China Colonizing Africa With Dire Consequences for Africans
July 19, 2008 11:03 PM   Subscribe

China is making a concerted effort to colonize Africa with dire consequences for Africans. In protest to China's involvement in Darfur's genocide, Steven Spielberg has resigned as Artistic Director of the Beijing Olympics.
posted by MetaMan (98 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
Heh, that Time article is just rife with irony.

After battling for years against the white colonial powers of Britain, France, Belgium and Germany, post-independence African leaders are happy to do business with China for a straightforward reason: cash.

Oh yeah, also because they spent years battling with Europe and are a wee bit pissed off about that.

The people of this bewitching, beautiful continent, where humankind first emerged from the Great Rift Valley, desperately need progress. The Chinese are not here for that.

They are here for plunder. After centuries of pain and war, Africa deserves better.


Really, an English newspaper is going to criticize people for plundering Africa?
posted by tkolar at 11:14 PM on July 19, 2008 [6 favorites]


Whups, sorry, "Daily Mail" not "Time" by which I meant "Times" anyway.
posted by tkolar at 11:14 PM on July 19, 2008


My anti-China sentiment is seething all the more.
posted by Hollow at 11:29 PM on July 19, 2008


Blacks not welcome in Beijing bars?
posted by hortense at 11:30 PM on July 19, 2008


Bad, bad Chinese. How dare they infringe on the West's right to tell Africa what's best for it?
posted by nasreddin at 11:34 PM on July 19, 2008 [14 favorites]


Steven Spielberg has resigned as Artistic Director of the Beijing Olympics

Yeah, because when he took the job, China had a reputation for being a progressive, enlightened country who had no infernal designs on poorer nations at all. Tibet was free, the people could worship as they wished in public, undertake peaceful protests in places like Tiananmen Square with nary a dirty look from a passing police officer, and slave labor was virtually unheard-of.

Good for Spielberg to stand up to this wholly uncharacteristically bad behavior on the part of China.
posted by chimaera at 11:40 PM on July 19, 2008 [22 favorites]


Um, that Spielberg story is from February. And he wasn't the "Artistic Director" - he was an adviser, except that he never actually took up his post. Meanwhile, perhaps we could include some more balanced commentary from here: Council on Foreign Relations" Note this paragraph:

In many ways the economic growth in Asia, and the subsequent growth in demand, is good for Africa. Mineral prices are reaching record highs, reversing a long decline for many of Africa’s major exports over the past few decades. [xiii] For Africa’s oil producers, there has been a substantial windfall. Nigeria might not have been able to negotiate such a favorable debt relief program from the Paris Club as it has just done, eliminating some $18 billion in debt, if it had not been a position, because of recent oil windfalls, to put $6 billion on the table to clear interest and past arrears as part of the deal. China is also investing in areas that western aid agencies and private investors have long neglected: physical infrastructure, industry, and agriculture. These are areas that the west, recently fixed on social needs in education and health, had largely abandoned, and only now again has recognized as essential for Africa’s growth. [xiv] Finally, China offers African nations some competition to the west, emboldening some leaders to take a harder look at the conditionality of the IMF and other institutions, advice that may or may not be the best for their circumstances.

I'm not saying that there are aspects of China's involvement in Africa that aren't problematic, but I don't think the issue is as cut and dried as your post is.
posted by awfurby at 11:45 PM on July 19, 2008 [5 favorites]


The bit about bars looks like a Murdoch paper's attempt to sell extra copies:

Um, really? SCMP claims Beijing to ban blacks, Mongolians at bars
posted by shetterly at 11:49 PM on July 19, 2008


tkolar Really, an English newspaper is going to criticize people for plundering Africa?
Would you prefer they not criticize the Chinese for plundering Africa?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:53 PM on July 19, 2008 [15 favorites]


Oh yeah, and "colonize"? They are actually sending boats full of Chinese people to claim African territory, carve out some farmland from the jungle, raise a red flag up over the farmland, and proclaim a commemorative holiday?

Having read that Daily Mail article I am AMAZED to learn that "Angola has its own Chinatown". And that there are "Exclusive, gated compounds, serving only Chinese food" which kind of reminds me of Discovery Bay in Hong Kong, except instead of Chinese food it's Western food.

But more seriously, if there really is a "One China in Africa" policy as mentioned in the Daily Mail article, perhaps a couple of links to more information about that policy would be helpful.
posted by awfurby at 11:56 PM on July 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


Really, an English newspaper is going to criticize people for plundering Africa?

What's your point? That the present reporting and editorial staff of the daily mail are personally responsible for British colonialism and therefore have no business commenting or reporting on this?
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:57 PM on July 19, 2008 [6 favorites]


China is not snatching African land, it is doing business with Africans in Africa. If other countries care to help Africa and compete with China for influence in Africa, they ought to do more business with Africa.

A good start would be to eliminate tariffs on all materials and products coming from African countries. It would be nice to add conditions (their officials must be chosen in fair elections, their women must have equal rights, etc.), but that would do more harm than good because it would just kill the deal for ages in many places. Start by opening up free trade with the whole continent now, before someone else signs deals where you could have signed them.

And if Chinese businessmen are not behaving well, go in there and raise the bar. Show Africans how well employees are treated by companies from your country.
posted by pracowity at 12:14 AM on July 20, 2008 [6 favorites]


The bit about bars looks like a Murdoch paper's attempt to sell extra copies

To be fair to Murdoch, the SCMP is now owned by the Kuok family, after Rupert sold it to them.
posted by awfurby at 12:39 AM on July 20, 2008


awfurby, thanks for pointing that out. I saw a criticism, probably on Wikipedia, that some people think the Kuoks are too reluctant to criticize Beijing. Maybe this was their attempt to say they'll run as quickly with a rumor as any western paper.
posted by shetterly at 12:46 AM on July 20, 2008


I'm not saying that there are aspects of China's involvement in Africa that aren't problematic, but I don't think the issue is as cut and dried as your post is.
This about sums up the situation in the grown-up world away from the Daily Mail news room. Of course, it's not just China that is expanding its trade with Africa but even then the BRIC nations have a away to go to catch up with the West.
posted by Abiezer at 12:52 AM on July 20, 2008


pracowity: If other countries care to help Africa and compete with China for influence in Africa, they ought to do more business with Africa.

I was just reading about Zimbabwe's inflation which may just have surpassed that of the Weimar republic and thought, well, if China can help solve that problem with some food and toys along with the guns and cash, then good riddance.

Mugabe is a tough one to crack and if the West could not muster the ball to have him and the other eleven assassinated (and face the consequences), then he just has to be reckoned with. Right now the country needs more stuff to feed the crashing market and China can provide that.

