Connect with us

NEWS

My life in a US death-row prison complex plagued by killings, Covid and abuse, while the executioners get busy

Published

on

I’m doing 10 years in jail because I defended a child when many feared she’d be killed due to medical malpractice. Will Joe Biden, apparent opponent of the death penalty, end the obscenities I’ve witnessed here?

“You’re killing an innocent man,” uttered Daniel Lewis Lee.

He could feel the IV tubes in his arms as he maintained that he was at “the other end of the country” at the time of the murders he was being killed for. He asked that, after his death, the 10 mainstream media witnesses investigate why his trial judge had barred the crucial DNA testing of a hair sample.

Then the executioner started the lethal injection, ending a bipartisan 17-year moratorium on the federal death penalty. Twenty minutes later, Lee was dead.

That was July 2020. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was on the campaign trail, pledging to restore America’s soul. President Trump was at the peak of his administration’s war on “the China plague,” Covid-19.

Those journalists present at Lee’s death have not yet acted on his final request. Instead some have described how Lee’s execution affected them.

He was strapped to a gurney in Terre Haute, Indiana, aka home of the federal execution death chamber. I was a stone’s throw away, locked down, serving 10 years for fighting to save kids from vicious medical abuses like these described in this Congressional testimony.

My crime? I’m doing 10 years in jail because I found out that an innocent, learning-disabled, 15-year-old girl named Justina Pelletier was being tortured by the nation’s leading pediatric teaching hospital and that the authorities were too corrupt to stop it. So, without hurting a soul, I defended her life in a way that few others could. For this, I was arrested and prosecuted in 2018.

Big executions, big business

That week’s particular lockdown at Terre Haute lasted five days while the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the then US Attorney General William Barr put to death in rapid succession Lee, Wesley Ira Purkey, and Dustin Lee Honken, in the start of a last-minute killing spree during the final months of the Trump administration, even as Covid-19 ravaged the nation’s prisons.

Here in Indiana – where Trump smashed Biden by 19 points – executions are big business. The sprawling, 1,145-acre Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) that I and 3,000 other prisoners reluctantly call home, is the sixth-largest employer in the city.

To administrators here, executions equal media attention, politicking and career advancement. They gather officials from across the US for each killing. Between Honken’s date with the needle and Biden’s inauguration six months later, they conducted 10 more lethal injections at Terre Haute, for a total of 13.

Eric Williams was the executioner for five of them. He routinely tells federal courts that the deaths are peaceful and painless, in order to counter claims that the drug used, pentobarbital, represents a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

But media witnesses and others provide different accounts. Dying prisoners, according to the Associated Press, roll, shake and shudder, sometimes for up to a minute.

William Breeden was a spiritual advisor to Corey Johnson during his January 14 lethal injection, inside the execution chamber with him. “Corey said his hands and mouth were burning,” Breeden filed in a deposition the next day.

Rick Winter, an attorney for the prison, filed a counterclaim swearing that neither he nor anyone else heard Johnson’s statement. Not surprising perhaps, since the prison disables the audio feed from the chamber before each killing.

My cell, in medium security, is inside Terre Haute’s old death-row building, which housed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh before his 2001 lethal injection. Executions were later paused, and the authorities moved death row to another section across from me, behind the walls of the high-security US penitentiary.

Today, a man called Brian Lammer is warden of the prison where I reside. The week when executions resumed in 2020, he twice each day served us prisoners Chex party mix snacks, in apparent celebration. I filed a complaint over this in the US district court.

The head of the Death Penalty Information Center, Robert Dunham, condemns such tactics, saying: “The deliberate falsehoods that numerous Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons officials told, the apparent enjoyment they received in inflicting emotional pain and mocking the suffering of the prisoners, suggests they weren’t indifferent to the prisoners’ needs – they were intentionally inflicting emotional distress.”

