ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR

YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720,

WHATSAPP/TELEGRAM US ON: 08137701720

NIGERIA AND CHINA-POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RELATIONS (1999-2007)

ABSTRACT

China is essentially a state par excellence, a strong state like the United States with expansionist behaviour and attitudes. Demographically, China has the largest population in the world, 1.3 billion inhabitants that is more than the entire African continent. It has the third largest stock of foreign direct investment after the United States and United Kingdom. Its ideology has been the socialist market economy which embodied elements of pragmatism, free market and state dirigisme. In the past few years, especially since the declaration of the Beijing Consensus, intellectuals, Western media, human rights organization and the International Monetary Fund have intensified their criticisms regarding Chinese policy towards Africa, especially its loan and foreign investment practices and its behaviour and attitudes towards oil producing states. Regrettably, China’s increasing engagement with Africa has largely gone unnoticed in African studies. To worsen the situation, very few African scholars have devoted quality time to critically anlayse Nigeria-China relations since the end of the Cold War. This study has been designed to bridge this gap in the literature. The central questions that formed the foundation of the inquiry are; what were the determinants of Nigeria – China relations between 1999 to 2007? To what extent has economic diplomacy impacted on the trade relations and inflow of foreign direct investment from China to Nigeria within the period under review? Theoretically, we anchored our analysis within the liberal theory of economic development and underdevelopment. Our choice of this theory is based on the fact that Nigeria – China relations is based on partnership, mutuality, reciprocity, and common prosperity, and not on any form of European or American neocolonialism and imperialism. The liberal theorists believe that interdependence between the developed and developing countries are beneficial to both. This theory is related to the win-win theory of international relations. The win-win theory implied that liberal economic cooperation through trade flows, foreign-domestic flows, technology transfer and integration in the global value chains and aid flows, should bring proportional benefits, which otherwise the partners would not have access to before entering into these relations. We adopted qualitative research design and relied mainly on documentary sources of data collection and

content analysis of primary and secondary sources of data. We collected data from Chinese Embassy, Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission, Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigeria Immigration Service among others. More importantly, we relied on current journals, textbooks, magazines, conference papers and other secondary sources of data. To ensure the validity and reliability of our methods, we relied on content of analysis of available information. After critical analysis of available data, the study reveals that China’s dynamic economic growth is fueling an ever increasing demand for Nigeria’s oil. In fact, guaranteed long term access to Nigeria’s relatively underexploited natural resources clearly tops China’s agenda. In 2005, China through her corporation, Petro-China singed an $80 million contract with Nigerian Government to locate upstream oil and gas that will guarantee 30,000 barrels per day to China over a period of five years. China has invested over $4 billion worth of investment in exchange for oil in Nigeria. At present, just over 30 percent of China’s oil requirements come from Africa, mostly from Sudan, Nigeria and increasingly the Gulf of Guinea. Beijing has singed more than 40 oil agreement with different African countries including Nigeria. The study also shows that while china’s principal interest in Nigeria is access to natural resources, the country also provides new markets and investment opportunities for China’s growing economy. Currently, about 750 Chinese enterprises are active in Africa with total investment of over $1 billion and many of them are doing business in Nigeria. In conclusion, china is both a tantalizing opportunity and a terrifying threat to Nigeria. On the one hand, China is just the tonic that mineral rich, but economically ailing Nigeria needs. On the other hand, China’s effort to flood the Nigerian market with cheap products is a great threat to the Nigerian economy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Title Page – – – – – – – i

Approval Page – – – – – – ii

Dedication – – – – – – – iii

Acknowledgement – – – – – iv

Acronyms – – – – – – – v – vi List of Tables – – – – – – vii-viii Abstract – – – – – – – ix – x

Table of Contents – – – – – xi – xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1-8

Statement of the Problem – – – – 4- 8
1. Objectives of Study – – – – 8 – 9
1. Significance of Study – – – – 9 – 12
1. Literature Review – – – – – 12
  1. Nigeria Economic Diplomacy – – – 13-32
  1. China’s Oil Diplomacy – – – 32-39
  1. Economic Diplomacy And – – – 39 -43

Nigeria China Relations – – –

Economic Diplomacy and Inflow of – – 43-62

Foreign Aid and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

Economic Diplomacy and Value – – 63-81

of Trade Between Nigeria and China

Economic Diplomacy and Obasanjo’s

Anti-corruption Policies in Nigeria – – 81 -87

1.5	Theoretical Framework	– – 87 92
1.6	Application of The Theory	– – 92 -93
1.7	Hypothesis	– – 93
1.8	Method of Data Collection	– – 93 -97
1.9	Validity and Reliabity	– – 97 -98
	References	– – – – 99 – 104

CHAPTER TWO: THE HISTORY AND DETERMINANTS OF NIGERIA-CHINA RELATIONS

The Era of Internal Ties, 1960-1971 – – – 105 -107
- The Era of Formal Ties 1971-1988 – – – 107-111
- Obasanjo’s Economic Diplomacy & Nigeria China Relations (1999- 2007) – – – – – – – – 111-115

References – – – – – – – 116

CHAPTER THREE: OIL AND NIGERIA CHINA RELATIONS

Oil in Nigeria: An Introductory Note – – – 117-125
- Oil Politics & China’s Quest for Nigerian Oil – 125-135
- China’s Oil Diplomacy in the New Gulf of Guinea – 136-142

References – – – – 143-145

CHAPTER FOUR: TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF NIGERIA-CHINA TRADE RELATION 1990-2007

Nigeria-China Trade Relations: A General Viewpoint 146-153

The Trend of Nigeria-China Trade Relations, 1999-2007 153-156

Size Composition and Significance of Nigerian Exports to China 156-159
- Size Composition and Significance of Imports from China 159-161
- Top Ten, Export & Import Commodities – – 161-163
- Bilateral Trade Agreements between Nigeria & China 165
  - Bilateral Trade Agreement – – – – 165
  - Memorandum of Strategic Partnership- – – 165-172
- The Challenges of Nigeria-China Trade Relations – 172-175

References – – – – 176-178

CHAPTER FIVE: NIGERIA-CHINA RELATIONS AND INFLOW OF FOREIGN AIDS AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

The Inflow of Chinese Foreign Aid to Nigeria, 1999-2007 179-183
- Chinese Investment Seal with Nigeria – – – 183 -187
- General Trend of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment Inflow in

	Nigeria	187-188
5.3.1	Trend in Chinese FDI Inflow to Nigeria	– – 188 -189
5.3.2	Composition of Chinese FDI in Nigeria	– – 190-196

Chinese Investments in Different Sectors of the Nigerian Economy 196

Chinese Investment in the Oil Sector/Oil Exploration – 196 -201

Investment in the Energy Sector – – – 201 -206

Investment in Satellite Communication Networks – 206 -212

Investment in the Transport Sector – – – 212 -217

Investment in Nuclear Technology for Peaceful Purpose 217-218

Investment in Provision of Water – – – 218-224

Investment in Housing – – – – – 224-227

Investment in Health Sector – – – – 228-230

Chinese Investment & Political Relations with Nigeria 230-233 References – – – – 234-237

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Summary & Conclusion – – – – – 238-240

6.2	Recommendation	– – – – – – 240-245
	Bibliography	– – – – – – 246-263
	Appendices	– – – – – – 264-299

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

In the emerging world order, a broad transformation of political alignments is underway with economic factors rising to prominence in the calculations of every nation (Agbu, 1994). In fact, the growing integration of the world’s economy driven by the globalization process, and controlled by international capital which is domiciled largely in Western industrialized countries has opened up most countries of the world and promoted greater freedom in trade and capital flow. According to Kwanashie (2007) trade liberalization is the key to logic of the current global strategy for growth

driven by neo-liberal or orthodoxy. This presupposes why the present China- Nigeria relations is fundamental.