On the other hand, this kind of 'pragmatism' on its part seems so short-sighted, un-Confucian.
posted by Laotic at 1:33 AM on July 20, 2008


I think the most short sighted part of this article is that it confines itself to africa if you look in the caribbean and in south america I am sure you find your fair share of chinese imperialism. At least that was the case the last time I visited
posted by Rubbstone at 1:38 AM on July 20, 2008


AfricaFile's At Issue e-magazine provided a much more in-depth critical look at China in Africa in its August-November issue last year.
posted by Abiezer at 1:53 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Really, an English newspaper is going to criticize people for plundering Africa?


So, if some of your ancestors behaved abhorrently in Africa, this prevents you from ever criticising anyone else's behaviour in Africa. Have I got this right?
posted by outlier at 1:56 AM on July 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


That Mail article is a wee bit alarmist, I daresay. Bit of an anti-China axe to grind there, Andrew Malone?

This line from the article is perhaps telling:

Despite Britain's commendable colonial legacy of a network of roads, railways and schools, the British are now being shunned.!

Surprised he didn't somehow slip the word "benevolent" into that sentence.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:05 AM on July 20, 2008 [4 favorites]


Something rather similar has been happening in the South Pacific for the last decade or so. (Indeed, fears about China's growing influence were one of the main causes behind the Tongan riots of 2006, which disproportionately targeted Chinese-owned businesses.)

This is colonialism. Just because it's being carried out by China rather than the West doesn't make it any less so.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:15 AM on July 20, 2008


Really, an English newspaper is going to criticize people for plundering Africa?

Well, the English did have a tragic & exploitative record with Africans, but the liberation of the slaves after the civil war, and the civil rights movement about a century later allow them to take the high moral ground now.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:20 AM on July 20, 2008


We've always been at war with Eastasia.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:54 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


And if Chinese businessmen are not behaving well, go in there and raise the bar. Show Africans how well employees are treated by companies from your country.

The poor Africans!
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:14 AM on July 20, 2008


the English did have a tragic & exploitative record with Africans, but the liberation of the slaves after the civil war, and the civil rights movement about a century later allow them to take the high moral ground now.

errr...

Never mind. Too easy.
posted by longsleeves at 3:16 AM on July 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


Beijing bars, lost in translation? Roland Soong at EastSouthWestNorth notes:

The last bit was the most interesting bit. In Chinese, 黑人 (heiren) refers to a person with dark skin. This is a racial descriptor. In Chinese, 黑帮 (heibang) refers to a criminal gang, and 黑帮份子 (heibangfenzi) refers to criminal gang elements (for example, in the Weng'an incident, the authorities talks about 'criminal gang elements' misleading the masses and starting a riot). So could this be a case when the police asked the bar owners to look out for 黑帮份子 (heibangfenzi) involved in drug sales, prostitution, extortion, pickpocketing, robbery, etc but this came through (via translation?) to some people as 'black people'?

See Roland's post: EastSouthWestNorth
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:25 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


China is not snatching African land, it is doing business with Africans in Africa.

I think I'm pretty qualified to call bullshit on that one. China is raping Africa, economically, because they can, because there's not enough motivation for the rest of the world to blow the whistle. So Africans stay poor and keep battling AIDS and malaria - as long as you can still get your value meal at McDonald's in Peoria, that's all that really matters to you, right?

I've spent the last month living in Zambia, and working in some of the more remote provinces around the country. You know how much gasoline costs in Zambia? Almost 9,000 Zambian Kwacha per litre. That's about $2.80 a litre depending on the day's exchange rate. There's about 3.75 litres to a gallon, right? Zambians pay $10.50 a gallon for gas. And people in the US are crying foul whilst trading in their SUVs...

Why does gas there cost that much? Because the Chinese are smart - they realized that to gain a solid bargaining position, the best thing to control to a land-locked country in Africa was the overland trucking industry. They have a stranglehold on it, and anything they ship into the country comes at whatever premiums they choose. And they maintain this through a complex series of bribes to the political leaders of whatever port host-country it is easiest / cheapest for them to move oil, et. al. through. That's just gas. But of course it takes gas to get food, clothing, building materials, or really anything else for that matter, to market. You can't get a decent meal for under $10 in Zambia.

And so an otherwise completely fertile country sits pretty much stagnant as China swiftly relieves it of its natural resources - shipping off valuable copper to neighboring countries where it can be refined. Zambia sees little to nothing in the way of recompense. Again here, political leaders taking pay-offs to look the other way. They're president has been (theoretcially) off in a French military hospital for the last month, for crying out loud.

Why would China bother to do business with Africans in Africa, when its much cheaper to pay off a powerful few, and do business with no one? As long as the rest of the developed world isn't going to step in, it will still be Chinese weapons that ZANU-PF uses to keep Mugabe rich and the rest of the people starved. It will still be Chinese aircraft scorching the earth of Darfur's destitute villages. It will still be China leaching the natural resource out of every country here not sufficiently structured to defend itself from a greedy older sibling on the planet when there are no parents to set rules.

Instead, we, the collective free countries of the world, go to Beijing to play in the games and pretend that China isn't propagating mass suffering in the dark continent, let alone raping the environment in their own.

But at least I can get great Chinese food here, right?
posted by allkindsoftime at 3:47 AM on July 20, 2008 [57 favorites]


What I'm taking away from allkindsoftime is "Americans: this is what it's been like to not be American for the past hundred years or so."
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:53 AM on July 20, 2008 [5 favorites]


Well look at Indonesia. China is good at colonizing. It doesn't supplant the native population but just becomes the power elite. Not sure it will work in Africa though, too big of an ethnic divide, same problems Europeans have/had.
posted by stbalbach at 5:08 AM on July 20, 2008


Really, it's a good business move for China to get deeply involved in Africa now. As China becomes more and more economically successful, they will, eventually, find that their cost advantages start to evaporate. Wages will almost certainly go up. It makes a lot of sense to establish a strong foothold in what is most certainly the last cheap labor resource left...Africa.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:26 AM on July 20, 2008


China... dude. Colonization is so 1699.
posted by spock at 7:32 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I just think of that Monty Python Gilliam animation -- what was it -- the Yellow Peril? It had a large Mao head surrounded by a teeming, growing sea of people, an undercurrent of buzzy noise.
posted by RubberHen at 7:36 AM on July 20, 2008


On the other hand, Idi Amin kicked Asians out of Uganda when it suited him, so who knows?
posted by IndigoJones at 7:44 AM on July 20, 2008


I am for anything that improves Chinese fashion sense.
posted by srboisvert at 7:52 AM on July 20, 2008 [2 favorites]


What does that mean, huh? "China is here." I don't even know what the hell that means.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:56 AM on July 20, 2008


"The United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM or AFRICOM) is a new Unified Combatant Command of the United States Department of Defense, to be responsible for U.S. military operations in and military relations with 53 African nations."

