1- “Over the past few decades, China’s rapid economic growth and

expanding middle class have fueled an unprecedented need for resources. The
economic powerhouse has focused on securing the long-term energy supplies
needed to sustain its industrialization, searching for secure access to oil supplies
and other raw materials around the globe. As part of this effort, China has
turned to Africa”. (a) China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from
Western and African civil society over its business practices, as well as its
failure to promote good governance and human rights. Discuss.

(b) Realists and Liberals have significantly different views of how to

explain diplomacy in international relations. Discuss these theories'
assumptions and how they affect the way we think about the world,
and present your assessment of the validity of these positions?
 (a) China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and
African civil society over its business practices, as well as its failure
to promote good governance and human rights. Discuss.

According to Ademola, et al, (2009), there is no doubt that China has become Africa’s most
important economic partners, and their growing footprint on the continent is transforming
Africa’s international relations in a dramatic way. The West no longer enjoys a monopoly of
influence over Africa’s future development. These two emerging Asian economic
powerhouses actively court African countries through aid, expanded trade, and investment in
strategic sectors of African economies to leverage international politics, gain access to
growing markets and acquire much-needed raw materials from the continent.

China's engagement with Africa accelerated in the early 2000s. The Beijing Summit of
FOCAC in 2006 marked a turning point, as China pledged substantial financial assistance,
loans, and investments in Africa. This period saw a surge in Chinese infrastructure projects
and trade with African nations. In 2010s China's presence in Africa continued to expand
during this decade. It became Africa's largest trading partner, and Chinese companies were
involved in numerous infrastructure projects, including roads, railways, ports, and energy
facilities (Ademola, et al, 2009).

China's engagement in Africa has faced criticism from various quarters, including Western
governments, African civil society organizations, and international human rights groups. The
following are some key points to consider when discussing China's activity in Africa and
the criticisms it has faced:

Anshang, Li et al (2012) noted that the influx of cheap Chinese goods into African markets has
had mixed effects on local industries. While consumers benefit from lower prices, some
African businesses have struggled to compete, leading to job losses and the decline of
domestic industries. For example, African industries, especially those in manufacturing and
textiles, have often struggled to compete with the flood of cheap Chinese imports. This has
led to a decline in many domestic industries, job losses, and even business closures.
Furthermore, some Chinese products have been criticized for their quality and safety
standards. In some cases, substandard or unsafe goods have found their way into African
markets, posing risks to consumers. Critics also argue that the trade relationship between
China and African countries is often imbalanced, with African nations exporting primarily
raw materials and natural resources to China while importing manufactured goods. This can
contribute to trade deficits and hinder the development of local manufacturing capabilities.

Barnett (2020) asserts that China's engagement in Africa is often criticized for not sufficiently
promoting good governance, democracy, and human rights. Unlike some Western countries
and international organizations that tie aid and investment to governance and human rights
conditions, China tends to prioritize economic deals and non-interference in domestic affairs.
China's primary emphasis in its engagement with African countries has been on economic
cooperation, infrastructure development, and trade. According to Barnett (2020) while this
approach has led to significant investments in Africa's infrastructure and economic growth, it
often does not include explicit conditions related to good governance, democracy, or human
rights, which are priorities for many Western countries and international organizations.

According to Daniel (2015), China has been criticized for its business practices in Africa.
Some of the criticisms include the lack of transparency in agreements, allegations of
corruption, and concerns about environmental degradation due to resource extraction. Critics
argue that China's focus on securing access to resources has sometimes come at the expense
of local communities and sustainable development. The terms and conditions of these
agreements are sometimes not disclosed to the public or even to relevant government
officials. This lack of transparency can lead to suspicions of unfair deals and corruption.
There have also been allegations of corruption associated with some Chinese projects in
Africa. This includes claims of bribery, kickbacks, and other unethical practices that can
undermine governance and exacerbate corruption within African governments.

China's resource extraction activities in Africa have raised concerns about environmental
sustainability. There have been instances of environmental damage, including deforestation,
water pollution, and habitat destruction associated with some Chinese-led projects. Further,
the production of cheap goods in China often involves high energy consumption and
environmental pollution. This has raised concerns about the environmental impact of the
increased consumption of Chinese products in Africa (Benabdallah, 2020).

According to Benabdallah, 2020), some African countries have accumulated significant debt
to China due to infrastructure projects financed by Chinese loans. Concerns have been raised
about the sustainability of this debt and the potential for countries to become overly reliant on
Chinese financing. For example, many African countries have taken on substantial amounts
of debt from China to fund large-scale infrastructure projects, such as roads, railways, ports,
and energy facilities. The concern is whether these countries can effectively manage and
service this debt, particularly when economic conditions are unfavorable. Accumulating
excessive debt can lead to financial instability and economic crises. In addition to that, critics
have noted that overreliance on China for financing can create a situation where African
countries become heavily dependent on Chinese loans and investments. This dependency can
limit their ability to make independent policy decisions and may lead to unfavorable terms
and conditions in agreements with China (Benabdallah, 2020).

According to Blumenthal (2021), China's involvement in construction projects in Africa has

raised concerns about labor practices, including reports of low wages, poor working
conditions, and inadequate labor protections for African workers. Many reports indicate that
African workers on Chinese construction projects are often paid low wages, sometimes below
the minimum wage standards set by their respective countries. These low wages can make it
difficult for workers to support themselves and their families, contributing to poverty and
economic vulnerability. Also, Workers on some Chinese construction sites in Africa have
faced substandard working conditions. This may include inadequate safety measures, lack of
protective gear, long working hours, and exposure to harsh weather conditions. These
conditions can pose significant health and safety risks to workers.

Drummond (2014) shows that critics argue that China has not always engaged effectively with
local communities affected by its projects, leading to tensions and social conflicts in some
cases. It's important to note that China's engagement in Africa is not universally negative, and
there are African leaders and governments that view China as a valuable partner in terms of
infrastructure development and economic cooperation. However, the criticisms raised by
Western and African civil society organizations highlight the complex and multifaceted
nature of China's involvement in the continent and the need for a balanced and nuanced
assessment of its impacts.

Transparency in loan agreements and project details has been a concern. According to some
critics, some agreements between African countries and China have been criticized for their
lack of transparency, which can make it difficult for citizens to understand the full
implications of the debt and the terms of these agreements. If African countries are unable to
effectively manage their debt or if their economies underperform, they may face the risk of
debt distress, where they struggle to meet their debt obligations. This can lead to debt
restructuring or even debt default, with potentially severe economic and political
consequences( Drummond, 2014).

