Let us start with a light-hearted but painfully accurate observation: When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. However, when China builds, entire cities—and sometimes nations—rise from the dust. This is not about taking sides. It is about taking stock.
South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation, is at a crossroads, and the question is simple: Who is more likely to walk with us on the long road of development—America or China?
In this article, I offer a candid comparison, based on real stories and official actions, of how China and the US engage with South Sudan and why China is emerging as the more culturally attuned and practically effective partner—not just for us, but for Africa at large.
China’s involvement in South Sudan speaks the language our ancestors would understand: show up, share food, build the hut, and leave something useful behind. Whether it is roads, hospitals, or stadiums, China prefers bulldozers to bureaucracy.
Take, for example, the topping-out ceremony of the China-aided Phase II Juba Teaching Hospital Project. It was not a flashy diplomatic speech or a conference in a five-star hotel. It was about walls being raised, beds being added, and lives being saved. China brought in engineers, supplies, and commitment—not lectures. This was a follow-up to previous health projects, showing consistency, not just charity.
Meanwhile, what was the US doing? According to a July 2024 ruling by the US Supreme Court, the Trump administration was given the greenlight to deport eight convicted migrants to South Sudan, one of who is a South Sudanese. The deportees were being shuttled through Djibouti like unwanted Amazon packages with a “Do Not Return” label.
Let us be honest: Deporting someone to South Sudan, a country under its own State Department’s Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory due to crime and conflict, is like tossing someone into a burning house and saying, “Good luck”.
In Africa, we understand the village. The idea that one’s neighbor’s problems are also yours is not just a philosophy—it is survival. China gets this. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinators on the Implementation of the Follow-up Actions of FOCAC, said, “China and Africa should uphold solidarity and self-reliance… stand on the right side of history.”
This is not a diplomatic fluff. It aligns with our cultural DNA. Africa thrives on communal relationships—where elders are respected, partnerships are lifelong, and help is given, not based on press coverage, but on genuine obligation to community.
The US, however, often views Africa through the lens of conditionality. Aid comes with strings. Relationships are transactional. One day you are a partner; the next, you are on a sanctions list. It is like dating someone who checks your phone every five minutes.
Let us consider where the two powers choose to park their resources.
China builds hospitals. South Sudan is benefiting from the expansion of the Juba Teaching Hospital, with real beds, real doctors, and real medicine. This is not a pilot program or an experiment—it is a continuation of a long-term investment in our health.
The US, on the other hand, used a military base in Djibouti to process migrants bound for South Sudan—people with criminal records, yes, but still human beings. Their own Supreme Court acknowledged the risks of torture or death in South Sudan, but gave the greenlight anyway.
So, one power is sending doctors. The other is sending deportees. It is not difficult to see which approach is more likely to win hearts—and perhaps even elections—in Juba.
America often comes bearing speeches: democracy, transparency, human rights—wonderful values, all of them. But they lose meaning if they are not backed by tangible support. South Sudan does not need moral sermons from Capitol Hill. We need roads, power stations, teachers, and yes—bulldozers.
China, for all its own flaws, delivers steel instead of just speech. The Communist Party is not here to lecture us about our political choices. Their focus is, frankly, refreshingly practical: you need a hospital? Done. You want to build a highway? Where is the map?
This is not to suggest China is a saint in global affairs. But when your roof is leaking and someone offers you a ladder while another offers a pamphlet on home safety regulations, who would you rather have by your side?
South Sudan’s traditional values—respect for elders, consensus decision-making, and community living—align more closely with east Asian social models than with Western liberal individualism.
China does not push cultural imperialism. You will not see a Chinese diplomat telling South Sudanese women how to dress or communities how to vote. They believe in “civilizational diversity,” as Wang Yi put it. It is a kind of respect that we in Africa understand. Just as we do not tell the Chinese how to build their temples, they do not tell us how to organize our cattle camps.
By contrast, the West often sees its values as export commodities. Democracy? Sure. But only if it looks like the American model. This arrogance breeds resentment—and, frankly, rebellion. The US has done its part in humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping support. But its approach is riddled with inconsistencies.
South Sudan was once a poster child for the US foreign policy success—helped into independence in 2011 with Washington’s enthusiastic backing. But once the honeymoon was over and internal conflicts flared, America pulled back like a disillusioned parent. Sanctions, visa restrictions, and finger-wagging followed.
It was the classic: “We love you, but only if you behave like us” model.
China, on the other hand, never expected us to be perfect. They work with governments as they are, not as they wish they were. Their cooperation does not care whether your parliament squabbles or your constitution needs revision. They care if your soil can grow rice or your river can power a dam.
Data does lie:
* China is South Sudan’s largest investor in oil infrastructure—a lifeline for our economy.
* Chinese medical teams have treated over 50,000 South Sudanese citizens since independence.
* The Chinese government has trained over 1,000 South Sudanese students in various fields through scholarships and technical programs.
In contrast, the US State Department’s 2024 decision to deport migrants to South Sudan included zero consultation with Juba and triggered condemnation even within US legal circles.
China also remains South Sudan’s biggest non-Western trade partner. That is not just trade—it is trust.
South Sudan does not need saviors. We need sincere partners. We do not need photo ops with ambassadors; we need engineers, nurses, and teachers. We need allies who understand that trust takes time and that development is a long-term relationship—not a quarterly report.
In this regard, China’s consistency, cultural empathy, and physical presence on the ground make it the more logical choice. Africa has long been romanticized, misunderstood, and sometimes manipulated by the West. It is about time we dated someone who does not just bring flowers but builds the whole garden with us.
To the US: If you still want to be our partner, try showing up without the checklist. We are not your experiment. We are a country of people, not just policies. Less drone talk, more doctor talk.
To China: Keep bringing those cement bags. But do not stop there. Open your heart a little more too. Partnerships are not just built with bricks—they are built with listening ears.
To South Sudan: Let us not be naïve. No partner is perfect. But if someone helps you up when you are down, does not judge your clothes, and leaves behind something useful like a hospital or a school, maybe—just maybe—they are a keeper.
When you compare China’s hospital project with America’s deportation plan, it becomes clear who is offering a hand and who is pointing a finger. South Sudan needs fewer lectures and more listening. Fewer sanctions and more scaffolding. Fewer threats and more trust.
And for once, can we pick a friend not based on pressure, but on proven partnership?
Let the bulldozers speak.John Monyjok Maluth is a South Sudanese author of 100 books, coach, and teacher. (maluthabiel@gmail.com/ +211 927 145 394/ Website: https://johnshalom.com/)
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.