Nigeria’s first contact with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) was in 1960, when she was invited to the country’s independence celebrations. According to Owoeye (1986) this Nigeria’s first contact with China is designated as “the era of informal ties, 1960-1971.” At independence, Nigeria political leadership was not only pro-West but vividly anti- communist. The resultant effect of this peculiar disposition was that Nigeria’s attitude towards communist China followed what had then emerged as a clear pattern of most of her relations with the Socialist States- diplomatic isolation accompanied occasionally by bitter attacks against communist ‘subversive’ ideology at home. As Alaba Ogunsanwo (2007), noted, “at independence, the worldview of Nigeria’s political leadership did not factor close relations with the Peoples Republic of China as one of the elements which the country would need to cultivate.” (Alli, 2007). This was despite the fact that Nigeria was the third largest market in Africa for Chinese goods, with a steady growth in import from China. At the same time, the Chinese did not allow Nigeria’s diplomatic snob and ideological preference for capitation to stand in the way of their obviously very lucrative trade relations with the country (Alli; 2007).

Nigeria which had consistently voiced its willingness to formalize ties with People’s Republic of China did so on 10 February 1971 (Owoeye, 1986). According to Kwanashie (2007) Nigeria established relations with China in February 1971 and has since then maintained good relations with her. Like her relationship with most other countries, Nigeria makes little effort in driving these relationships for her benefits. However, Kwanashie argued that the Sino-Nigeria economic relation if properly managed by Nigeria is capable of enhancing the success of reforms. He maintains that China provides a good source of growth inputs into the Nigerian economy. It is clear that Sino-Nigeria relations are driven by the diplomatic initiative of China. The danger for Nigeria is that China’s interests might over shadow the benefits that could result from these relations (Kwanashie, 2007).

China as economic partner to Nigeria has been very dogged and focused in its relations with Nigeria over the decades. Despite the ups and downs of Nigeria-China relations, the Chinese have continued to ensure that their market shares in Nigeria remain on a steady path of growth. This should suggest that China has a long term plan for its engagement with Africa, and it is important for African states, particularly Nigeria to develop a strategy for managing the relationship (Alli, 2007).

At present, some criticisms have been made against the Chinese. They have been accused of dumping, evasion of customs and of exporting substandard products, particularly pharmaceuticals and other consumer items into the country. Despite all these, Chinese products have continued to enjoy enormous patronage in the country largely because of their cheap prices. Another criticism is that Chinese companies tend to maintain harsh labour conditions for their Nigerian workers, while at the same time giving most of the jobs to Chinese nationals. Yet, amidst all these criticisms, there is a growing continuity in the China-Nigeria bilateral relations.

It is therefore clear that the economic engagement of Nigeria with the Chinese has grown so rapidly that the nation Nigeria has not been able to pause and think out of proper framework for engagement. From a seeming unknown some years ago, China now bestrides the Nigerian economic terrain like a colossus sending shivers down the spine of many other powers that would like to consider Nigeria their sphere of influence. Importantly, this rapid growth in trade relations between the two nation-states has been largely to the advantage of China.

It is important to note that Nigeria and China shared certain things in common. Nigeria and China are demographic giants and their interests in international affairs cannot be ignored. Nigeria is Africa’s most populous

country, while China’s population is second to none in the world. Nigeria, until the recent deapartheidisation in South Africa, has been the leader of Africa, while China has for long time been an acknowledged power in global politics. Put differently Nigeria is a regional power while China is a world power (Akinterinwa, 1994). Indeed, the economic growth of China has made it also look for markets abroad and eventually found a worthy market in Nigeria, thus, opening a new era in the relations between the two nations. Without doubts their relationship should be seen as that between a big giant and a bigger giant, implying that Nigeria cannot be placed on the same pedestal with China.

Against this backdrop, our preoccupation in this thesis is to critically examine the extent Nigeria-China relations have influenced the inflow of foreign aid, direct foreign investment, volume of international trade and diplomatic relations; as well as the strategies Nigeria should adopt to maximize the benefits of the Nigeria China relations within the period under study.

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In recent years, with the rapid economic development of both China and African continent, the interaction between the two parties, which used to centre on political sphere, is now featuring cooperation in various areas, especially, in the economic. It is a general belief that the increasing Chinese investments of capital and technology in Africa will reasonably help to unlock the African continent’s vast resources and potentials (Ogunsanwo, 2007). Indeed, Chinese economic and political activity in sub-Sahara Africa is growing at an exponential rate (Taylor, 2006; Tull, 2006; Taylor 2004). In fact, China is now Africa’s third largest trading partner, ahead of the United Kingdom and only behind the United States and France. Importantly, the bulk of this growth in trade is driven by a desire to obtain sources of raw materials and energy to fuel the Chinese economy and for fresh export markets (Taylor, 2006; 2008). Interestingly, Nigeria is taking a fair share of the Chinese economic activities in the African continent.

Although formal relationship between Africa and China Started in 1956 when China commenced full diplomatic relationship with Egypt, Nigeria and China established formal diplomatic ties on February 10, 1971 with an understanding to abide by a set of five principles: mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual non-aggression; non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, sovereign equality; and

peaceful co-existence (Musa, 2007). Subsequently, Nigeria and China have in recent times established a strong trading link. It has culminated in the signing of a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) in 2001, a Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding on Investments Cooperation between the Federal Ministry of Commerce of Nigeria and Ministry of Commerce of China in 2006; Economic Cooperation Agreement between Nigeria and Guandong Xinguang International Group of China, in 2006.

In 2004, Nigeria-China signed an agreement to develop Oil Mining Lease (OML) 64 and 66 located in the deep waters of the Oil Rich Niger- Delta. In an oil for investment deal, Nigeria agreed to offer China four (4) oil drilling licences in exchange for a USD 4 billion investment in infrastructure. China is buying a stake in Nigeria’s 110,000 barrel-a-day Kaduna oil refinery and building a rail road and power stations.

These various agreements came about as a result of the need for concrete measures to enrich the content of the existing bilateral cooperation between the two countries.

Resulting from the above, trade between China and Nigeria has quadrupled in the last seven years, even rose to $10 billion in 2006. A Chinese firm, the Chaoyang Heavy Machinery Group, in partnership with

Tancem Nigeria Limited, an indigenous company is establishing a cement plant at Mfamosing in Akamkpa Local Government Area of Cross River State. The plant is to produce 600,000 metric tones of cement annually, and worth N 7.68 billion investment. China’s incursion into Nigeria is for various reasons which are linked not only to its quest to buy oil fields for its fast growing industries but also because of the population of Nigeria which makes it a veritable market for China’s business deal with Nigeria, yet, scholars of international relations have not deemed it necessary to embark on an in depth research on this subject matter.

Regrettably, China’s increasing engagement with African countries at large and Nigeria in particular has gone largely unnoticed in African studies. Most of the existing literature on Sino-African relations deals with the Cold War Era (Konings, 2007). As a matter of fact, this defines a gap in literature as far Nigeria-China relations in this new era are concerned.

Notably, scholars like Lumumba-Kasongo (2007); Konings (2007); Gongyuan (1996); Polgreen and French (2007); Large (2008); Taylor

(1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2008); Cornelissen (2000); Payne

and Vency (2001); Alden (2007); Le Pere, ed. (2007); Sautman and Hairong (2007); Institute for Public Policy Research(2006); Gil, Huang, and Morrison (2007) Le Pere and Shelton (2007); Tull (2006); Ali (2006);

Mohan and Power (2008) and Campbell (2008) have in their separate studies commented generally on Asian-African and China-African relations without a recourse to Nigeria-China relations. Even when such scholars as Agbu (1994); Ogunsanwo (2007); Alli (2007); Fadina (2007); Kwanashie (2007) and Chibundu (2007) made some intellectual attempts in explicating China- Nigeria relations, yet, the subject to date remains paradoxically under- researched and unsatisfactorily addressed in literature. In deed, there remains often basic knowledge gap as none of the scholars was able to clamp down concretely on the implications of Nigeria-China relations and the impact of such relations on the political economy of both nations, especially within the time frame of this study which spans between 1999-2007.

Therefore, in the light of the above, the academic problem this study seeks to address so as to fill the existing gap in knowledge are crystallized in the following research questions:

what are the implications of Nigeria’s economic diplomacy for Chinese oil interest in Nigeria?
1. Has economic diplomacy impacted on the inflow of foreign aid and foreign direct investment to Nigeria from china?
1. How has economic diplomacy stimulated trade between Nigeria and China within the period under review?

