sino-african relationships have been in existence for thousands of years. it's common knowledge and i have no problems with this.

i do have a problem with recent (let's say the last 30 years) sino-african relationships. i think it's a trap.

(...and no i'm not race-baiting).


discuss

Expand on your notion of it being a trap please.

The only thing I really have to say about Sino-African relations is that it is pure business.

Ok. Just watch out for the Aids.

It's just business. All business. It's not like China is sending tanks and fighter jets to invade Africa and enslave Africans.

Africans should blame themselves for not being able to get their act together. I know Africans love to blame everyone else nut themselves for their political and social ills. But really, it's not Chinese's or anyone else's problem that Africans just can't seem to get their act together and keep sabotaging themselves.

For Chinese, Africa is strictly business.

The first Chinese vessel to r each africa was 600 years ago. I dont think sino-africa relation have been in existence for thousands of years.

And to out it in realistic term, the african need all the help they can get.

that's the problem.




i understand it's business and that's why i am very uneasy about the relationship. to think china is helping africans out of humanitarian reasons is naive thinking.

chinese government = wifm thinking (which i think is very sad)



no, it's been thousands of years. even white scholars don't refute this fact (and that's saying a lot since most distort the truth).

It seems to me it's only about business and resources

Africa cannot depend on other people's aid forever. It needs to stand on its own. Business is the art of mutual benefit; Africans need to realize this and start investing in their own people. They need to ask, "if China can do it, why can't we?" And they need to remember what Obama said: "yes we can!"

600... not thousands. Even if the Chinese knew the existence of such distant land for thousands of years, So what?

We are Chinese, not the red cross. We are here for Chinese interest, not charity. You criticized Chinese trade intention with Africa, whats wrong with that? Are you saying that noone can trade with africa? Are you saying that only white people can trade with africa? I dont buy that BS.




If you think Chinese gov are sad due to this reason, then you must hate white people. Right? Thats the least you can do, assuming that you are not bias.

The West has a history of broken and unfulfilled promises with development in Africa. China is actually delivering for a change. They are already building hospitals and major railroads in Africa. That is alot more than what alot of countries has done.

US and Saudi Arabia; China and Africa! BUSINESS

China has been doing business with Africa on a small scale but since the previouos powers have failed to develop African infrastructure, China is learning and doing based on its new economic might. Tit for Tat! Oil for other type of resources.
So far, China is providing manpower and assiatnce that was previously lacking.

china gives africa tens of billions of $$ with no strings attach and builds plenty of infastructure which africa needs. In return China gets resources which africans are not using anyways. Yet the africans are always saying that we are taking over. Africans are really ungrateful

ungrateful? African leaders have open arms toward China partly because of the no string attached to the money.

The only people complaining seem to be those in the West losing "Market Share" to China as it establishes its links and interests in the continent. It is worth mentioning though, that Chinese Investments are still dwarfed by those built up by Western companies over the previous decades, which makes the accusations all the more ridiculous.



really not sure to what you elude to here? If you are saying that it does not matter how beneficial the results to all parties concerned, as simply the fact that Chinese business is not conducted against the backdrop of the propergation of Western Liberal Democracy and the Human Rights model, that it must be wrong, while the reverse, irrespective of how disasterous the consequences must be right, then I would respectfully suggest you should consider deeply who's thinking and perceptions could be best described as trapped.

Obviously if this is not what you are saying, then please disregard.

They never had market share in Africa. After decolonization, they just left because developing Africa seemed like a waste of cash. China's there because it offers a better deal, or in some cases, an actual deal with whatever African government is in charge. Apparently that's neocolonialism, but I don't see how it's colonial simply because China has no market competitors. If the West really cared about China exploiting Africa, then they'd go in also and compete against the Chinese. This would give African states choices and they can milk the competitors. So far, the US is complaining that China's winning the race, when China's the only one running in it.

