Achille Mbembe, the renowned Cameroonian philosopher and political theorist, is widely celebrated for his critique of colonialism, African postcolonial identity, and his concept of necropolitics. While Mbembe has occasionally commented on global power dynamics, including China’s presence in Africa, his focus tends to center on broader philosophical issues rather than the intricacies of geopolitical strategies. Several reasons may explain why Mbembe hasn’t explicitly or extensively critiqued the CCP’s intentions toward Africa in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI):
1. Focus on Larger Structures of Colonialism
Mbembe’s intellectual framework is rooted in analyzing Western colonialism and its enduring legacy in Africa. His primary critique has been directed at European and American forms of domination, particularly the exploitative structures established during colonial and postcolonial eras.
He may view China’s involvement in Africa as distinct from traditional colonialism, seeing it as transactional rather than based on racial or cultural domination. This could lead to a perception that China’s actions, while problematic, do not represent the same kind of systemic violence as Western colonialism.
2. Africa’s Agency in Sino-African Relations
Mbembe emphasizes African agency and autonomy in global affairs. He may view Africa’s relationship with China as a reflection of postcolonial nations asserting their sovereignty by diversifying their partnerships beyond the West.
By this logic, Chinese investments might appear as opportunities for African nations to rebuild infrastructure and modernize economies without being beholden to former colonial powers.
3. Ambiguity About China’s Role
China’s narrative of South-South cooperation - presenting itself as a fellow “developing nation” seeking mutual growth - might align with Mbembe’s vision of a multipolar world that moves beyond Western hegemony.
Mbembe may be skeptical of Western critiques of China’s actions in Africa, viewing them as hypocritical attempts to maintain their own dominance over the continent.
4. Underestimation of CCP’s Exploitative Tactics
Like many intellectuals, Mbembe may not have fully grasped the extent or subtleties of the CCP’s debt-trap diplomacy, media manipulation, or long-term strategic goals in Africa.
The CCP’s emphasis on non-interference in domestic affairs might seem, at first glance, less overtly exploitative than Western interventions, even if the reality is more complex.
5. Intellectual Orientation Toward Philosophy Over Policy
Mbembe’s work often operates in the realm of philosophy and cultural critique rather than policy analysis or economic geopolitics. His theoretical lens might not focus as closely on the material mechanisms of China’s influence in Africa.
His critiques often explore existential and ethical dimensions of global dynamics, leaving the detailed critique of China’s strategies to others.
6. Possible Optimism About Africa’s Future
Mbembe has expressed hope in Africa’s potential for renewal and growth. He might view Chinese investment as a temporary phase in Africa’s journey toward economic transformation, one where African nations can ultimately negotiate terms more favorable to their own interests.
This optimism may lead him to downplay or overlook the long-term risks of dependency and sovereignty erosion posed by China’s actions.
7. Resistance to the Narrative of China as the “New Colonizer”
Some African intellectuals, including Mbembe, resist framing China as a new colonial power because they see this narrative as a Western projection designed to delegitimize China’s growing influence and reassert Western control over Africa.
Such a stance might cause him to avoid scrutinizing China’s actions as closely as he would scrutinize Western powers.
8. Blind Spots in the Narrative of South-South Solidarity
The CCP’s strategic framing of the BRI as a partnership between developing nations may appeal to postcolonial intellectuals seeking alternatives to Western-centric global systems. Mbembe’s desire for a world that transcends Western domination might make him more receptive to this rhetoric.
However, the CCP’s actions often contradict this narrative, as seen in the exploitative terms of their agreements and their disregard for local communities, which may go unnoticed or underemphasized.
Possible Future Reevaluation
Given Mbembe’s intellectual rigor and sensitivity to power dynamics, it is conceivable that he may, in time, turn a critical eye toward China’s influence in Africa. As the long-term consequences of BRI projects become more apparent - particularly in terms of debt dependency, sovereignty erosion, and environmental degradation - Mbembe’s philosophical framework could adapt to critique this new form of domination.
Conclusion
Mbembe’s relative silence or ambivalence toward the CCP’s intentions in Africa likely stems from his intellectual priorities, resistance to Western critiques of China, and an optimism for Africa’s autonomy. However, as the exploitative nature of the BRI becomes clearer, his philosophical lens may yet sharpen its focus on the CCP’s role in Africa’s evolving geopolitical landscape.
