China in Africa: investment or exploitation?

[Toramana]

China in Africa: investment or exploitation?

Premier Li Keqiang shrugs off problems as "growing pains" and says relationship is based on equality and mutual benefit.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/05/china-africa-investment-exploitation-201454154158396626.html

[Toramana]

@Bengal-Tiger

It sounds US's influence in Africa and other parts of the world is waning as other countries especially the countries in the BRIC alliance are rising. China today is the largest trading partner of Africa engaged in the trade worth 210 billion dollars with it. China doesn't interfere with the partner countries internal affairs, doesn't impose (sponsored) regimes, doesn't impose sanctions or economically strangulate countries if denied leverage, and doesn't have a history of colonization.

It isn't to say that China doesn't do exploitation but the impact of its rise in Africa and other parts of the world has largely been benign.

The Ethopian foreign minister in the video above is saying or implying Chinese diplomacy is needed in some of the regional issues in Africa. Does that mean China will engage with trading partners in political and diplomatic sphere as well apart from economic sphere in future?

Here is one comment by a reader on the above article.

"China is investing billions of dollars in Africa but Beijing has been accused of exploiting the continent's vast mineral and energy resources"

China is making a positive contribution to Africa....something western forces will cry sour grapes on for decades. I think many Chinese workers will soon make Africa their home and grow businesses that create jobs for the masses.

The West had this opportunity as well but choose to rape and pillage instead.

It is worthwhile to travel around different parts of Africa, particularly East Africa, to see the extensive Chinese involvement in those countries from stadiums, schools and hospitals to roads, railways and hydroelectric dams.

China's current economic engagement with Africa is different from that of the West. While the West was only interested in grabbing and plundering, China pays for African raw materials with real goods and services. China also builds infrastructures for Africa-- Something the West has simply ignored over the past 2 centuries though they are always generous in pouring sympathy and pity on the Africans whenever there is a disaster, natural or man-made, happens in Africa.

[Bengal_Tiger]

@Bengal-Tiger

It sounds US's influence in Africa and other parts of the world is waning as other countries especially the countries in the BRIC alliance are rising. China today is the largest trading partner is of Africa engaged in the trade worth 210 billion dollars with Africa. China doesn't interfere with the partner countries internal affairs, doesn't impose (sponsored) regimes, doesn't impose sanctions or economically strangulate countries if denied leverage, and doesn't have a history of colonization.

It isn't to say that China doesn't do exploitation but the impact of its rise in Africa and other parts of the world has largely been benign.

The Ethopian foreign minister in the video above is saying Chinese diplomacy is needed in some of the regional issues in Africa. Does that mean China will engage with trading partners in political and diplomatic sphere as well apart from economic sphere?

1. First I am not an expert of any sort though I do read and discuss with people and based on what I read I can perhaps give more informed "opinions" (that's what they are i.e. personal opinions, but not expert predictions).

2. The Chinese in general are easygoing. They don't like to interfere in other countries affairs as it's really none of their concern. I don't know if this is related but traditionally the Chinese have regarded themselves as superior to non-Chinese, are exclusive and maintain a distance.

The white Russians spread from the Duchy of Muscovy and kept on conquering racially different Asiatic and Mongoloid peoples. The Chinese did not go west and try to conquer west Turkestan or parts of Russia or even India all of which are racially different.



The slightly lighter Uighurs of Xianjiang (east Turkestan) are as far as they went (geographically and racially in terms of conquering a non-Han race).

But Xianjiang was part of imperial China before the Uighurs even moved in there.

Central Asia was always a crossing point between Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples. Even today northern Kazakhstan is heavily white Russian.

3. However the Chinese know that America is an aggressive power keen on world hegemony and will unashamedly invade countries e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc.

Libya was the last straw for the Chinese and Russians who were lied to by the Americans, believing the Americans would not bomb the Qaddafi regime.

Syria is a red line for both China and Russia and they will go to nuclear war if required. I am totally serious. They will not accept the fall of the Assad government under any means. It is as important as that. The war in Syria for Russia and China is a war against them but in another theatre.


4. The Russians and Chinese have decided to stick together to undo US dominance, US provocations in Ukraine just prove the point that the US is a very aggressive state.


