When it comes to China and Africa, the European Union and the US want to have their cake and eat it. In an echo of its past colonial rivalries, European leaders and donor organisations have expressed concerns that African nations are throwing their doors open too wide to Chinese investors and to exploitation by their Asian partners.
But if opening up more free markets is a goal that the west prizes – and extols as a path to progress – why is Europe fretting about China's growing economic role in Africa? The expansion of free markets has indeed been a boon to Africa. But as I tell my friends in the west, China is doing a much better job than western capitalists of responding to market demands in Africa.
The battle for influence in the world between the west and China is not Africa's problem. Our continent is in a hurry to build infrastructure, ensure affordable energy and educate our people. In many African nations, African leaders are striving to reinforce robust economic growth in a sustainable manner and reduce “brain-drain” incentives that have led to an exodus of well-educated Africans to Europe.
China's approach to our needs is simply better adapted than the slow and sometimes patronising post-colonial approach of European investors, donor organisations and non-governmental organisations. In fact, the Chinese model for stimulating rapid economic development has much to teach Africa.
With direct aid, credit lines and reasonable contracts, China has helped African nations build infrastructure projects in record time – bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, dams, legislative buildings, stadiums and airports. In many African nations, including Senegal, improvements in infrastructure have played important roles in stimulating economic growth.
These are improvements, moreover, that stay in Africa and raise the standards of living for millions of Africans, not just an elite few. In Senegal, a Chinese company cannot be awarded an infrastructure-related contract unless it has partnered with a Senegalese company. In practice, Chinese companies are not only investing in Senegal but transferring technology, training, and know-how to Senegal at the same time.
It is a telling sign of the post-colonial mindset that some donor organisations in the west dismiss the trade agreements between Chinese banks and African states that produce these vital improvements – as though Africa was na?ve enough to just offload its precious natural resources at bargain prices to obtain a commitment for another stadium or state house.
In the past, the political power-play between Taiwan and China often spurred Asian investment on the African continent. Today, however, economic relations are based more on mutual need – and the economic reality that the EU and the US cannot compete with China. A number of big projects in Senegal had initially been funded by the Taiwanese, but in 2005, Senegal abandoned the politicisation of development and opted for decisions based on a free market.
I have found that a contract that would take five years to discuss, negotiate and sign with the World Bank takes three months when we have dealt with Chinese authorities. I am a firm believer in good governance and the rule of law. But when bureaucracy and senseless red tape impede our ability to act – and when poverty persists while international functionaries drag their feet – African leaders have an obligation to opt for swifter solutions. I achieved more in my one hour meeting with President Hu Jintao in an executive suite at my hotel in Berlin during the recent G8 meeting in Heiligendamm than I did during the entire, orchestrated meeting of world leaders at the summit – where African leaders were told little more than that G8 nations would respect existing commitments.
At the same time that China has been especially nimble, the prices and quality of goods coming from Asia give African governments no choice other than to buy Chinese, Indian and Malaysian goods. For the price of one European vehicle, a Senegalese can purchase two Chinese cars. The proof is in the parking lot at the presidential palace in Dakar. Low-cost Chinese Chery and Great Wall models are giving Senegal's middle and working classes access to a new car, a sign of our emerging consumer class. We are even using these affordable Chinese cars in a pilot project to reinsert unemployed women into the workforce by creating a fleet of taxis called Sister Taxis. When products are affordable, innovative programmes become realistic.
China, which has fought its own battles to modernise, has a much greater sense of the personal urgency of development in Africa than many western nations. Last year, the Chinese Eximbank pledged $20bn in development funds for African infrastructure and trade financing over the next three years, funds that outstripped all western donor pledges combined. News of the Exim commitment caused a fuss in some quarters of Europe. But western complaints about China's slow pace in adopting democratic reform cannot obscure the fact that the Chinese are more competitive, less bureaucratic and more adept at business in Africa than their critics.
Today I find myself at the heart of an economic struggle with the EU. If Europe does not want to provide funding for African infrastructure – it pledged $15bn under the Cotonou Agreement eight years ago – the Chinese are ready to take up the task, more rapidly and at less cost. Not just Africa but the west itself has much to learn from China. It is time for the west to practice what it preaches about the value of market incentives.