In conclusion, the criticism of China's engagement in Africa regarding good governance, democracy,
and human rights is rooted in the differing approaches taken by China and Western countries. While
China's focus on economic cooperation has led to significant investments and development in Africa,
concerns about governance and human rights persist. African governments and other stakeholders
must carefully navigate these dynamics to ensure that economic growth is accompanied by
improvements in governance and human rights, addressing the concerns raised by critics.

However, though China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and
African civil society over its business practices, as well as its failure to promote good
governance and human rights, it has registered various achievements which are
discussed below;

According to French (2014), China has become a major trading partner for Africa. Increased
trade with China has helped diversify African economies and provide markets for African
products, including raw materials and agricultural goods. This has played a significant role in
boosting economic growth in many African nations. Chinese investments, trade, and
infrastructure development have contributed to increased GDP and job creation. China has
also been a major source of financing for infrastructure projects in Africa, including roads,
railways, ports, and energy facilities. These projects have improved connectivity,
transportation, and access to basic services. Furthermore Chinese loans and investments have
provided African countries with access to much-needed capital for development projects.
This has allowed countries to undertake projects they might not have been able to fund
otherwise.

Gandhi (2019) indicate that China's investments in Africa have included infrastructure
development, resource extraction (such as oil, minerals, and agricultural products), and the
construction of roads, railways, and ports. These activities have contributed to economic
growth and job creation in some African countries. Economic Growth has come as a result of
infrastructural development and resource extraction projects which has contributed to access
to Capital among the Africans . this is because of China's willingness to provide financing for
large-scale infrastructure projects, often with favorable terms and fewer conditions compared
to traditional Western donors, has enabled African governments to access much-needed
capital for development.

Unlike Western donors and international financial institutions that often attach conditions
related to governance, human rights, and environmental standards to their aid and
investments, China tends to refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of African
countries. While this approach is appealing to some African governments, it has been
criticized for not encouraging good governance and human rights practices (Gasinska, 2019).

According to Gasinska (2019), today, Chinese companies are investing heavily in the much
neglected infrastructure sector of many African countries, from the construction of dams to
major transport and telecommunications projects, which are critical for raising productivity
and reducing poverty. These badly needed strategic investments have helped many African
countries to register impressive growth rates for the first time in many decades. The Chinese
are filling this critical infrastructure gap and they are doing it cheaply, less bureaucratically
and Introduction in a shorter time frame. The positive growth rates have been further fuelled
by China’s demand for African resources to feed the appetites of their respective growing
economies. Indeed, China has emerged as Africa’s second- largest trading partner (after the
USA), and is currently the biggest lender to, and investor in, infrastructural development on
the continent.

Conclusively, China's investments in Africa have had both positive and negative
consequences, and their impact varies depending on the specific projects, host countries, and
how effectively they are managed and regulated. While these investments have contributed to
economic growth and job creation in some African nations, they also raise important
questions about debt sustainability, environmental stewardship, labor practices, and
governance. It's crucial for African governments and their international partners to carefully
manage and assess the long-term implications of these investments to maximize the benefits
and mitigate the risks.
B) Realism and liberalism are two major theoretical frameworks in the field of
international relations that offer distinct explanations of diplomacy and the way the
world functions. These theories have different assumptions and perspectives that shape
the way we think about international relations, and their validity is often a subject of
debate among scholars.

Realism and liberalism are two prominent schools of thought in the field of international relations
theory. They provide different perspectives on how states and actors interact in the global political
arena and offer distinct explanations for international behavior.

Realism and liberalism have different assumptions and perspectives that shape the way
we think about international relations and these are described below;

According to Burchill (2005), Realism assumes that the international system is anarchic,
meaning there is no overarching authority or world government to enforce rules or maintain
order. States are the primary actors in international relations, and their main goal is the
pursuit of their own national interests, typically defined in terms of power and security.
Realists believe that states are rational actors, meaning they make decisions based on a
calculation of costs and benefits. While Liberals argue that international organizations, treaties,
and institutions play a vital role in promoting peace and cooperation among states. These institutions
can facilitate diplomacy and provide mechanisms for resolving disputes peacefully.

Burchill (2005) further shows that realism also assumes Conflict and competition are inherent
features of the international system, as states seek to maximize their relative power. Realists
believe that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching world government
or authority to enforce rules and maintain order. This leads states to prioritize their own security and
survival. While Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be improved,
with peace and progress gradually replacing war. They may not agree on the details, but this
optimistic view generally unites them. Conversely, realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form of
misplaced idealism and instead they arrive at a more pessimistic view (Fukuyama, 2012) . This is
due to their focus on the centrality of the state and its need for security and survival in an anarchical
system where it can only truly rely on itself. As a result, realists reach an array of accounts that
describe IR as a system where war and conflict is common and periods of peace are merely times
when states are preparing for future conflict.

According to Morgenthau (2018), both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant
actor in IR, although liberalism does add a role for non-state actors such as international
organisations. Nevertheless, within both theories states themselves are typically regarded as
possessing ultimate power. This includes the capacity to enforce decisions, such as declaring war on
another nation, or conversely treaties that may bind states to certain agreements. In terms of
liberalism, its proponents argue that organisations are valuable in assisting states in formulating
decisions and helping to formalise cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes. Realists on the other
hand believe states partake in international organisations only when it is in their self-interest to do so.
Many scholars have begun to reject these traditional theories over the past several decades because of
their obsession with the state and the status quo.

Liberalism offers the possibility of peace even as states amass power, on the basis that power
has now taken a less destructive form, from guns to bank notes and exports. In my opinion,
there need not be an overarching stress on the frailties of humanity even if world peace seems
too lofty of an ideal (McMutrie, 2007). On the basis that a shift in the definition of ‘power’
from military capability to economic status. This shift creates the need for greater linkage
(therefore, the new emphasis on globalization) as well as increased cooperation. For this
reason, states still amass power even under the liberal system, the main difference being the
fact that power is now better accrued if more cooperation is realized within the framework of
international politics.