Southern District of Indiana Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, a 2010 Obama appointee, at least twice entered injunctions against federal executions due to the pandemic. Her first was July 10, three days before Lee’s death.

The family of his victims had sued Barr, claiming his rush to kill Lee during the pandemic left them with an “impossible choice”. Magnus-Stinson agreed, saying the date would force a family member “to choose whether being present for the execution of a man responsible for the death of her daughter and granddaughter is worth defying her doctor’s orders and risking her own life.”

The family had long requested that Lee get a life sentence instead of death. One relative said: “It’s a matter of… saying, `This is not being done in our name; we do not want this.”

Unmoved, Barr appealed, and claimed the BOP could “carry out these execution[s] without being at risk.” The next day, the DOJ confirmed that an execution staffer had tested positive for coronavirus. Thus, some might have called the family’s lawsuit and the injunction prescient.

Despite that, 48 hours later, three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago stigmatized the family’s case with the f-word of litigation: frivolous. It ruled that surviving relatives had no right to witness executions; therefore, pandemic or not, the BOP could carry on.

On the bench that day was the Seventh Circuit’s newest member: Amy Coney Barrett. Three months after Barrett voted in Barr’s favor, Trump favored her to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

The toll mounts

Six months later, a third of the deaths at Terre Haute weren’t from pentobarbital, but coronavirus and one case of murder.

Jose Nieves-Galarza, for example, was never sentenced to die. Yet in 2020 he was the first to leave the prison in a body bag, having never experienced Covid-19.

The 59-year-old was found in his cell on May 5, months from release on a seven-year bid (a sentence) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. His cause of death was homicide by blunt-force trauma and terminal exsanguination. In other words, he was beaten then bled to death.

But that’s not what Warden Lammer told the public, or Nieves-Galarza’s family, or a senior judge. Although the BOP’s press release expressly stated coronavirus didn’t appear to be a factor in the prisoner’s death, it omitted any mention of violence. To the judge, Lammer wrote that Nieves-Galarza had “passed away” from causes yet to be determined.

The FBI’s been investigating the death, but answers remain unforthcoming.

The long, deadly reach of the Klan

The same week Lee, Purkey, and Honken met their fates in Terre Haute, the state of Indiana was still trying to exorcize its demons over its almost century-long connections with the Ku Klux Klan and a history of anti-black discrimination.

The present echoes the past. Before federal executions resumed in July 2020, 35 of the 62 federal death-row prisoners in Terre Haute were minorities. Blacks, 12% of the US population, make up nearly 42% of the federally condemned.

More common than complexion, however, those facing Uncle Sam’s needle are universally poor.

Had Lezmond Charles Mitchell and Keith Dwayne Nelson knowingly downplayed the deadliness of a lucrative prescription opioid, that caused nearly 1.5 times the death toll of coronavirus, they might have paid the feds $8.3 billion to settle without jail time. Had they allowed shoddy equipment to spark repeated wildfires that killed 85, they might have bought their way out for $13.5 billion. And had they cut corners on an airliner that crashed twice, killing 346, they might never have been indicted.

But Mitchell and Nelson didn’t know important people, or have money. The feds didn’t let them declare bankruptcy and begin anew.

They strapped them to a gurney and injected each of them with five grams of pentobarbital. They died 46 hours apart, August 26 and 28, 2020.

Mitchell, who maintained that his juvenile co-defendant was the aggressor, was the only Native American on federal death row, and is now the only one in modern history to be put to death by the US government.

The day before his execution, I tried to mail a letter to Forbes journalist Walter Pavlo. Pavlo had unflatteringly, but accurately, covered the BOP’s handling of coronavirus, so we’d corresponded.

The week leading up to Mitchell’s lethal injection was noteworthy. We’d been on total lockdown as the virus was spreading fast.

Our warden was again serving Chex party mix and I felt within my rights to mail Pavlo a letter to advise him of events: The BOP had earlier battled federal prisoners in court over the right to publish articles and lost. The Supreme Court held in 1974 that prison authorities cannot withhold or censor mail they find unflattering or even inflammatory.