当事情涉及中国和非洲时，欧盟与美国总是想鱼与熊掌两者兼得。欧盟领导人与捐赠机构近期的言论让人想起了过去的殖民竞争。它们表示担心，面对中国投资者和自己亚洲合作伙伴的剥削，非洲国家可能把门开得过大。
但是，如果开辟更多自由市场是西方所重视的一个目标——并将之誉为一条进步之路，那么中国在非洲扮演的经济角色日益重要为何又让欧洲感到焦虑呢？自由市场的扩张的确为非洲带来了好处。但就像我对一些西方朋友所讲的那样，在满足非洲市场需求方面，中国比西方资本家做的好得多。
西方与中国之间的世界影响力之争不是非洲要顾及的问题。我们的大陆正忙于建设基础设施，保证合理的能源负担和教育本国民众。在很多非洲国家，领导人们正在努力以可持续的方式巩固蓬勃的经济发展，减少“人才流失”问题的成因，这些原因导致受过良好教育的非洲人大量涌向欧洲。
与欧洲投资者、捐赠机构和非政府组织缓慢而且有时带有施恩性质的后殖民主义方式相比，中国满足我们需求的方式更为适宜。事实上，刺激经济迅速发展的中国模式可以让非洲吸取很多经验。
通过直接援助、贷款及合理的合同，中国帮助非洲国家在极短的时间里建设了大量基础设施项目——桥梁、公路、学校、医院、大坝、议会大楼、体育馆及飞机场。在包括塞内加尔在内的很多非洲国家，基础设施的改善在刺激经济增长方面起到了重要作用。
此外，这些改善将会留在非洲，提高广大非洲人民的生活水平，而不仅是使少数精英受益。在塞内加尔，如果不和塞内加尔的公司合作，中国公司就不能得到基础设施方面的合同。实际上，中国企业不仅在塞内加尔进行了投资，同时还把技术、培训和诀窍带到了塞内加尔。
中国银行与非洲国家之间的贸易协定带来了这些重要改善，却为一些西方捐赠机构所诟病，这生动展示了它们的后殖民主义思维——好像非洲真的如此幼稚，只为获得建设另一个体育馆或政府建筑的承诺，就廉价卖出自己宝贵的自然资源。
过去，台湾与中国大陆之间的政治权力游戏通常会刺激亚洲对非洲大陆的投资。但在今天，经济关系建立的基础主要是双方的共同需要——以及欧美无法与中国竞争的经济现实。塞内加尔的许多大型项目最初是由台湾资助的，但2005年，塞内加尔放弃了经济发展政治化的做法，选择根据自由市场原则做出决策。
我发现，原来要花5年时间与世界银行(World Bank)探讨、协商和签署的合同，在与中国政府打交道时只需3个月就能完成。完善治理、奉公守法，是本人坚定的信仰。但当官僚主义和无谓的烦琐程序阻碍了我们的行动能力之时，当贫困仍在肆虐而相关国际机构却在拖后腿之时，选择更快的解决问题方案，是非洲领导人义不容辞的责任。在最近的海利根达姆八国(G8)峰会期间，在我下榻的柏林某酒店的行政套房，我与中国国家主席胡锦涛进行了一个小时的会晤。这次会晤的成果比我在峰会上与世界领导人的会晤中取得的成果都多。在整个精心安排的峰会中，非洲领导人只听到八国会信守现有承诺。
与此同时，中国的脚步非常灵活，亚洲商品的价格与质量都使非洲政府别无选择，只能购买中国、印度及马来西亚的商品。以一辆欧洲汽车的价格，塞内加尔人可以购买两辆中国汽车。相关证据就在达喀尔总统府的停车场里。廉价的中国奇瑞(Chery)与长城(Great Wall)汽车使得塞内加尔的中产与工人阶层可以买得起一辆新车，这是我国消费阶层崛起的信号。我们甚至在一个试点项目中使用价格合理的中国汽车，创建了一支叫做“姐妹出租”(Sister Taxis)的出租车队，帮助失业女性重新就业。在人们能够承受产品价格时，创新项目才成为可能。
中国自己也曾为了实现现代化而历尽艰辛，因此可以比很多西方国家更好地理解非洲急于发展的切身需求。去年，中国进出口银行(Eximbank)承诺将在未来3年向非洲基础设施及贸易项目提供200亿美元发展资金，金额超过了所有西方捐赠承诺的总和。该行的贷款承诺在一些欧洲国家引起了争议。但是，虽然西方国家抱怨中国在推进民主改革方面步履缓慢，这却无法掩盖中国人比批评者更具竞争力、更有效率及更能适应非洲商业环境的事实。
今天，我发现自己处于与欧盟经济斗争的中心。如果欧洲不想向非洲的基础设施提供资金——它8年前曾根据《科托努协定》(Cotonou Agreement)承诺提供150亿美元资金——中国已经准备好接受这一任务，速度更快，成本也更低。不仅是非洲需要向中国学习，西方也有很多需要向中国学习的地方。西方曾宣扬市场激励的价值，现在是时候身体力行了。