From Françafrique to Chinafrica? Ecologically unequal exchange, neocolonialism, and environmental conflicts in Africa
用政治生态学视角，分析法国和中国在非洲的资源开采项目如何导致生态不平等交换，造成土地污染和社区健康损害，并比较两国与非洲贸易关系的差异。
Africa stands out as the continent where the legacies of colonialism and the ongoing dynamics of neo- and post-colonialism are felt most profoundly. In its role as the primary global supplier of raw materials, and with the ongoing technological transition towards the so-called “smart” economy and “green” energy systems, the demand for minerals from Africa is anticipated to increase significantly. European imperialism and its historically embedded extractivist logic are indispensable to understand the conditions that gradually prompted many African states to seek new trading partners. But “coloniality” is not limited to historical colonialism. Over the last two decades China has gradually assumed a prominent role in African trade, becoming Africa’s first trading partner, and leading several scholars to ask whether China is developing a new kind of colonialism. The impact of extractive activities by European, American, and Chinese private and public companies on African resources has been profound, resulting in the shifting of socio-ecological costs from industrialised countries to the African extractive peripheries. In this work, we employ a political ecology approach to examine: i) the claims of lingering French imperialism and Chinese neocolonialism; and ii) the impact of projects implemented by actors from France and China in Africa. We mobilise the theory of ecologically unequal exchange and cases of environmental conflicts involving Chinese and French industries to demonstrate how these projects have resulted in damaging impacts over African territories, leading to land pollution and detrimental effects on community health. We find evidence of ecologically unequal exchange both in the Chinese and French cases, though the dynamics characterising the trading relations of these two countries with the ensemble of African countries is markedly different.