And the USAFRICOM logo looks like a vajayjay.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:58 AM on July 20, 2008


China is not snatching African land, it is doing business with Africans in Africa.

ah, the tender naivetés of a free-market fundamentalist.

Sam Adams quasi-memoir War of Numbers included an interesting account of his time on the Southern African desk of the CIA, and mentioned Chinese "diplomats" were running guns to the Congolese Kwilu rebels during the Congo Crisis ("Belgians in the Congo!" to us Gen Xers).
posted by yort at 8:13 AM on July 20, 2008


"... China is raping Africa, economically, because they can, because there's not enough motivation for the rest of the world to blow the whistle. ..." [emphasis added]
posted by allkindsoftime at 6:47 AM on July 20

What, exactly, do you mean by "blow the whistle," allkindsoftime? What do you imagine could be done to compel China to do anything differently in Africa or anywhere else? Do you think WTF trade sanctions, and coordination of fiery editorials in the leading newspapers of the G8 capitals will do the trick? How about playing hardball with them on the U.N. Security Council? Maybe we could embarrass China into being less atavistic in Africa!

Secondly, it isn't just a matter of "motivation," as someone writing from Africa must surely realize. There isn't enough military power left in the entire world to mount a credible conventional action against China, on its home ground. Chinese leadership, and everybody else, has known that since the 1950s. What every military leader in a planning position outside China is scratching their head about still, and probably not for too much longer, is whether nuclear deterrence is even likely to restrain Chinese action. At some point, if China really wants Taiwan, they will have it. If China wants Africa, they'll likely have whatever they want of it, too. What's mainly held them in check to date is the problem of projecting their power abroad, but that is changing.

As any beat cop will tell you, blowing a whistle is meaningless, if you can't compel bad guys to change their ways. Who could compel China, now, do you think? Who will be able to do so in 10 years? 20 years?
posted by paulsc at 8:24 AM on July 20, 2008 [5 favorites]


I wrote...
Heh, that Time article is just rife with irony.
[...]
Really, an English newspaper is going to criticize people for plundering Africa?


A bunch of other people wrote...
What's your point?

Let me just cut straight to the point and blame Alanis Morissette for bastardizing a perfectly useful term to the point that people don't understand it when it's used correctly.
posted by tkolar at 9:04 AM on July 20, 2008


What, exactly, do you mean by "blow the whistle," allkindsoftime?

To your point, there's not a single military power left in the entire world to compel China.

But then, I was going to say "embargoes."
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:06 AM on July 20, 2008


*not that people in Africa would know anything about those.
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:11 AM on July 20, 2008




To your point, there's not a single military power left in the entire world to compel China.

But then, I was going to say "embargoes."


If you're suggesting that nations like the U.S. embargo trade with China, that's economically unthinkable -- we've long since hollowed out our manufacturing industry. An insane amount of goods would disappear from the market and inflation would explode on a simple supply and demand basis.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:19 AM on July 20, 2008




Meanwhile, the games start in a few weeks, and Beijing is scrambling to rid itself of its notorious smog in time for opening ceremonies. To do so, it is taking drastic measures to temporarily halt the worst emissions. But will the scheme work? It remains to be seen: more here and here.
posted by ornate insect at 9:32 AM on July 20, 2008


give the history of Britain and the USAs 'free-market' interference, exploitation, now and in the past of pretty much every developing country - this seems pretty clearly the "pot calling the kettle black".

The USA/UK however just chooses to do its exploitation under the guise of the WTO and IMF.
posted by mary8nne at 9:39 AM on July 20, 2008


The audacity of Chinese go to Africa to sell the goods in which it has comparative advantage and buy the goods for which Africans have for comparative advantage.

How could the Chinese not have learned the lesson of the NGOs that Africa is exempt from economics? How dare they prefer to enrich enterprising African partners rather than subsidize the poverty of the rest?
posted by MattD at 9:43 AM on July 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


homunculus, or, as a reading of the article makes fairly clear, Gordon Brown aide shocked to discover that women you pick up in bars might steal your phone.

If it was really a honeytrap, they would copy his info and leave the Blackberry. I don't think it's a leap to assume that the Chinese have seen a few James Bond movies; they know how the game is played.
posted by shetterly at 9:46 AM on July 20, 2008


Although China's economic involvement with Africa is problematic, they are more or less up front about what they desire out of the situation. The West has been exploiting Africa for centuries while obfuscating their intentions as religious, humanitarian and fucked up ideas of manifest destiny. It is extremely ironic, that we in the West want to now condemn China for what they are doing in Africa, even though we have been doing precisely the same damn thing, only we attempt to rationalize our intentions.

This is not to say that the situation should not be closely monitored, this is not to say that China will not engender various corrupt, ethically-challenged regimes within Africa. However, this is just business as usual. Its just that now, it is Chinese business. And we Westerners don't like it when someone comes and plays in our sandbox. Unfortunately for us, we are not able at this point to take our toys and go home.
posted by anansi at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2008 [7 favorites]


If it was really a honeytrap, they would copy his info and leave the Blackberry. I don't think it's a leap to assume that the Chinese have seen a few James Bond movies; they know how the game is played.

I don't think it's a leap to assume that you have seen a few James Bond movies and haven't the slightest idea how "the game" is actually "played". Simply taking the blackberry is quick and efficient and has plenty of deniability in the sense that the girl is presumptively a simple thief and *ahem* what was the aide doing with her again? Copying it is a specialized task which requires time, preparation and tools, and the contents of his Blackberry are not likely to be advanced nuclear weapons designs or anything else requiring such measures.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:12 AM on July 20, 2008


What does that mean, huh? "China is here." I don't even know what the hell that means.

Hey, slow down... I'm feeling like a bit of an outsider here.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2008


This was definitely my favorite line from the Daily Mail article:
Despite Britain's commendable colonial legacy of a network of roads, railways and schools, the British are now being shunned.
I would comment on how absurd it is to call GB's record in Africa commendable... but I think it'd be a bit obvious. For shining examples of the consequences of European administration in Africa see:
The Congo Freestate (i.e. The Belgian Congo)
and
Apartheid in South Africa
posted by ignorantguru at 11:29 AM on July 20, 2008


Copying it is a specialized task which requires time, preparation and tools, and the contents of his Blackberry are not likely to be advanced nuclear weapons designs or anything else requiring such measures.

If the security services of one of the world's major powers has gone to the trouble to target a prime ministerial aide in a honeypot trap, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that they'd also have the relatively minor capability to have something that would copy all of the data in an adjacent hotel room. Last time I looked, backing up the data on a cellphone didn't require anything more sophisticated than a laptop, but even if it did, if anyone has the resources to do that, a national security service would.

If their goal was more than just accessing the data on the phone, but access to the server and the data on that server on an ongoing basis, then the last thing you'd want would be to arouse suspicion that your security had been breached because the phone had gone missing during a liaison with a hooker in a Shanghai hotel.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:39 AM on July 20, 2008


What I'm taking away from allkindsoftime is "Americans: this is what it's been like to not be American for the past hundred years or so."