5. The US has military power projection with bases all around the globe and a global imperial fleet consisting of air craft carriers.

China is now catching up and is building its own air craft carriers and plans to challenge the US in the Pacific.

China already has a fleet in the Mediterranean, when it and Russia blocked the Americans from attacking Syria.




6. The Chinese and Russians alongside other BRICS states and others including Iran are going to unseat the dollar as the world's currency. The US in the next 5 to 10 years will no longer be the world's top power. Russia and even Turkey are talking about creating their own versions of the internet (Turkey is speaking of its own version of Google and facebook).



7. Will the Chinese be better than the Americans as global leaders? Overall yes as they generally do not believe in interfering in other people's affairs and have the disdain for non-white peoples that the west does (race does play a part, US and western regimes treat nations in different ways partly due to their race)

The Chinese are being forced, in order to prevent what is basically American state thuggery, project their power - a necessity rather than a desire for self-aggrandisement.

I don't ever think the Chinese will ever get anything near the same economic, military, political and cultural (Hollywood, Facebook, Microsoft, English as international language, Google) domination that the Americans have had, but they'll be the main power out of a number of strong powers in the world.

The Americans will try to use the Islamic card against the Chinese and may try and even use the Taliban (thus Pashtuns as the Taliban consists of many Pashtuns alongside Punjabis, Uzbeks, Arabs etc) against China.

In the long run it won't work. The US empire is heading towards its natural demise.

[Bengal_Tiger]

[SIZE="3"]@Bengal-Tiger

...

"China is investing billions of dollars in Africa but Beijing has been accused of exploiting the continent's vast mineral and energy resources"

China is making a positive contribution to Africa....something western forces will cry sour grapes on for decades. I think many Chinese workers will soon make Africa their home and grow businesses that create jobs for the masses.

The West had this opportunity as well but choose to rape and pillage instead.

It is worthwhile to travel around different parts of Africa, particularly East Africa, to see the extensive Chinese involvement in those countries from stadiums, schools and hospitals to roads, railways and hydroelectric dams.

China's current economic engagement with Africa is different from that of the West. While the West was only interested in grabbing and plundering, China pays for African raw materials with real goods and services. China also builds infrastructures for Africa-- Something the West has simply ignored over the past 2 centuries though they are always generous in pouring sympathy and pity on the Africans whenever there is a disaster, natural or man-made, happens in Africa.

1. Yes this is totally true.

The white west has a superiority complex and they enjoy feeling good about themselves and "donating" to the inferior darkies who are "in need" of their generosity. However they suck the blood out of places like Africa through the IMF and instigate civil wars and genocides there e.g. Rwanda.

2. The Chinese do not like seeing instability for the sake of it and do not believe in divide and rule and like the rest of the non-western world they have their own resentment of imperialism and colonialism.


This is not to say the Chinese are angels but they are definitely better than the west.

Another thing the west objects to and its "free" (state controlled) media vilifies is when non-western states enter in to private deals with African states whereby they can lease huge amounts of land for agricultural purposes to provide food security. Bangladesh for example does this in parts of east Africa.


If a white western man does something it is "fine", if a darkie does it, it is to be condemned and given a negative name e.g. "land grabbing".

[Zubr-Zubr]

China has many interests in Africa. First of all it is political and economic interests. In the politics in regard to the African states Beijing does a rate on poor, totalitarian countries. The Chinese government knows that the African countries are rich in natural resources. Dictators that manage these countries have bad relationships with democratic Europe, therefore and oriented on Beijing.

[Zubr-Zubr]

China behaves to Africa as a consumer, but not as ally.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Syria is a red line for both China and Russia and they will go to nuclear war if required. I am totally serious. They will not accept the fall of the Assad government under any means. It is as important as that. The war in Syria for Russia and China is a war against them but in another theatre.

This is not the case. China and Russia are not on the same page with regards to Assad and Syria. Whereas Russia (along with Iran) supplies weapons to Assad, China does not.

China has a stance of non-interference. That does not mean it supports Russia. An example would be its abstaining from the recent UNSC vote which Russia vetoed.

China has not had genuine military ties to any Arab country because these Arab nations have militarily and economically aligned with Western interests for several decades.