But I was yet to learn the lengths to which Terre Haute’s attorneys would go to hit the execution dates.

Purkey’s attorneys claim Terre Haute “stonewalled” them from gathering evidence to show he was mentally unfit. Lee’s attorneys say authorities executed him “while multiple motions remained pending and without notice to counsel.”

Did officials mislead courts to ensure executions scheduled from July 2020 to mid-January 2021 happened before the apparent death penalty opponent, Joe Biden, became president? I’ve little doubt.

There was blatant, obscene politicking. After Lee’s injection, Trump’s campaign sent out an email saying he had “Ensured Total Justice for the Victims of an Evil Killer.”

But the day after I handed in my letter for mailing to Pavlo, I was still surprised that an officer came to my cell to accuse me of violating prison discipline. My letter had been confiscated, and the prison’s “counterterrorism unit” had charged me with circumventing protocols.

Under normal conditions, prison discipline is hazardous. But at Terre Haute, Covid added a new dimension.

Well into the pandemic, one officer, Jason Bradley, contracted the virus. But that didn’t stop him from entering Terre Haute and sanctioning prisoners. And to say that Bradley loosely complied with masking and social-distancing guidelines during that time would be generous.

The prisoners unlucky enough to interact with Bradley found they were punished beyond whatever sanctions he meted out officially. Even those who didn’t contract Covid were placed in weeks of inelegant quarantine in the form of solitary confinement.

I’d tried to write to Pavlo then, too (and to others). The BOP’s “counterterrorism unit” also blocked that correspondence; however, I later filed a copy in court.

My earlier reporting on coronavirus at Terre Haute was also blocked, but made it into federal-court records.

Time for the black prisoners to die

Six and a half hours after the lieutenant read me my rights, a deputy US Marshal read Lezmond Mitchell his death warrant and motioned to start the pentobarbital.

“We are very confident they [at the prison complex] have it under control and contained,” said department spokesperson Roni Elder. He meant Covid, rather than the pentobarbital, but both turned out to be wrong.

Eight days later prisoner Byron Dale Bird, 65, died of Covid-19. The day after, prisoner Tim Hocutt, 53, died within hours of testing positive.

There were more than 40 inmate cases in the complex 24 hours thereafter. Lethal injections carried on, uncontrolled and uncontained.

William Emmett LeCroy ate his last meal September 22.

Christopher Andre Vialva, the first black prisoner to face the needle in 2020, was executed September 24. Less than a week later, Barr scheduled that of a second, Orlando Cardia Hall.

“Five of the first six to die [by lethal injection] were white, which critics argued was a political calculation to avoid uproar,” noted AP. “The sixth was Navajo.”

An all-white Texas jury had agreed with prosecutors that Hall, 49, should die for his role in the kidnap, gang-rape and murder of 16-year-old Lisa Rene in 1994. He was one of five perpetrators, but the only one executed, on November 19, despite fears it would set off a racial “tinderbox.”

Twenty-one days later, Covid cases at the complex numbered at least 326. Of the 1,316 high-security prisoners here, 128 had tested positive on December 8. In the medium-security section it was 198 of 887.

Two days after these numbers were reported, the DOJ executed Brandon Anthony Micah Bernard, its third consecutive black man.Twenty-three hours later, Alfred Bourgeois, also black, went to his death on the federal gurney, professing innocence.

By December 22, the high-security section of the complex that houses death row reported 281 coronavirus cases, the most in the BOP.

At least four at Terre Haute died of Covid-19. Lifer James Lee Wheeler had tested positive two days before Hall’s execution. Aged 78, he had multiple comorbidities. Yet the warden took eight days to send him to hospital.

While doctors fought to save Wheeler’s life, Barr and the DOJ fought to expand their options to execute others. They moved to amend regulations to include not just lethal injection, but “any other manner [of death] prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence was imposed.”

