The formal announcement of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) at the G7 Summit in Germany, billed as a game changer by the west, is significant in many ways. Importantly, it has contextual relevance to Africa, though the initiative has global appeal and coverage. Bereft of a cacophony of assertions and grand development plans, the announcement is an acknowledgement of China’s growing influence especially through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). For nearly a decade, China has been building bridges, roads, ports, mines and other hard infrastructure projects in the developing world, particularly in Africa. Like any other G-7 mega projects, the US is the prime mover of the global initiative, committing US$ 200 billion of the total cost of the US$ 600 billion.
The template of the G7 though in its preamble contains infrastructure development, in scope and coverage at least, looks different from China’s BRI, which the west asserts has surrogate hegemonic undertones to keep the investment receiving countries, particularly the least developed countries in Africa, under the constant threat of a debt trap. The west also tries indirectly to highlight the flip side of the Chinese aggrandisement policy towards Africa, forcing it to become ever dependent on the big brother so that it can prowl on the region’s unfathomable mineral and resources.
What is the core difference between PGII and BRI? G7 has taken pains to inculcate inclusivity in its new deal. Whereas BRI sounds more of a calibrated approach to develop the physical infrastructure including roads, ports, highways and what have you, PGII talks about the climate crisis and bolstering global energy security through investments in climate resilient infrastructure. It also talks about developing clean energy supply chains, responsible mining of metals and critical minerals; low-emissions transportation, investment in refining, processing, and battery manufacturing, scalable technologies etc. Keeping in tandem with the main objectives are its social outreach dimensions, such as healthcare, gender equality, cyber security, etc, which are said to transform the region’ economic and social fabric. These developments can be judged as improvements over the BRI; but does that all Africa is looking for in the present context?
Analysts often point out the sanctions that gravely distorted the economies of some of the least developed countries in the region like Zimbabwe, Somalia, Burkina Faso and the list is long. These sanctions directly fall on the common man in these countries making their life miserable. Because of sanctions, multilateral organizations refuse to lend to them. Even the private equity and investor groups shy away from these countries because of their deplorably low sovereign ratings. Almost all African leaders have spoken against the sanctions imposed on certain countries and urged lifting them immediately. Yet, there is no mention of it in PGII.
BRI of China is a state funded venture, whereas PGII is partly state funded and a major portion of investments have to come from the private sector. The moot point is whether profit centric private sector players like pension funds, portfolio investors etc will lend or invest where the risk factor is very high.
It is a fact that a more friendly policy towards Africa was one of the stellar election promises of Joe Biden for the 2020 election. Between then and now, considerable time has passed for the announcement of a new policy initiative towards the African region. That lends credence to the general perception that PGII is a knee jerk reaction of the west to open up new sources of energy from Africa, to make good disruptions caused by the Russian-Ukraine war. It is for the west and G7 to prove that the growing perception is wrong. It is also true that announcement of sops alone will not hold good; but their timely implementation and continuous engagement.
