The geostrategy of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AFCFTA) and third parties: a focus on China

Abstract

The primary objective of this article is to interrogate Sino-Africa Relations and questions if Africa a passive receiver of both Chinese and Western influence? This paper is divided into four sections. The first section of the paper outlines the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. It is followed by a discussion of the political factors, driving Africa's desire for greater integration. The second section explains the potential trade impacts of the AfCFTA on African states and illustrates the rationale and appetite for the AfCFTA. Section three examines bilateral relations with third-parties, with a focus on China, speculating about the future of Sino-African trade relations and the AfCFTA. Finally, section four concludes the study. The discussion and findings suggest the following. Firstly, that African officials perceive the role of China in a positive light, and China is seen as a fellow developing country. Secondly, African leaders laud China for its contribution to the growth of African nations. Thirdly, however, China is criticized for poor working conditions, China is seen to negotiate unfair deals and for some scholars China perpetuates the neo-colonial relationship and, in some countries, there have been violent protests against China. This study encompassed a qualitative, exploratory approach, which relied heavily on both primary and secondary sources of data.

Tests of goods market integration between China and African BRI countries

“…If PPP and integration of the goods markets of China and BRI countries in Africa are validated, the next step is to strengthen economic cooperation for the next stage of economic integration by formulating further common polices in the context of trade, finance, and investments, industrial development as well as skills and technology upgradation (Joseph, 2022; Phiri & Mungomba, 2019). In contrast, if PPP is rejected, there is a possibility of protectionism hampering goods markets integration.…”