It's a shame you ignored most of his post, because it was an excellent one.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:56 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


PeterMcDermott, a big ditto. And, since we're still in James Bond land thanks to folks who see the Evil Hand of China behind every misdeed done by an Asian: if you did need a little extra time in a target's presence, putting something in their drink to ensure some deep sleep is very old tech. A hangover is a whole lot less compromising than a missing data device.
posted by shetterly at 1:17 PM on July 20, 2008


You know, allkindsoftime, the sentence immediately before your carefully selected quote from the Obama Web site is:
"He also worked with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission."
Which is such a pitiful, toothless "accomplishment" to be touting, in the face of a genocide, that it is nothing less than the crassest form of political grandstanding. To suggest that Obama is ready to commit U.S. forces is taking the phrase "helping to enforce a no fly zone" way past Weaseltown. "Helping to enforce a no fly zone" doesn't really mean a 10 year commitment of U.S. fighter jets flying daily missions over Africa, like it meant for Iraq, do you think? Maybe it means the U.S. will sell spare parts and munitions for anyone crazy enough to commit U.S. built planes to such a mission. But, in typical fashion, Obama's Web site is fuzzy on the details of what he is really prepared to do, as President. Moreover, NATO provided most of the air support for the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS), through the end of 2007, and has pledged on-going support if requested, which is an existing role commitment with European allies for the U.S. that Obama completely fails to address.

The African Union did effectively zilch in Darfur, save put a few thousand observers in camps, with orders to stand back and watch the killing. This do nothing "force" even had problems protecting itself, much less in preventing the janjaweed from running rampant. Finally, AMIS was folded in to UNAMID on December 31, 2007, a fact that Obama's Web site seems to have failed to catch up with, quite yet. U.S. participation in UNAMID has not been requested, nor is it pledged, mainly because of fears by African Union leaders that direct U.S. involvement would politicize the situation, and create a military U.S. presence on the continent, which the AU clearly does not want.

So, please don't try to BS me with out of date, poorly considered quotes from a politician's Web site, as if they were credible policy alternatives, likely to somehow influence Chinese policy anywhere in the world.
posted by paulsc at 1:31 PM on July 20, 2008 [2 favorites]


I know very little about what is taking place in Africa but I do know that the Chinese are attempting to extract as much resources, do as much business, and win over friends and that money is a large part of this effort. and that seems a driving force for most nations if they can do it. If "Africa"--I had thought it was a bunch of countries and not just one called Africa--does not want the Chinese there or does not want to do business with them, then let them kick them our or say so.
posted by Postroad at 1:38 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't wipe my ass with the daily mail.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:41 PM on July 20, 2008


To elaborate: this is an important issue, and it's depressing to see it framed, totally incorrectly, by the worst british tabloid.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:44 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


See, for example, that one time the mail completely made up an entire story about muslims getting outraged about picture of a puppy.

This is what they do; it's their stock in trade. Print the most compelling thing you can, whether or not it's true -- if it's more compelling than the subsequent debunkings, fewer people will see them and you've come out ahead. Think fox news on paper.
posted by Tlogmer at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2008


The hullaboo being talked up in Western countries about China's tramping into Africa without a care for the feelings of the indigenous population does reek of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. It just so happens that at some point in the recent past Britain, France, Italy et al were pushed out or backed out of the continent, and hurt still lingers in the diplomatic psyche in Abuja, Kinshasa and Addis Ababa.

Then the upstart power is invited in, and doesn't bring the baggage of oppressor's guilt, and takes all the useful minerals that weren't already exploited, stopping only to build a highway here or a railway there, caring not for the livelihoods of the locals. It's just not fair, the neglected master cries. I mean, come on, can any of the developed nations say even now they give Africa an even break?

Looked at from another angle: George Bush refuses to countenance any curbing of America's carbon emissions without China and other emerging economies doing the same. It makes sense from a pragmatic, political point of view -- the loss of American competitiveness could never be sold to the voters. But it doesn't make sense objectively. The U.S. is the world's biggest polluter, and has been (and has benefited from it) for many years, despite having a relatively small population. It needs to blink first, but can't quite bring itself to do that. And the world gets hotter, more dangerous and more fragmented...

The only hope left for humanity is to create a reality whereby the only sensible thing to do is the honourable thing as well. Europe is leading the way by trading carbon credits, and it deserves to reap the rewards of being a front-runner once consumers on a massive scale choose to buy only clean electricity, green products and sustainable food.

From anecdotal evidence I think Americans would jump at the chance to poke China in the eye, even if it meant being environmentally aware.

It's only when good can profit that good will prevail.

I also wouldn't put too much weight behind anything written in the Daily Mail, it is the British equivalent of, hmmm, not really sure, maybe a printed Fox News. It is the instrument with which Home Counties housewives justify their prejudices.
posted by e-state 4.0 at 1:52 PM on July 20, 2008


Old news.
posted by Cochise at 2:14 PM on July 20, 2008


...the Daily Mail ... is the instrument with which Home Counties housewives justify their prejudices.

That inevitably brings to mind Jim Hacker in Yes, Prime Minister, though this quote is now a little dated:
“I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.”
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:10 PM on July 20, 2008 [5 favorites]




What does that mean, huh? "China is here." I don't even know what the hell that means.

It's like "The Internet is here" but with less rickrolling.
posted by rokusan at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2008


THE CHINESE NEED TOTO! It'll put some romance in their hearts, so they don't go killing people who don't want to follow their orders.
posted by Flex1970 at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2008


I'm pretty ignorant on things African, but one thing you can say for colonizers, at least they built infrastructure.
posted by anthill at 7:51 PM on July 20, 2008


The Daily Mail editorial was pretty bad, which is sad because a much better and comprehensive piece of reporting on the subject appeared in Fast Company last month and would have been better for the FPP: China In Africa (5 parts).
posted by dgaicun at 7:54 PM on July 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm pretty ignorant on things African, but one thing you can say for colonizers, at least they built infrastructure.

What have the Romans ever given us?
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:38 PM on July 20, 2008


I'm pretty ignorant on things African, but one thing you can say for colonizers, at least they built infrastructure.

The murder, brutality and injustices foisted upon the colonized, the wholesale looting of the continent's natural resources, and the arbitrary division into nation states that is at the root of so many African conflicts today seems a rather high price to pay for some highways and railway lines, in my opinion. But this argument is trotted out from time to time (indeed, in this very Mail article, as I pointed out upthread) as some sort of justification for the colonial era.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:55 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


yellow man's burden.
posted by telstar at 9:58 PM on July 20, 2008


A few months ago, at the height of the Christmas shopping season, Oxfam encouraged us Britons to give “the gift of dung” to Africa. That’s right: dung. Apparently poor African farmers like nothing better at Christmas time than to receive a bucket of shit with which they can fertilise their crops.