While liberalism offers an optimistic view of the international order, it is about what the
world ought to be whereas Realism offers a more pragmatic view i.e., about what the world
is. Therefore, it best describes the world today which is quite complex and multifaceted. The
realist theorist believes in the concept of power to the extent that Morgenthau said that
international politics is nothing but a power struggle. The Power struggle stems from the fact
that resources are limited while needs are unlimited. Therefore, countries want to maximize
their relative power to survive on their own in anarchical, state-centric international politics.
This is accomplished through power balance, which can be achieved through internal
balancing, in which nations enhance their capabilities and resources, or external balancing, in
which nations form alliances. For them, power is a zero-sum game if one’s power increases,
another one’s decreases (McMutrie, 2007).
Liberalism, in stark contrast to realism, believes in the measurement of power through state
economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political
freedoms, rights and the like. Francis Fukuyama, quite notably, believed that progress in
human history can be measured by the elimination of global conflict and the adoption of
principles of legitimacy and observed the extent to which liberal democracies have
transcended their violent instincts (Burchill : Theories of International Relations 3/E, 2005).

Different scholars have put forward the Validity of Realism and liberalism as explained
below;

Realism accurately describes many aspects of international politics, particularly the

prevalence of power politics, competition among states, and the importance of national
interest and security. Realist principles can be seen in historical events and conflicts, such as
the balance of power dynamics in Europe during the 19th century and the Cold War rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union (McMutrie, 2007).

Liberalism highlights the potential for cooperation, diplomacy, and international institutions
to resolve conflicts and promote peace. Many international organizations and treaties have
played key roles in maintaining stability and fostering cooperation. Empirical studies have
shown that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other, providing support for the
democratic peace theory, a liberal concept (McMutrie, 2007). Liberalism emphasizes human
rights, individual freedoms, and democratic governance, which align with widely accepted normative
principles in international relations.

In conclusion, assessing the validity of these positions, it's essential to recognize that neither
realism nor liberalism provides a complete and all-encompassing explanation of international
relations. The validity of these theories often depends on the specific context and the
dynamics at play in the international system. A balanced approach that incorporates elements
from both theories and considers real-world complexities is often more useful in
understanding and addressing global challenges. Ultimately, the effectiveness of diplomacy
and international relations strategies depends on the specific circumstances and the
willingness of states and actors to cooperate or compete.
References

Ademola, O. T., Bankole, A.S., and Adewuyi, A. O. 2009. China–Africa Trade Relations: Insights
from AERC Scoping Studies, European Journal of Development Research, 21(4):485–505.
DOI: 10.1057/ejdr.2009.28.

Africa-China Relations- Taming the dragon: new frontiers of cooperation?” (2021) London:
The Economist Intelligence Unit, March 2021.

Anshang, Li et al (2012) “FOCAC twelve years later”. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala,

Sweden. Discussion Paper 74.

Barnett, James, W (2020), The China Dream and the African Reality: The Role of Ideology
in PRC-Africa Relations. Washington, D.C. Hudson Institute.

Bell, Daniel A (2015) The China Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Benabdallah, Lina (2020) “Power or Influence? Making Sense of China’s Evolving Party-to-
party Diplomacy in Africa” in African Studies Quarterly, Volume 19:3-4, October
2020

Blumenthal, Dan (2021) “Beijing’s Grand Strategy”, National Review, 15 July, 2021 “China
´s approach to peace in Africa is different. How and why” in The Conversation
January 27, 2020.

Drummond, Paulo, Thakkor, V och Yu, Shu (2014) “Africa Rising: Harnessing The
Demographic Dividend”, Washington, D.C. IMF Working Papers, August 5, 2014.

French, Howard (2014) China’s Second Continent: How a Million Migrants Are Building a
New Empire in Africa, London: Vintage

Gasinska, Karolina ed. (2019) “Foreign military bases and installations in Africa”. Report
from FOI (Swedish Defence Research Agency).

Burchill, S. (2005) Realism and Liberalism : Theories of International Relations, 3/E.

Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man.
Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan; (1642) De Cive.
McMutrie, I. (2007) Towards a Just International Relations Theory : Honors Thesis.

COURSEWORK NO.2
(a) China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and
African civil society over its business practices, as well as its failure
to promote good governance and human rights. Discuss.

According to Gelpern (2021), China’s relations with the African continent date back to the
15th century. In modern times, official relations were established with South Africa after Sun
Yat-sen was elected Provisional President of the Young Republic of China in 1911. As the
communist leadership consolidated its hold on power in the early 1950s, China launched a
more active policy of establishing contacts in Africa. Under the shadow of the Cold War, 29
leaders from political movements in Africa and Asia assembled in Bandung, Indonesia, in
April 1955. They discussed peace, economic development, and decolonisation, and agreed to
increase cooperation between the peoples of the “third world”, a term coined by China’s then
leader Mao Zedong.

Grieger (2019) noted that Chinese companies have entered almost all African markets. Today
there are more than 1,000 of them operating in Africa; some one million people of Chinese
descent reside in the continent. Many of these Chinese companies in Africa are privately
owned, while others are wholly or partly state-owned. Within this framework, Chinese
companies have great degrees of freedom to operate in Africa on market terms, in addition to
being backed by Chinese investment capital on favourable terms.

According to Gu, Jing m fl (2016) today, China sells weapons to many countries in the region
and offers training for African officer aspirants. There are extensive contacts between
China’s military leaders and their African counterparts. For one, China is training on-site
African armies, police forces and soldiers involved in multilateral peacekeeping operations.
China's interest in Africa has been also been driven by a desire for natural resources, market
access, and strategic influence. It has also been framed as part of China's broader foreign
policy approach, emphasizing non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations and
South-South cooperation.

China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and African civil society
over its business practices, as well as its failure to promote good governance and human
rights as discussed below;

According to Hellström (2008), China adheres to a policy of non-interference in the internal

affairs of sovereign states. This means that it refrains from imposing conditions related to
political systems, governance structures, or human rights as a prerequisite for economic
cooperation. This policy aligns with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference, which
some African nations appreciate. Critics argue that China's approach can have negative
consequences. They assert that without incentives or conditions related to governance and
human rights, some African governments may not feel compelled to improve their records in
these areas. This can lead to a lack of accountability, corruption, and human rights abuses in
some instances (Hellström, Jerker, 2008).