Easier said than done !!! LOL

this is the way the world works. its too bad, but not as bad as not accepting reality. going to school in univeristy, im encountering a lot of...idealistic weirdos...that seem to refuse to accept the world is not a nice place. go with the flow people! its easier lol...

a trap??

both sides are willingly to cooperate.

china don't put a bullet to their head and tell them to obey. in fact, there's suggestion china will omit the debt africa owes to china, so china is being very generous already.


basically, africa needs money and china needs natural resource. business cooperation...

Well, I'll spill it out the relationship.

China wants Africa for primarily its natural resources. There's nothing wrong with that, as China wants natural resources, and Africa's willing to sell them. The "conflict" lies in how China prefers to deal with African nations. China deals directly, and only, with the government in power, and avoids grassroots actors and the local community. Thus, to China, the government represents the country. To many in the West, because the governments are seen as illegitimate, China's dealing with the wrong entities for the countries' resources; China should instead work with the grassroots actors and local communities. China doesn't do that because

A) The ultimate authority of the country lies in the government, not the people
B) It's extremely messy to deal with that many actors when you can deal directly with the government

That's where the conflict of ideas lie.

Common criticisms include that China undermines the West's way of dealing with African governments, which usually takes the format of "Liberalize your economy and democratize or you won't get investment", while China goes "This is a market relationship. You give me this, and I'll give you that", which is basically non-interference. The government of China and the African country likes this as it's quite clear and requires no adjustment. Western NGOs dislike it because China doesn't include preconditions, which China doesn't actually care for. China's mentality is, "That's your country. You take care of it your own way or not at all".

I personally don't see China as being colonial, because colonialism implies extortion indirectly or directly. However, because the governments that China deals with are THE official governments of the nations involved, I don't see exploitation by China. These are, after all, the legitimate governments of the countries involved, at least since they control the country. I can definitely see how these countries fall into the Dependency Trap, but I don't see how the blame goes to China. All of its actions are legal, and without the use of coercion.

Suijen

A huge amount of the phyical assets and the rights to exploit them are held by large Western Corporations (often far more than those still owned by the African State Itself), plus of course that much money was loaned or given by the World Bank, IMF and of course "aid" grants direct from Governments of State funded NGO's.

China's more attractive business model was already elbowing out these traditional sources in new business, while the Banking Crisis has pretty much wiped new lending from theWest out completely. This is the "market share" being referred too, in a situation that started during and has continued largely unabated since the Colonial Age.

chinese involvement in Africa from the 50s to the 70s was viewed very positively by african nations. china aided many african countires to gain independence from the european colonists. it also helped many african nations to build infrastractures, often free of charge, during the 50s and 60s, and 70s.

i've met a Zambian lady, who told me Chariman Mao was held very highly in her country. when Mao died, most Zabians cried their hearts out. memorials were held throughout the country to honer Mao. not, just in Zambia, but a lot of other countries who received help from china.

nowadays , it is more business oriented but china is still providing many aid to many african nations. comparing china to the europeans, china is way wayyyy better in treating africans.

China's "business only" attitude is bad? I think it is the one that actually work! As more and more people are realizing... Africa doesn't want pity (aid), it just want a chance (trade)! And China is giving her exactly that:

China goes to Africa

Aid to African Nations Not Work Well

I think the problem here is that the chinese are involved in trade and then don't care if the stuff they trade to african nations is then used by those african nations to oppress or slaughter their own populations. For example Sudan and the darfur conflict, China is basically the sole supplier of small arms to sudan which then find their way to the janjaweed. China then says sudan is not using weapons as they were intended by the agreement but still sells sudan the weapons even though they know the sudanese government isn't going to honor the agreement they have with china on how the weapons are to be used.