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The failure of various economic measures adopted by different governments has attracted intellectual discourse amongst political and economic scholars. Opinions are diverse on reasons for the inability of Nigeria to make progress in her developmental quest. While some blame it on the Foreign Policy thrust of Nigerian State, others hinge it on domestic political environment. The school of thought that blames it on the foreign policy thrust advocates a shift from pro-west economic relations to a more favourable Asian axis for solution to the Nation’s underdevelopment.

In response to this advocacy, Nigeria has adopted economic diplomacy as her foreign policy thrust since 1988. Nigeria’s economic diplomacy has seen her opening her foreign relations more with the Peoples Republic of China than most countries of the world, especially within the period under study.

The central objective of this study is to critically evaluate the implications and impact of economic diplomacy and Nigeria China relations under Obasanjo’s regime.

Specifically, the study has been designed to achieve the following detailed objectives:

To determine the implications of Nigeria’s economic diplomacy for Chinese oil interest in Nigeria.
To ascertain the impact of economic diplomacy on the inflow of foreign aid and foreign direct investment to Nigeria from China.
To evaluate the impact of economic diplomacy on the volume of Trade between the two countries within the period under study.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The whole process of managing relations with other states and international institutions including the complicated processes of perception of the environment from a locality or from a central office, assessment of immediate and long-term interests, balancing of internal and external pressures, testing of likely responses to proposed policies, final implementations, and perception of the environment once again in a never- ending sequence, Burton (1968) quoted in CDLCE, pos 204, unit 1, p.16.

Diplomacy is an aspect of international relations which Holsti (1983) “refers to all forms of interaction between the members of separate societies, whether government sponsored or not”. Furthermore, the conduct of a

nation’s international relations is determined by the country’s foreign policy which Frankel (1975) observes “is a dynamic process of interaction between the changing domestic demands and supports and the changing international environments”. A country’s foreign policy guides and shapes the behaviour of that country in international arena. According to Rosenau (1976), foreign policy may be “aggressive or submissive, long-range or short-range, economic or diplomatic”. In furtherance to the components that determine a nation’s international relations are the national interests. National interests can be divided into three segments; (a) national security (b) the protection and preservation of the welfare of the state, and (c) national prestige. National interest according to Obasi Igwe (1989) is “a situation, policy or decision considered to be primitive of the state’s ultimate aims”. Morgenthau (1962: 562), national interest is “defined in terms of national security and national security must be defined as integrity of the national territory or of its institutions”.

Nigeria’s economic diplomacy is couched on the primacy of economic development of the nation state. Any diplomatic ties, bilateral, multilateral, or institutional relations would be conducted in a manner or intention to impact on Nigeria’s human or material development.

The issues arising from Nigeria-China relation are; what is China’s interest in her renewed relationship with Nigeria? Is it for economic exploitation as an emerging imperialist? May be a desire to control a larger share of global market. Could China’s push

into Africa and the rest of the world be for the challenge of the hegemony, particularly, American overbearing influence?

This study is saddled with the responsibility of finding out the implications of Nigeria-China relations. This is important based on the common knowledge that international economic relations between the advanced industrial nations and the developing nations are conducted on unequal exchange leading to imperialism. This they do using “technical, commercial, capital resource and socio-political predominance over dependent countries…. This permits them to impose conditions of exploitation and extract part of the domestically produced surplus” (Theotonio Dos Santos).

The research will seek to reveal the trade and economic relations between Nigeria and China. This is aimed at determining the pattern and volume of trade between the two countries.

This work takes a keen interest in the inflow of Direct Foreign Investment from the nation’s dealing with China. It will examine the extent

of technological and industrial development of Nigeria as a result of her interaction with China and Chinese co-operations.

The study of Nigeria-China Relations has not been of great interest to Nigerian scholars compared with the abundant literature on America and British studies. The research is aimed at awakening and provoking further studies by intellectuals in this field of learning. If this is achieved, we will consider the study as successful.

The work will be beneficial to foreign policy makers, statesmen and diplomats who will examine critically the implications of policies and their executions in relations with countries, and in particular, the Asian-Tiger. Students of International Relations will find the research handy in their study of Nigeria-China Relations. This is apt, as China is indicating her interest in Nigerian Universities with the introduction of the study of Chinese language at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

We shall adopt a thematic approach in our review of related literature in order to address the issues raised. The review will be done according to the following themes:

Economic Diplomacy and its uses

China’s Oil Diplomacy

Economic Diplomacy And Nigeria-China Relations

ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AND ITS USES

1.4.1 NIGERIA ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY.

Economic Diplomacy is an acronym deduced from two distinct words, Economic and Diplomacy. It is a phrase adopted by political scientists to indicate or emphasize the policy thrust of a nation’s foreign policy. Economic is defined thus:

Of or relating to the production, development, and management of material wealth, as of a country, household, or business enterprise of or relating to an economy: a period of sustained economic growth of or relating to the science of economics: Of or relating to the practical necessities of life; material. Financially rewarding; economical. And, Efficient, economical.(http://education, Yahoo.com/reference/dictionary, P.1., 9/8/2007). And efficient, economic. (http://education, Yahoo.com/ reference/ dictionary, P.1., 9/8/2007).

On the other hand, Diplomacy is “the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states”. (http.//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/diplomacy). It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through intercession of professional diplomats with regards to issues of peace- making, trade, war, economics and culture. According to Asobie (2002) diplomacy is the management of international relations by negotiation. It refers to the process of bargaining among states in order to narrow areas of disagreement, resolve conflicts or reach accommodation on issues over which agreement cannot,

otherwise, be reached. Bargaining itself could be either explicit or tacit (ie. disguised). Explicit when it takes a peaceful process. When it is tacit, diplomacy could take the form of fighting (war) aimed at establishing leverage over an opponent in negotiations. While foreign policy is the substantive aspect of external relations, diplomacy is the procedural aspect.

Economic Diplomacy is defined by various scholars as thus; Nwachukwu

(1998), economic diplomacy is “the promotion of export trade, investment and increased financial assistance from friendly countries”.

Asobie quoted in Ogwu and Olukoshi (2002: 48) further defined economic diplomacy in three ways, as the management of international relation in such a manner as to place accent on the economic dimension of a country’s external relations. He sees it as the conduct of foreign policy in such a manner as to give top most priority to the economic objectives of a nation. It has to do with the various diplomatic strategies which a country employees in its bid to maximize the mobilization of external material and financial resources for economic development.

development”. All these refers to “as depicting the diplomacy of economic development”

According to Omoweh (2002) in May 1999, when the Obasanjo-led administration was inaugurated, Nigeria’s economy was still faced with chronic decline in capacity utilization in the real sector, near total collapse of all basic social infrastructures, protracted budget deficit, debt overhang, rising import dependent profile and weak private sector, among others.

As part of his efforts to revamp the economy, the Obasanjo’s government had, on December 8, 1999 launched the “Nigerian Economic Policy, 1999-2003” (See National Planning Commission, 2002).

Unlike his predecessors, the Obasanjo’s government is discreet in adopting economic diplomacy as one of its major policy instruments for achieving the above aims. The government embarked upon Anti-Corruption Crusade; and the President’s shuttle economic diplomacy is aimed at restoring foreign capitalist investors’ confidence in the Nigerian economy thereby encouraging them to invest in the country’s economy, particularly those from the Asian countries. While shuttle economic diplomacy has been criticized by many, Omoweh, stated that:

The element of ‘newness’ in the economic diplomacy of the current government stems in part from the urgent need of the country to recover from its ‘pariah status’, and the need to restore the confidence of foreign investors in the nations’ economy. Perhaps, this explains the personal diplomatic shuttle overseas by the President Olusegun Obasanjo (Omoweh 2002).

However, Omoweh is of the agitation whether the process of image- making of Nigeria should not first start at home before moving abroad, because the root cause of the economic crisis facing the country centres on the nature of the Nigerian state, its politics and models of extracting surplus. According to him, until this problem is decisively dealt with, the economic diplomacy of the current government will do very little to attract the much- desired foreign investors and reverse the country’s underdevelopment.