The new regulation went into force December 24, allowing the DOJ to use nitrogen hypoxia, the electric chair, the poison-gas chamber, and firing squads.

At some point in December, Corey Johnson and Dustin John Higgs, who were scheduled to be the last prisoners executed before Biden’s inauguration, also reportedly contracted coronavirus.

Counting chickens, wringing necks

While their executions were scheduled, a Twitter account named fozzythebear tweeted, “Don’t count your chicken [sic] before they hatch, hopefully November and December will be a [sic] very busy month!” for death row. A lawsuit claims this was a prison officer called Andrew Sutton. He’s since been removed from his job, but it’s unclear if he’s been fired or reassigned.

Sutton’s not the only death-row staffer to face allegations of inappropriate conduct. One of my other official complaints – one that saw me thrown into solitary – concerns an officer called Todd Royer who is well known for his voyeuristic tendencies, and who burst into my cell while I was sitting on the toilet defecating.

Meanwhile, the killings continued apace. Instead of halting executions during the pandemic, a judge ruled the BOP could proceed so long as it enforced masks, tests and other requirements.

The same day, prisoner Joseph Lee Fultz, 52, entered Terre Haute. Four days later, he tested positive for coronavirus. It would be a busy week.

It’s time for a woman to die

Lisa Montgomery was the only woman awaiting federal execution at our prison. In 2004, she’d driven from Kansas to Missouri, ostensibly to purchase a puppy from a 23-year-old dog breeder who was eight months pregnant. Instead, Montgomery strangled her, cut her fetus from her womb with a steak knife and tried to pass the surviving baby off as her own.

Her attorneys argued she was not guilty due to mental incompetency and that she was unfit for execution. Her mother’s excessive drinking while Montgomery was in the womb caused brain damage, according to court records.

“She was beaten, repeatedly raped by her stepfather and his friends, and sexually trafficked by her mother,” noted The Topeka Capital­ Journal. “At 18, she married her stepbrother, who also beat and raped her. She had four children in less than four years before being sterilized. She lapsed increasingly into mental illness and repeatedly faked pregnancy.”

Her execution had been postponed multiple times, including when her attorneys developed Covid-19 after visiting her.

By early morning January 13, Montgomery’s stays of execution ran out. Her appeal to Trump for clemency was unsuccessful. At 1:31am, she was pronounced dead by lethal injection, the first woman executed by the federal government since 1953.

In its last week, the Trump administration was winding down. On January 14, as law enforcement braced for an uneasy transition in Washington, all 127 federal prisons were locked down from midnight January 16.

Did this shutdown stop the BOP from carrying out its thirteenth and final Terre Haute execution of the Trump administration? No.

Who’s next for a body bag?

Dustin John Higgs was pronounced dead an hour and twenty-three minutes after lockdown began. He, too, died claiming to be innocent. But his was not to be the last death here.

On January 25, two weeks after Fultz tested positive for coronavirus, the warden classified the prisoner as “recovered.” But the 52-year-old would see neither the fourth week of the Biden administration, nor an emergency room.

Staff found Fultz unresponsive in his cell February 7 and called emergency medical services, who pronounced him dead. He had been in Terre Haute for exactly a month.

The BOP knew Fultz had pre-existing conditions associated with high-risk Covid. But instead of taking him to hospital, he was put in solitary confinement. Alongside 13 executions, he was the seventh federal prisoner at this complex to die of other causes and the sixth to die of Covid.

He’s unlikely to be the last.

My date with the discipline officer for writing to Forbes came on March 3, well into the Biden administration. Prison staff were still flouting social-distancing rules and defying the new executive order requiring masking on federal property.

An officer called D. Matthews came within inches of me and lowered his mask around his chin, exposing his nose and mouth as he spoke during the hearing. He sentenced me to spend an additional 27 days in prison, and it would be three months before I next spoke to my wife.