Oxfam called on British consumers to donate some of their Christmas shopping money to its new campaign to send “funusual” gifts to poor parts of Africa. Alongside the gift of crap, you could also lavish poor Africans with the gift of condoms (”Rubberly jubberly!” said the Oxfam website), five bags of seeds (”We’re sacks maniacs!”) or a goat (”a mobile source of income”).

“Buy someone a gift related to Oxfam’s work and make a real difference to the world,” the charity yelped.

Contrast this “funusual” approach to Third World development with the work of Chinese businessmen and officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Last week, BBC TV’s Newsnight revealed that the Chinese have a signed a trade deal with the DRC worth a whopping $9-billion. As part of this package, the Chinese will help to build 2 400 miles of road, 2 000 miles of railway, 32 hospitals, 145 health centres and two universities in the DRC.

Now, if you were (or are) a poor African struggling to make ends meet, who would you prefer to see treading a path to your village? A worthy, well-spoken NGO volunteer from Islington in London laden with the gifts of shit, contraception, goats and seed? Or a Chinese guy in a suit wielding plans to build roads and factories and schools and in the process create thousands of new jobs?

I thought so. Bring on the Chinese.


Bring on the Chinese
posted by infini at 10:09 PM on July 20, 2008


I seem to remember my high school history as teaching us to be slightly horrified of the atrocities of the past: slavery in the USA; conquistadors pillaging the Inca; the horrors of colonialism, especially in India; Apartheid rule. I imagine future generations will feel the same way about the Iraq war. Assuming schools continue teaching some amount of history, at any rate.

Maybe one of these future generations will get a clue and do what it takes to make this global society thing work. It really shouldn't be that hard. The mistakes made don't need to be repeated.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:37 PM on July 20, 2008


It's a shame you ignored most of his post, because it was an excellent one.

None of the rest of it was news to me, but hey, what's important here is you getting a chance to be a snarky asshole, isn't it?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:44 AM on July 21, 2008


Which is such a pitiful, toothless "accomplishment" to be touting, in the face of a genocide, that it is nothing less than the crassest form of political grandstanding.

Thanks, paulsc. You've clearly proven that you know quite a lot about the genocide in Darfur, and I'm glad you do, I wish more people did.

Which US presidential candidate are you voting for that has such a deeper, more respectable position on the need for American involvement in the Sudanese crisis?

Something is better than nothing.
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:48 AM on July 21, 2008


I'm pissed off about a lot of things that China's doing right now to Tibet and to its own, but this doesn't read to me as a "chinese versus african" thing. The race cards don't belong on this particular table.

This is about wealthy people throwing money at poor people to get stuff that's probably more valuable objectively than they're paying, but cuz the rich are taking advantage of the poor's powerless position in the economic transaction, THAT is why they are bad guys. And this is not limited to 'yellow' harming 'black'. 'Whites' do this too. The only important color here is 'green' ...or whatever color the yen is.

This ain't about skin. It's about money, and corporations that started in America are just as guilty of raping Africa as those that started in China are. We really need to get the lumber out of our eyes before we point at the chopsticks in theirs.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:10 AM on July 21, 2008


...

What I mean to say is I may agree with the general sentiment that China's gov't sucks raw eggs through a straw right now, but I wouldn't use this as one of those reasons.

This is more about corporate oligarchies aquiring international powers that secretly supersede governments, which publicly allow this behavior, primarily cuz the money is good for some, and worse for others.

This is about when "Isms" attack. Capitalism. Socialism. Fascism. I'm looking for something I can rally a banner behind that isn't attached to any particular "Ism" cuz none of them are getting any good press lately.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:16 AM on July 21, 2008


Zach'sMind writes: ...or whatever color the yen is.

The yen, ZM is Japanese currency.

You know, the money that comes from Korea. With Chairman Mao's picture on it.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:30 AM on July 21, 2008


"... Something is better than nothing."
posted by allkindsoftime at 3:48 AM on July 21

Not in the opinion of the AU, allkindsoftime. And I don't mean that as short jab snark, either. Literally, the AU wants nothing to do with American policy towards Africa, except, perhaps, to the extent American entities are willing to act as naive, deep pocket, no-strings funding sources. I think it is also an open question how much the American State department, or the U.S. military, want to be tasked with trying to help an Africa that clearly doesn't want U.S. government involvement.

That Africa, as a continent, is slowly sliding away from democracy, as well as failing to sustain economic progress, is widely known. And one of the reasons for this move away from democracy, as a recent LA Times piece points out, may be that China is willing, as the West is less and less interested in doing, to cut "no strings" business deals and provide aid and technical assistance to African regimes, without regard to their corruption or interest in social development.

"Which US presidential candidate are you voting for that has such a deeper, more respectable position on the need for American involvement in the Sudanese crisis?"

I think a better question might be, which US Presidential candidate is more wary of Africa's deep, continuing problems, and America's limited ability to directly lead in their resolution by applying Western solutions? What's wrong with letting the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, or even the South Americans, or any remaining Europeans with an interest in doing so, have a go at Africa, now, except that only the Chinese, as a government, are significantly interested? Part of renouncing colonialism, and giving African leadership responsibility for African progress, may well be the West, as it is traditionally thought of, having a willingness to let the kind of social darwinism that convinced Bono he could market Africa's salvation through selling customized Red iPods run its course.

Color me cynical or call me pragmatic, but if there is one large, continent sized dry hole for money and military effort that America can avoid for the time being, and where, by and large, American national involvement is not wanted at this time, it is Africa. If that means more interest and resource availability for developing our ties with our Latin American and Canadian neighbors, solving our regional economic disparities and immigration issues, and thus stabilizing and improving our own hemisphere, so much the better, in my view. In the long run, the Chinese tiger, pre-occupied with African adventures, may be an easier beast to live with, than an unfettered China would be.
posted by paulsc at 2:45 AM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


I color you cynical.

Seriously, though, I've appreciated your in-depth consideration of the facts, and your contribution to the thread.

Of course the AU doesn't want US policy presence in Africa, when they can have the money instead and be off with it. The AU is comprised of the very leaders of these countries that are profiteering from China's exploitations, while they starve (or worse, mass murder) their own countrymen in order to remain in power. That the continent as a whole is sliding away from democracy doesn't mean we should just give up on the issue altogether.

You're right and I agree with you (to an extent) - America has plenty of its own problems to clean up first, and I don't diminish these. I also see the need for adjusting the solutions that would be applied in such a scenario. That said, as the leader of the free world, I do firmly believe there is a moral burden on our country to look out for those who can't look out for themselves. At least, while we still are the leader of the free world.