Furthermore, Hendrix (2020) imports of Chinese manufactured goods can displace local
workers and enterprises. In the long run and this area requires more empirical research
Chinese penetration of African markets could hinder the emergence of a nascent African
manufacturing sector. Already, some recent findings indicate that Chinese exports to Africa
may be crowding out exports from the more industrialised economies of Africa, notably
South Africa. These are, however, still relative declines; the absolute values of South African
exports to the continent continues to increase, despite market penetration by China.

According to Henri, Jérôme (2016), China’s trade with Africa comes with indirect impacts that
provide challenges to African countries that are more difficult to quantify. For example, if
Chinese demand for raw materials rises too steeply that it triggers an increase in world
market prices, it may bring harm to African nations, such as Morocco or Ethiopia, that are net
importers of raw materials.

According to Gelpern (2014), Chinese contracts contain confidentiality clauses that bar
borrowers from revealing the terms or even the existence of the debt. Second, Chinese
lenders seek advantage over other creditors by using collateral arrangements such as lender-
controlled revenue accounts, and committing to keep the debt out of collective restructuring
(“no Paris Club” clauses. Third, cancellation, acceleration, and stabilisation clauses in
Chinese contracts potentially allow the lenders to influence debtors’ domestic and foreign
policies.

According to Hess (2019), while China’s dominant footprint in African trade is well
documented, its lending to Africa is less understood. Analysts point out that unlike other
major economies, almost all of China’s external lending and portfolio investments are
official, meaning that they are undertaken by the Chinese government, state-owned
companies, or state-owned banks. Two banks dominated Chinese overseas lending: the
Chinese Export-Import Bank and the China Development Bank (CDB). The same study
further underlines that China does not fully disclose its official international lending and there
is limited standardised data on Chinese overseas stocks and flows. Adding to such paucity,
commercial providers such as Bloomberg or Thomson Reuters do not keep track of China’s
overseas loans. It is therefore difficult to obtain precise information about not only the
magnitude of Chinese lending to Africa, but also the rates of interest and terms of maturity,
and the kind of collaterals involved. The situation is thus such that most of China’s bilateral
lending is carried out by so-called policy banks and state-owned commercial banks, which
may be controlled by the Chinese state, but operate as legally independent entities, not as
sovereign lenders

According to Hodzi (2020), unlike the members of the Paris Club of the biggest sovereign
creditors, Chinese loans often require collateral for development loans. Since Chinese loans
are backed by collateral, they often enjoy a high degree of seniority. If an African country
wants to apply for debt relief, its Chinese creditors can claim the rights to assets held in
escrow. This is another possible inroad for China to claim assets in African countries, often
mentioned by critics that claim that the country has “neo-colonial” ambitions and methods.

Horn (2020), China's business agreements with African countries have often been criticized
for their lack of transparency. The terms and conditions of these agreements are sometimes
not disclosed to the public or even to relevant government officials. This lack of transparency
can lead to suspicions of unfair deals and corruption. When a country’s debt service burden is
not transparent, debt sustainability analyses are hampered. For private investors this makes
asset pricing difficult. Furthermore, a lack of transparency may be an obstacle to crisis
resolution, since information on the size and composition of a country’s debt is essential to
assure fair burden sharing and orderly crisis management. Chinese banks often tend to
renegotiate sovereign loans bilaterally and without transparency.
Humphrey (2019) asserts that over the years, China has embarked on a massive lending spree to
developing countries in Africa, mainly as a way of promoting its flagship Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI). The BRI, however, has faced growing criticism for flaws such as lending to
low-income African countries with unstable finances, lack of transparency, and not
considering social and environmental impact studies on the projects they are financing.
Bearing in mind that many developing nations, in Africa and in other parts of the world, have
become heavily indebted because of the Covid-19 pandemic, China as creditor may have to
confront a situation where several of its foreign borrowers will have difficulties living up to
contractual undertakings. This could lead to a situation where future Chinese international
lending will be more risk-averse and restrictive.

A drawback is that Chinese business people have been accused of being condescending
towards Black Africans. In part, this can be attributed to the idea of cultural superiority, as
suggested by the notion of what Weiwei referred to as the four Chinese “superfactors” and
the four “unique” Chinese factors. For example in Kenya, a Chinese restaurant owner was
arrested in 2015 after denying Black Africans entry. Sometime in the same year, a Chinese
businessman was expelled after calling a Kenyan employee and the country’s president
“baboons”. The 26-year-old employee said he had not encountered outright racism until the
incident (Hodzi, 2020).

According to Gelpern (2014), China-Africa relationship has promoted poor conditions of

work in Africa, for example Zambia has had several incidents of unfair labour practice, some
involving violence. During a 2010 strike over working conditions in a Chinese-owned coal
mine in the south of the country, two Chinese managers opened fire and 11 workers were
seriously injured. The two were brought to justice, but the indictment was later dropped. In
2012, a Chinese foreman was murdered at the same mine. In 2020, three Chinese supervisors
at a textile department store in Lusaka in Zambia were murdered and their corpses burned,
after they were accused of keeping Black workers locked in a container to avoid being
infected by Covid-19, while Chinese customers were allowed to move freely within the
premises. The press said that “the waves of racial antagonism went high.

China's resource extraction activities in Africa, such as mining and logging, have raised
concerns about environmental degradation. Some Chinese companies have been accused of
disregarding environmental regulations and sustainable practices, leading to deforestation,
pollution, and habitat destruction. Large-scale infrastructure projects funded or executed by
China have sometimes led to social issues, including the displacement of local communities
and inadequate compensation for affected populations. This can result in social unrest and
grievances (Humphrey, 2019).

However, though China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and
African civil society over its business practices, as well as its failure to promote good
governance and human rights, it has registered various achievements which are
discussed below;

According to Jones (2021), African nations have huge investment needs that cannot be met by their
small domestic capital markets. Chinese investments provide African nations with modern know-how
and technology. Chinese investments in African infrastructure such as airports, railways, ports, roads,
and sewage increase the overall productive capacity of African economies. At the same time, this may
create dependencies with strategic implications. Chinese loans to Africa have helped finance large
scale investments with potentially significant positive effects for growth. At the same time, large
lending flows have resulted in the build-up of debt-service burdens. In all, Chinese lending to Africa
has covered over 1,000 projects which is a huge achievement to African nations.

