China’s Nigerian Plans – USA Gov Policy

Nigeria is in the news for “all the wrong reasons” lately, according to several military analysts in Washington. The country, located on the west coast of Africa, is one of China’s closest trading partners and a strong ally. Earlier this month it welcomed a megaship registered in the People’s Republic of China at its new Lekki Port. It is the first vessel ever to berth at the modern, deep-water facility. It gives rise to questions about the long-term role of China’s naval forces in western Africa. Previously analysts assumed that other states, such as Equatorial Guinea, might one day host Chinese naval vessels. The China connection at the port facility is only one of many Beijing maintains in Nigeria.

In 2010 China’s Harbor Engineering, with funding primarily from the China Development Bank and a few smaller local African partners, began work on the project. As late as last year western security analysts presumed China would seek a permanent naval presence on the west coast, most likely at the port in Equatorial Guinea. It looks like the situation may be evolving or, perhaps, the US miscalculated Chinese intentions in the region. The Nigerian port is located less than an hour from Africa’s largest metropolitan area, Lagos (est. 21.3 million pop.), and is situated inside the Chinese-controlled Lekki Free Trade Zone. The Chinese-built port increases shipping container capacity from 3,000 to 20,000 containers and has space for five mega container ships to dock simultaneously at the port. Each container ship can carry approximately 20,000 shipping containers.

What is of greater concern is its close location to a Nigerian-multinational oil refinery and new urea and ammonia fertilizer plant. The granularized urea producer is, during a time of global shortage of fertilizer, critical as it is the second largest in the world, according to the Jamestown Foundation. The oil refinery can produce 650,000 barrels a day. Bother are critically needed to help Beijing insure domestic stability in the communist state. This could become even more critical if President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy becomes more aggressive in the coming years and the communist regime faces economic sanctions from western, democratic states.

The Stealth Newsletter published by the Jamestown Foundation points out that “… given its state of completion, its controlling interests, and the potential debt-trap Nigeria may be in with Beijing, it is possible that this new port could be repossessed or repurposed for the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy (PLAN). Of particular note is a controversial “sovereignty clause” in which the PRC is entitled to reclaim whatever assets were given and whatever collateral Nigeria put forth to obtain the loan.” Nigerian journalists report that there is little transparency concerning the Chinese loan program. Some have questioned the long-term viability of the port loan given its similarities to other Chinese loans where “debt-trap diplomacy” ended with the loss of local control of facilities to China. Should China gain control over the Nigerian facilities it would have clear access to the Atlantic Ocean. In recent years Nigeria has become overly dependent on imports from China, creating a significant trade imbalance. Chinese exports account for approximately 80 percent of total bilateral trade volume between the two countries. Reuters reported that in September 2018, Nigeria signed a $328 million loan with China to heavily boost the development of telecommunication infrastructures in Nigeria. In 2020 China began supplying the Nigerian military with equipment. As the Nigerian economy and government become increasingly intertwined with China, it will be more difficult for it to resist pressure for concessions from Beijing and the PLAN. Last year marked the 50^th anniversary of formal relations between the two countries. In June 2022 the Defense News of Nigeria tweeted that “Chinese military hardware are competitive in price and loans are provided for countries that cannot afford it. Most African militaries are looking to modernise and China is interested to develop this aspect of relations to enlarge its presence in the African arms market.” Already Nigeria is promoting China to other African states. Oluwatosin Adeshokan, writing in The Diplomat, says that “For China the establishment of banks in Nigeria presents an opportunity to further integrate itself with the financial systems of the African continent.” He adds that “Since the early 2000s, China’s trade with Africa has increased by over 2,000 percent, reaching $200 billion in 2019. China has since announced its $1 billion Belt and Road Africa infrastructure development fund to help build roads and necessary infrastructure to aid trade on the continent. But the African continent has also seen a change in its business landscape. As of 2017, there were reportedly over 10,000 Chinese-owned firms operating across the continent.” As African states turn away from former colonial powers to trade with the communist state, the risk of Chinese militarization grows in the region. The China connection at Lekki port facility is significant but, it clearly represents only one prong in China’s long-term African strategy.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.