has been concentrated in primary commodities and natural resources.”⁽²¹⁾

China’s desire for mutual diplomatic relations and greater political influence in Africa – despite a policy of ‘non-intervention’ – potentially threaten US interests in the region. China’s policy of non-intervention – in which it does not impose political preconditions or intervene in the internal politics of nations – has proved to be more inviting to African nations reluctant of US involvement. As indicated in Figure 1 below, the scope of China’s presence on the continent is not limited by undemocratic regimes or instability. Thus, many African nations tend to view the Chinese as favourable investors, and as a result, prompted renewed US interest in creating more dynamic partnerships with African nations.⁽²²⁾

China and the US in AFrica

Figure 1: China FDI to Africa (2005)⁽²³⁾ Figure 2: US military operations in Africa (2012)⁽²⁴⁾

The US’ response to China’s dominance in Africa includes the establishment of trade and investment initiatives such as the Power Africa Initiative and the Trade Africa Initiative, yet has been primarily military-based through part of a ‘regionally aligned force concept’.⁽²⁵⁾ The concept is part of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) – founded in 2007 – and based on the new readiness model, which gives Army units greater time to familiarise themselves with regional cultures, to learn local languages and train for specific threats and missions.⁽²⁶⁾ Tours are set to continue in 2013, and reflect a post-modern evolvement of traditional military operations. Accordingly, by teaching military tactics, medicine and logistics, and fighting famine, disease and terrorism, US Army Africa will seek to further strengthen ties with regional militaries and governments.⁽²⁷⁾ Thus, the US military focus in Africa is not entirely centred on security, but broadly involves a number of social, cultural, and economic dimensions designed to further increase relations and consolidate American influence in the region. For example, Army doctors have replaced eye lenses of cataract patients and medical soldiers have distributed mosquito nets to protect locals from malaria, while Army chaplains teach Africans about dealing with post-traumatic stress and run family readiness groups.⁽²⁸⁾ As illustrated in Figure 2, the scope of US military involvement in Africa remains quite limited, however the impact has been quite substantial, and is expected to continue to increase over time. This is especially true given the rising influence of China in the region.

Concluding remarks

The ‘pivot to Asia’ in US foreign policy focuses on realigning strategic resources to the Asia-Pacific in order to secure economic opportunities for the future. By extension, the ‘pivot to Asia’ also includes a greater role for Americans in Africa. It represents the shifting dynamics in international relations and the increasing importance of proactive strategic positioning and economic resilience. As such, the refocus of American foreign policy seeks not only to protect economic and security interests, but also to counter-balance the growing influence of China and other Asian firms in Africa.

However, where China’s strategy in Africa has remained economic and top-down in nature, the US has chosen to pursue a bottom-up military approach to compliment their already dominant, yet increasingly challenged, economic position on the continent. While there exists a divergence of approaches between China and the US on how to best further their presence in Africa and protect their interests, what remains clear is the strategic importance of the continent. What remains less clear is the distinct role each power will adopt and which will best leverage its position for political and economic gain.

Written by Kyle Brown ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Kyle Brown is a consultant with CAI and a 'futurist in training' at the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies. His research interests are in futures, international development, and institutional design with a specific focus on Asia and Africa. Contact Kyle through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Asia Dimension Unit ( asia.dimension@coltuncyafrica.com). Edited by Nicky Berg.
(2) Clinton, H., ‘America’s pacific century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com.
(3) ‘World’s leading economic power’, PEW Research Global Attitudes Project, 18 July 2013, http://www.pewglobal.org.
(4) Friedberg, A., ‘Bucking Beijing: An alternative U.S.-China policy’, Foreign Affairs, 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com.
(5) Ross, R., The problem with the pivot: Obama’s new Asia policy is unnecessary and counterproductive’, Foreign Affairs, 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com.
(6) Etzioni, A., 2013. No pivot to Asia. The Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Diplomatist, 1(1), pp. 59-60.
(7) Mahadevan, P., ‘Strategic trends 2013: Developments in global affairs’, ETH Zurich, 2013, http://www.css.ethz.ch.
(8) Sun, Y., ‘Top five reasons why Africa should be a priority for the United States’, Africa Growth Initiative at Brookings, March 2013, http://www.brookings.edu.
(9) Mahadevan, P., ‘Strategic trends 2013: Developments in global affairs’, ETH Zurich, 2013, http://www.css.ethz.ch.
(10) Sun, Y., ‘Top five reasons why Africa should be a priority for the United States’, Africa Growth Initiative at Brookings, March 2013, http://www.brookings.edu.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Proctor, K., ‘China and Africa: What the US doesn’t understand. CNN Money, 2013, http://management.fortune.cnn.com.
(14) Brende, B., ‘Africa, the next Asia’, Huffington Post, 19 June, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
(15) Proctor, K., ‘China and Africa: What the US doesn’t understand’, CNN Money, 2 July 2013, http://management.fortune.cnn.com.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Shinn, D.H., ‘United States and China in Africa: Advancing the diplomatic agenda’, International Policy Digest, 14 November 2011, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org.
(18) Schneps, K. B., ‘The US-China cold war in Africa’, Institute for Security Studies, 21 August 2013, http://www.issafrica.org.
(19) Proctor, K., ‘China and Africa: What the US doesn’t understand’, CNN Money, 2 July 2013, http://management.fortune.cnn.com.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Broadman, H.G., ‘Africa's silk road: China and India's new economic frontier, The World Bank, 2011, http://siteresources.worldbank.org.
(22) Schneps, K.B., ‘The US-China cold war in Africa’, Institute for Security Studies, 21 August 2013, http://www.issafrica.org.
(23) Compiled by the author with data available at: ‘China in Africa: South Africa joins BRICs summit’, Global Sherpa, 26 April 2011, http://www.globalsherpa.org.
(24) Compiled by the author with data available at: Volkhonsky, B., ‘The U.S military expansion In Africa aimed at China’, Inform Africa, 29 June 2012, http://www.informafrica.com.
(25) Schneps, K.B., ‘The US-China cold war in Africa’, Institute for Security Studies, 21 August 2013, http://www.issafrica.org
(26) Ryan, J., ‘3,000 soldiers to serve in Africa next year’, Army Times, 18 June 2013, http://www.armytimes.com.
(27) Ibid.
(28) Ibid.