Muhammad Abdul et al (2020) asserted that China has often included technology transfer as part
of its agreements with African countries. This has helped African nations gain access to new
technologies, particularly in sectors like telecommunications and renewable energy. Further,
Chinese investments and projects in Africa have led to job creation, both directly and
indirectly. The construction and operation of infrastructure projects, as well as trade and
investment activities, have provided employment opportunities for many Africans.

According to Kynge (2020), China has been involved in healthcare and education initiatives in Africa.
For example, it has supported healthcare infrastructure development and scholarship programs
for African students to study in China. China's engagement has diversified the range of
international partners for African countries. This diversification has given African nations
more options and negotiating power in their dealings with various global players. The China-
Africa relationship is also often seen as an example of South-South cooperation, where
countries in the Global South collaborate for mutual benefit. This cooperation has the
potential to reduce dependency on traditional Western partners.

It's important to note that while these criticisms are valid in some instances, China's engagement in
Africa is not monolithic, and the impact of its business practices varies across different projects and
countries. Some Chinese projects have brought economic benefits and infrastructure development to
African nations (Kynge, 2020).

(b) Realists and Liberals have significantly different views of how to explain
diplomacy in international relations. Discuss these theories' assumptions and
how they affect the way we think about the world, and present your assessment
of the validity of these positions?

Realism suggests that states should and do look out for their own interests first. Realism
presumes that states are out for themselves first and foremost. The world is therefore a
dangerous place; a state has look out for No. 1 and prepare for the worst. When George W.
Bush convinced the U.S. Congress that he should send in U.S. soldiers into Iraq in 2003 and
take out Saddam Hussein, this was realism in action. Realism suggests that international
relations is driven by competition between states, and states therefore do and should try to
further their own interests.

While Liberalism suggests in fact states can peacefully co-exist, and that states aren’t always
on the brink of war. Liberal scholars point to the fact that despite the persistence of armed
conflict, most nations are not at war most of the time. Most people around the world don’t get
up and start chanting “Death to America!” and trying to figure out who they can bomb today.
Liberalism argues that relations between nations are not always a zero-sum game.

Realism and liberalism have different assumptions and perspectives that shape the way
we think about international relations and these are described below;

Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR, although
liberalism does add a role for non-state actors such as international organisations.
Nevertheless, within both theories states themselves are typically regarded as possessing
ultimate power. This includes the capacity to enforce decisions, such as declaring war on
another nation, or conversely treaties that may bind states to certain agreements. In terms of
liberalism, its proponents argue that organisations are valuable in assisting states in
formulating decisions and helping to formalise cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes.
Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international organisations only when it is
in their self-interest to do so. Many scholars have begun to reject these traditional theories
over the past several decades because of their obsession with the state and the status quo.

Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be improved, with
peace and progress gradually replacing war. They may not agree on the details, but this
optimistic view generally unites them. Conversely, realists tend to dismiss optimism as a
form of misplaced idealism and instead they arrive at a more pessimistic view. This is due to
their focus on the centrality of the state and its need for security and survival in an anarchical
system where it can only truly rely on itself. As a result, realists reach an array of accounts
that describe IR as a system where war and conflict is common and periods of peace are
merely times when states are preparing for future conflict.

Realists believe conflict is unavoidable and perpetual and so war is common and inherent to
humankind. Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for his famous statement ‘all
politics is a struggle for power’ (Morgenthau 1948). This demonstrates the typical realist
view that politics is primarily about domination as opposed to cooperation between states.
Here, it is useful to briefly recall the idea of theories being lenses. Realists and liberals look
at the very same world. But when viewing that world through the realist lens, the world
appears to be one of domination. The realist lens magnifies instances of war and conflict and
then uses those to paint a certain picture of the world. Liberals, when looking at the same
world, adjust their lenses to blur out areas of domination and instead bring areas of
cooperation into focus. Then, they can paint a slightly different picture of the same world.

Although realism is heavily criticized for being pessimistic, deterministic, and unable to
predict events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and Arab spring, Stephen Walt
reiterates “No single theory explains it all.” The relevance of this theory lies in the fact that it
is the best singular theory to explain the national measures taken at the expense of
international cooperation whenever a global crisis hits. Realism is the simplest approach to
understanding the world as well as approaching world politics as seen by the above argument
I put forward. It is easy to understand as it applies to daily lives wherein, we see that people
tend to help themselves first before helping others in times of crisis. This basic instinct of
man can be applied across states and can be generalized across space and time. It also helps
predict how states will respond to crises as well as provides some insight into why states
behave the way they do in international politics.
Though both theories study the behaviour of states and accept the state-centric and anarchical
structure of international politics, they have different perspectives. Liberalism draws from the
work of Locke’s view of enlightened human nature and Kant’s idea to establish “perpetual
peace.” It emphasizes the creation of international institutions to contain anarchy which gives
a platform to states to communicate and cooperate through forms and procedures of
international law to maintain peace and therefore is often described as children of light.
Within liberalism, there are theories such as economic interdependence that argue that a
liberal economic order will make war unattractive, the democratic peace theorist posits that
democracies do not go to war with each other. They also believe in the usage of civil society
and track two diplomacies to achieve political outcomes.

The above mentioned ‘state of nature’ is a central assumption in realist theory, holding that
anarchy is a defined condition of the international system, as well as postulating that
statecraft and subsequently, foreign policy, is largely devoted to ensuring national survival
and the pursuit of national interests. Realism is, therefore, primarily concerned with states
and their actions in the international system, as driven by competitive self-interest. Thus,
realism holds that international organizations and other trans-state or sub-state actors hold
little real influence, in the face of states as unitary actors looking after themselves.

Realists are generally skeptical about the relevance of ethics to international politics. This can
lead them to claim that there is no place for morality in the prescriptive sense in international
relations, or that there is a tension between demands of morality and requirements of
successful political action, or that states have their own morality that is different from
customary morality, or that morality, if employed at all, is merely used instrumentally to
justify states’ conduct.

Different scholars have put forward the Validity of Realism and liberalism as explained
below;

Liberalism has contributed to the development of international institutions like the United
Nations and the World Trade Organization, which have played key roles in maintaining peace
and promoting cooperation. Critics argue that liberalism can be overly idealistic and may
underestimate the persistence of power politics in international relations. While liberalism
promotes diplomacy and cooperation, it may not fully account for the challenges posed by
states that prioritize their national interests above all else.
Realism provides valuable insights into the realpolitik of international relations and the role
of power. However, critics argue that it can be overly deterministic and overlooks the role of
non-state actors, norms, and international cooperation. Realism's pessimistic view of
diplomacy may hinder efforts to address global challenges that require collective action, such
as climate change or pandemics.

