China's Ebola aid a mere pittance: Column
Near the top of the list of issues Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping of China will discuss at this week's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Beijing is their cooperation on containing Ebola. At first glance, it would seem an uncontentious issue. Chinese journalists have described China's aid to Ebola victims as "unprecedented generosity"; Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization, called it "a huge boost, morally and operationally."
We beg to differ. Given China's vast business interests in Africa, one might expect a greater humanitarian outpouring, especially from its business elite. China's $200 billion in annual trade makes it the continent's largest trading partner. Moreover, a million Chinese nationals call Africa home, with at least 10,000 of them residing in regions of West Africa most affected by Ebola.
So far, however, the United States' Ebola commitment of $175 million has dwarfed Beijing's $120 million in aid. Until China's decision last week to send more medical personnel, ostensibly motivated by a public relations backlash, tiny Cuba had sent about the same number of medical staff to Ebola-stricken countries as China.
Wealth of resources
China possesses a wealth of resources it can marshal in the wake of such catastrophes. The U.S. military isn't the only institution capable of building emergency response centers and staffing them. The Chinese possess huge transport and communication capabilities in Africa to distribute supplies and public messaging, especially given their large number of construction firms in the region.
Yet these assets are not being used meaningfully. Indeed, Beijing tends to stay on the sidelines until its investments are directly impacted. Consider that the lab-testing supplies and medical personnel it has sent have mostly gone to Sierra Leone, where it has large business projects underway.
That has not stopped China's state-run media from playing up its benevolence, perhaps mindful of Beijing's botched handling of the 2003 SARS outbreak. We also suspect Beijing is hoping to avoid the PR disaster it received after a massive typhoon hit the Philippines last year and killed more than 6,000 people. China initially responded with a meager package of aid worth $100,000 — this from a country with a GDP that is the second largest on the planet.
Yet, it's not just stinginess from the Chinese government. China has over 90 companies in the Fortune 500. But as the World Food Program's representative in China, Brett Rierson, asked recently: "Where are the Chinese billionaires and their potential impact?" By contrast, there are private individuals in the U.S., such as Mark Zuckerberg, whose pledges nearly equal that of Beijing's initial offer of support. (The largest private Chinese donation was $100,000.)
A major player?
While China has pledged $6 million to the World Food Program, that is a mere pittance, especially given that the organization has raised only a third of the funds it needs to fight Ebola.
China fancies itself a major player and friend of Africa's. But its preference for a heavy footprint when it comes to its business dealings — often only hiring Chinese construction workers, for instance — yet a light footprint when it comes to containing health epidemics is unbefitting a great power. When crises strike, China should do more.
To be sure, China's record as a "responsible stakeholder" in Africa has improved. It was helpful in the passage of a 2007 United Nations Security Council resolution on Darfur.Or consider recent joint-maritime cooperation between the U.S. and China to share naval assets as part of anti-piracy efforts in Somali waters (though again this was more in response to attacks against Chinese investments in the Horn of Africa).
But China cannot have it both ways. To be a great power, when an epidemic kills 5,000 people or a typhoon levels towns, China needs to carry its weight and provide aid. Saving lives, not protecting its own investments, is how nations wield their "soft power."
Lionel Beehner, editor of Cicero Magazine , is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Prabhjot Singh is a global health expert at Columbia University.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front pageor follow us on twitter @USATopinionor Facebook.