Beijing-Nairobi ties: Why China's investment matters for Kenya?

By: Azhar Azam

In a meeting with China's Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Wang Yi, Kenyan President William Ruto lauded the smooth progress in the bilateral relationship since the establishment of diplomatic ties 60 years ago and expressed his commitment to deepen the comprehensive strategic partnership with China.

Ruto expressed his interest in strengthening cooperation in the areas of railway, highway, water conservancy, aviation, and renewable energy under the frameworks of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Forum of the China-Africa Cooperation. He also wanted to work with Beijing on infrastructure, information and communication technology, education, and security and sought Chinese investment to spur economic growth and create jobs under his ambitious Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda.

According to the Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics, Kenya's total exports to China in 2022 increased 25.9 percent to $202 million, highlighting Beijing's importance as a key export market for Nairobi. With a considerable decline in freight costs, bilateral trade is poised to witness further growth, extending significant relief to Kenyan importers and exporters.

China has been a major source of infrastructure development in the country. In Mombasa, Beijing is financing the construction of a new terminal in East Africa's largest port. China has also loaned $5 billion in total for the construction of the country's strategic infrastructure project, a train line that connects Mombasa with Nairobi, since its independence in 1973.

Since the launch of the BRI, China has delivered several infrastructure projects such as the Mombasa-Nairobi standard gauge railway, Nairobi Expressway, Global Trade Center, and the Mombasa Oil Terminal. These projects align with the Kenyan Vision 2030 and demonstrate China's pivotal role in the country's economic transformation and social development.

Compared to other countries' initiatives that consume years in finalizing negotiations, Beijing's quick decision-making and implementation of the projects as well as competitive bidding, cheap labor and "mutually beneficial" partnership, has been the defining factor behind the Kenyan fondness toward China and recent drive to attract the Chinese investment.

Amid efforts to stoke panic and mistrust between Beijing and Nairobi through accusations of hacking on China, the Kenyan Interior Principal Secretary Raymond Omollo fought back in the most categorical terms. He described the accusations as "sponsored propaganda," saying the allegations were not subjected to authoritative proof of existence by the relevant officials from both Kenya and China.

"The wide circulation and the alacrity for its attribution by other foreign media with well-known inclinations further hint at a choreographed and concerted attack against Kenya's sovereignty," he added, which indicated that such attempts are part of a larger plan to undermine the deployment of Chinese technology and Kenya's digital transformation journey.

Characterized as the "African Silicon Savannah," Konza Technopolis is a 5,000-acre technology hub being developed by Nairobi, which is expected to expand its nascent information-enabled services sector such as data centers. After launching a solution to cut electricity costs for industries, particularly manufacturers, by 10 percent to make them more competitive, the Chinese tech is now further enhancing Kenya's youth digital skills to create a pool of trained professionals.

Further, as per Kenya's Quarterly Economic Review (January-March 2023), imports from China accounted for only 17 percent of Kenya's total imports and debt owed to Beijing amounted to just 17.2 percent of the total external debt. The latter data urged the studies to label debt-trap claims largely a "misinterpretation." The Kenyan officials have repeatedly denied such allegations. Most recently, the country's permanent representative to the United Nations, Martin Kimani, dubbed it as an effort "to find a way to minimize the partnership between China and different African countries."

The financing of the Mombasa-Nairobi standard gauge railway, also known as Madaraka Express, makes up a major fraction ($5.3 billion) of Kenya's debt to China. Yet the fact must not be discounted: Nairobi believes the project is critical to its national development program, the Vision 2030, and the country's ambitions of industrialization and socio-economic development.

Over the last six years, the project has revolutionized the Kenyan transportation sector by providing greater convenience and comfort to millions and reducing the travelling time by almost a half. A high occupancy rate of more than 99 percent is bringing more revenues to the Kenyan treasury, urging its operators to add more coaches to meet the increasing demand.