I don't however understand what you mean by an "unfettered" China - isn't that pretty much what they are now?
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:07 AM on July 21, 2008


That said, as the leader of the free world, I do firmly believe there is a moral burden on our country to look out for those who can't look out for themselves. At least, while we still are the leader of the free world.

Newsflash: The rest of the world doesn't want America looking out for it. And the rest of the "free world" considers America an embarrassment, not a leader. To speak of an American "responsibility" to be the world's policeman-cum-social worker-cum-parole officer is the kind of Manifest Destiny arrogance that lost it its reputation in the first place. And if Americans bust a corrupt Congo-China trade deal yelling STOP! EVILDOERS! no one will thank them for it, not even the Congolese themselves. Just stay the hell out of everyone else's business, mmkay?
posted by nasreddin at 8:22 AM on July 21, 2008 [3 favorites]




I wonder how long it will be until a Chinese Michael Moore can embarass a Chinese businessman by asking him, on camera, to come tour one of his sweatshops in Africa?
posted by straight at 9:36 AM on July 21, 2008


"... I don't however understand what you mean by an "unfettered" China - isn't that pretty much what they are now?"
posted by allkindsoftime at 11:07 AM on July 21

If the post WWII experience of the IMF and World Bank in Africa is any guide, the Chinese will shortly be good and fettered, to the tune of billions of dollars, when the deals they do in Africa go sour. In a NYT article from October, 2007 discussing World Bank policies guiding agricultural development lending, the World Bank's efforts were summarized as follows:
"... Bank policies in the 1980s and 1990s that pushed African governments to cut or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, decontrol prices and privatize may have improved fiscal discipline but did not accomplish much for food production, the evaluation said.

It had been expected that higher prices for crops would give farmers an incentive to grow more, while competition among private traders reduced the costs of seeds and fertilizer. But those market forces often failed to work as hoped.

“The whole thing was based on the idea that if you take away the government for the poorest of the poor that somehow these markets will solve the problems,” Professor Sachs said. “But markets can’t step in and won’t step in when people have nothing. And if you take away help, you leave them to die.”

Professor Easterly said the bank’s managers had made elementary mistakes. “It was a simplistic, Economics 101 lesson, that if you raise prices, farmers produce more, which makes sense if farmers have roads, access to credit, good access to fertilizer markets,” he said. “But most of the time, farmers were lacking those.”
Time and again, in Africa, Western aid, whether monetary, technical or humanitarian has been subverted, and it is such a watershed event when an African country has met minimum loan obligations, as Nigeria recently did, that the IMF and participating capital sources are routinely expected to additionally "forgive" yet greater existing loan obligations, as they have, time and again, when it has been obvious payment is simply not forthcoming. Even African organizations have begun to perceive that this cycle of borrowing to finance development, development failure, and forgiveness of debt is not working. And despite significantly increased U.S. aid to Africa by the Bush Administration, the conditions of the poorest people on that continent is never much improved, or their futures made more secure.

Good luck to Beijing in changing that depressing dynamic, I say. But bad debt is the result of bad faith, and I think even as tough a people as the Chinese are going to have problems making good things happen in Africa, on a broad scale.
posted by paulsc at 10:24 AM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whole lotta strawmen, red herrings, and "someone else did it, too, so it's okay!" in here. I shouldn't find it odd, but I do.

Limited natural resources wantonly stripped, basic human needs of existing population ignored/denied, and so much else that humans should, by now, not allowing other humans to perpetrate on still other humans, not to mention the planet itself.

Depressing, ridiculous, and infuriating. The futility of even sort of hoping people would wake up and quit abusing our world and everything in it is beyond frustrating.

Stupid, stupid, stupid addiction to waste. Stupid, stupid, stupid wasteful humans.
posted by batmonkey at 10:26 AM on July 21, 2008



Stupid, stupid, stupid addiction to waste. Stupid, stupid, stupid wasteful humans.


Tut, tut, tut! Oh, what a shame! Oh, those awful Chinee! Oh, how can people be so mean!

Quick, pass me my smelling salts, Dorcas, I think I'm going to faint...!
posted by nasreddin at 10:30 AM on July 21, 2008


A similar story from Cambodia:
In Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, the economy is going strong, but the prime minister, Hun Sen, has organized the plunder of the nation's resources for the benefit of its powerful neighbor, China—in exchange for Beijing's protection. ...

In March 2006, international donors attached numerous conditions, including the passage by the end of the year of anticorruption laws, to a vast package of aid to Cambodia amounting to some $600 million. Nothing came of this initiative, however, because one month later, in April, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao landed in Phnom Penh. To the astonishment of other donors, he offered Hun Sen another $600 million, but without any conditions. With typical Chinese flair for the spectacular, this gift was a way of showing that Cambodia was now among the countries under Beijing's "protection."
paulsc: I think a better question might be, which US Presidential candidate is more wary of Africa's deep, continuing problems, and America's limited ability to directly lead in their resolution by applying Western solutions? What's wrong with letting the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, or even the South Americans, or any remaining Europeans with an interest in doing so, have a go at Africa, now, except that only the Chinese, as a government, are significantly interested?

Reading the Fast Company series, the US already has significant investments in Africa. And in the long term, it seems likely that access to natural resources will be a key strategic issue. Giving China a free hand to extract Africa's resources, without even trying to compete, seems short-sighted. I agree that military pressure isn't feasible, but shouldn't it be possible for the West to compete economically?

A big part of the problem appears to be that African governments are in such a weak position. From Part 2 of the Fast Company series:
Mozambique's is a sad story. At its independence from Portuguese rule in 1975, the country was one of the world's basket cases. It still is. Soaring violent crime and growing organized-crime networks. Systemic corruption. A police force as crooked as the crooks they chase. Little or no government transparency. A devastating AIDS crisis. Annual flooding of entire provinces. Years of socialist mismanagement and a brutal 16-year civil war that killed a million people before it ended in 1992. More than 70% of Mozambique's 20 million citizens live on less than $2 a day, and only 8% have electricity. ...

Many observers, however, see China's deals here as emblematic of the imbalance of power between the two countries, what the head of the African Development Bank recently described as Africa's lack of "capacity to negotiate." That sentiment is echoed by Jim LaFleur, senior economist for Mozambique's largest business association and a longtime American resident of Maputo. "The Chinese are building things in exchange for mining rights, timber rights, fishing rights, and these are absolutely bad deals," LaFleur complains. "We've lost an asset, and in exchange we got a ministry building, which is just an opportunity cost for China." Stellenbosch University's Corkin is more categorical still: "China is very clear about what it wants from Africa," she says. "Africa has absolutely no idea what it wants from China."
In this situation--a weak country A is faced with a strong power B--a classic strategy is to bring in a competitor C, to establish a rough balance of power between B and C, improving A's bargaining position.

