4 ms·

That's where Geostrategy comes into play. Trade is an option, but not the only one. China is not really "trading" with Africa, are they? The continental US ha

That's where Geostrategy comes into play. Trade is an option, but not the only one. China is not really "trading" with Africa, are they? The continental US has pretty much anything needed, they'd probably need to eat a bit more environmental damage if they wanted to actually extract their rare earths for example.

coldtea 8y ago
>China is not really "trading" with Africa, are they? Well, aren't they? Not goods for goods, but they pay with money and infrastructure for resources like minerals and so on. At least they are not having them as colonies, plundering, invading with their armies, or directly installing their own lackeys in power, yet -- as most Western powers have done in the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries...
- emidln 8y ago
  Does it really matter whether the boot crushing your throat was made down the street or across the sea?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    That's not the difference that I wrote of, though. What I wrote amounts to that what China does in Africa not a "boot crushing their throat". And that's a nice change after a long period where foreign boots were crushing their throats regularly there in Africa.
    - zer00eyz 8y ago
      Except the deal doesn't always work out well: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/no-more-flights-from-sri-lanka-s-chinese-built-second-airport_135398?profile=1442 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/no-more-flight...
  - wahern 8y ago
    Yes, it can matter quite alot. There's a reason British colonies faired better post independence than those of other powers. The British typically left behind a better developed local administrative apparatus, legal system, and business network. Japan's colonization of Taiwan followed a similar strategy, and it's a significant reason why Taiwan is today a very modern nation, industrially and politically. Imperial relationships that too heavily emphasize resource extraction--minerals, labor, etc--leave behind a tinderbox. China is in some ways the worst of the bunch in this regard because they completely abstain from any local development. Even when China "invests" in a country, they literally ship in their own workers and project managers.[1] The locals don't learn (and have no incentive to learn) how to do mundane stuff like project management and budgeting, and expectations that all government is corrupt are left entirely undiminished. Worse, the initiatives allow corruption on heretofore unheard scale.[2] I don't mean to equivocate the modern reality with colonialism. Colonial powers inflicted many unforgivable injuries upon local populations. In terms of national autonomy there's simply no comparison between 21st century Chinese imperialism and colonialism. But the aftermath of colonialism has taught us much about the dos and don'ts of national development. [1] Because Chinese development initiatives in Africa and South Asia are not only about securing resources for China, but also function as employment programs for the Chinese labor underclass. [2] Look at the 1MDB scandal. $1 billion was originally smuggled out of the country through Saudi Arabian channels. But the paper trail was too obvious. To cover his tracks it appears that Prime Minister Najib took a loan from the Chinese Development Bank, nominally to help pay for a Chinese Belt & Road Initiative-sponsored project. The loan was used to pay 1MDB debts, and the project costs (with a corrupt payment structure) born by the government using the regular budget. In effect the money was laundered after the fact because they did such a poor job of it the first time. It would be much more difficult to hide corruption this way using European, American, and Japanese banks and development programs; and if they did and the public caught wind, there'd be serious repercussions. Indeed, one reason 1MDB was discovered and the country able to hold the PM to account is because of the strong, British-derived technocracy and legal system, and the paper trails that passed through Western banks. The Chinese simply don't care, at any level. Their Belt & Road Initiative is in some ways like dropping fentanyl onto entire countries of heroin addicts.
    - pasabagi 8y ago
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  At least they are not having them as colonies, plundering, invading... I totally agree. But, surely, one can do better than a mere comparison to perpetrators of invasion, enslavement, colonialism, racism and genocide. Is there a stronger defense and explanation of China's role in Africa?

coldtea 8y ago

>China is not really "trading" with Africa, are they? Well, aren't they? Not goods for goods, but they pay with money and infrastructure for resources like minerals and so on. At least they are not having them as colonies, plundering, invading with their armies, or directly installing their own lackeys in power, yet -- as most Western powers have done in the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries...

emidln 8y ago
Does it really matter whether the boot crushing your throat was made down the street or across the sea?
- coldtea 8y ago
  That's not the difference that I wrote of, though. What I wrote amounts to that what China does in Africa not a "boot crushing their throat". And that's a nice change after a long period where foreign boots were crushing their throats regularly there in Africa.
  - zer00eyz 8y ago
    Except the deal doesn't always work out well: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/no-more-flights-from-sri-lanka-s-chinese-built-second-airport_135398?profile=1442 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/no-more-flight...
- wahern 8y ago
  Yes, it can matter quite alot. There's a reason British colonies faired better post independence than those of other powers. The British typically left behind a better developed local administrative apparatus, legal system, and business network. Japan's colonization of Taiwan followed a similar strategy, and it's a significant reason why Taiwan is today a very modern nation, industrially and politically. Imperial relationships that too heavily emphasize resource extraction--minerals, labor, etc--leave behind a tinderbox. China is in some ways the worst of the bunch in this regard because they completely abstain from any local development. Even when China "invests" in a country, they literally ship in their own workers and project managers.[1] The locals don't learn (and have no incentive to learn) how to do mundane stuff like project management and budgeting, and expectations that all government is corrupt are left entirely undiminished. Worse, the initiatives allow corruption on heretofore unheard scale.[2] I don't mean to equivocate the modern reality with colonialism. Colonial powers inflicted many unforgivable injuries upon local populations. In terms of national autonomy there's simply no comparison between 21st century Chinese imperialism and colonialism. But the aftermath of colonialism has taught us much about the dos and don'ts of national development. [1] Because Chinese development initiatives in Africa and South Asia are not only about securing resources for China, but also function as employment programs for the Chinese labor underclass. [2] Look at the 1MDB scandal. $1 billion was originally smuggled out of the country through Saudi Arabian channels. But the paper trail was too obvious. To cover his tracks it appears that Prime Minister Najib took a loan from the Chinese Development Bank, nominally to help pay for a Chinese Belt & Road Initiative-sponsored project. The loan was used to pay 1MDB debts, and the project costs (with a corrupt payment structure) born by the government using the regular budget. In effect the money was laundered after the fact because they did such a poor job of it the first time. It would be much more difficult to hide corruption this way using European, American, and Japanese banks and development programs; and if they did and the public caught wind, there'd be serious repercussions. Indeed, one reason 1MDB was discovered and the country able to hold the PM to account is because of the strong, British-derived technocracy and legal system, and the paper trails that passed through Western banks. The Chinese simply don't care, at any level. Their Belt & Road Initiative is in some ways like dropping fentanyl onto entire countries of heroin addicts.
  - pasabagi 8y ago
HillaryBriss 8y ago
At least they are not having them as colonies, plundering, invading... I totally agree. But, surely, one can do better than a mere comparison to perpetrators of invasion, enslavement, colonialism, racism and genocide. Is there a stronger defense and explanation of China's role in Africa?