This is how the US justice system works. The claims of innocence asserted in the last words of the likes of Lee, Bourgeois and Higgs, as well others who remain on death row, remain untested outside federal courts.

The type of forensic hair analysis that federal prosecutors used against Lee was discredited years ago by a study undertaken in part by The Innocence Project; in one case, a hair that FBI analysts determined to be a likely match for the accused instead belonged to a dog. In Lee’s case, the “likely match” remains unverified and unchallenged by DNA testing.

Lee’s critics highlight that he was a white supremacist at the time of the murders.

That’s true. But is that proof of murder, or a convenient pre-emption? Does the DNA from the hair found at the scene match him, or implicate another? Does Lee’s alibi hold? Did Barr execute an American for a crime he did not commit? And do Lee’s beliefs render these questions inconsequential?

Waiting for a new dawn

Merrick Garland has now been confirmed as the new US attorney general, while holdover BOP Director Michael Carvajal remains in place, as do almost 50 federal prisoners awaiting execution.

Although candidate Biden decried the death penalty “now and in the future,” his administration continues with each passing day to fund federal death row at a cost of millions per year. If the transition in Washington has consequences, then Carvajal and Warden Lammer – whose arrival here coincided with Barr’s push to resume executions–- are yet to feel them.

As I read the local Tribune Star, watch the TV news, and peer out at Indiana through the slats in my KKK-era brick-and-steel window, never do I see demonstrators holding signs to defund death row. Unless that changes, Biden can apparently bide his time as the one person who, in a pen-stroke, could put to death “death row” itself.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

NEWS

China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies

Published

on

Starting next year, China will raise its retirement age for workers, which is now among the youngest in the world’s major economies, in an effort to address its shrinking population and aging work force.

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s legislature, passed the new policy Friday after a sudden announcement earlier in the week that it was reviewing the measure, state broadcaster CCTV announced.

The policy change will be carried out over 15 years, with the retirement age for men raised to 63 years, and for women to 55 or 58 years depending on their jobs. The current retirement age is 60 for men and 50 for women in blue-collar jobs and 55 for women doing white-collar work.

“We have more people coming into the retirement age, and so the pension fund is (facing) high pressure. That’s why I think it’s now time to act seriously,” said Xiujian Peng, a senior research fellow at Victoria University in Australia who studies China’s population and its ties to the economy.

The previous retirement ages were set in the 1950’s, when life expectancy was only around 40 years, Peng said.

The policy will be implemented starting in January, according to the announcement from China’s legislature. The change will take effect progressively based on people’s birthdates.

For example, a man born in January 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 7 months in August 2032, according to a chart released along with the policy. A man born in May 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 8 months in January 2033.

Demographic pressures made the move long overdue, experts say. By the end of 2023, China counted nearly 300 million people over the age of 60. By 2035, that figure is projected to be 400 million, larger than the population of the U.S. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences had previously projected that the public pension fund will run out of money by that year.

Pressure on social benefits such as pensions and social security is hardly a China-specific problem. The U.S. also faces the issue as analysis shows that currently, the Social Security fund won’t be able to pay out full benefits to people by 2033.

“This is happening everywhere,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But in China with its large elderly population, the challenge is much larger.”

That is on top of fewer births, as younger people opt out of having children, citing high costs. In 2022, China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for the first time the country had 850,000 fewer people at the end of the year than the previous year , a turning point from population growth to decline. In 2023, the population shrank further, by 2 million people.

What that means is that the burden of funding elderly people’s pensions will be divided among a smaller group of younger workers, as pension payments are largely funded by deductions from people who are currently working.

Researchers measure that pressure by looking at a number called the dependency ratio, which counts the number of people over the age of 65 compared to the number of workers under 65. That number was 21.8% in 2022, according to government statistics, meaning that roughly five workers would support one retiree. The percentage is expected to rise, meaning fewer workers will be shouldering the burden of one retiree.