Fawole (2000) explained that “since coming to power as a democratically elected president, Obasanjo has traversed the globe seeking to restore Nigeria to its place of pride in the international community, while also seeking external support in the form of foreign investments, debts forgiveness, and the return of Nigeria’s ‘stolen Billions”.

Briggs (2005:206-209) presented a balanced argument both against and for (in favour of) Obasanjo’s shuttle diplomacy. He first argued against the shuttle diplomacy that since Obasanjo assumed the office of the President, he has visited almost all the parts of the world for economic negotiations and this cost the nation a great deal of money. The cost implications of Obasanjo’s trips are enormous, even if we sit down to calculate the cost of estacode paid to him and his entourage, aviation fuel

and hotel accommodation alone on the trip. He argued that the huge amount spent in this regard can as well be channeled to improving the ugly situation at our foreign missions (Briggs, 2005).

On the other hand, like many other scholars, he still subscribed in pages 209-213 that President Obasanjo’s diplomatic shuttle began to pay off in many ways. On the whole, he conclusively stated that “shuttle diplomacy as an instrument of a ‘grand strategy’ of President Obasanjo has more of positive results than negative results”.

Importantly, Obasanjo’s economic policy is patterned after the Western Capitalist Model according to the prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank for a market – led and private sector economy so as to ensure economic development. According to Igwe (2005:233-246) it is the pattern of mismanagement of the country’s debt portfolio that consequently led to the prescriptions, which were claimed to be in response to failure of public sector management. The prescriptions or conditions to be met for assistance in the case of Nigeria were:

Trade liberalization, which in practical terms meant the removal of any restrictions or protection of home industries from outside competition.

Removal of subsides from all goods and services provided by government;
- Privatization of public sector enterprises, especially government run

	social services;
·	Retrenchment of 50 percent of the public sector workforce;
·	Tight fiscal regimes These stringent reforms measures, if adopted, were	intended

according to the IMF, to revamp ailing economics of developing countries by the attraction of foreign assistance and investment.

Economic Diplomacy is defined by various scholars as thus; Nwachukwu (1998), economic diplomacy is “the promotion of export trade, investment and increased financial assistance from friendly countries”.

Second, he sees it as economic diplomacy as the application of economic instruments in negotiation and bargaining with other countries. Thirdly and perhaps more importantly, he defined economic diplomacy as a set of strategies and tactics formulated and applied for the achievement of a fundamental restructuring of the existing international economic order. The author sees the first two definitions as “limited” views of the notion of economic diplomacy. He refers to them “as depicting the diplomacy of economic development”, Definitions of this concept not withstanding, Nigeria’s views and objectives of economic diplomacy is captured in Nwachukwu’s address in 1991 to Nigerian ambassadors where he stated as follows: your achievements would be measured more or less by the number of investors who visit from your country of accreditation or tonnage of Nigeria’s produce and articles sold as a result of your efforts.

He further described economic diplomacy as the task of using foreign policy, “to achieve Nigeria’s economic development and economic goals”. Nwachukwu reiterated his “abiding belief in the role of the private entrepreneur as a catalyst for economic growth and sustained development”. He recommended the development of a two way mechanism by which the Nigerian entrepreneur would, on the one hand, attract foreign capital and set up joint-ventures in Nigeria and on the other, invest in other countries,

particularly in sectors in which Nigeria lacks comparative advantage (MFA, 1992).The philosophy of economic diplomacy is an effort to integrate the workings of all ministries and parastatals, even individuals in the pursuit of economic development through bilateral and multilateral agreements. It was necessited by the deep- seated and seemingly intractable economic crisis. Which bedeviled the Nigerian economy since the beginning of the 1980s.

Nigeria’s concept of economic diplomacy is therefore, all domestic and foreign policy measures designed to support government’s goal of economic revival and sustainable development.

Since 1988 when the Nigerian government of General Ibrahim Babangida officially announced its commitment to Economic Diplomacy as a “new” focus of its foreign policy, a great deal of discussion has been generated within the country on this “new” posture (Ogwu and Olukoshi, 2002). Nigeria’s commitment to the pursuit of economic diplomacy was first enunciated by Retired Major General Ike Nwachukwu in his first policy address in June 1988 as the then Nigeria’s Foreign Minister (Nwachukwu, 1988). According to him, economic diplomacy is

“…the promotion of export trade, investment and increased financial assistance from friendly countries…” Implied from the above is that

economic diplomacy, simply means the diplomacy of economic development.

Scholars have discussed extensively on the factors responsible for the onset of the crisis in Nigerian economy, and so we need not detain ourselves here with this issue. However, what is really important for our purposes is the point that the on set of the crisis and the rapid deterioration of the economy provided the immediate domestic background that later gave birth to the new economic diplomacy. Also, the adoption by the Nigerian state of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank sponsored Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986 was to serve as a key complementary factor motivating the official emphasis on economic diplomacy in the period from 1988 onwards. The adoption of SAP really underlined the commitment of the Babangida administration to an emerging international system characterized by the increasing influence of monetarist economic ideas, the growing power of the IMF, the World Bank, the London and Paris Clubs, and the Group Seven (G-7) now increased to Eight (G-8) countries under the hegemony of the United States of America (Ogwu and Olukoshi, 2002).

As a matter of fact, in considering the main tenets of Nigeria’s economic diplomacy in the way it was enunciated by the Ike Nwachukwu in 1988, there was no doubt that from onset, the government considered

economic diplomacy to be organically interconnected to the goal of the structural adjustment programme of the state. According to Nwachukwu (1988) in a period of economic crisis and structural adjustment “…it is the responsibility of our foreign policy apparatus to advance the course of our national economic recovery”. Such goals of structural adjustment as export promotion, the encouragement of foreign investment inflow to the economy, and the rescheduling of Nigeria’s external debt are objectives which, in Nwachukwu’s view could and should be built into the foreign policy agenda and strategy of the country.

It is argued that employing foreign policy for the purpose of achieving domestic well-being will, according to the authors of Nigeria’s programme of economic diplomacy, not only entail the re-ordering of the country’s priorities in the international system but also careful friendship and goodwill of the leading Western Countries. Nwachukwu (1991) in an address to the appointed Nigerian Ambassadors of the Ministry of External Affairs in 1991, stated unequivocally that:

The ball-game today in international relations is self- interest and economic development …in your utterances and in your behavioral pattern, please remember that Nigeria is a developing country. It needs support from the international community and that support can only come when you can win the confidence of those whose support you seek.

In the same progression, Nwachukwu went on to inform the diplomats

that:

You begin to win that confidence through friendliness and loyalty to their cause (ie. the cause of those whose support you seek). What matters is your ability to win for Nigeria what we cannot for ourselves, that is, the economic well-being of our people and physical well- being of Nigeria.

From the above quotations, it becomes quite clear that economic

diplomacy is the foreign policy component of the structural adjustment programme of the state and it contains in its aspiration, at least, all the logical elements which flow from the submission by Nigeria to the IMF and the World Bank in the quest for the management of the country’s domestic economic crisis. In short, economic diplomacy is a foreign policy orientation that is non-confrontational, heavily pro-West, and which accepts without question the hegemony of the forces of imperialism (Ogwu and Olukoshi, 2002). Similarly, using the indices of foreign trade promotion, direct investment flows, external public loan flows, and external debt rescheduling Prof Humphrey Assisi Asobie contends that “Nigeria has achieved only mixed results in its programme of economic diplomacy” (see Asobie, 2002).

According to Omoweh (2002) in May 1999, when the Obasanjo-led administration was inaugurated, Nigeria’s economy was still faced with

chronic decline in capacity utilization in the real sector, near total collapse of all basic social infrastructures, protracted budget deficit, debt overhang, rising import dependent profile and weak private sector, among others.

As part of his efforts to revamp the economy, the Obasanjo’s government had, on December 8, 1999 launched the “Nigerian Economic Policy, 1999-2003” (See National Planning Commission, 2002).

