Freedom is a Global Struggle:

9 min readJan 23, 2021

Fighting Sinocentric Perspectives on Copper Colonialism in Zambia — A Critical Response to: “The Political Economy of China’s Outward Direct Investments”

Mark Godges 高勉正

1.9.21

This essay will examine the legitimacy of Dr. Shi Weiyi’s dissertation for the University of California, San Diego, titled “The Political Economy of China’s Outward Direct Investments”. In this article, Dr. Shi seemed to be providing a nuanced perspective on China and Zambia’s relationship, particularly regarding their copper mines. On the other hand, by not including the whole truth, there is academic neglect of abuses towards the environment and human rights. If economic developments are implemented by a government which demands its employees to see human rights as a “western idea” meant to “separate the Chinese state”, then one can understand Dr. Shi’s claims. In her dissertation, she says that human rights and environmental concerns are “greatly exaggerated”. Therefore, this paper is a response to her dissertation, matching the primary claims she makes that are especially egregious with a more balanced perspective.

Dr. Shi claims, “My research yields the following main observations: First, Chinese investments do generate local employment, and at a rate no worse than other foreign investments. Chinese SOEs’ state backing and commitment to state goals can even make them a more stable source of growth and employment compared to western MNCs. Second, Chinese firms’ poor labor and environmental practices are likely exaggerated. Even in the extractive sector in Zambia where Chinese firms have been heavily criticized, a systematic survey of the labor force finds that Chinese firms exhibit no worse labor standards compared to their western counterparts” (Shi, 171). The idea that American corporate abuse is the standard by which America, China, or the world should be held to is an insult to the entire American nation. This response paper counters Dr. Shi’s points in pointing out that 1. Chinese investments are indeed unable to generate substantial manufacturing employment, 2. that Chinese investors’ environmental and human rights standards are low by the standard of decency, 3. that they engage in bribery, and 4. that Chinese investment upholds and encourages authoritarianism in Zambia.

In reading Dr. Shi’s claims that Chinese investments provide substantial/stable manufacturing employment, we should first define “substantial” and “stable”. Dr. Shi provides no evidence to the wages that workers are paid being sufficient to live in Zambia in comparison to rent, utility and food prices. “In this chapter the case of Zambia demonstrates that Chinese investments are able to generate substantial manufacturing employment even in an economy highly dependent on its copper sector. Furthermore, because Chinese state-owned firms are delegated state objectives and given preferential financial support, they are better able to weather economic cycles and provide more stable opportunities of employment.” (Shi, 211) When Dr. Shi explains that Chinese firms are better able to weather economic storms due to continuous state funding, she does not specify whether this can benefit the majority of the employees at the company, or simply the company’s stock profile. Some would argue that “stable” employment is defined by a non-temporary job which includes protections from wage theft or abuse and includes safe working conditions. If so, then Dr. Shi does not specify methods used to indicate success or failure. When further analyzing claims such as “stable opportunities for employment”, it is critical we analyze and agree on what “stable” is.

Tang Xiaoyang explores this concept in University of Florida’s “African Studies Quarterly”, saying “When NFCA bought Chambishi mine in 1998, it had been closed for thirteen years. The reconstruction of the mine cost the company $160 million, and all the employees were newly recruited. In contrast, the Swiss-owned Mopani and Indian-owned KCM bought mines that were already in operation with established salaries in place. To recoup the huge investment in infrastructure and training, NFCA initially paid considerably lower salaries than other mines. Yet, an annual increase was granted.” (Tang, 113) Tang implies here that in the case of Chinese copper mines companies move into areas where there is already a growing local industry of the same product or service. When this happens in any region or industry the general consensus is that the smaller local businesses will be displaced and people in the local area will lose their jobs as the industry is absorbed by the invading multinational corporation. Something fairly noticeable in Dr. Shi’s analysis, and in the defense of Chinese multinational enterprises as a whole, is a tendency to make comparisons to western corporations. If American and Western European corporations are the bar that Chinese corporations are using, then everyone is in trouble.

