I work in the socio-political and economic space in dealing with BRICS and other frontier and emerging markets' engagement in Africa. My focus is on large commercial and industrial deals, especially high-level dialogue, as well as small-and-medium trading initiatives … in all, capturing the opportunity and growth story that is Africa today. I find I have to constantly defend the fundamentals that underpin the Chinese deals, their trade and political interactions. Yet as I am by no means an apologist, I do however want to briefly untangle just a modicum of the blatantly false and baseless arguments against the Chinese in Africa. This debate would require a book in itself, and there is no better one than the acclaimed Professor Brautigam's The Dragon's Gift in which expertly and stoically debunks the many myths so liberally and limply salted with hot-blooded ire by the masses against the emerging giant.  

One can most certainly empathize and understand the anger at losing one's job, and the ensuing blame game that follows. There is a need to vent on to some wrongdoer. Yet don't be so quick to blame the Chinese, instead blame neoclassic economics, the sort that flourished in the modern era under free trade policies, open markets, and most of all, comparative advantages.

The sorts of comparative advantage that insist you shift your productive efforts into those sectors and industrious exploits where you retain a competitive edge. Unfortunately, beyond resources – natural to hard and soft commodities – South Africa cannot hope to compete with the emerging giant economies like China. We have already lost our textile base because of basic trade advantages. The Asian emerging "factory of the world" economies simply have a low-cost and skilled production process, which is unrivalled, in cost, speed and efficiency.

The fact that really bites and hurts us is the double-edged sword of this comparative advantage trade flow. Consumers like cheap goods, the poor suddenly have access to previously unaffordable basics and absolute necessities (this single fact has been a true godsend in Africa), and the non-Gucci shopper can enjoy more disposable income via cheaper gadgets and apparel. Manufacturers like cheap goods as an intermediary or final product in the processing chain; it is the key ingredient of profitability and shareholder happiness.

That is to say, cheap goods are fine if they are of decent quality, and the Chinese have come leaps and bounds from the old days (a mere decade ago) where their goods were tainted as cheap but of substandard quality. Today I hear from managers in tech to construction and engineering industries that the equipment and goods they source from China compares and competes with the best.

Yet in all this, "Proudly South African" is forgotten. Where is the balance in rather spending more, but supporting the local manufacturing sectors, even if that means cutting back and facing frugal spending?

South Africa cannot afford a trade war, which is inevitable if it would bring back inhibiting import quotas and tariffs. And if we decided to become protectionist by complimenting policy with strong subsidies for specific sectors, then again we risk WTO sanctions. This is in large part a moot point, because unlike China's stockpile of $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves (almost 10-times that of South Africa's entire GDP), South Africa doesn't have the fiscal ability to afford subsidies for sectors where we simply cannot compete on a comparative trade advantage. Already, as a means of supporting Africa's least-developed countries' enterprises, China has implemented duty-free access into its market for near 600 exportable products (mostly industrial goods) from these African countries. Yet far more homegrown incentives are needed.

South Africa does however have a state that can man-up and look toward utilizing taxation and loosening other forms of targeted legislation with the specific purpose of spurring industrial growth. 

South African Deputy President Motlanthe's statement during his China trip a couple of weeks ago could very well be read as a harbinger of a State Development story to come … in the domestic sphere that is. Commenting on the role of a need for strong leadership in Africa, he said, "The state has to play a leading role in reshaping the economy so that it is better able to meet the needs of our people, particularly the working class, as well as the urban and the rural poor." Arguably, if China could teach us anything, it is in its excellent and enabling management of their state-owned enterprises, which has not only been the pillar of outward growth, but has successfully supported the creation of a fiercely competitive and robust private sector.

Economists in this country widely believe and proclaim that it is time to avert our gaze from Panda-bashing, and instead start talking about how to fix our own internal broken labor laws and bureaucratic "black holes," and address the dire lack of artisanal and technical skills training.

I have been in dialogue with African businessmen and eminent African scholars, and it struck me as positively refreshing to hear how often the following sentiment is raised, "South African labor needs a change in their working culture, a reshaped mindset, one that shifts away from pure means of entitlement toward one of productive rewards – where disciplined hard work is rewarded via productivity, and not hand outs."

The other key arguments that debases the claims of blaming the Chinese is that as much as there are indiscretions on the ground and imbalances in the trade and commercial engagement story, the New Scramble for Africa, as led by the Chinese, and the way in which they approach African nations (with business-first ethics and without, or shall we say relatively limited domestic interference), has opened the floodgates to many new opportunities.

On the tailcoats of China's rampant drive, India (especially) has followed suit closely, Brazil and Russia too, and increasingly the Turkish and South Koreans are aggressively vying for a foothold. The emerging players in Africa are offering not only a direct challenge to the traditional partners, but they are offering a wider pool of financing, opening up previously untapped resource projects, and most importantly, allowing for a new dialogue toward bargaining for commercial favor. This "arbitrage" process (perfectly akin to open market dynamics) is creating a convergence toward "better" practices on the ground.

With the likes of Zambia's new populous (outwardly anti-Chinese) President Michael Sata, we are seeing African stakeholders waking to the realization that they now have in their hands the power to gain more beneficial terms of trade and commercial outcomes with the BRICS and Beyond emerging players - from use of local labor, domestic contractors and reinvested capital for positive local skills and technical feedback.

Charlie Pistorius is schooled in applied mathematics, finance, economics and history. He works for Frontier Advisory (Pty) Ltd - a leading capital advisory and research firm specialising in emerging markets