Briggs (2005:206-209) presented a balanced argument both against and for (in favour of) Obasanjo’s shuttle diplomacy. He first argued against

the shuttle diplomacy that since Obasanjo assumed the office of the President, he has visited almost all the parts of the world for economic negotiations and this cost the nation a great deal of money. The cost implications of Obasanjo’s trips are enormous, even if we sit down to calculate the cost of estacode paid to him and his entourage, aviation fuel and hotel accommodation alone on the trip. He argued that the huge amount spent in this regard can as well be channeled to improving the ugly situation at our foreign missions (Briggs, 2005).

sector management. The prescriptions or conditions to be met for assistance in the case of Nigeria were:

Trade liberalization, which in practical terms meant the removal of any restrictions or protection of home industries from outside competition.
- Removal of subsides from all goods and services provided by government;
- Privatization of public sector enterprises, especially government run social services;
- Retrenchment of 50 percent of the public sector workforce;

Tight fiscal regimes

These stringent reforms measures, if adopted, were intended according to the IMF, to revamp ailing economics of developing countries by the attraction of foreign assistance and investment.

Nigeria’s concept of economic diplomacy is therefore, all domestic and foreign policy measures designed to support government’s goal of economic revival and sustainable development.

To achieve the above objectives, Obasanjo’s regime, in concert with the West, the World Bank and the IMF; has initiated a neo-liberal economic

policy assigned to bring about accelerated national economic development. Consequently, the policy of privatization of government parastatals, removal of subsidies on non-essential commodities, stabilization (devaluation) of the national currency and trade liberalization have constituted the bedrock of the economic strategies of the Obasanjo regime.

These stringent reform measures, if adopted, were intended according to the IMF, revamp ailing economies of developing countries (Igwe, 2005). But this is an egregious simplification of reality. Whatever be the logic behind it, expectedly, the outcomes of this policy have been mixed. The country’s foreign reserves have immensely increased; the public servants have been beneficiaries of increased salaries; telecommunications has improved considerable; infrastructural facilities like road construction etc have been improved upon.

Despite these improvements however in the country’s national life, Nigeria’s economy is still largely in the doldrums as Nigerians are still relatively poor and the level of the country’s foreign investment has remained very low. Due to the policy of privatization, millions of people have directly or indirectly lost their jobs (Yahya, 2005). It has also been argued that privatization of publicly-owned property brings about efficiency in public service delivery. But there is no proof of this assertion anywhere in

the world today. There are examples of already privatized enterprises in Nigeria. It would be interesting to study their performance against those yet to be privatized.

It is debatable whether the interest of the poor is being accommodated in the Nigerian reform process. For instance, removal of subsidies on petroleum and agricultural products has raised the cost of living beyond the widest dream of most Nigerians. In fact, it unduly affects adversely the most vulnerable in society and it is the extent of upliftment witnessed by this group that is the essence of government economic policies. If and when a government policy hurts the interest of those on the edge or on marginal living (ie. if it affects the middle class), then it is no longer in the overall interest of the society.

Trade liberalization has resulted in the closure of many industries with attendant redundancies and unemployment. Liberalization can only favour economies already in search of markets. For years, China, India, Indonesia and other countries locked up their borders in search of internal potentials for development. Today, those who opened their borders most ignorantly import everything, including voting machine (as Nigeria did in 2007 general election). Economic theory teaches that liberalization will automatically take

place in any economy when production is in excess of consumption (Igwe, 2005).

Equally, the devaluation of the Naira has led to an increase in the prices of imported goods, with devastating consequences for the country. Available statistics have revealed that the goal of meeting the basic needs of Nigerians has not been met. With more than half of Nigerians still living below the poverty line eight years after the regime assumed office, there can be no denying the fact that the Obasanjo regime needs to embark on a critical review of its pauperizing neo-liberal policy (Yahya, 2005). And no country has ever developed by taking dictation of her economic policies from outside, as Nigeria seems to be doing.

Importantly, it must be realized that irrespective of what is done at the level of shuttle diplomacy, if the realities at the local level are not conducive to investment and other meaningful economic activities, no investor will set foot on the country. With the internet and generally improved telecommunication, nothing is hidden to the world about any country. Countries with requisite infrastructure and, political stability, will always attract foreign investment. Relatively, the violence and restiveness in the Niger-Delta and the issue of ethnic-religious violence are serious problems

that should be tackled in a bid to promote national economic development (Yahya, 2005).

It is therefore germane to remark, at this juncture, that if the process of image-making did not first start at home before moving it abroad it may not ensure the needed national development. And until these challenges are decisively dealt with, the economic diplomacy of the current government will do very little to attract the much-desired foreign investors and reverse the country’s underdevelopment (Omoweh, 2002). Even though there is undoubtedly an increase in the quantum of aid that flowed into the country within the period under study, if the right policies are not in place and the internal environment being cleaned up of the flagrant practice of misappropriation of funds and corruptions that undermine our development efforts, Nigeria will continue to grope in darkness in her aspirations for real national development.

According to Offiong (2003) African states like most other developing nations have been intricately and perhaps irrevocably interlinked with the outside world through colonialism and imperialism. The creation of modern African states was actualized by the forces of international economy dominated by the great powers of the world. In his words, the major problem for African states is the extent to which they could conduct their foreign

policies in a manner that will maximize their national interests, however, in order to ensure their interests in their foreign relations. It is very much contingent not only on their capabilities to do so, but on certain determinant variables.

In generic terms, Offiong simply reflected on Vernon Mckay’s general classification of determinants of African foreign policy as “national interest; ideology; economic determinant; military purpose; political factors; internal and external political pressures; cultural and psychological factors; geographical location of some states; propaganda and intelligence factors; and administrative and leadership influences” (Mckay, 1966 and Offiong, 2000).

Both Offiong and Mckay expended their mental energy in explicating broadly on the determinants of African foreign policy without a recourse on Nigeria’s foreign policy let alone expositing on the determinants of Nigeria- China bilateral relations.

However, Ogwu and Olukoshi (2002), Agbaje (1994) all view economic diplomacy from imperialist point of view. According to them, it is an imposition by IMF, World Bank, London and Paris Club and the group of seven (G7) led by US. It is viewed as Nigeria’s compelled response to emerging international economic order practiced under structural adjustment

programme. This in effect led to the stronghold of the developed economies on Nigerian economy. This position was on itself contradicted by some scholars when it was observed that before the official introduction of economic diplomacy in 1988, Akinyemi, then Foreign Affairs Minister had initiated economic diplomacy in Nigeria’s foreign policy with his diplomatic shuttles in 1987.

From the above exposition, it is obvious that the nation initiated economic diplomacy as a way out of her economic quagmire. It is also obvious that Nigeria had no alternative option to SAP since she can not be an Island in international arena. One loophole in the submission of the scholars is that they failed to proffer alternative means available to Nigeria to address her economic and social predicaments.

The determinants of Nigeria-China relations can be located in the changing foreign policy of the Nigerian state. Foreign policy is an embodiment of a Nation’s aspirations and the means of achieving them. It is not an abstract term or exist in isolation, it is influenced by both the domestic and external environments.

Foreign policy, though without any concise or an accepted definition, has been defined variously by scholars. Adeniji (1992) observed that foreign policy is ‘in fact a projection of the country’s national interest into the trans-

national arena and the consequent interaction of one with the other”. Wallace (1971) sees foreign policy as “that area of politics which bridges the all-important boundary between the nation-state and its international environment”. Olusanya and Akindele (1986, eds) opines that foreign policy is the “country’s national interest in its interaction with the outside world and relationship with specific countries in the international system”. Frankel (1975) defined it ‘as a dynamic process of interaction between the changing domestic demands and supports and the changing international environments”. Ukeje (1999), “foreign policy constitutes an endless dialogue between the powers of continuity and the powers of change”. For London (1965), foreign policy “may be called the father of all things in international relations. Indeed, the fate of the world depends upon wise foreign policy”. Some realists like Lippmann (1943) states that “ a foreign policy consists in bringing into balance, with a comfortable surplus of power in reserve, the nation’s commitments and the nation’s power.

What is imperative in a nation’s foreign policy is the promotion and sustenance of her national interest.

Although, national interest of a country is often not clearly defined in specific terms, yet, two broad views exist on this concept – the subjectivists and the objectivists. Graham Allison and Brecher represent the former, and

maintain that national interest is not an objective truth that prevails whether or not it is perceived by members of a nation; rather, it is a pluralistic set of subjective preferences that change when the requirement and aspirations of the nation’s member change. On the other hand, Morgenthau, who is of the later school, is of the view that “the best interest of a nation is a matter of objective reality”. Ukeje (1999) corroborates this position as he observed that:

Policies which are designed to serve some interest in one period, under particular circumstances, may become largely irrelevant in another period during which different conditions prevail.