That said, I agree with paulsc that for the US, focusing on foreign policy closer to home is a higher priority. China's encroachment on America's backyard:
On the front of energy and resources, Latin America presents a bonanza for China in the areas of oil and gas, iron ore, agriculture produce such as beef and soya bean, and other items. The "all-weather strategic partnership" that Hu was able to cement with Brazil last week was especially noteworthy. The Brazil state oil firm, Petrobras, expected that China would this year become the third-leading destination of Brazilian crude exports, with shipments of about 50,000 barrels per day. At the same time, the Chinese state oil company Sinopec invested $1 billion in a joint venture with Petrobas for the construction of a gas pipeline linking south to northeast Brazil. Other deals the Chinese have recently signed included iron ore shipments from Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD), one of the world's largest mining concerns, for Shanghai's famous Baoshan Steel Mill.

China's influence in the entire region has expanded owing to a dizzying array of new investments in not only mines and oilfields, but infrastructure and transport. Cumulative capital outlay has exceeded $4 billion. Last year alone, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) pumped $1.04 billion into the region, accounting for 36.5% of Latin America's foreign direct investment (FDI). Yet this figure has been dwarfed by what Hu and his delegation of state entrepreneurs pledged last week. The Chinese vowed to plough in $100 billion in the coming ten years. For instance, in Argentina alone, the SOEs are due to invest $19.7 billion in the coming decade in mines, railroads, and other infrastructure projects.
posted by russilwvong at 11:44 AM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


"... I agree that military pressure isn't feasible, but shouldn't it be possible for the West to compete economically? ..."
posted by russilwvong at 2:44 PM on July 21

The purpose of competition is usually to win some prize or advantage, but as this examination of recent restructuring of IMF finance mechanisms for poor countries, including many in Africa illustrates, there is not much in Africa, even considering oil and mineral wealth, to be gained, particularly considering the dismal record of African governments in meeting obligations. So much is wrong in Africa, the IMF, nor the World Bank, nor African leadership, nor NGOs know what to prescribe:
"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is augmenting an existing facility and reshaping a second to help countries worst hit by the food and fuel price crisis, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. ..."
"... IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn also pledged to reform the Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF), which provides low interest loans to countries affected by natural disasters, conflicts and crises in neighbouring countries that disrupt trade.

"We're going to reshape our exogenous facility, which obviously is not adapted to the current crisis, and we'll meet other requests if needed," he told a Fund forum in Washington. The ESF requires that a Fund-supported economic programme be put in place.

This implicitly assumes that the country needs to change policies and/or adjust their macroeconomic stance, which is not always the case and causes delay, an IMF spokesperson said.

But for some in the humanitarian community the move, though welcome, is not enough, and the terms of 0.5 percent interest, and repayment over five-and-a-half to 10 years, still too arduous.

"We're worried that the Fund's money is actually relatively expensive," Oxfam International senior policy adviser Elizabeth Stuart told IRIN. "They say they've checked and countries can afford to take on more debt. Well, maybe they can this time, but if this is going to carry on, can they afford to take on more debt in the future? So we say that the Fund should make its lending cheaper."

She compared IMF loans with those under the International Development Association, the World Bank's low-income arm. "You've got a payment holiday for 10 years and then you have 40 years to repay the loan, and there's no interest rate," she said.

"So that tells you how relatively expensive Fund money is in comparison. If the Fund wants to be a serious player in doing something about the food crisis, it needs to make its money cheaper. ..."
A 0.5% rate of return to lenders is too expensive? For the risk of lending to Africa??? Coming from an Oxfam spokesperson, that is a grim, grim assessment of the likelihood of IMF efforts being any more likely to succeed now, than they have been for the last 30 years in Africa. Not because that what the IMF recommends, which worked in South America, and in Southeast Asia in the last 30 years is bad policy, but because Africa is too broken.

Between the end of WWII and 1980, much of South America was seemingly mired in the cycle of development borrowing, development failure, and loan default, that Africa has long been replicating. Finally, the IMF was able to force economic reforms on Brazil and Argentina, and painfully, on Chile, Uruguay, Peru and even Bolivia, too. Now, although poverty persists in much of South America, the cycle of borrowing/development failure/financial default is finally broken in much of that continent, to an extent that can't currently be imagined for Africa, even by Oxfam. Chinese motives in trade programs in South America are likely to stabilize both Chinese policy, and South American growth further, in the near term, and are, at the levels you've quoted, a small part of the greater success and growth of very dynamic economies in Brazil, Argentina and Chile, among others. Much of South America doesn't need foreign aid, as such, any longer, but are happy to accept low cost Chinese money, and able to employ it properly and productively. That's a good basis for success, and not one that I think should unduly concern American interests.

Chinese interests in Africa are riskier, by far, than those they are establishing with South America, as even the Chinese understand. The African experience of corruption, tribalism, market distortion, and failure of almost every social institution in at least 18 of that continent's countries the IMF has most recently identified as at risk for food and fuel shortages in the immediate future is unprecedented, in any region of the world. African problems so dwarf those that once clouded the future of South America, that I think there is just no comparison.

I think the Chinese are bound to try to get access to Africa's oil and mineral resources, but I suspect they are going to find, as the European colonial powers did before them, that pulling wealth out of Africa, is less than a zero sum game. In the West, that tacit understanding is quietly becoming international policy, at least in Europe and Russia, and possibly, in the next U.S. administration, here, too.

Little can change in Africa, until Africa wants to change, but, if they want, let the Chinese try.
posted by paulsc at 12:38 PM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


China rejects report on Brown aide "honeytrap"

homunculus, or, as a reading of the article makes fairly clear, Gordon Brown aide shocked to discover that women you pick up in bars might steal your phone.

I think you're probably right, shetterly. It's more plausible that the guy came up with the "honeytrap" explanation as damage control, but he's just made things worse.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on July 21, 2008


Thanks for the Fast Company link, dgaicun. That would have made a good FPP.
posted by homunculus at 4:29 PM on July 21, 2008


paulsc: The purpose of competition is usually to win some prize or advantage, but as this examination of recent restructuring of IMF finance mechanisms for poor countries, including many in Africa illustrates, there is not much in Africa, even considering oil and mineral wealth, to be gained, particularly considering the dismal record of African governments in meeting obligations.

Interesting (and depressing) article, but the goals of the IMF, Oxfam, etc. are different--they're not trying to extract minerals, they're trying to improve the lives of people in Africa. If China doesn't care about that, I don't see how the weakness and indebtedness of African governments is going to be a major obstacle to them.

I think the Chinese are bound to try to get access to Africa's oil and mineral resources, but I suspect they are going to find, as the European colonial powers did before them, that pulling wealth out of Africa, is less than a zero sum game.

