People in Sub-Saharan Africa are beginning to recognise the potential imbalance in the relationship between Africa and China. If the attitude of the Zambian workers at the giant Chinese-owned Chambishi smelter is anything to go by, Beijing should be rather concerned at the reception it faces in Africa. The smelter is at the heart of the first of five proposed tax-free economic zones spread across the continent, which Beijing and the host countries hope will be a hub for Chinese investment. But this month, in the latest Zambian manifestation of unease over the Chinese presence, hundreds of workers blocked the roads to the smelter, demanding higher salaries and better ancillary benefits.

The strike, which ended this month, came in the wake of a series of difficult periods in the Chinese-Zambian relationship. Two years ago, more than 40 miners were killed in a blast in a Chinese-owned explosives factory at Chambishi, blamed on lax regulations. A year later, the giant 30 year-old Mulungushi textile mill, originally funded by Beijing, was forced to close after a flood of cheaper Chinese goods effectively strangled its business.

Many are calling for ‘equilibrilisation’. The most prominent case of African ‘push-back’, as the phenomenon is known among Africa and China experts, is in South Africa. Although a vocal advocate of a Sino-African partnership, partly as a counterbalance to the US-dominated global architecture, South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki has delivered the most poignant warning yet of the potential dangers of the new relationship. In late 2006, he told the South African Students Congress that African states ran the risk of getting stuck “in an unequal relationship” with Beijing, such as had developed between Africa and the former colonial powers.

This warning came as the South African government put the finishing touches to a deal on quotas for Chinese textiles, aimed at propping up the struggling local garment industry. Analysts do not believe the quotas have had much effect, but symbolically they represented South Africa drawing a line in the sand, sending a powerful signal of assertiveness.

China was recently hailed by The Economist as the ‘New Colonialist’, a title and a sentiment certain Chinese Officials clearly resent, given the rebuttal found in the People’s Daily, which, like all other Chinese media, is State controlled. According to the People’s Daily, “some Western media have attempted to discredit Sino-African relations by propagating their African version of the ‘China threat theory’.” There is a saying in Namibia that, as the sun rises in the east, so do all good things come from the east. On a recent trip to Namibia, I was surprised to find just how far China’s influence had extended.

Namibia is a vast country, the size of France and Germany put together; with a tiny population of 1.4 million. Although you are unlikely to see many clear signs of Chinese culture, the indirect impact of Chinese investment is evident. China has undeniably boosted the Namibian economy, with its demand for raw materials; it has also created an abundance of well paid jobs. For better or worse, many Namibians are leaving behind their traditional lives and values to work in the mines and factories that have sprung up to meet China’s demand for natural resources. In most of Africa, the structure of employment is such that, in industry, the demand is mostly for male workers. Consequently, men tend to migrate alone, leaving their wives and families behind, at least initially.

This has shaped the perception of the sex roles, which tend to associate women almost exclusively with the task of housekeeper and mother. There is a lack of data about the involvement of women in the migratory process, owing to the numerical preponderance of males in the migratory streams and the ‘invisibility’ of women who, as wives, merely accompany or join migrant males.

The propensity to migrate correlates closely with educational attainment. Migrants are generally younger and better educated than the rest of the population in their place of origin. Migration itself is linked to the pursuit of formal and informal education in the cities, where most post-primary institutions and apprenticeship opportunities are concentrated. Since most wage employment is found in cities, rural youths who invest heavily in education must, out of necessity, invest also in migration, if their education is to pay off.

China repays its debt with large injections of investment into Namibia’s infrastructure and her people. The Chinese Embassy in Windhoek offers numerous scholarships for further education. On a visit to the Namib-Rand reserve, I met a guide who was about to begin training as a pilot on a scholarship from the Chinese Embassy. He told me that they were offering a large number of scholarships like his to pursue higher education.

Over the last 30 years, China itself has witnessed one of the largest cases of rural-urban migration in history, and the situation is still escalating. There are 103 million urban migrants in Chinese cities but, by 2025, there will be 243 million; the total urban population of China will be nearly a billion. More than 40% of China’s urban population will be migrant within two decades, putting huge pressures on the ability of local governments to provide adequate services for their urban dwellers, according to a study by the Mckinsey Global Institute. It seems plausible that this process may, to a certain extent, be due to China’s labour shortage which is feeding greater import dependence. Likewise, Sub-Saharan Africa has the world’s highest rate of rural-urban migration. This is driven, in part, by greater employment opportunities instigated by the building of new factories – most of which are Chinese investments. People are moving to the cities and often there is nowhere for them to live; townships continue to expand and for a large proportion of the poor in urban Africa living condition are deteriorating, as the strain on resources increases. Furthermore, the improvements in infrastructure cannot keep up with the pace of population growth in urban areas.

But China also has its supporters. Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s president, recently defended China’s growing economic role in Africa in an article in the Financial Times, writing that “China’s approach is simply better adapted than the slow and sometimes patronising post-colonial approach of European investors, donor organisations and non-governmental organisations.” He observed that the Chinese model for stimulating rapid economic development has much to teach, not only Africa, but also Europe. Through direct aid, credit lines and reasonable contracts, China has helped African nations complete infrastructure projects in record time- bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, dams, legislative buildings, stadiums and airports. The President concluded that “In many nations, including Senegal, improvements in infrastructure have played important roles in stimulating economic growth.”

China has also been a much needed friend to Robert Mugabe. With the possibility of change in the air, Chinese companies have been actively exploring opportunities in Zimbabwe, which boasts rich deposits of gold, uranium, platinum and diamonds. Chinese Deputy Commerce Minister, Gao Hucheng, who was in Harare last month on a trade mission, said Beijing had invested $1.6 billion in Zimbabwe in 2007, although analysts say Chinese investment has yet to take off. The Chinese Government seemed to ignore the possible moral objections to supporting Mugabe. China’s role in Darfur has also been heavily criticised.

China may appear as confident and ambitious as ever. However, in the current economic climate even the Chinese government admitted its outlook for 2008 is grim. The financial crisis which has brought several banks in the West to the brink of bankruptcy- Bear-Stearns, Northern Rock, and several of the state owned banks in Germany- have led some commentators to view this as a seismic shift in the global economy. If they are right, who will be the winner and the losers in the new order?

In October 2007, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China took a stake of approximately 20% in Standard Bank, a South African bank with total assets of US$119 billion, for just US$5.5 billion. China is investing throughout the developing world, but most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa, not only mining its resources, but also taking strategic stakes in its businesses. When the world economy emerges from the present downturn, China will be propelled further forward; that is, if its government doesn’t make too many mistakes. But will the African nations, with which China is forming such strong ties, move forward with China?

According to Open Democracy, an internet-based forum for democratic debate, Wen Jiabao, the Premier of China, has said he is the most worried man in the world. Consumer spending in China is low, representing only 36% of the country’s GDP, yet inflation is higher than ever. There is a labour shortage in the manufacturing sector, and market forces are causing wages to rise. Although a large middle class has been emerging, many workers still suffer from poor living conditions, and there is a serious power shortage. Then there is Tibet.

The Beijing Olympics have been orchestrated by the Chinese government to mark China’s emergence as a superpower. As China tries to deal with the major economic, environmental, social and cultural issues that confront it at home, the cultural impact of its investment in Sub-Saharan Africa may not be high on its list of priorities. But for Africa, the stakes are high: undoubtedly, Chinese investment has brought significant economic benefits, but the loss of traditional values and social disintegration are a high price to pay.