In spite of the controversies surrounding the term “national interest”, the determinant of Nigeria-China relations is situated in this concept as Nwachukwu in 1989 redefined Nigeria’s national interest saying, the ballgame today in international relations is self-interest and economic development of your nation. In your utterances and in your behavioral pattern, please, remember that Nigeria is a developing country. It needs support from the international community, and that support can only come when you can win the confidence of those whose support you seek. You begin to win that confidence through friendliness and loyalty to their cause. What matters is your ability to win for Nigeria what we want for ourselves, that is, the economic well-being of our people and physical well-being of

Nigeria, African Guardian (September 3, 1987: 17). On June 30, 1988, he further stated that “we must embark on a new era of dynamic and functional diplomacy to enhance our economic and technological well-being”. This in any way does not distract from what Akinyemi (1991) quoted in publication of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1992) as “Nigeria’s national interest can be identified as predicated on the nation’s military, economic, political and social security. Anything that would enhance the capacity of Nigerians to defend their national interest, anything that will promote Nigeria’s economic growth and development is in the national interest.

1.4.2 CHINA’S OIL DIPLOMACY

China’s increased domestic energy demand, along with declining domestic petroleum production and insufficient coal out-put, has spurred Beijing to pursue stable overseas sources of hydrocarbon fuels. Asian oil and natural gas production is not growing fast enough to meet Chinese demand, and a large portion of middle Eastern oil and gas production is normally allotted to U.S and European markets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fireignrelations) stated that “China is now the second largest consumer of petroleum products in the world after the United States”.

In an effort to ensure energy security, China has shifted attention to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela and African nations as likely hydrocarbon acquisition targets. An estimated 25 percent of China’s total oil imports presently comes from Africa. Beijing, therefore placed a high priority on maintaining strong ties with its African energy suppliers, which

Nigeria is the foremost interns if oil production, investment potentials and market.

Nigeria is the world’s eighth-largest crude exporter and the fifth- biggest exporter of oil to the United States. It is only natural that China will turn her search for satisfying her energy appetite to a leading oil producing country like her. According to (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/9/2/2008) “China will be the most dynamic element in the oil market for several years”.

China’s growing thirst for oil-plus strong demand for gasoline in the US and fears of supply disruptions in the Persian Gulf has driven oil prices to their highest levels.

Due to the problems in Nigeria’s Niger Delta Area and the growing Iranian terrorist threat which have impacts on the world oil supply, China has adopted the policy of stock pilling oil through imports and cutting export of petroleum products. The Zhenhai reserve base, China’s first strategic oil reserve base began operation on January 29, 2007, as oil started filling up its tanks.

The reserve, located in Ningbo, East China’s Zhejiang province has a capacity of 5.2 million cubic meters. About 3.7 billion Yuan (US$462) million has been invested in the reserve. In 2004, China approved the construction of four national strategic oil reserve bases. According to Los Angeles, October 12, 2007, contained in (http://www.bigpicture.typepad.com) China has imported 18.1% more oil during January-August, 2007, than it did in the comparable period, last year.

In the report of the country’s General Administration of Customs GAC), China’s total oil imports were 110.4 million tones in the first 8

months of the year, 2007, however, it exported 2.18 million tones, resulting in net imports of 108.22 million tones. Over the same period in 2006, it imported 91.65 million tones of oil.

China’s importation of petroleum products have been on the increase. Gasoline, up 8.8%, Kerosene, up 17.5% and diesel oil, up by 6.3%.

Chinese invasion of African Countries, Nigeria, Zambia, Gabon, South-Africa, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan in search of energy is reminiscent of the political scramble for Africa. It has generated petro-politics between the United States and China. Washington has accused China of “not playing by the rules”, in terms of oil politics. It declared China guilty of “seeking to control energy at the source” (www.atimes.com). US has also called China a “negative force” in Asia. All these show the challenge and pressure China is putting on U.S. in terms of energy control.

It is the same quest for energy control that pushed the United States into a costly regime change in Iraq, dubbed “democracy” by Washington. While US is preoccupied with implanting democracy, while in actual sense chasing oil, China makes no pretences, and has penetrated Persian Gulf, the central Asian Caspian Basin and beyond.

The American strategy of global energy dominance according to Williams (2006) is becoming counter productive as most countries cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control the future security of their energy. “He observed that if the trend of recent events continues, it won’t be US-style democracy that is spading, but rather Russian and Chinese influence over major oil and gas supplies”

In pursuit of its energy policy, China and Russia founded the Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO) in June 2001. Other members are

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Jajikistan and Uzbekistan. Its stated goal was to facilitate “Cooperation in political affairs, economy and trade, scientific- technical, cultural and educational spheres as well as in energy transportation, tourism and environmental protection fields”

The SCO is beginning to look like an energy-financial bloc in central Asia consciously being developed to serve as a counter-pole to US hegemony.

According to (http:/www.atimes.com/global-economy), by 2045, China will depend on imported oil for 45% of its energy needs. She seeks to meet this demand by investing at the source of oil supply.

On May 26, 2006, crude oil began to flow into China through a newly completed pipeline from Atasu, Kazakhstan, to the Alataw pass in China’s far-western region of Xinjiang, a 1,000 – kilometer route. It marked the first time oil is being pumped directly into China. In Kazakhstan, China is financing the largest oil refinery about 3,000 Km to Dushanzi to be completed in 2008. She financed the entire $700 million pipeline and will buy the oil. China National Petroluem Corporation bought Petrokazakakstan for $4.2 billion and will use it to develop oil fields in Kazakhstan. China oil interest for economic sustainability knows now bounds. In this business there are no foes. They have few qualms about who they deal with and what inducements they offer to guarantee China’s access to oil. In Iran, China has signed a massive deal to develop the country’s Vadvaran field, while the rest of the world frets about Tehran’s nuclear ambition. In Venezuela, China is willing to support Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution”- economically, politically and, perhaps, even militarily …in exchange for access to Venezuelan oil Collins and Ramos- Mrosovsky (2006)

China is replicating the old antics of the colonialists, using home or multinational companies as agents of penetration. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has been given the rights to operate 15 fields in eastern Venezuela, which has the capacity to produce on billion barrels of oil. She is participating in the development of the 200 billion barrel Orinoco Belt, and is already receiving 160,000 barrels of oil and refined products per month from Venezuela. Sinopec, another Chinese government owned company, is pursuing a wide range of petrochemical joint ventures in Venezuela, including a large fertilizer plant in Zulia state, a major petrochemicals facility in gas rich sucre state, and a substantial stake in the giant Paraguana refining complex, Venezuela’s main source of gasoline exports Xinhua (2006). China is feverishly working to expand its sour crude refining capacity. She is considering a pipeline to an export terminal on colombia’s pacific coast, at the same time building a state owned tanker fleet that can transport oil across the Isthmus of Panama, which would allow China-bound supertankers ( too large for the panama canal) to avoid a lengthy voyage around Cape Horn.

China entices developing nations with what they lack while behind the gesture is Chinese dire for oil. Beijing is developing a geopolitical partnership with Caracas that goes far beyond buying and selling oil. China has agreed to build a telecommunications satellite for Venezuela, naming it the “Simon Bolivar”. In August 2005, China sold to Venezuela three long- range surveillance radars and high level Chinese military delegations have paid annual visits to Caracas since late 1990s. Chinese dependence on Venezuela oil would end the United State’s status, dating back at least to the end of the cold war, as the only great power with significant interests in the Caribbean basin.

Taken together, Bolivarian Venezuela, subsidized Caribbean governments, and the panama canal could form a chain of positions protecting the flow of oil from Venezuela to China- projecting Beijing’s influence into an area where Washington has grown unused to competition. China’s quest for oil shields the evils of any country she deals with. China’s membership of the United Nations Security Council has been used to protect evil regimes. Beijing has consistently sought to project power abroad to secure its energy supplies. China’s military deployment in Sudan is one example. Chinese strategists have long feared that U.S. naval forces could choke off their oil supply in the event of conflict over Taiwan. For this reason, Beijing is sinking billions into constructing a blue-water navy as well as deep-water ports in Pakistan and Burma that could serve as bases for Chinese Units protecting the shipment of oil from the Middle East to China, Gerzt and Scarborough (2004) off nations from the recognition of the sovereignty of Taiwan.

