The Scramble for Africa allowed European and Western countries to grab ahold of African capitol. The recourse extraction exhibited by European countries like Great Britain, piqued the interest of other power-hungry countries. In 1884, the Berlin Conference, also known as the “Congo Conference” occurred. The conference included Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Russia, United States, and other Westernized countries, to establish boundaries of what was open or neutral territories. These countries negotiated to establish boundaries for open and neutral territories (elaborate… for what? What were these territories). In my opinion, t this conference initiated the Scramble for Africa, which has resulted in periodic competition over nations and national recourses across the African continent. Most recently, the Scramble has been seen through China and the United States investing into African countries for similar or separate gains, while the implications are comparable to the colonial Scramble for Africa.
At the moment, China is investing and supporting African infrastructure. China has been able to capitalize on the pattern of Africa’s inability upgrade and renovate their infrastructure systems, striking competition between models of investment between the two powers. A surprise to no one, the United States is not coming in with quick solutions matching China capitalism. The reason lies within valued-based models. The US focuses on private-sector partner investing, while promoting entrepreneurship, and independence from government dependency. Maintaining an emphasis on education, health, and democracy rather than infrastructure. China is heavily government influenced, as they view African investment as a power and resource opportunity. They are willing to throw in political and economic capital along with providing equipment to build infrastructure, resulting in a heightened sense of competitions between the nations.
The possible implications to this competition are concerns for African people, loss of nationalization, and increased instability. The African people are being mulled over like they did on the colonial era of competition. I argue that Africans have lost their voice in this competition and their role is minimized as a result of the outcome. The common African can be viewed as a bystander, while the African political leaders are conflicted on where they stand in this modern scramble. These leaders are signing unprotected contracts which hurt their control of resources. Contracts in Kenya are being signed that 70% of the labor is going to be Chinese, the production is Chinese, and the profit margin is held by the Chinese. The African nationalization is minimized to what is permitted in negotiations. There is nothing for African leaders to fall back on; the stability is lost because China is a crutch for possible prosperity amongst regions. This is where the United States could take a different approach to reduce these implications to African populations. The United States should focus on investing the African people and not infrastructure.
The battle between these two powerhouses weakens the vulnerable state of African countries. The United States model cannot be viewed as a slow return for financial gain, but rather an investment of people, democracy, and education to increase prosperity for generations to come. It is said that when you put sugar down, ants will come. To translate: where you put money, people will come. China has the transactional accessibility to attract stakeholders to the table but hopefully the United States, amongst others, can create attractive long-run benefits as the modern scramble continues.