Closing the infrastructure gap is vital for Kenya's and African economic development and prosperity. Beijing, through infrastructure development and investments, is doing what Nairobi and the continent seeks to navigate the challenges as well as promote trade, end poverty and create job opportunities. This cooperation between the world's second-largest and East Africa's biggest economies should be welcomed and supported over its tendency to cater the development requirements of the most impoverished continent around the globe.

*My article that first appeared at CGTN:

America’s long history of waging wars cast doubts on its sincerity to reduce the risk of miscalculation around South China Sea

By: Azhar Azam

During their trips to China, the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen reassured Beijing that Washington did not want to contain it economically and there was “ample room” of engagement with China in trade, investment and other critical issues, urging closer communication to address disagreements through dialogue.

Around the same time Yellen was ensuring her Chinese counterparts of protecting the critical relationship, the US Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink stressed on working with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries to “push back on behavior…including the many irresponsible acts…carried out by China” in the South China Sea (SCS).

On the sidelines of a series of the ASEAN meetings in Jakarta, Blinken and China's foreign policy chief Wang Yi agreed to maintain communication, said the Chinese foreign ministry. The US State Department readout noted the meeting was part of the efforts “to responsibly manage competition by reducing the risk of misperception and miscalculation.”

But America’s accusations of China’s routine harassment of claimant state vessels, promotion of “free and open Indo-Pacific” and freedom of navigation of operations and military drills in the SCS and around the Taiwan Strait are a persistent threat to the US commitment to prevent any miscalculation and put a floor to the bilateral relationship.

In the past, senior US officials and military officers have vowed to “fight tonight” if needed to defend the country’s interests across Asia-Pacific, referring to Chinese claims in the SCS as “preposterous.” Washington's continuous support of the SCS Arbitral Tribunal ruling, which Beijing says violates the principle of state consent, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and international law, heightens such risks.

The militarization of the region could at any time make matters worse with either of the sides twisting the knife; alliances such as the AUKUS and the Quad as well as NATO's expansion to East Asia, in an attempt to blockade China militarily, may cultivate a conflict (leading into a nuclear war), something ASEAN is seriously concerned about.

China's worries about US defense engagement in the region aren't inordinate completely and account for some historical factors. Unfortunately, the US has an extensive history of initiating and bankrolling wars and conflicts. According to the Congressional Research Service, there were hundreds of instances in which America had deployed its military abroad to fuel military conflicts and promote its interests including imposing 11 declared and several undeclared wars on East and Southeast Asian and European countries such as Japan, Korea, Vietnam, France, Germany, Italy and the Great Britain.

The US has also been involved in a number of unauthorized hostilities, more than the Pentagon disclosed to the Congress, through armed intervention, proxy forces and airstrikes. That's per Brennan Center for Justice. Quite a few countries in the Global South didn't condemn the Russian military operation in Ukraine for they thought the US-led NATO's expansion to Eastern Europe had triggered this chaos that is affecting nearly every person living on the planet.

According to various studies, the US has more than 171,000 troops deployed overseas with about 750 bases in at least 80 countries. Japan and South Korea have the first- and third-largest US military footprints in East Asia; America’s four new military bases in the Philippines, to gain greater access to the SCS and Taiwan, in addition to an estimated of 313 bases in East Asia revalidate China's concerns about its containment as well as underline why the US is chanting the mantra of maintaining "open lines of communication" with China.

In a "quite unusual" meeting, the Chinese ambassador to the US Xie Feng visited the Pentagon to hold talks with the top US defense official for Asia, Ely Ratner, in an effort to bring the bilateral and military relations back on track. This signals Beijing's willingness to revive mil-to-mil hotlines but not Washington's intent to scale back its military presence in the region to prevent the likelihood of a conflict.

*My article that first appeared at Al Mayadeen

The United States of Coercion

By: Azhar Azam

After the end of the cold war, the US accumulated an unprecedented economic power, allowing it to propel the country's growth and Americans' prosperity. Washington, at the same time, spotlit economic sanctions as a key instrument in its foreign policy. Major sanctions legislation such as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act, commonly known as Helms-Burton Act, and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act were introduced to coerce other economies.