The necessary course correction will cause short-term pain, experts say, coming at a time of already high youth unemployment and a soft economy.

A 52-year-old Beijing resident, who gave his family name as Lu and will now retire at age 61 instead of 60, was positive about the change. “I view this as a good thing, because our society’s getting older, and in developed countries, the retirement age is higher,” he said.

Li Bin, 35, who works in the event planning industry, said she was a bit sad.

“It’s three years less of play time. I had originally planned to travel around after retirement,” she said. But she said it was better than expected because the retirement age was only raised three years for women in white-collar jobs.

Some of the comments on social media when the policy review was announced earlier in the week reflected anxiety.

But of the 13,000 comments on the Xinhua news post announcing the news, only a few dozen were visible, suggesting that many others had been censored.

Continue Reading

NEWS

Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine

Published

on

Moscow’s envoy to the UN has reiterated where the Kremlin’s red line is

Granting Kiev permission to use Western-supplied long-range weapons would constitute direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict by NATO, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said.

Moscow will treat any such attack as coming from the US and its allies directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, explaining that long-range weapons rely on Western intelligence and targeting solutions, neither of which Ukraine is capable of.

NATO countries would “start an open war” with Russia if they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Friday.

“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy said. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.”

Putin issues new warning to NATO

“Our Western colleagues will not be able to dodge responsibility and blame Kiev for everything,” Nebenzia added. “Only NATO troops can program the flight solutions for those missile systems. Ukraine doesn’t have that capability. This is not about allowing Kiev to strike Russia with long-range weapons, but about the West making the targeting decisions.”

Russia considers it irrelevant that Ukrainian nationalists would technically be the ones pulling the trigger, Nebenzia explained. “NATO would become directly involved in military action against a nuclear power. I don’t think I have to explain what consequences that would have,” he said.

The US and its allies placed some restrictions on the use of their weapons, so they could claim not to be directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.

Multiple Western outlets have reported that the limitations might be lifted this week, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kiev. Russia has repeatedly warned the West against such a course of action.

 

Continue Reading

NEWS

China makes its move in Africa. Should the West be worried?

Published

on

Beijing maintains a conservative economic agenda in its relations with the continent, while finding it increasingly difficult to avoid a political confrontation with the West

The ninth forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the FOCAC summit held in Beijing on September 4-6 marked a significant phase in Africa’s relations with its global partners in the post-Covid era. China is the last major partner to hold a summit with African nations following the end of the pandemic; Africa summits were held by the EU and the US in 2022, and by Russia in 2023. The pandemic, coupled with rising global tensions, macroeconomic shifts, and a series of crises, underlined Africa’s growing role in the global economy and politics – something that China, which has undergone major changes (both internal and external) as a result of the pandemic, is well aware of.

It is clear that the relationship between China and Africa is entering a new phase. China is no longer just a preferential economic partner for Africa, as it had been in the first two decades of the 21st century. It has become a key political and military ally for many African countries. This is evident from China’s increasing role in training African civil servants and sharing expertise with them, as well as from several initiatives announced at the summit, including military-technical cooperation: officer training programs, mine clearing efforts, and over $100 million which China will provide to support the armed forces of African nations.

In the political arena, however, Beijing is proceeding very cautiously and the above-mentioned initiatives should be seen as the first tentative attempts rather than a systematic strategy.

While China strives to avoid political confrontation with the West in Africa and even closely cooperates with it on certain issues, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Washington is determined to pursue a policy of confrontation with Beijing in Africa – this is evident both from US rhetoric and its strategic documents.

Dirty tactics: How the US tries to break China’s soft power in Africa

A “divorce” between China and the West is almost inevitable. This means that Chinese companies may lose contracts with Western corporations and won’t have access to transportation and logistics infrastructure. Consequently, China will need to develop its own comprehensive approach to Africa, either independently or in collaboration with other global power centers.