Regardless of if Chinese labor and environmental standards are higher or lower than the west, if they are still rife with human rights abuse then it is a meaningless hypothesis. This sort of thought process is evidenced by one of the four major arguments Dr. Shi seeks to make, saying, “…the case of Zambia demonstrates that Chinese investors do not exhibit significantly worse labor and environmental standards than MNCs from other countries, and further that Chinese firms have shown improvement in recent years.” (Shi, 212)

Since progressive thinking is not popular in elitist academic circles, it is crucial to analyze why this thinking is flawed. Multinational enterprises, both Chinese and Western, are collaborating to influence global governance to uphold extractive capitalism. The pollution, poverty, and slavery caused by this sort of thinking is the problem in itself, not whether one is worse than the other. Dr. Shi is right, but should those standards on their own be the standards any company is held to? Multinational Enterprises of all nations exploit foreign countries’ labor and ecosystems for impermanent employment while leaving persistent poverty. We should still ask if this is a strategy China wants to follow as well, and it is worth pointing out that this is not a subject Dr. Shi even chooses to explore.

Dr. Chama in Human Rights Brief further examines the idea of “sustainable employment”, saying “Another critical voice of foreign investor involvement in the Zambian mining industry has been the Bench Marks Foundation (BMF), an independent watchdog monitoring global corporate responsibility. In its 2008 report, BMF reported that most Zambian citizens still lived in extreme poverty despite the growth of the domestic mining industry and the economy. The foundation’s main claims were that mining companies have exploited many Zambian workers with wages below the mines standard for permanent workers….” (Chama, 3) Dr. Chama’s analysis here further clarifies the need to explore permanent vs. non-permanent worker ratios of Chinese and Zambian citizens, as well as the number of recruited workers vs. the number of previous copper workers displaced by any given project. Neocolonialism thrives on omitting these details. Even if Chinese Multinational Enterprises are slightly less exploitative, if Western corporations are the standard, that is still shameful.

Many would find Dr. Shi’s claim that there is no documented bribery from Chinese multinational enterprises towards Zambian officials is extremely amusing, because transnational bribery schemes are typically not things that are documented. Dr. Shi’s levity and confidence in her view is evidenced when she says, “It is possible that their penchant for bribing may have cultivated a targeted demand for bribes by local bureaucrats. As such, the concern that Chinese MNCs are outcompeting western MNCs by engaging in corrupt transactions may be overblown. In addition, targeted demand for bribery likely has limited impact on the overall level of bureaucratic corruption in these countries.” (Shi, 213) one would have to ask Dr. Shi what she means by this, but it appears he once again fell into the comparison trap. Bribing officials to extract resources is a bad look, no matter who does it. The bulk of this paper engaged in comparing numbers of companies rather than if and why protections for workers and local communities are limited. Therefore, it is not as easy as it should be to thoroughly engage in the effect corruption has on human lives, regardless of where it comes from. This considered, Zambia reports has created an investigative profile into what is going on, to which they have said that “Mines Minister Christopher Yaluma and Copperbelt Minister Mwenya Musenge have been linked to a US$2 million mining scandal on the Copperbelt that has seen increased pollution after the displacement of original prospecting licence owners. According to impeccable sources and documents obtained, the two government officials have also allegedly been offered an undisclosed monthly stipend by Chinese ‘investors’ on the Copperbelt.” (Sakala, 1)

If authors of dissertations such as Dr. Shi’s do not engage critically to question motivations of multinational enterprises from any location to barge in and extract Africa’s resources, the reader should be concerned. The Lusaka times continues to elaborate on this pattern, saying “China Copper Mines, the firm at the centre of a corruption scandal involving a mine on the Copperbelt has written to the Anti-Corruption (ACC) to dismiss allegations against Copperbelt Minister Mwenya Musenge and former mines minister Christopher Yaluma who were accused of receiving US$2 million bribe to facilitate an illegal mine takeover.” (Lusaka Times, 1) It is worth noting that typically people innocent of crimes will not write to agencies tasked with prosecution to drop cases. One would usually question why China is involving itself with the sovereign legality of Zambia. By not examining deeper motivations, Dr. Shi is granting that meddling in Zambia’s internal affairs is to be expected. From an objective standpoint this diminishes the power and thoroughness of the lens that her paper is written from.

