4 ms·

I'm pretty sure by that whole 2063 thing, China will pretty much imply the AU. I'm fair certain China figures prominently in the AU's strategy for getting to 20

I'm pretty sure by that whole 2063 thing, China will pretty much imply the AU. I'm fair certain China figures prominently in the AU's strategy for getting to 2063. In truth, so does the EU. It's just that China is thought to be the less risky long term partner.

pm90 7y ago
This will all change when loan repayments are due and China insists on no-forgiveness and asks for more control of the actual infrastructure, and ultimately ownership. That kind of thing is frowned upon by Western governments because it is eerily similar to the colonialism playbook but China is unfettered by that past and can thus move ahead. Also, China is a totalitarian state so even if the State committed atrocities abroad there would be little to no domestic repercussions anyways.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >This will all change when loan repayments are due and China insists on no-forgiveness and asks for more control of the actual infrastructure... Only they won't. When I was at Halliburton you could see the insidious brilliance of the Chinese strategy in Africa. Sure, there is support for rail everywhere. Support for roads everywhere. Factories everywhere. Resource extraction. Etc. But ask yourself this, where does it all go? Follow the map of their rails and roads and you'll see that a lot of them just go to ports. I mean, you can't even complain about it, because, of course, where else would it go? But I have a final question for you, will Africans own the freighters? My boss at Halliburton was a brilliant strategic thinker. Was basically 100% sure that by 2100 there'd be so much freight traffic that you'd be able to walk from East African ports, to Shanghai, via the Indian Ocean, without getting your feet wet. So the Chinese are effectively giving the Africans loans and whatnot in name only. Really it's a trap. Only the trap is not monetary, it's a physical logistics trap. They don't care if you pay for the roads or not, they only care that the roads go to the port. That's the evil of it, if the roads go to the port, you've probably already paid for them.
  - NortySpock 7y ago
    That's still money and infrastructure in Africa's pocket in the short term, and perhaps another freight company will visit Africa if the price is right. Of course, this all makes sense until China makes a navy for the Indian Ocean.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Oh of course! Africa doesn't care, it's roads and railways they wouldn't have otherwise. As an added bonus, they get linked into the global supply chain. Which really gets their economies going. It's probably a fair trade? I'm just pointing out that the Chinese are not doing what they are doing because they want to make 1.8% on some infrastructure loan to Africans. They have a plan. An insidious and evil plan, breathtaking in its scope, to link themselves to Africa in a way that is not easily de-linked. It's not some monetary link that they are going after here. They don't even try for a monetary link, likely because Africans are already trapped in a monetary link to us. So they flank us, and secure the logistics link. It's all very Chinese. "To be certain you take what you attack, attack only that which is undefended." - 孫子
      - tepidandroid 7y ago
        If you are in agreement with the parent poster that the Africans receive tangible benefits from Chinese infrastructure development, can you help me understand why you characterize the Chinese plans as "insidious and evil"?
        bilbo0s 7y ago
        Oh, maybe I should clarify. It's evil in its intent to freeze the West out of Africa. Or rather, not to freeze us out, but to push us out of the the driver's seat so to speak. At the end of the Chinese strategic vision, is an Africa independent of the West. With either Africans in the driver's seat, or Chinese in the driver's seat. Or both. But no one else. Now reasonable people can debate if we deserve to lose that seat. There certainly are good arguments that we do. But the irony, and the insidiousness here, is that the Chinese are being every bit as colonial as we were, they're just being a bit less greedy. Colonialism is not only evil when the West practices it, it's evil when China practices it as well. Of course that sounds self serving coming from a Westerner at this point, and maybe it is a bit? But it's just how I see it.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  Between that and a IMF loan, it's basically a coin flip. Capitalism implies competition. "The West" should just offer them a better deal.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Not sure why you’re being downvoted for this very accurate assessment of a possible alternative .

pm90 7y ago

This will all change when loan repayments are due and China insists on no-forgiveness and asks for more control of the actual infrastructure, and ultimately ownership. That kind of thing is frowned upon by Western governments because it is eerily similar to the colonialism playbook but China is unfettered by that past and can thus move ahead. Also, China is a totalitarian state so even if the State committed atrocities abroad there would be little to no domestic repercussions anyways.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>This will all change when loan repayments are due and China insists on no-forgiveness and asks for more control of the actual infrastructure... Only they won't. When I was at Halliburton you could see the insidious brilliance of the Chinese strategy in Africa. Sure, there is support for rail everywhere. Support for roads everywhere. Factories everywhere. Resource extraction. Etc. But ask yourself this, where does it all go? Follow the map of their rails and roads and you'll see that a lot of them just go to ports. I mean, you can't even complain about it, because, of course, where else would it go? But I have a final question for you, will Africans own the freighters? My boss at Halliburton was a brilliant strategic thinker. Was basically 100% sure that by 2100 there'd be so much freight traffic that you'd be able to walk from East African ports, to Shanghai, via the Indian Ocean, without getting your feet wet. So the Chinese are effectively giving the Africans loans and whatnot in name only. Really it's a trap. Only the trap is not monetary, it's a physical logistics trap. They don't care if you pay for the roads or not, they only care that the roads go to the port. That's the evil of it, if the roads go to the port, you've probably already paid for them.
- NortySpock 7y ago
  That's still money and infrastructure in Africa's pocket in the short term, and perhaps another freight company will visit Africa if the price is right. Of course, this all makes sense until China makes a navy for the Indian Ocean.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Oh of course! Africa doesn't care, it's roads and railways they wouldn't have otherwise. As an added bonus, they get linked into the global supply chain. Which really gets their economies going. It's probably a fair trade? I'm just pointing out that the Chinese are not doing what they are doing because they want to make 1.8% on some infrastructure loan to Africans. They have a plan. An insidious and evil plan, breathtaking in its scope, to link themselves to Africa in a way that is not easily de-linked. It's not some monetary link that they are going after here. They don't even try for a monetary link, likely because Africans are already trapped in a monetary link to us. So they flank us, and secure the logistics link. It's all very Chinese. "To be certain you take what you attack, attack only that which is undefended." - 孫子
    - tepidandroid 7y ago
      If you are in agreement with the parent poster that the Africans receive tangible benefits from Chinese infrastructure development, can you help me understand why you characterize the Chinese plans as "insidious and evil"?
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        Oh, maybe I should clarify. It's evil in its intent to freeze the West out of Africa. Or rather, not to freeze us out, but to push us out of the the driver's seat so to speak. At the end of the Chinese strategic vision, is an Africa independent of the West. With either Africans in the driver's seat, or Chinese in the driver's seat. Or both. But no one else. Now reasonable people can debate if we deserve to lose that seat. There certainly are good arguments that we do. But the irony, and the insidiousness here, is that the Chinese are being every bit as colonial as we were, they're just being a bit less greedy. Colonialism is not only evil when the West practices it, it's evil when China practices it as well. Of course that sounds self serving coming from a Westerner at this point, and maybe it is a bit? But it's just how I see it.
JetSpiegel 7y ago
Between that and a IMF loan, it's basically a coin flip. Capitalism implies competition. "The West" should just offer them a better deal.
- pm90 7y ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted for this very accurate assessment of a possible alternative .