As I understand it, there were multiple motives for European imperialism in Africa, including a fair amount of idealism. Michael Howard, The Lessons of History:
... as European societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries developed new standards of cleanliness, health, social efficiency and technical achievement, there was added to [the] traditional right of conquest an assumption of cultural superiority that made such imperial dominance appear to the conquerors not only natural and inevitable but in a deep ethical sense right. Indeed it came to be seen as an obligation, a mission civilisatrice, to open up the dark places of the world, as they were seen, to the light. Anti-imperialists have written much in disparagement of the trader with his whisky bottle and the soldier with his machine-gun, but against these archetypes must be set the doctor and the missionary, who were quite often combined in the same person.... There was, in the generation of Victorian Empire-builders, a deep sense of rectitude and obligation [!], a belief that from those to whom much was given, much was also required. It has been inherited by the idealistic young people of the West who today concern themselves so passionately with the problems of the Third World; even though they do not take kindly to being reminded how much they share in common with their imperialist great-grandfathers.

... So to the right of conquest, and to a sense of cultural superiority so strong that we would not hesitate to condemn it today as "racist," there was added a sense of obligation, which often appeared at its most intense in such countries as Egypt and the Sudan, from which no profit whatever was to be drawn.
Where this idealism was completely absent, as in King Leopold's Congo Free State, wealth was indeed extracted.
posted by russilwvong at 4:54 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


I believe the children are our future.

Specifically Chinese children.

You should all probably start watching Ni-hao Kai Lin on Nickolodeon. You'll need it in the later half of this century.
posted by nyxxxx at 6:37 PM on July 21, 2008


"... If China doesn't care about that, I don't see how the weakness and indebtedness of African governments is going to be a major obstacle to them. ..."
posted by russilwvong at 7:54 PM on July 21

If it were possible for China to just log Africa and cheat the African workers it employed cutting the trees indefinitely, and leave them standing in rags among the stumps in their depreciated forests, as Part 1 of that Fast Company series pictured, you'd be right. But as the people of Mozambique are finding, the Chinese are willing to put up lots of "infrastructure," up front, in these deals, too:
"... The Chinese, though, are suddenly omnipresent. Trade between the two countries has expanded sixfold since 2001. Steel factories. Textiles. Shoes. Motorbikes. Auto products. Hotels. Banking. A $2.3 billion soft loan for a controversial dam the World Bank deemed too risky to fund. A new soccer stadium. A glittering convention center. A parliament building. A state-of-the-art airport makeover. The humongous headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, perhaps the most modern structure in the capital city of Maputo.

China is providing science equipment to the country's main university and helping build a satellite campus. Its embassy here is a sprawling gated complex of six huge yellow buildings that dwarfs its sleepy American counterpart. China's government blithely calls its relationship with Mozambique a "win-win" situation by two undeveloped countries that have endured similar abuses, a sentiment echoed by Mozambique's government, at least publicly. "Mozambique has a socialist past," a Western diplomat based in Maputo points out, "so it is closer to China politically than other countries. And [Mozambicans] say they remember that 'the Chinese were with us' when they were fighting for independence."

Rafique Jusob heads the Mozambican government's center for promoting investments. "China treats us like a peer," he insists. "They have a culture of respect for other people. They don't interfere, they don't invade countries. Americans? They don't even know where Mozambique is. And you [Americans] are trying to export morals which even in your own country didn't work."

Many observers, however, see China's deals here as emblematic of the imbalance of power between the two countries, what the head of the African Development Bank recently described as Africa's lack of "capacity to negotiate." That sentiment is echoed by Jim LaFleur, senior economist for Mozambique's largest business association and a longtime American resident of Maputo. "The Chinese are building things in exchange for mining rights, timber rights, fishing rights, and these are absolutely bad deals," LaFleur complains. "We've lost an asset, and in exchange we got a ministry building, which is just an opportunity cost for China." Stellenbosch University's Corkin is more categorical still: "China is very clear about what it wants from Africa," she says. "Africa has absolutely no idea what it wants from China." [emphasis added]
Much of Africa has never really known what it wanted. That didn't stop the local powers that be, at any given time, from granting long term concessions to whoever was willing to pay for them, in pretty trinkets now. Africans know that it takes years and years to mine, and that it is damned hard to haul away or conquer Africa a wheel barrow at a time. They know that renegotiation is the form of negotiation that eventually favors them, always. It hardly matters what the local powers that be in Africa get as a down payment, or what they have to promise in exchange. In the end, the red dirt of Africa stays, and the people of Africa remain, as do the tsetse flies and the malaria, and only the "whoever" and the down payments once offered, in the form of soccer stadiums, parliament buildings, glittering convention centers, deposits in Swiss bank accounts and large, useless Foreign Ministry buildings, exchanged in smiling ceremonies for signatures on 99 year mineral leases, are changed.

West African oral traditions famously include Trickster figures and characters, which embody and celebrate traits like wiliness and resourcefulness in dealing. The Chinese are going to learn about the Trickster, first hand, as the West has finally, in the next 20 years. China is being dealt what look like good hands in the early going, but it's Africa's deck of cards, and the house that may have birthed us all has the odds, in the long run.
posted by paulsc at 7:03 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


The chinese have the monkey god

Also known as SUN-WUKONG, SUN-WU-KONG, SUN-WU-K'UNG, SUN-HOU-ZI, SUN-HOU-TZE, PI-MA-WEN

MONKEY: The infamous irrepressible Monkey King, Trickster God, and Great Sage Equal Of Heaven.


anyhoo, will blather own response in next comment
posted by infini at 8:49 PM on July 21, 2008


Lets take a look at what the AFRICANS are saying about this 'Chinese invasion' shall we OR are we assuming that WE know better than they do, poor little black primitives????? [yes, i'm pissed off by the patronizing tones demonstrated so well up and down this thread]

From (Timbuktu Chronicles) Emeka Okafor's Africa Unchained blog,

The Economist writes:

The Europeans are increasingly worried that they are losing both trade and clout on a continent that they used to regard as their own backyard. Over the past five years Europe has watched with a mixture of shock and awe as resource-hungry China has swept across a grateful continent, taking oil and minerals in exchange for anything the Africans want, be it money now, money later, ports or roads...All this has left Africa's leaders in the novel position of being able to pick their friends rather than being dictated to by others, be they white development economists or the IMF. And they are enjoying every minute of it.


Taking the continent for granted?

Europe, used to privileged access to African markets and politics, has been left floundering by the new competition. Europeans complain that China damages Africa by not linking its loans and investments to improvements in government and human rights, as the worthy Europeans do. But Africans are dismissive: as one official says, “Europe is jealous. They say we have gotten a new colonial master, but our old one wasn't so good.”

posted by infini at 8:56 PM on July 21, 2008


I believe the children are our future. Specifically Chinese children.

A-yup.

How's a middle-class Chinese education compare to a middle-class American one? Are they teaching Creationism in China?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:32 PM on July 21, 2008






« Older Festejo   |   Customize your disease and wipe out the population Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments