China raises fears of 'new colonialism' with $60 billion investment across Africa

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Victoria33

Guest
www.yahoo.com

China raises fears of 'new colonialism' with $60 billion investment across Africa

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday pledged $60 billion in financing for projects in Africa in the form of assistance, investment and loans, as China furthers efforts to link the continent's economic prospects to its own. Speaking to a gathering of African leaders in Beijing, Mr Xi said the...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

In some ways, this looks good. Africa has as a continent suffered for a long time. There have been warnings too, over China’s plans in general in different places in the world such as building a new Silk Road. It’s not necessarily all cold cash, there looks to be some debt forgiveness and things like that.

Edit on: This is from the Daily Telegraph, so a good news source (imo), often with a paywall at the website itself.
 
Last edited:
This is not new. China has been investing in Africa for years, if not decades.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Whaaaaat?!
 
Last edited:
China is also building the “new Silk road” from Asia to Europe… they have a whole lot of plans. And I’m not saying it in an alarming manner, but they are sort of trying to become the #1 power in the world I’d say. I don’t think they are the #1 economy yet but may be predicted to be this century.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-26-trillion-silk-road-160000623.html

And dozens of other articles, news everyday, that “theepochtimes.com” websites is a good read as well.
 
China does this for many reasons. In part it is to keep their economy moving, in more than a few sectors their ability to produce exceeds demand and shutting down this capacity has real unemployment and financial implications. I’ve personally seen these loans being used to promote the purchase of Chinese goods in the form of little to no interest on them. Of course they are also looking to establish a larger profile in the world and cash is a great way to do it.

This is also a warning to those who are strong isolationist/nationalists. Making the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) a political issue and summarily pulling out of it has left the weaker countries near China, who were supposed to be party to the TPP, looking to China for trade deals. This will pull them closer into China’s sphere of influence. The current transactional approach to trade pushes away those who are our strongest allies and those who’s rather have their economic ties to us and not China or even Russia. You can argue some about the “fairness” of these general trade deals, but these are complicated things and complicated to assess.

Some of us have been fooled into thinking the large caches of arms, ships, planes, and other chunks of metal conclusively define our projection of power. The reality is that soft, diplomatic power is cheaper and often more successful. We are also in a new world of warfare based in 0s and 1s and it’s been well demonstrated that we are vulnerable. Just because we “won” the Cold War doesn’t mean we will dominate the new world order unless we learn to move forward.
 
It’s a new century, we are about 20 years in but where will we be around 2100? Africa will explode even more in population even with their problems and China? I’ve heard things like though, they obviously clamp down on their people with religion, they could really have high numbers of Christians…may already have them. I’m not sure how many are Catholic. It’s fascinating how things might develop.
 
PJH_74 said:
Some of us have been fooled into thinking the large caches of arms, ships, planes, and other chunks of metal conclusively define our projection of power. The reality is that soft, diplomatic power is cheaper and often more successful. We are also in a new world of warfare based in 0s and 1s and it’s been well demonstrated that we are vulnerable. Just because we “won” the Cold War doesn’t mean we will dominate the new world order unless we learn to move forward.
Click to expand...
No fooling about it, which is why China also has large amounts of weapons, boats, planes for their military to use.

We certainly don’t need to dominate equipment sales to Africa, it’s right and according to trade expectations that they will source the cheapest supplier that meets their requirements.
 
And they’re asserting their dominance in the South China Sea…
 
The more they are connected to other countries, not just through exports, the more they are likely to step up as a responsible international leader.
 
Theo520 said:
No fooling about it, which is why China also has large amounts of weapons, boats, planes for their military to use.

We certainly don’t need to dominate equipment sales to Africa, it’s right and according to trade expectations that they will source the cheapest supplier that meets their requirements.
Click to expand...
It’s not just buying some equipment. Money buys influence. If it didn’t, why do we go through the trouble of sanctions? We’ve used the IMF in the past to advance our causes. We use it to create good will. We use it to prop up questionable regimes that we find favorable. If you think China doesn’t have the same goals one is being silly.
 
PJH_74 said:
It’s not just buying some equipment. Money buys influence. If it didn’t, why do we go through the trouble of sanctions? We’ve used the IMF in the past to advance our causes. We use it to create good will. We use it to prop up questionable regimes that we find favorable. If you think China doesn’t have the same goals one is being silly.
Click to expand...
So you are saying China is starting to act like other OECD countries.

Much US project aid is tied to sourcing the machinery from US manufacturers. Sweden does it too.

The US might compete more, if we hadn’t exported so many of those manufacturing jobs.
 
Theo520 said:
So you are saying China is starting to act like other OECD countries.

Much US project aid is tied to sourcing the machinery from US manufacturers. Sweden does it too.

The US might compete more, if we hadn’t exported so many of those manufacturing jobs.
Click to expand...
Yes, except as a foil to the OECD. It’s hard to keep your kids away from candy when your neighbor is handing it out to them. This is not the forum to get into it, but any amount of large foreign aid distorts local markets. Too much food aid (a US favorite to subsidize US farmers) drops the price of food and can devastate farmers. Even the presence of large amount of aid can let those in power abuse the distribution of it.

The exported factory jobs thing is a bit over blown. Yes some jobs have been exported, but the vast majority have been lost to technology. The US remains the largest manufacturer in the world by value and usually mostly of high quality. You are also not keeping in perspective that maybe 10% of the cost of Chinese made products goes to the producer. The other 90% goes into the shipping (boats, truck, and trains), distribution, and selling of them. These are either well paid professional jobs or pay at least as well as what it would cost to produce them here. We are a services economy which means our workers mainly create intellectual property, sell, serve, fix, maintain, transport, etc. What are not services are mainly construction and high quality manufacturing.
 
In the next step toward acquiring land that can be used to base their military is my hunch.
 
PJH_74 said:
Yes, except as a foil to the OECD. It’s hard to keep your kids away from candy when your neighbor is handing it out to them. This is not the forum to get into it, but any amount of large foreign aid distorts local markets. Too much food aid (a US favorite to subsidize US farmers) drops the price of food and can devastate farmers. Even the presence of large amount of aid can let those in power abuse the distribution of it.
Click to expand...
OECD countries compete with one another, I don’t see China acting differently. They just have a tremendous cost advantage. OECD countries also participate in power abuse.
PJH_74 said:
The exported factory jobs thing is a bit over blown. Yes some jobs have been exported, but the vast majority have been lost to technology. The US remains the largest manufacturer in the world by value and usually mostly of high quality. You are also not keeping in perspective that maybe 10% of the cost of Chinese made products goes to the producer. The other 90% goes into the shipping (boats, truck, and trains), distribution, and selling of them. These are either well paid professional jobs or pay at least as well as what it would cost to produce them here. We are a services economy which means our workers mainly create intellectual property, sell, serve, fix, maintain, transport, etc. What are not services are mainly construction and high quality manufacturing.
Click to expand...
I’m not overblowing anything, the US has become a relatively small player in the manufacture of basic industrial equipment. What China produces is also more fit for purpose in the third world vs more high end US made machinery.

No, shipping does not consume 90% of the cost of goods sold.
 
It’s an interesting dilemma, China is certainly a human rights violator per all sources and a bad one at that, yet, what would happen if they actually improved life for a lot of poor in Africa? That would be a good thing.
 
Except China isn’t in the business of improving anybody’s life except Chinese .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top