China is doing an end-run around the western controlled international monetary fund among African states. China’s export-import Bank gave a $2 billion soft loan to Angola. In return, the Luanda government gave china a stake in oil exploration in shallow waters of the coast. The growing interest of China in Angola is about to end the domination of US through Exxon Mobil in that country. Angola has over taken Saudi Arabia as China’s biggest single provider of oil.

China is at the same offering Angola infrastructural development which include railways, roads, a fiber-optic network, schools, hospitals, offices and 5,000 units of housing. China has pledged US$4 billion development fund to Angola.

Sudan has involved Chinese, instead of the western corporations in exploiting its oilfields. Despite the lingering political crisis in Sudan, which has attracted international calls for Sanctions, China is neck-deep in oil exploration in Sudan. Its export to China have soared from 10% in 1995 to 70% of its total exports in 2005.

China’s presence is witnessed in oil-rich Republic of Chad. This is threatening the major Oil Company in the country – Exxon Mobil. China is accused of supporting regime change in Chad because it is contended that Sudan is a backer of the Chadian rebels on their bid to topple President Deby’s government.

There is fear from the western axis that the success of the Rebels will jeopardize the Chad-Cameroon pipeline and western oil deals. The French and Washington have joined forces to protect President Deby’s regime.

Nigeria is a big beneficiary of Chinese economic boost and pursuit of oil suppliers. Nigeria has a light low sulfur grade of oil known as “sweet crude””, which is valued for its high gasoline content and relatively cheap processing outlay. China, until recently was completely excluded from Nigeria’s oil industry by an established presence of western oil companies. China, using her diplomacy and “sweetener” development deals has changed this trend.

Nigeria is said to require an annual investment of $10 billion in order to reach a proven reserves of 40 billion barrels by 2010 (http://www.asianresearch/articles). Chinese government has indicated willingness to participate actively in Nigeria’s oil industry. In July 2005, China through her corporation, petro China signed an $80 million contract with Nigerian government to locate upstream oil and gas that will guarantee

30,000 barrels per day to China over a period of five years. China has invested over $4 billion worth of investment in exchange for oil.

Daily Trust,International Business(June 5,2008)reports that China is set to produce Republic of Niger’s first of oil in 2009.The China national Petroleum Corporation(CNPC),a state –owned company is investing $5bn over the next three years to develop oil production in Niger.

The CNPC is to build a 200-km pipeline and a refinery with a capacity of 20,000 barrels a day. The Agadem block located near Niger’s border with Chad is China’s latest move to secure energy resources in Africa. According To Niger’s mines and energy minister, Mohammed Abdoulahi, the deal was a “win-win” contract that benefited the people of Chad and Niger.

The International Business reports that China has invested $30bn in Africa’s oil and gas industries, primarily in Sudan, Nigeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Chad.

Even as China is heavily involved in Nigeria’s oil industry, Chinese companies are also penetrating other spheres of the economy. Unlike most foreign actors in the country, her presence is felt in fixed assets such as refineries and factories, with the intention of developing a long-term economic relationship.

However, from the above reviewed literature it is expedient to note that scholars have not satisfactorily addressed in holistic terms whether or not oil constitute the major determinant for China’s relation with Nigeria and therefore forms the gap this study is set to fill.

1.4.3 ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AND NIGERIA —CHINA RELATIONS

Nigeria-China relations were influenced by various factors which leaders of both countries seek to explore for the advantage of not only the two countries directly involved but for the benefit of the international community. These areas of commonality include geo-politics, economic, global and regional security, Reform of the United Nations, and the bilateral relations.

Nigeria and China are “burdened by destiny in their respective regions”. Both countries apart from being the most populated in their respective regions are well endowed in mineral resources. For these reasons, and others, Nigeria and China are to play prominent roles in the politics and security of their respective regions. These informed the “nurturing of close bilateral relations between the two countries, while fostering their collaboration in multilateral diplomacy on wide range of issues of general international concern” (NIIA, 2005). According to Palmer and Perkins (2004) the Chinese have had some success in identifying themselves with the black Africans as fellow coloured peoples. This is in a bid to turn Africans away from the Soviet Union as well as the West. Both countries have pledged cooperation in strategic partnership characterized by mutual

assistance in international affairs within the framework of South-South Cooperation. China also resolved to support African Representation in the United Nation’s Security Council, which Nigeria is in the race to occupy. She promises to support the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) which is a new vision of African Union to get African continent out off underdevelopment (www.fmprc.gov.cn/zfit/eng,6/ 12/2007. The two sides expressed their readiness to expand cooperation in various fields of work, on the basis of the principles of treating each other with sincerity and friendship and as equals, drawing on their respective strengths and achieving common development to promote the continued growth of the strategic partnership between the two countries and the well-being of the two peoples (au.China-embassy.org/eng, 12/6/2007, p.2). The Chinese government is interested in working with Nigerian counterpart to up hold the rights and interests of developing countries, promote world peace and development, and foster a harmonious world of durable peace. The Chinese administration of Jiang Zemin explained that Nigeria and China. “share extensive interests in safeguarding world peace, developing their own national economy and advancing common prosperity in the world”. He however, acknowledged the obstacles posed to both countries by economic globalization. According to Chinese newspaper, (Xinhua News Agency, April 15, 2005), the

President, Hu Jintao in Beijing agreed with his Nigerian counterpart that collaborated activities is “to expand economic and trade cooperation and further boost two-ways investment”. The Nations agreed to enhance political trust at high-level and to promote the establishment of a fair and reasonable new international political and economic order. Trade, investment, electric power, railway and telecommunication, construction, agriculture, water conservancy, manufacturing, human resources development and tourism form areas of cooperation. (www.china.org.cn/english).

The right of existence and the Fundamental Human Rights attracted the common interest of Nigeria and China. ‘The solution to the fundamental right of existence is the goal of such populous countries as China and Nigeria” (http://english.people.com.cn,12/6/2007). “However, different countries should have their own understanding about human rights based on their own national conditions” said Jiang. It was accepted also that the goal of feeding and clothing her peoples are the problems of Nigeria and other developing countries, and since China has successfully solved these problems, Nigeria has a lot to emulate from her. The need for Nigeria-China relations was captured in Thisday (July 5, 2007: 14). It blames the underdevelopment of Nigeria and other African countries on the structural adjustment programme of the west, led by World Bank and IMF which

resulted to the “wake of the virtual collapse of the continents economy in 1980s”. The SAP programmes led to Africa becoming “a net exporter of capital to the west – a cardinal feature of its economy since 1981”. It claimed that in the past 26 years, Africa has transferred about $700 billion to the West. The other consequences of the economy’s collapse are the flight of its middle class to the west and other parts of the world. An estimate of about 12 million Africans, majority of whom are Nigerians are said to be out of the continent, and act as external source of capital generation and transfer to Africa. It recommends the restructuring of the global institutions and the leadership succession pattern against the strong hold of United Sates. This position is anti-west which tends to justify Nigeria and African countries failures absolutely on western policies. Even Brazil made headway with IMF structural adjustment programmes. There is a need to look inwards in the search for Nigerian underdevelopment.

Other issues which Nigeria regard as vital but not receiving adequate attention from the international community are the democratization of the UN System, ending regional conflicts in Africa and the HIV/AIDS Pandemic. Nigeria and China are challenged by low interest to “coordinate their foreign policy approaches so as to facilitate an international response to, and for the resolution of these issues” Nigeria feels strongly that China

could assist her in the battle against the scourge. With large populations both countries face the challenge of the pandemic. According to Chinese delegation to Nigeria, about 600,000 people have been infected primarily through sharing of intravenous needles by infected drug addicts, while in Nigeria; it can not be specially pointed the number of infected people, but major transmission is through sexual intercourse. The conservative lifestyle of the Chinese is responsible for the low transmission via intercourse, while the reverse is the case in Nigeria, were loose life style is predominant. China is neck deep into laboratory investigations that aim at developing drugs that can curtail the disease. The fight against drug trafficking and drug abuse is one of the measures adopted by the Chinese government (NIIA,, report, 2005). The collaboration of the two countries will benefit them in the research for the solution of the world ravaging Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the flude like deadly airborne disease that hit her in 2003 is a typical example worthy of emulation by Nigeria (Onunaju, 2005).

