Miscellaneous News

solarz

solarz

Brigadier
t2contra said:
My point was: playing by their unwritten rules is still corruption, irrespective of getting anything done. That is still perpetuating, to various extents, the suffering of the people. It's money taken from the people to line the pockets of the corrupt.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way.

Africa is rich in resources. Before the coming of China, the West has a monopoly over the exploitation of this resource. The arrival of China offers a competitive choice to workers, which is beneficial to the African people.

Yet, if an African politician fails to receive his cut from a Chinese business and thereby prevents the Chinese business from operating, it would be the African people who suffer in the end.

t2contra said:
What you wrote here is, in brief, capitalists and politicians sleeping together. Old news.


Do you want the Chinese SOEs to be the new capitalists?
Click to expand...

Again, you're not getting it.

Western firms control Africa through a number of methods: financial, military, political. France literally controls the economy of all Francafrique nations. Western firms hold monopolistic resource contracts in many nations, making them the sole benefactor of those resources, and they can instigate military coups against any government that tries to change this.

China is not remotely in any position to do any of the above.

t2contra said:
Accusations of Chinese corruption or improper dealings also came from the local people. I still believe the number of projects that involved big under-table money is small. There should not be any. But the damage to the reputation is huge.
Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't work that way.

Corruption in Africa is everywhere, but the media will selectively report on Chinese corruption.

If the West can make up a genocide in Xinjiang, they can just as readily make up accusations of corruption even where there is none.

t2contra said:
Chinese firms will still win a positively disproportionate share of projects in a fair fight.
Click to expand...

First of all, is that claim substantiated by any kind of evidence?

Second, it's not just big project SOE that are in Africa. Plenty of private Chinese enterprises also operate and employ workers there. They most certainly need to operate according to local rules, both the written and the unwritten kind, in order to compete.
 
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
solarz said:
Western firms control Africa through a number of methods: financial, military, political. France literally controls the economy of all Francafrique nations. Western firms hold monopolistic resource contracts in many nations, making them the sole benefactor of those resources, and they can instigate military coups against any government that tries to change this.

China is not remotely in any position to do any of the above.
Click to expand...
This is due to the "non-interference" principle of Chinese foreign policy and is purely a political choice. China's options, as well as African nations' capacity to resist Western exploitation, can expand dramatically the moment China is willing to station PLA troops abroad.

Like the nuclear "minimum deterrence" principle, I think "non-interference" is a policy whose time has come and gone.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
This is due to the "non-interference" principle of Chinese foreign policy and is purely a political choice.
Click to expand...
Dont quote me but that "non-interference" IMO will change the moment PLAN will have sufficient naval projection capability

In the future, China wont become imperialistic, but it also wont have the same stance as of today. The stakes for its economy (imports, exports, trade lanes etc) are way too high to let various countries to do whatever they want in their respective regions
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ZeEa5KPul said:
This is due to the "non-interference" principle of Chinese foreign policy and is purely a political choice. China's options, as well as African nations' capacity to resist Western exploitation, can expand dramatically the moment China is willing to station PLA troops abroad.

Like the nuclear "minimum deterrence" principle, I think "non-interference" is a policy whose time has come and gone.
Click to expand...

It's not just a purely political choice, it's also a matter of capability. Geographically, Africa is Europe's backyard, and the colonial powers left behind a lot of mechanisms to ensure their continued control of African resources.

Chinese military stationed in Africa will face a long logistic route that is vulnerable to interdiction, which is why I don't believe China will engage Africa in anything but economics for the foreseeable future.

On a political and philosophical note, I also disagree with pursuing an American style of military expansion. If we look at history, including modern history, military expansion comes at the cost of domestic development. 9/11 is a direct result of American military adventures in the Middle East, and this event sucked the US into a financial blackhole, aided and abetted by the greed of the MIC who pushed for the invasion of Iraq. Likewise, Qing campaigns in Xinjiang and Mongolia depleted its national coffers and offered opportunities for the likes of He Sheng to amass personal wealth at the expense of the nation, setting the dynasty up for its fall a mere 40 years after the death of Qianlong.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
getready said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450877889377882115

I wonder why China is buying gas from US and not Russia
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "not Russia"? China has a long term contract with Russia. I think Beijing's heating gas is from Russia for the moment.

The article is merely saying that China increased US gas import, nothing about any other source.

Note, it is not practical nor preferable to totally deny US gas so long as the two are still trading with one another.
 
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
solarz said:
It doesn't work that way.

Africa is rich in resources. Before the coming of China, the West has a monopoly over the exploitation of this resource. The arrival of China offers a competitive choice to workers, which is beneficial to the African people.

Yet, if an African politician fails to receive his cut from a Chinese business and thereby prevents the Chinese business from operating, it would be the African people who suffer in the end.



Again, you're not getting it.

Western firms control Africa through a number of methods: financial, military, political. France literally controls the economy of all Francafrique nations. Western firms hold monopolistic resource contracts in many nations, making them the sole benefactor of those resources, and they can instigate military coups against any government that tries to change this.

China is not remotely in any position to do any of the above.



Again, it doesn't work that way.

Corruption in Africa is everywhere, but the media will selectively report on Chinese corruption.

If the West can make up a genocide in Xinjiang, they can just as readily make up accusations of corruption even where there is none.



First of all, is that claim substantiated by any kind of evidence?

Second, it's not just big project SOE that are in Africa. Plenty of private Chinese enterprises also operate and employ workers there. They most certainly need to operate according to local rules, both the written and the unwritten kind, in order to compete.
Click to expand...
I don't think that person lives in the real world, but on make believe world where intrinsic human frailties can be whisked or legislated away only if we work hard at it. It reminds me of the "Just say No" to drugs campaign of the Reagan administration pushed forth by Nancy Reagan. Arrogantly assumed that the black crack issue was due to the undisciplined attitude of African-Americans and rather than treating their issue of addiction they (white America) pushed for criminalization which has largely contributed to the mass incarceration of the black population in America. And as Dave Chapelle recently contended that ever since the opioid epidemic has impacted the mostly white people the tone changed dramatically from derision and judgment to emphaty and seeing the issue as a health issue not criminal.

Our friend here keeps pushing for the narrative that's very pro-western and have come from western led narrative. That's where I take issue with his/her criticisms. Unless anyone here can tell and point out a country that's CLEAN FREE from any form of corruption and influence of any type then all these gnashing of teeth and finger pointing towards any Chinese businesses SOE or not is frankly hogwash and irrelevant.

I don't give a flying hoot how loud these hyenas will scream and accuse baselessly on China's alleged debt trap policy or corrupt businesses. Show and lead by concrete examples not prose and then we can talk, until then shut the f..k up. You do you, and the Chinese can and will continue doing their business that is mutually reinforcing and beneficial to both parties, which is essentially a win-win proposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top