Liberalism highlights the potential for cooperation, diplomacy, and international institutions
to resolve conflicts and promote peace. Many international organizations and treaties have
played key roles in maintaining stability and fostering cooperation. Empirical studies have
shown that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other, providing support for the
democratic peace theory, a liberal concept (McMutrie, 2007). Liberalism emphasizes human
rights, individual freedoms, and democratic governance, which align with widely accepted normative
principles in international relations.

Conclusively, assessing the validity of these positions, it's essential to recognize that neither
realism nor liberalism provides a complete and all-encompassing explanation of international
relations. The validity of these theories often depends on the specific context and the
dynamics at play in the international system. A balanced approach that incorporates elements
from both theories and considers real-world complexities is often more useful in
understanding and addressing global challenges. Ultimately, the effectiveness of diplomacy
and international relations strategies depends on the specific circumstances and the
willingness of states and actors to cooperate or compete.
References

Gelpern, A, Horn, S, Morris, S , Parks, B, and Trebesch, C (2021) “How China Lends”.
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C. May 2021.

Grieger, Gisela (2019) “China´s growing role as a security actor in Africa”. European
Parliamentary Research Service.

Gu, Jing m fl (2016) “Chinese State Capitalism? Rethinking the Role of the State and
Business in Chinese Development Cooperation in Africa”. World Development, vol
81, pp 24-34, 2016

Hellström, Jerker (2008) ”Blue Berets Under the Red Flag. China in the UN Peacekeeping
System.” Stockholm, FOI.

Hendrix, Cullen C (2020), What US Strategy Gets Wrong about China in Africa,
Washington, D.C. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Henri, Jérôme (2016) “Chinas military deployments in the Gulf of Aden: Anti-Piracy and
beyond” in Asie Visions, no 89, Ifri, November 2016

Hess, Steve and Aidoo, Richard (2019) “Democratic backsliding in sub-Saharan Africa and
the role of China’s development assistance” in Commonwealth & Comparative
Politics, 57:4, 421-444.

Hodzi, O. and Åberg, J.H.S. (2020), “Introduction to the Special Issue: Strategic Deployment
of the China Model in Africa”. Politics Policy, 48: 804-814.

Horn, Sebastian, C. Reinhart and C. Trebesch (2020) “China’s Overseas Lending”, NBER
Working paper 26050.
Humphrey, Chris and Michaelowa, Katharina (2019) “China in Africa: Competition for
traditional development finance institutions?” Zürich: Journal of World Development,
April 8 2019.

Jones, Claire (2021) “The Risk of China´s African lending” in The Financial Times, 8
August, 2021

Kamal, Muhammad Abdul et al (2020) “Does the Quality of Institutions in Host Countries
Affect the Location Choice of Chinese OFDI: Evidence from Asia and Africa” in
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 56:1, 208-227.

Kynge, James and Jonathan Wheatly,( 2020), China curtails overseas lending in face of
geopolitical backlash, Financial Times December.
COURSEOWRK NO. 3
(a) China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and
African civil society over its business practices, as well as its failure
to promote good governance and human rights. Discuss.

According to Pilling & Feng (2019), there is an estimation of over 10,000 Chinese companies
operating in Africa and between the years of 2000 and 2014, the percentage went from 2
percent to 55 percent of the US levels of investments in the continent. The prevalent
investments and the number of companies settling down on the continent have created
worrying thoughts on what the motivation really is behind this sudden increase. Africa is the
largest recipient of Chinese aid 6, receiving 44% of annual aid flows. This includes all 53
countries on the African continent, but with Angola, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and Ethiopia
leading the list according to Chinese analysts. 8 The exact volume of Chinese aid is unclear,
as it is administered in conjunction with export promotion and investment by several
ministries alongside potential 2009 figures (in orange) and current British and US aid (in
blue) for comparison.

China’s ties with Africa evolved and deepened in the intervening decades, and it has emerged
as the main United States competitor on the continent. While Chinese foreign direct
investment is comparatively less than the United States, it grew by 40 percent annually for
most of the past decade (China Development Brief, 2006).

China has three types of strategic interests that it pursues in Africa: political, ideological, and
the military. Politically, China relies heavily on the diplomatic support and appropriation
from African countries on key issues in the international arena and in multilateral forums. As
China’s global ambition grows rapidly under President Xi Jinping, China has grown
increasingly interested in portraying Africa as a strong supporter and a living testament of
China’s great-power status, its reputation as a responsible stakeholder, and the leader of the
developing-country bloc. China’s economic engagement with Africa has been constantly
cited to demonstrate the generosity of China as the largest developing country and the
desirability of a new world order led by China. This agenda strengthens Xi Jinping’s prestige
and authority at home and abroad (Ringen, 2016).

China has been criticized for its business practices in Africa. Some of the criticisms include the lack
of transparency in agreements, allegations of corruption, and concerns about environmental
degradation due to resource extraction. Critics argue that China's focus on securing access to
resources has sometimes come at the expense of local communities and sustainable development
(Mühlhahn, Klaus (2019).

China’s activity in Africa has faced criticisms from Western and African civil society
over its business practices, as well as its failure to promote good governance and human
rights as discussed below;

China's engagement in Africa is often criticized for not sufficiently promoting good
governance, democracy, and human rights. Unlike some Western countries and international
organizations that tie aid and investment to governance and human rights conditions, China
tends to prioritize economic deals and non-interference in domestic affairs. China's primary
emphasis in its engagement with African countries has been on economic cooperation,
infrastructure development, and trade. While this approach has led to significant investments
in Africa's infrastructure and economic growth, it often does not include explicit conditions
related to good governance, democracy, or human rights, which are priorities for many
Western countries and international organizations (China Development Brief, 2006).

Some of the criticism that occurs comes from thoughts and opinions that see China’s
empowerment over trade in Africa as a threat to both the trade relations of Africa and the
West as well as the western security. Obi (2019) enhances the discussion regarding the
opinions that traditional western aid conditions, as well as its effectiveness, might be
threatened by China’s increasing influence on the continent.