China’s interest in Nigeria can not be divorced from the overall Chinese interest in Africa. In the 1960s and 1970s, China was interested in building ideological solidarity with other underdeveloped nations to advance Chinese-style communism and repelling western “imperialism”. This has changed over time. According to (www.heritage.org/research,7/2/2006,p.1) “Beijing has identified the African continent as an area of significant economic and strategic interest”.

1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Nigeria has wallowed under the clutches of underdevelopment since 48 years of her independence. The reasons for Nigeria’s underdevelopment even in the face of her abundant natural and human resources have been a major concern to both local and international commentators. Economic diplomacy was government’s perceived measure to get Nigeria out of her low level of development. Despite the adaptation of this foreign policy

instrument, Nigeria’s relation was heavily pro-West. From empirical evidence, the nation has not made significant progress since the 1980’s when the policy was introduced. This might be as a result of what the Marxist say that “the internationalization of capitalism by Europe is to find overseas markets for selling their surplus products and to have access to raw materials whose prices are determined by themselves” (CDLCE, pos 204, p. 16).

The failure of Economic relations with the Western hemisphere to solve Nigerian economic predicaments may have necessitated the shift towards China for rescue. Our analysis is situated within the theoretical framework of Liberal theory of economic development and underdevelopment. The theory gained ground in the 1950s particularly in USA to explain the modernization which was taking place in Asia, Latin America and Africa. According to Huntington (1971) the concept was a challenge to political science discourse centered on “democracy, oligarchy and dictatorship, liberalism and conservatism, totalitarianism and constitutionalism, socialism, communism and capitalism, nationalism and internationalism”. The Liberal theorists believe that interdependence and economic linkages between the developed capitalist economies and the less developed ones are beneficial to both the developed countries and the less developed countries.

The liberals hold the view that such things as foreign investment, trade and international trade make it possible for the third world countries to have access to export markets, capital and technology which constitute the engine of growth and development. They believe that organizing and managing the domestic economy is the most important factor that can bring about economic development. In their view, rapid economic development can be achieved only if social and political problems are not allowed to interfere with the free interplay of market forces.

The Liberal theorists subscribe to the view that an interdependent world economy characterized by free trade and an international division of labour fosters domestic development. They also agree that free flow of goods, capital and technology promote optimum efficiency in resource allocation and hence diffusion of growth from the developed world to the less developed world. For them, therefore, trade and investment is the panacea for economic growth and development of the less developed countries.

They equally agree that the developed countries benefit from trade relations with the less developed countries because of access to cheap raw materials, availability of foreign markets for capital and industrial goods. It is their general consensus that the less developed countries gain more from

international trade since it facilitates the expansion of their relatively small markets. This is based on the fact that factors of production are drifting to the less developed countries where they yield the highest rewards by substituting labour-intensive for capital-intensive mode of production, resulting in accelerated growth.

It is the conviction of the liberal school that through interdependence and trade, the key factors required for economic development steadily move from the developed capitalist countries to less developed areas, and that the rate and direction of the movement of these factors depend on the international migration of economic factors (i.e. capital, labour and skill), the volume, terms, and composition of foreign trade and the nature of international monetary system. However, they accept that at the moment there is wide disparity in economic development between the developed and the less developed countries but optimistic that in the long run market forces will bring about equalization of economic levels, real wages, and economic factors throughout the world.

The position was justified by citing China, Japan and Taiwan as countries that have achieved remarkable economic growth and development using export maximization strategy while Latin America countries have failed largely because of their import-substitution strategy. The liberals insist

that the less developed countries find it difficult to develop because of internal obstacles such as the practice of subsistence agriculture, lack of technical education, a low propensity to save, a weak financial system, and wrong government policies. Other factors inimical to development are political corruption, social rigidities, planlessness, market imperfections, unstable bureaucratic structure, insufficient investment in education, agriculture, high tariff barriers, and overvalued currencies.

Economic development requires enough financial resources and the views of the Liberal are that is necessary for the less developed countries to device a system of accelerated capital accumulation. They advise that foreign loans, aid, and foreign investment can assist to accumulate the required capital. Apart from foreign financial assistance to less developed countries, self-reliant policy is the key success to industrialization as epitomized by South Korea, Singapore, Hong-Kong etc. The critiques of the theory believe that it did not adequately address the effects of political factor in the management of the economy. Gunder Frank (1998), Claude Ake,(1981) Bade Onimade (1994) and Samir Amin (1996)insist that asymmetrical relationship between the developed countries is fundamentally responsible for the economic backwardness of the third world countries. They assert that at international level, the policies frustrate the development

efforts of the less developed countries. On the domestic scene, the existence of petty bourgeois elements who collaborate with foreign interest groups is a cog in the wheel of progress of the less developed countries. A country whose economy is manipulated and controlled from outside cannot easily overcome the problems militating against its economic development efforts. To this extent, they view liberal theory to be incomplete.

The arguments against these political theories are basically based on the facts that they have not attained the level of developing causal laws like the physical sciences and they lack accurate predictive qualities. That is why, Hedley Bull warned that “if by a scientific theory of international relations we mean one which is strictly empirically verifiable, then in my view no strictly scientific theory can come to grips with a central issues of the subject which concern the value premises of international conduct.

In spite of all knocks on political theories, for the purpose of this research, Liberal theory of interdependence shall be adopted in analyzing the issues raised. Our emphasis will be placed on external and the internal dynamics of development of Nigeria both political and economic. These include stability of government and domestic policies, availability of fund and level of technological development, effects of corruption, transfer of

technology, balance of trade and above all, the impact of Direct Foreign Investment on Nigerian Economy.

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL (S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to any of the numbers below

08068231953, 08137701720,

(1) Your project topics

(2) Email Address

(3) Payment Name

OR you drop them on our WhatsApp/Telegram, 08137701720

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 3139283609

Bank: FIRST BANK

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 2023350498

Bank: UBA.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:

08068231953, 08137701720, 08154275408

AFFILIATE LINKS:

easyprojectmaterials.com

http://graduateprojects.com.ng

http://freshprojects.com.ng

http://info247.com.ng

projectstores.com.ng

projectgraduates.com.ng

projectgraduate.com.ng

igraduateproject.com.ng

igraduateprojects.com.ng

NIGERIA AND CHINA-POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RELATIONS (1999-2007)

Byadmin

NIGERIA AND CHINA-POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RELATIONS (1999-2007)

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER TWO: THE HISTORY AND DETERMINANTS OF NIGERIA-CHINA RELATIONS

CHAPTER THREE: OIL AND NIGERIA CHINA RELATIONS

CHAPTER FIVE: NIGERIA-CHINA RELATIONS AND INFLOW OF FOREIGN AIDS AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AND ITS USES

1.4.1 NIGERIA ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY.

1.4.2 CHINA’S OIL DIPLOMACY

1.4.3 ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AND NIGERIA —CHINA RELATIONS

1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

By admin

Related Post

NIGERIA ROLES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION IN AFRICA

NIGERIA ROLES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION IN AFRICA

NIGERIAN PEACEKEEPING MISSION UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FROM 1960 TO 2010: A STUDY OF SIERRA LEONE

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You May Like

Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye POST UME PAST QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS, EXAMINATION, AND ADMISSION UPDATES AND NEWS

Niger Delta University Yenagoa POST UME PAST QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS, EXAMINATION, AND ADMISSION UPDATES AND NEWS

Nasarawa State University Keffi POST UME PAST QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS, EXAMINATION, AND ADMISSION UPDATES AND NEWS

Moshood Abiola University of Science and Technology Abeokuta POST UME PAST QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS, EXAMINATION, AND ADMISSION UPDATES AND NEWS