When countries engage in investment behavior without understanding the political economy of the country they are in, there will likely be unintended consequences. Dr. Shi explains that “…..(Chinese) SOEs’ commitment to state goals and their ample access to financial support from China allow them to function in the face of political and policy uncertainties while adhering to China’s diplomatic stance of non-interference. The fear is likely overblown that MNCs from an autocracy like China are bound to compromise the political sovereignty of host countries.” (Shi, 171–172) In a formal or direct sense she may be right, but a scholarly consensus has been reached across institutions that she is also wrong. Tensions that have arisen between Chinese managers and the Zambian copper workforce have a clear link to the appeal of populist or authoritarian leaders, specifically in the case of the Patriotic Front.

Yatuta Sikazwe explores the connection between labor abuse and populist politics in the paper “Playing the Blame Game: Enforcing and Monitoring Standards in Zambian mines”, saying “Two prominent incidents have heavily shaped Zambians’ perception of Chinese FDI. The first occurred in 2005, when over 50 workers were killed at a Chinese explosives manufacturing plant. These Zambian workers died at the Beijing General Research Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (BGRIMM), an explosives manufacturing plant connected to the Chambishi Mine, in an accident that was publicised around the continent and beyond…In another incident, in 2006, protests regarding wages and working conditions in Chinese owned mines became violent, and Zambian workers were shot while protesting at the living quarters of Chinese managers…..Subsequently, 2010, Chinese managers at Collum Coal Mine in Sinazongwe again opened fire on protesting workers.” (Sikazwe, 79) The Patriotic Front, and especially its leader Mr. Sata used these events to fuel a meteoric rise of an obscure opposition party. Sikazwe continues on the next page, saying that “The PF was a key actor in fostering anti-Chinese sentiment in Zambian urban areas, and aimed to capitalize on it in national elections. Not only did Sata’s PF record significant wins in the 2006, 2008 and 2011 parliamentary elections in these areas, but there has also been violence directed at Chinese managers by Zambian workers, seemingly as a result of the growing sentiment” (Sikazwe, 80) Most likely Chinese oligarchs were not directly funding the campaigns of Zambian authoritarian leaders. However, that does not mean the refusal to build stronger and more trusting community ties in a country that was not theirs did not fuel their rise.

In summation, Dr. Shi’s dissertation is largely if not completely true, but there are many truths and points of analysis she refused to even recognize as important. If an author analyzes how many jobs a foreign company creates, they should also analyze the impact of that company on local pollution, displaced previous workers, and amount of permanent or semi-permanent good paying jobs that are created. If an author analyzes whether Chinese firms are up to the labor or human rights and environmental standards of American firms, they should also analyze whether that is a good standard in accordance to the United Nations. If an author claims there is no documented bribery without including pending investigations or documented bribery evidence within the same region, a reader should question the author’s motives. If an author claims that multinational enterprises, whether private or SOE’s do not directly and blatantly impact local politics, they should also analyze the indirect effects of cultural differences being exacerbated by their very presence and refusal to acclimate to local business and cultural norms. Anything else is lazy journalism and scholarship, even if the included information is accurate. To conclude, scholarly analysis should not ask whether Chinese resource exploitation is more benevolent than that of the west, but whether extractive capitalism is a sustainable path for humanity to begin with.

References:

Freedom is a Global Struggle:

Written by Mark Godges 高勉正