An important sign of the growing confrontation between the US and China in Africa was the signing of a trilateral memorandum of understanding between China, Tanzania, and Zambia regarding the reconstruction of the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA), which was originally built by China in the 1970s. If it is expanded, electrified, and modernized, TAZARA has the potential to become a viable alternative to one of the key US investment projects in the region: the Lobito Corridor, which aims to enhance logistics infrastructure for exporting minerals (copper and cobalt) from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia by modernizing the railway from the DR Congo to the Angolan port of Lobito.

In inland regions such as Eastern Congo, transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role in the process of mineral extraction. Considering the region’s shortage of rail and road networks, even a single non-electrified railway line leading to a port in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean can significantly boost the operation of the mining sector and permanently tie the extraction and processing regions to specific markets.

It appears that China’s initiative holds greater promise compared to the US one, particularly because Chinese companies control major mines both in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. This gives them a clear advantage in working with Chinese operators and equipment, facilitating the export of minerals through East African ports. Overall, this indicates that East Africa will maintain its role as the economic leader on the continent and one of the most integrated and rapidly developing regions for imports.

A former colonial European power returns to Africa. What is it after now?

The highlight of the summit was China’s pledge to provide $50 billion to African countries over the next three years (by 2027). This figure echoes the $55 billion commitment to China made by the US (for 3 years) at the 2022 US-Africa Summit and the $170 billion that the EU promised to provide over seven years back in 2021. Consequently, leading global players allocate approximately $15-20 billion annually to Africa.

In recent years, there has been noticeable growth in such promises. Nearly every nation is eager to promise Africa something – for example, Italy has pledged $1 billion annually. However, these large packages of so-called “financial aid” often have little in common with actual assistance, since they are typically commercial loans or corporate investments. Moreover, a significant portion of these funds is spent in the donor countries (e.g. on the procurement and production of goods), which means that they contribute to the economic growth of African nations in a minimal way.

As for China, it will provide about $11 billion in genuine aid. This is a substantial amount which will be used for developing healthcare and agriculture in Africa. Another $30 billion will come in the form of loans (roughly $10 billion per year) and a further $10 billion as investments.

The overall financial framework allows us to make certain conclusions, though it’s important to note that the methodology for calculating these figures is unclear, and the line between loans, humanitarian aid, and investments remains blurred. In terms of investments (averaging around $3 billion per year), Beijing plans to maintain its previous levels of activity – in recent years, China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) have ranged from $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Financial and humanitarian aid could nearly double (from the current $1.5 billion-$2 billion per year) while lending is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels (which would still be below the peak years of 2012-2018).

Can Africa seize control of its own energy?

China’s economic plan for Africa seems to be quite conservative. It’s no surprise that debt issues took center stage during the summit. During the Covid-19 pandemic, macroeconomic stability in African countries deteriorated, which led to challenges in debt repayments and forced Africa to initiate debt restructuring processes assisted by the IMF and the G20. Starting in 2020, a combination of internal and external factors led China to significantly cut its lending to African countries – from about $10-15 billion down to $2-3 billion. This reduction in funding has triggered economic reforms in several African countries (e.g. Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria), which have shifted toward stricter tax and monetary policies. While promises to increase lending may seem like good news for African nations, it’s likely that much of this funding will go toward interest payments on existing obligations and debt restructuring, since China wants to ensure that its loans are repaid.

Despite China’s cautious approach to Africa, its interaction with the continent will develop as a result of external and internal changes affecting both Africa and China. Africa will gradually become more industrialized and will reduce imports while the demand for investments and local production will increase. China will face demographic challenges, and its workforce will decrease. This may encourage bilateral cooperation as some production facilities may move from China to Africa. This will most likely concern East African countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, considering China’s current investments in their energy and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, with Africa’s population on the rise and China’s population declining, Beijing is expected to attract more African migrant workers to help address labor shortages.

Continue Reading

Trending