While a number of African nations have welcomed Chinese engagement and investment, it
often comes at a very high cost, with a focus on extractive industries, entanglement with
neomercantilist trade policy, and a tendency to adopt the worst practices that prop up
kleptocrats and autocrats such as DR Congo's Joseph Kabila, while fueling corruption in an
effort to win contracts. There are also concerns about the extractive nature of China's
engagement and what is now being referred to as debt trap diplomacy. This concept poses the
question of whether developing countries are mortgaging their resources and strategic assets
to China. If there is a drop in commodity prices and countries have difficulties with these
loans, they might get caught in a debt trap that leaves them vulnerable to China's influence.

Large-scale infrastructure projects funded or executed by China have sometimes led to social
issues, including the displacement of local communities and inadequate compensation for
affected populations. This can result in social unrest and grievances. China's loans and
financing for infrastructure projects have contributed to concerns about debt sustainability in
African countries. Some countries have accumulated significant debt burdens, raising
questions about their ability to repay these loans and the potential for debt dependency
(Mahmood, Basit (2020).

Critics argue that Chinese projects often prioritize the use of Chinese labor, technology, and
materials over building local capacity in African countries. This can limit the long-term
development and self-sufficiency of African economies. China's focus on resource extraction
sometimes involves exporting raw materials without significant value addition or
industrialization in Africa. This can hinder the development of local industries and job
creation.

Non-interference in internal African affairs is a central part of Chinese foreign policy

language and underpins its appeal to recipient governments. The tenets of China’s Africa
policy are ‘sincerity, equality and mutual benefit, solidarity and common development’ ,
using language that stresses developing-country solidarity, respect, peace and friendship.
Whether this is manifest in reality as well as in policy is a different matter – commentator Ali
Askouri, for example, accuses Chinese companies of ‘opportunistic involvement with
dictatorships’.

However, though China’s activity in Africa has faced criticism from Western and
African civil society over its business practices, as well as its failure to promote good
governance and human rights, it has registered various achievements which are
discussed below;
China's engagement in Africa has played a significant role in boosting economic growth in
many African nations. Chinese investments, trade, and infrastructure development have
contributed to increased GDP and job creation. For example, China has been a major source
of financing for infrastructure projects in Africa, including roads, railways, ports, and energy
facilities. These projects have improved connectivity, transportation, and access to basic
services. Further, Chinese loans and investments have provided African countries with access
to much-needed capital for development projects. This has allowed countries to undertake
projects they might not have been able to fund otherwise (Stein, 2019).

China has become a major trading partner for Africa. Increased trade with China has helped
diversify African economies and provide markets for African products, including raw
materials and agricultural goods. China has often included technology transfer as part of its
agreements with African countries. This has helped African nations gain access to new
technologies, particularly in sectors like telecommunications and renewable energy. Chinese
investments and projects in Africa have led to job creation, both directly and indirectly. The
construction and operation of infrastructure projects, as well as trade and investment
activities, have provided employment opportunities for many Africans (Subbachi, 2021).

China has been involved in healthcare and education initiatives in Africa. For example, it has
supported healthcare infrastructure development and scholarship programs for African
students to study in China. China's engagement has also diversified the range of international
partners for African countries. This diversification has given African nations more options
and negotiating power in their dealings with various global players. The China-Africa
relationship is often seen as an example of South-South cooperation, where countries in the
Global South collaborate for mutual benefit. This cooperation has the potential to reduce
dependency on traditional Western partners (Mahmood, 2020).

China has fostered diplomatic relations with many African countries, and this has facilitated
collaboration on international issues and challenges, such as climate change and
peacekeeping efforts. China has supported agricultural development in Africa through
technology transfer, training programs, and investments in agriculture-related projects. This
has the potential to improve food security and reduce poverty (Moynihan, 2019).

Osabutey & Jackson (2019) argue that there is an expectancy that Chinese firms will link
their influence and technological transfers to domestic firms on the African continent.
Although technology transfer may be viewed as something positive, especially for a
developing state, there are different kinds of technology transfer that result in different
turnouts. What Osabutey & Jackson argue is that technological transfer in south-south
cooperation usually is labor-intensive based which results in cheap and abundant labor. These
types of labor-intensive technologies are hence more preferred to capital-intensive technology
transfers. Moreover, what is observable is that in for example Kenya, the Chinese
technology-transfer is more labor-intensive which has created a feeling for increased
employment.

It's important to note that the impact of China's engagement in Africa is complex and varies
across countries and projects. While there are many positive aspects, challenges and concerns
also exist, including issues related to governance, labor practices, environmental
sustainability, and debt. African nations must carefully manage their relationships with China
to maximize the positive impacts while addressing potential drawbacks (Mühlhahn, 2019).

China is increasingly engaged in the educational sector in Africa, and states such as South
Africa have implemented Mandarin as a second language in school (Nel, Krog and Lebeloane
2019). China is also increasing its influence on an increasingly extensive level consisting of
aid programs with educational assistance in the form of scholarships, educational
infrastructure, and other partnership programs. The support in the educational sector has also
included a new set of private companies investing in it (Niquet, 2006).

Conclusively, the criticism of China's engagement in Africa regarding good governance,

democracy, and human rights is rooted in the differing approaches taken by China and
Western countries. While China's focus on economic cooperation has led to significant
investments and development in Africa, concerns about governance and human rights persist.
African governments and other stakeholders must carefully navigate these dynamics to
ensure that economic growth is accompanied by improvements in governance and human
rights, addressing the concerns raised by critics (Weiwei, 2012).
 (b) Realists and Liberals have significantly different views of how to explain diplomacy
in international relations. Discuss these theories' assumptions and how they affect the
way we think about the world, and present your assessment of the validity of these
positions?

According to Waltz (2019), International relations theory is the study of international relations
(IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in
international politics. The two most prominent schools of thought are realism and liberalism.
Whereas realism and liberalism make broad and specific predictions about international
relations, constructivism and rational choice are methodological approaches that focus on
certain types of social explanation for phenomena.

Realism or political realism has been the dominant theory of international relations since the
conception of the discipline. The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought
which includes writers such as Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. Early
realism can be characterized as a reaction against interwar idealist thinking. The outbreak of
World War II was seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist thinking. There
are various strands of modern-day realist thinking. However, the main tenets of the theory
have been identified as statism, survival, and self-help (Ari, 2022).

