Power Plays and Balancing Acts: The Paradoxical Effects of Chinese Trade on African Foreign Policy Positions

Abstract

There has been substantial focus on China’s influence in Africa in recent years. Some argue that China’s growing economic ties with African states have increased its political influence across the continent. This article examines whether trade with China leads African states to adopt more similar foreign policy preferences to China in the United Nations. We examine foreign policy similarity using voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly and country statements in the United Nations General Debate. The analysis demonstrates that more trade with China has paradoxical effects on foreign policy positions of African states—it leads them to align more closely with US foreign policy positions in the United Nations, except on human rights votes. Our findings suggest that African states are engaged in balancing behavior with external powers whereby African elites seek to play off rival powers against one another in order to strengthen their own autonomy and maximize trade.

External threats and state support for arms control

“…Carter & Stone, 2014; Dreher & Jensen, 2013) and China (e.g. Carmody, Dasandi & Mikhaylov, 2019; Flores-Macías & Kreps, 2013). Accordingly, the analysis of support for arms control requires a different measurement technique.…”

“… 7 Similar approaches have been taken by scholars who assess the proximity to certain countries, such as pro versus contra the United States (e.g. Carter & Stone, 2014; Dreher & Jensen, 2013) or pro versus contra China (Carmody, Dasandi & Mikhaylov, 2019; Flores-Macías & Kreps, 2013). In these cases, the voting option taken by the United States or China, respectively, reflects the one extreme of their a priori defined conflict dimension. …”

Africa beyond ‘South‐South cooperation’: A frame with limited resonance

“…The ‘country‐to‐continent’ frames they promote are part of connectivity patterns that promote broad cross‐regional frameworks which, notably for China, are primarily directed at strengthening bilateral ties and cultivating soft power partnerships (Gieg, 2016; Kohlenberg & Godehardt, 2021). While African representatives have used FOCAC and other ‘X+Africa’ formats for their own—usually also bilateral—purposes (Soulé, 2020; see Carmody et al, 2019; Large, 2021), the political and economic dominance of partners like India and particularly China means that cross‐regional engagement mostly unfolds in hierarchical terms. A comparative view on China and its African interlocutors highlights obvious discrepancies in outlook and capacity that undermine any attempt at suggesting equal standing, including the ‘South’ as joint umbrella (Acharya, 2018; Cooper, 2021; see Waisbich et al, 2021).…”

Border Anxiety in International Discourse

“…See, for example,Owen (2017) and Abercrombie and Batista-Navarro (2020).3 For example, consider specialized agency transcripts on specific topics, such as nuclear nonproliferation(Barnum and Lo 2020), and organizations' press releases for bureaucratic agendas(Bayerlein et al 2022). 4 UNGA debates have been used to study resistance to global norms(Kentikelenis and Voeten 2021), political influence(Carmody et al 2020), preference socialization(Chelotti et al 2022), and diplomacy around conflict behavior(Pomeroy et al 2019). …”