The Libertad Act targeted even the US own allies for its “extraterritorial” reach given it authorized filing suits in American courts against any company including the European firms involved in business in Cuba. The legislation, ergo, was denounced in the international fora such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU).

A large majority of the countries at the UN including members of the EU rejected the US unilateral attempts to coerce Cuba and use of coercive measures that imperiled human rights and increased the economic hardship of the Cuban people. Last year, the UN for a record of 30th time voted 185-2 to lift the embargo; America is sticking to its policy of coercion as Cubans suffer from spiking inflation, power outages and food crisis.

Jake Sullivan and William Burns, now the US President Joe Biden's National Security Advisor and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in 2019 criticized the unilateral sanctions and promoted the idea of practicing them through America's international pressure. The duo cited Iran as an example whose exports and currency value shed by a half and forced it to sit on the negotiation table for the nuclear deal.

Counter to Washington’s assurances that it provides exemptions for humanitarian assistance, Tehran cannot import even lifesaving medicaments as sanctions have blocked the legal channels for transactions even as one of the most isolated countries in the world reportedly has more than $100 billion in frozen assets withheld at overseas banks.

On the campaign trail, Biden promised to end his predecessor's "maximum pressure" sanctions; he is following this inhuman policy, meting out punishment to millions of Iranians. Studies continue to show sanctions have contributed to an extensive harm to other target countries such as Afghanistan and Venezuela by restricting their access to foreign exchange and limiting their ability to provide essential public goods and services, exacerbating the humanitarian challenges.

Paradoxically, same day the sanctions States took “historic steps” to enable the flow of humanitarian assistance to the vulnerable people on 20-December-2022, the UN ripped up America’s festivity of becoming “the first country to implement new humanitarian resolution” by holding the US unilateral sanctions responsible for 40,000 premature deaths every year in Iran just because the Iranian people were forced to drive older vehicles, causing high levels of respiratory and other diseases.

Biden vows to work in concert with allies and partners; his administration maintains unilateral economic sanctions against dozens of impoverished and developing countries. These sanctions have no legitimacy in international law yet are enforced through an enormous US economic strength with a powerful military to ensure their implementation.

The Sullivan-Burns doctrine is now the foundation of Biden's foreign policy. The US Secretary Anthony Blinken in May 2022 declared diplomacy was “back at the center of American foreign policy” and asserted to align efforts with a network of allies, accusing China of coercion and economic manipulations.

An itch to dominate the world economic order is urging the US to securitize the international economy. This became evident as Sullivan (a security aide) "zoom(ed) out" on a broader international economic policy – and technology restrictions “premised on straightforward national security concerns” – as a principal tool to hamstring China’s economic and technological rise.

The goal is unambiguously to simultaneously bring key Beijing's trade partners under the US orbit, alienate and rally them against China, forge a coordinated response to Beijing’s "economic coercion," reinstate the US-led economic order and revitalize the “post-cold war decade” of high economic growth, massive job creation and dramatic foreign direct investment surge.

Economic coercion is generally defined in the US as the threat or imposition of economic costs by a state with the objective to extract policy concessions and advance geopolitical objectives. Same definition applies to America, which through tariffs and technology curbs on Chinese goods and companies – and pressurizing Europe into following its lead – has declared an “economic warfare” against China with the aim to "slow" Beijing’s development but will have “huge geopolitical consequences.”

The potential geopolitical implications of the US rivalry with China are plenty. One of them is that an impediment of Chinese growth will shake the foundations of the global economic system for the world’s second largest economy is deeply intertwined with and serves as a bridge between the developed and developing world.

More critically, China's containment poses risks to the well-being of 1.4 billion Chinese people whose basic human right to live and prosper would be threatened; it will also have a trickle-down effect on dozens of developing countries and billions of people whose fates are tied with China’s growth and investments and infrastructure development. The North-South divide will widen. Poverty will rise. Anti-western sentiments will grow.