^ china is supplying weapons to the official government of the country, the west is supplying weapons to the rebels.

you tell me which seems more legetimate

the west wants china to stop selling weapons to the government because the west want the rebels to win because the rebels are pro-west.. all the big powers are taking sides in internal conflicts in small countries

Most legal governments of Africa are led by warlords and United Nations don't even recognize their governments because of human rights violations. The USA even cares more of Africa than any other nations because they have a large Black American population and what more if the President of the USA is part black. Selling weapons and financing such governments will only make the genocide worse. What Africa needs right now is to protect its cilivian masses from genocide and give shelter, food and medical aid to them.

Which African gouvernment is not recognised y the UN? Do you have any proofs to back up?

Somalia is one
http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis...252338820080522

Zimbabwe is another one
http://allafrica.com/stories/200807120002.html

Unrecognizing a government is different from unrecognizing a nation.

Yes and no to that. I would be interested in seeing the evidence showing that all western nations are supplying weapons to the rebels. I would be interested in seeing the evidence that shows the US for example supplying weapons to the rebels. In fact I would be interested in seeing the evidence that Western gov. are indeed supplying the darfur rebels.

The difference here though orange peel is that sudan is breaking the arms agreement they have with china and china knows this but does nothing to enforce penalties against sudan for breaking their arms deal with china.

I don't think the west wants the rebels to win, what I do think though is that the west government see the sudanese gov and janjaweed being more brutal then the rebels when it comes to attacking civilians. I think the people around the world see china as an enabler for janjaweed and the sudanese military forces by being the sole provider of small arms to these people and china does nothing when they themselves say it breaks the arms agreement the sudanese have with the chinese. There is also the fact that there is evidence that china is violating UN's arm embargo in the darfur conflict Also this conflict shows that china's "peaceful rise" isn't exactly true either.

China would be stupid to alienate Sudan as they depend on Sudanese oil to keep the economy running. What I find about the west is that they ignore Ruusia's role in the conflict as well as Russai is also a major arms supplier to Sudan and they only single out China. Same with Burma, as India holds 50% influence over the government of Burma and yet westerners such as Desmond Tutu single out China as the only responsible influence over the 2 nations. I think that there is something more sinister in the agenda of bishop Desmond Tutu and the Darfur group

That's all you have?

Somalia is the only African country not fully recognised by the UN. Sudan is a full member of the UN. China does business with ALL African countries. So, what's your point?

china is everybody's bogey everytime

it feeds chinese nationalism though and it can be a good thing to keep chinese energized. remember in the 80's how much everybody wanted to sleep with the west?

which will be your undoing too...

you just might replace the indians there as the most hated in some parts of africa.

great! another d/p!

China doesn't see Africa as an eternal basket case full of retards that need to be hand-fed by overweight whites.

That's the difference. To China they are business partners on equal footing. To whites, a burden that they occasionally swipe resources from.

oh boo hoo!

Yep. Africans are realizing westerners will give you charity but never respect.

China will tell them, you don't need or deserve any help. Stand up on your two feet and make me a good business deal. That is more empowering to the African than they ever experienced with any European.

There was a survey in Korea Chat showing Nigeria and Tanzania have some of the highest favorable view of China, right up there with Chinese allies Russia and Pakistan. That's the reality western media will never discuss.

The problems of Africa today can be traced to the colonial policies of the Western powers during the Age of Imperialism. Somebody ought to remind Westerners that period is OVER. For the Western media to pontificate on the need for China to meddle in African countries internal affairs is downright hypocritical. Sure, Africa has LOTS of problems (as in most other Third World countries). But that's because they were colonized by the White Man and NOT because China does brisk business with them. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

But I hope you do realise that as a direct consequence of China displacing Western Aid with Trade, it is now no longer possible for a 50 something pop Diva to travel to an impoverished Sub Saharan state a hand pick the baby of her choice!

Personally I see this as full evidence of Chinas own present day Imperialist policy by imposing a form of its own one child laws on Africa and 50 something American pop stars with multiple children already by proxy ............

^ LOL nice..

i know. white people cause so much problem around the world. world wide colonizations, rape, etc....and then they decide to give people back their land and leave and then all, and pretend to treat people equally and all of a sudden they preach and take the moral high ground.

such hypocrites.

