A provocative argument made recently by Lamido Sanusi, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, has attracted widespread attention. In his commentary, "Africa Must Get Real about Its Romance with China," published on the March 11 web edition of the Financial Times, he argued that Sino-African relationships bear a certain similarity to colonialism.

In response to this, Li Anshan, Director of the Center for African Studies at Peking University, and Mei Xinyu, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the Ministry of Commerce, shared their views on Sanusi's commentary with ChinAfrica. They maintain that, in a diversified world, debates lead to objective conclusions, and that China's trade ties with Africa ought to be judged impartially. Excerpts of their opinions follow:

Li Anshan

Sanusi expresses many views in his article, some of which are relatively rational. He points out problems arising from Sino-African relations and offers possible solutions. "We cannot blame the Chinese, or any other foreign power, for our country's problems," he writes. I think this self-reflective statement demonstrates an objective understanding of the relation between African countries' external and internal affairs. He proposes that China's engagement must allow China to make money while developing the continent, which is wise and in line with China's win-win policies. It is true that China is a partner as well as a competitor.

In terms of solutions, he suggests that African countries should introduce incentives to set up manufacturing on African soil and policies to ensure employment of Africans, as well as to boost domestic markets in African countries. Isn't this the same approach taken by China when it introduces foreign investments?

However, I don't agree with Sanusi's more radical views on what China's engagement in Africa has caused. Sanusi writes, "China takes our primary goods and sells us manufactured ones. This was also the essence of colonialism," and "Africa is now willingly opening itself up to a new form of imperialism."

In our diversified world, differing viewpoints often help us better understand issues. By debating, a relatively objective conclusion can be reached. Admittedly, China's engagement in Africa has caused problems, as Sanusi points out. But the Chinese Government has recognized these problems and is making an effort to solve them. When evaluating China-Africa relations, extreme thinking should be avoided. We should neither idealize, nor demonize China's involvement in Africa.

Sanusi's article warns China that Africans are now aware that Sino-African relations have changed in many respects from when Mao Zedong was the chairman. How have they changed? Why have they changed? What do these changes mean to both parties? How will they impact China's international strategy? How can China and Africa cooperate in a way that is more mutually beneficial? Scholars and governments must think deeply about all of these questions.

Mei Xinyu

In his commentary, Sanusi overemphasizes competition and confrontation in economic and trade relations between China and Africa. He repeatedly uses harsh words like "colonialism." His statements are not in line with reality, and are not conducive to the development of effective economic strategies by African countries, and will put them in a disadvantageous position in international economic negotiations.

Sanusi's first erroneous argument is that China's economic relations with Africa are, in essence, colonialism. Selling manufactured goods and buying primary ones does not equal colonialism. Besides, China never implements gunboat diplomacy to African countries.

China is now the world's largest manufacturing powerhouse. Looking at the nation's trade balance with almost all its trade partners reveals that China exports more manufactured goods and imports more primary ones. The same trend holds true even for China's trade with powers like the United States, Russia, Canada and Australia. According to Sanusi's logic, China is colonizing the United States, Russia, Canada and Australia, and the United States suffers under the most severe oppression among China's trade partners, as China exports more manufactured goods to the United States than to any other nation. What a ridiculous conclusion!

Economic laws suggest that manufacturing and modern service industries will never develop to the same extent in every country at the same time. Manufacturing industries spearhead the economy in some countries, and modern service industries thrive in others, while some countries export primary goods to boost their economies.

Another erroneous argument in Sanusi's commentary is his complaint that Chinese enterprises in Africa use too much equipment and labor imported from home. In regard to equipment, I welcome Sanusi to give us examples of the U.S., European or Japanese companies in Africa using advanced African-made equipment. If African countries are capable of producing equipment that meets the technological specifications of these companies and is competitive in terms of price, quality and function, no foreign companies will import their equipment from abroad.

The complaint that Chinese enterprises are using too much labor imported from home is also unfounded. China actually only exports a small number of laborers. As China is currently struggling with a domestic labor shortage, the Chinese Government has no reason to encourage the exporting of manpower.