“De-risking,” a watered-down version of “decoupling,” risks these repercussions to spread vertically and horizontally. Unveiled by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in March, the face-lift of the US economic coercion is neither beneficial for the bloc nor endorsed by the people of the major regional economies who were less supportive and more averse to the concept even before it was institutionalized at the wealthy-only summit in Hiroshima. Several leaders and political figures in the continent also hold similar views and remain too worried about Biden’s China policy, believing trade relations with Beijing are vital for them.

While the US and Europe need to weigh up the unintended consequences of the rhetorical change ("decoupling" to "de-risking") as billions around the world are watching the US sanctions war against China in horror that is much likely to push them further to the brink, Washington should end its illegitimate and unlawful economic blockade of Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran and other countries, depriving millions of food, electricity and medicine and crucifying them with relentless brutality.

*My article that first appeared at the Al Mayadeen and in the Express Tribune:

From trade to diplomacy: The promising China-New Zealand relationship

By: Azhar Azam

New Zealand's Prime Minister Chris Hipkins will pay an official visit to China at the invitation of Chinese Premier Li Qiang from June 25 to June 30. During his maiden five-day trip to the world's second-largest economy, since he took office, Hipkins will be accompanied by a large trade delegation comprising representatives from some of the country's biggest companies.

New Zealand's largest diplomatic footprint in the world is in China and the two countries are comprehensive strategic partners, both of which underline China's importance for New Zealand as a trading and strategic partner.

China is a key export market for New Zealand's dairy, meat, wood, and other products. Wellington seeks to seize the "significant opportunities" offered by China's sizable and growing middle class.

Although the two countries maintain divergent approaches to their respective social systems and development, they can successfully manage differences. Both are members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RECP) and have upgraded the China-New Zealand FTA to align it with the latest trade policies, address new issues like e-commerce and put greater emphasis on environmental challenges. These agreements will accelerate unimpeded trade and inject new vitality into the relationship.

The extensive commonalities in their policies such as support for multilateralism, open world economy trade, global peace and development, the United Nations-driven international order, and tackling climate change through international cooperation will cement the partnership, help to forge ahead jointly in a world of rising protectionism, ensure regional stability and diversify trade in other areas.


Hipkins believes China makes up a "critical part" of New Zealand's economic recovery. According to his office, he will meet with China's high-level leadership. This as well as business-to-business meetings and promotion of New Zealand products in Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin will offer him the opportunity to introduce and gain support for his ambitious trade diversification plan.

Attracting Chinese tourists also ranks high on Hipkins' priority list as China, before the pandemic, was the second largest source of tourists and a major source of international students.

Although New Zealand is part of the so-called U.S.-led Five-Eyes intelligence sharing arrangement – another small anti-China clique – it follows an independent foreign policy. Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was characterized as "West's woke weak link" just because she refused to sign the alliance's controversial joint statements criticizing Beijing and prioritized her country's economic interests with its biggest trading partner. The country's Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta once famously warned "We are uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the Five Eyes."

China is accused of wielding "influence" in New Zealand; Mahuta during her trip to Beijing this March rejected the notion and hailed Beijing's positive influence as a major country and the comprehensive strategic partnership to expand the scope of cooperation from economy and trade to cultural and people-to-people exchanges and peace and security in the Asia-Pacific, appreciating China's leadership in climate change, biodiversity, and sustainable development. Noting the significance of New Zealand's relations with China, she more recently warned of making binary choices like during the Cold War and pursuing "a fixed predetermined view."

Hipkins confronted U.S. President Joe Biden's view about China by saying Beijing has its governance system and this is a "matter for the Chinese people." This sends a positive signal and could set the tone for a constructive dialogue. It is crucial to be wary of engagement with NATO for its historical provocative and anti-peace policies and diversify the deepening and multifaceted China-New Zealand relationship amidst attempts to destabilize and hegemonize the region by creating a hype of the "China threat."

A consensus to further boost trade, economic, and science and technology relationships, will add new areas of cooperation to the China-New Zealand partnership and safeguard regional peace. It would strengthen joint efforts to focus on real-world challenges such as climate change and free trade as well as regional security.

*My article that first appeared at CGTN.