Guzzini (2018) states that Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities,
are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism, where the state is seen as a
unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from
state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type.
Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security
("high politics"), but also economic/cultural ("low politics") whether through commercial
firms, organizations or individuals (Bell, 2008).

The following are the assumptions of Realism and liberalism theories as explained
below;

Liberalism assumes instead portraying lust of power as the international conflict liberalism
fights for the basic rights of the people. It insists on pursuing the political reforms establish
democracies. It emphasizes on the value of the free trade on the basis that it will help in
preventing the conflicts between nations as it reduces the national selfishness and enhances
the communication.

Liberalism advocated the formation of the global institutions such as the United Nations
which sees any threat to any individual nation as a threat to everyone. The institutions help in
resolving the conflicts by mediating the conflicts in the event of any misunderstanding.

Liberalism emphasizes the role of international institutions, cooperation, and diplomacy in

managing international relations. States are important actors, but they are not the only ones.
Non-state actors, such as international organizations, NGOs, and transnational corporations,
also play a significant role. Liberals believe that states can be motivated by both self-interest
and a sense of cooperation and adherence to international norms. Liberals also assume that
International relations can be characterized by interdependence, where states rely on each
other economically and politically (Weiwei, 2012)

Liberalism presents a more optimistic view of the world, highlighting the potential for
cooperation, diplomacy, and the spread of liberal values. Diplomacy, from a liberal
perspective, is viewed as a means to foster cooperation, resolve conflicts through negotiation,
and build international institutions to address global issues (Galston, 2010) .

According to Galston (2010), Realism (discussed later in the paper) failed to explain complex
interdependence of the transnational relations. As a result various types of the international
regimes were formed to govern the behaviour of different international issues that resulted in
higher interdependence and lead to even higher co-operation (Neo-Liberalism). Often
Realists argue that Liberalism prime focus was not providing the national security rather then
playing with the low politics (such as in the area of finance, environment). The critics believe
the global institutions often fail to provide the appropriate response for the aggression

Galston (2010) states that Realists state that peace can be achieved by the balance of power if
all states seek to increase their power preventing without being dependent on any other nation
while Liberalism assumes that best path to peace can be achieved through co-operation
through inter-governmental organizations such as United Nations. IGO such as UN help in
mediate the conflicts between two nations in the event of any misconception. Also liberalism
emphasizes on the value of the free trade on the basis that it will help in preventing the
conflicts between nations as it reduces selfishness and results in effective communication.

Realists assume that state as a unitary actor has one policy. Of course there may be
exceptions, but realists support the argument that state is an integrated actor. For instance,
when a foreign ministry expresses policies different from ministry of defense, action is taken
to bring these alternative positions to a common position.

States are goal oriented and their goals are consistent. Also, states are assumed to derive
strategies to achieve their goals and they are cost sensitive. States make cost-benefit analysis
of every alternative, they evaluate alternatives and select the ones that maximizes their
benefits. Thus, states can change their strategies in the face of changes in external constraints
and opportunities.

According to Boucher (2008), the liberal theory emphasizes on the trade thus helps in
preventing disputes from escalating to the wars, increase inter-dependence and it increases
the communication between two countries thus reducing the misconceptions (if any). The
commercial liberalism (which advocates the free markets principles) has resulted in Liberal
International Economic Order between the regimes. Many new trade agreements like
NAFTA, FTAA, ASEAN, EU (under the liberalising rules of the World Trade Organization)
have resulted in many positive have resulted in making the world more globalized. Trade had
helped in improving the economic condition of the global south countries thus leading the
path to democracy.

Different scholars have put forward the Validity of Realism and liberalism as explained
below;
Liberalism highlights the potential for cooperation, diplomacy, and international institutions
to resolve conflicts and promote peace. Many international organizations and treaties have
played key roles in maintaining stability and fostering cooperation. Empirical studies have
shown that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other, providing support for the
democratic peace theory, a liberal concept (McMutrie, 2007). Liberalism emphasizes human
rights, individual freedoms, and democratic governance, which align with widely accepted normative
principles in international relations.

Liberalism has contributed to the development of international institutions like the United
Nations and the World Trade Organization, which have played key roles in maintaining peace
and promoting cooperation. Critics argue that liberalism can be overly idealistic and may
underestimate the persistence of power politics in international relations. While liberalism
promotes diplomacy and cooperation, it may not fully account for the challenges posed by
states that prioritize their national interests above all else.

Realism provides valuable insights into the realpolitik of international relations and the role
of power. However, critics argue that it can be overly deterministic and overlooks the role of
non-state actors, norms, and international cooperation. Realism's pessimistic view of
diplomacy may hinder efforts to address global challenges that require collective action, such
as climate change or pandemics (Ari, 2022).

According to Stein (2019), Realism paints a pessimistic picture of the world, emphasizing the
role of power politics, competition, and conflict. Diplomacy, from a realist perspective, is
often seen as a tool used by states to advance their own interests, with little emphasis on
moral or ethical considerations. Realists are skeptical of international institutions and
cooperation, as they believe states ultimately prioritize their own interests.
References

China Development Brief (2006): ‘The Growing Critique of Beijing’s International

Development Model’. January 2006

Mahmood, Basit (2020), Many Countries at Risk of Defaulting on Debt to China, Newsweek
October 21, 2020.

Moynihan, Harriet, Muller, Wim (2019) “China’s Growing Military Presence Abroad Brings
New Challenges” in Chatam House Expert Comment. February 19, 2019.

Mühlhahn, Klaus (2019) Making China modern. From the great Qing to Xi Jinping.
Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap.

Waltz, K. (2019). A Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley

Ari, Tayyar (2022). Critical Theories in International Relations, Blue Ridge Summit, PA:
Lexington Books.

Bell, Duncan (ed.), 2008. Political Thought in International Relations: Variations on a

Realist Theme, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boucher, David, (2008). Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the

Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galston, William A., (2010). “Realism in Political Theory,” European Journal of Political
Theory, 9(4): 385–411.

Guzzini, Stefano, (2018). Realism in International Relations and International Political

Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London: Routledg

Stein, Peter & Uddhammar, Emil (2019) Svenska företag i Afrika- från slavhandel till IT-
revolution. Stockholm: Santérus förlag.

Subbachi, Paola (2021) “China’s Debt Grip on Africa”. Project Syndicate, January 15, 2021.

“West and allies relaunch push for own version of China’s Belt and Road” in Financial
Times, May 2, 2021