30 years of "ok" behavior does not give you the moral high ground and lecture against other countries you screwed over and does not compensate hundreds of years of colonization and racism and injustice. westerners want a cookie or what?

The Chinese companies companies currently in China are raping Africa more than the white man ever could. When the whites were in Africa 150 years ago, they didn't have all the modern machinery that the Chinese currently have. And the white never sold AK 47 , bombs, and weapons for african dictators to mass murder MILLIONS of africans. China does. You GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

If they murder their own people then thats their own problem. China did not pull the trigger but sold them to allow those nations to defend themselves. That is as stupid as if someone killed another person with a tool and the company that sold them the tool gets blamed. Its also funny that you assume that Chinese weapons killed millions of africans without any research or statistics and use only emotional arguments as facts.

FOR AFRICAAAA!!!!


lol all these dumbasses suddenly become hippys and holier than thou monks when dealing with China. so funny cause we all know they dont really give a shyt. so pathetic.

are you serious? canada is the one of the biggest arms dealers there is. america, russia, u.k.

don't be ignorant. america and the u.k. alone are easily the most evil countries in modern history.
the reason chinese weapons are being bought there is because china makes the best weapons for the price
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/12/19...in_africa/5472/

The top three countries in the export of weapons to the Third World are: U.S., U.K. and France. I don't know about the U.S. but U.K. and France are the top suppliers of weapons to African countries. The arms that China supplies to the Third World are peanuts compared to what the West sells to the Third World. In most cases, these weapons are sold using Western "aid", i.e., grants, loans, training, etc. The West always had a malevolent design on the Third World especially that "Dark Continent" -- Africa. That's why most African countries -- corrupt or not -- prefer dealing with China vis-a-vis the West. The same thing by the way is happening in Latin America, Central Asia, etc. Now, most of these Third World countries have LOTS of problems. But I doubt if you can blame China for, say, selling low-cost, China-made AK-47s or armored vehicles to these countries. Whatever civil strife there is in these countries are by-products of centuries of genocide, slavery, colonialism and imperialism by the White Man. And that includes the weapons used by the warring tribes in all these places -- most of them were supplied by Western Powers -- long before China got into the game.

Having said this, I would like to see China CEASE supplying weapons to these unstable regimes and instead concentrate on helping build the infrastructure and economy of all these Third World countries. And from what I know, China is doing just that. That's why companies like Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, CNOOC, etc. are doing extremely well in the Third World. Just look at Huawei and you'll see why the West is scared $hitless of what China can do to Western industry.

if these "unstable" regimes have no weapons, they become nonexistent regimes. white people just shut up, shut it with a toilet paper roll in your mouth.

and if we stopped selling arms to Africa, someone else likely will like India or Russia

There needs to be a full ban on weapon sales to every country on the continent. If a country can develop its own weaponry then it has advanced socially to the point that such weapons are not used internally.

Not just the continent actually, the policy should be extended to any nation that is highly undeveloped. Otherwise, I am totally for China trading with these undeveloped countries, for this trade will be the impetus for development.

Tell that to Western countries. That's why I find all this talk of "human rights" to be quite amusing. For example, in Irag, guess who sold weapons to Saddam Hussein before he fell out of favor with the West...the U.S. (The U.S. was using Irag against Iran). Same thing in Afghanistan. (The U.S. was using the Afghans against the USSR). Geopolitics in Africa is pretty much the same with the British and the French backing one African tribe/ruler against another resulting in all these civil strife.

And there is a sinister motive behind all these machinations. In most cases, Western Powers that got involved wanted to exploit these countries by, for example, selling them weapons in exchange for access to their natural resources with weapons sales financed by Western "aid". China, by contrast, has a strategic interest in promoting development in these countries WITHOUT inciting further civil strife. And again, the weapons sold by China to these countries are peanuts compared to the weapons sold to them by the West.

pure rhetoric as no country will trust each other to disarm