I do know China meddles in Africa a lot. I think because they are interested in resources, maybe mining or oil?
I read in the past that a lot of the Sudanese groups that pillage and fight with a lot of South Sudan are funded and given firearms or something by China or Chinese groups. I think this was more prominent around 15 years ago when South Sudan was trying to be independently recognized.
Side note: I also remember reading that George Clooney used to fund some kind of satellite thing that helped South Sudanese track movements of North Sudanese so they could preemptively avoid attack.
China definitely meddles. But yeah, probably nowhere near the degree the US does.
I have read, and China is absolutely not doing “the same thing just through financial means.” Financial domination secured with millitant means is the western method. China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. It appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
As a side-note, this is also why I hate the “go read” argument in online discourse. Reading very well can be the answer, but the other user isn’t going to do it unless they have a compelling reason to take your advice. This goes for Marxists that tell other users to read as well.
The only thing clear is if yoy do business with them they will take control of whatever it is they build. And acti g like they wont use it for military means when needed is a childs mentality.
Linking a bunch of people fearmongering about China’s increasing presense in Africa doesn’t actually mean this is to take away sovereignty from African countries. China gains from this mutual cooperation, but so do African countries, and unlike the west China doesn’t force trade at the barrel of a gun. That’s part of why it’s mutally beneficial, and results in development in Africa, vs underdevelopment and western enrichment.
All this really proves is that you have a deeply chauvanistic view of China, assuming that every country is as evil as the west. The simple reason why China isn’t economically compelled to imperialize is because it isn’t dominated by finance capital, and thus prioritizes long-term results. It’s simply better for everyone for their to be mutual cooperation, but western countries are dominated by the profit motive and finance capital, which compels them to take short term gains via looting the global south.
I suggest you read the articles I have already linked, they help debunk the fearmongering from your gish-gallop.
Your articles keep talking about “increasing Chinese millitary domination” despite a whopping 3 millitary bases overseas. China has a defensive millitary and benefits from stability and development in the global south, while NATO has hundreds of bases and installs compradors, coups, forces austerity, and more.
I think it is more that Americans are so used to extractive austerity and warfunding/fighting that we’ve completely forgot that economies can build civil society.
I dont have to try. Theyre selling everything to the chinese already. Acting like china wont use these for military opperations when needed is just stupid
It does if youre literate. Thats a tall ask on here though.
China gains as much as $13 in trade revenues for every $1 invested in ports. A firm holding an operating lease or concession agreement reaps not only the financial benefits of all trade passing through that port but can also control access
Chinese firms hold operating concessions in 10 African ports. Despite the risks over loss of control, the trend on the continent is toward privatizing
Ports in which Chinese firms have equity arrangements provide similar leverage over port operations. Notably, under China’s technical standards for “military civil fusion” (junmin ronghe; 军民融合), many Chinese state owned commercial shipping and civilian air cargo capabilities meet military specifications for defense logistics purposes.
China gains, so does the countries it trades with. Nobody is performing charity here, but mutual cooperation. You keep confusing potential for millitarization with active domination, because you’re working backwards from the conclusion that China is trying to dominate Africa and looking for any evidence to confirm that for you. Looking at the actual material facts, though, this is far from the truth.
Chinas military stays in and around china as far as i know…
But the us is everywhere interfering in everyones business
I do know China meddles in Africa a lot. I think because they are interested in resources, maybe mining or oil?
I read in the past that a lot of the Sudanese groups that pillage and fight with a lot of South Sudan are funded and given firearms or something by China or Chinese groups. I think this was more prominent around 15 years ago when South Sudan was trying to be independently recognized.
Side note: I also remember reading that George Clooney used to fund some kind of satellite thing that helped South Sudanese track movements of North Sudanese so they could preemptively avoid attack.
China definitely meddles. But yeah, probably nowhere near the degree the US does.
Oh you know that? That’s something you know? How exactly do you know that? Did it come to you in a dream?
China has mutual development projects in Africa, the reason is because in the long run mutual development benefits everyone.
No. Its not. Go read about their lease agreements. Theyre doing the same thing just through financial means.
“go read this thing I haven’t read, I assume it supports my argument”
I have read, and China is absolutely not doing “the same thing just through financial means.” Financial domination secured with millitant means is the western method. China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says
Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper
China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. It appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
As a side-note, this is also why I hate the “go read” argument in online discourse. Reading very well can be the answer, but the other user isn’t going to do it unless they have a compelling reason to take your advice. This goes for Marxists that tell other users to read as well.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3335506/skin-game-china-pivots-operating-african-railways-ports-funding-shift
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/harbors-of-power-how-chinas-african-ports-are-shaping-indias-ocean-strategy/
https://www.extremarationews.com/post/china-s-expanding-military-footprint-presence-and-strategy-in-the-red-sea-mediterranean-and-north
https://www.enr.com/articles/60580-china-port-construction-in-africa-raises-concern-about-military-use
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Ek6HZ5nD4&t=670
https://newsletter.boundlessdiscovery.com/p/ports-of-power-china-s-expanding-grip-on-africa-s-trade-gateways
The only thing clear is if yoy do business with them they will take control of whatever it is they build. And acti g like they wont use it for military means when needed is a childs mentality.
Linking a bunch of people fearmongering about China’s increasing presense in Africa doesn’t actually mean this is to take away sovereignty from African countries. China gains from this mutual cooperation, but so do African countries, and unlike the west China doesn’t force trade at the barrel of a gun. That’s part of why it’s mutally beneficial, and results in development in Africa, vs underdevelopment and western enrichment.
All this really proves is that you have a deeply chauvanistic view of China, assuming that every country is as evil as the west. The simple reason why China isn’t economically compelled to imperialize is because it isn’t dominated by finance capital, and thus prioritizes long-term results. It’s simply better for everyone for their to be mutual cooperation, but western countries are dominated by the profit motive and finance capital, which compels them to take short term gains via looting the global south.
I suggest you read the articles I have already linked, they help debunk the fearmongering from your gish-gallop.
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says
Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper
China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations
Your articles keep talking about “increasing Chinese millitary domination” despite a whopping 3 millitary bases overseas. China has a defensive millitary and benefits from stability and development in the global south, while NATO has hundreds of bases and installs compradors, coups, forces austerity, and more.
Construction projects =/= military occupation, try harder
I think it is more that Americans are so used to extractive austerity and warfunding/fighting that we’ve completely forgot that economies can build civil society.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
I dont have to try. Theyre selling everything to the chinese already. Acting like china wont use these for military opperations when needed is just stupid
This does absolutely nothing to support your dumbass claims, try again
It does if youre literate. Thats a tall ask on here though.
China gains as much as $13 in trade revenues for every $1 invested in ports. A firm holding an operating lease or concession agreement reaps not only the financial benefits of all trade passing through that port but can also control access
Chinese firms hold operating concessions in 10 African ports. Despite the risks over loss of control, the trend on the continent is toward privatizing
Ports in which Chinese firms have equity arrangements provide similar leverage over port operations. Notably, under China’s technical standards for “military civil fusion” (junmin ronghe; 军民融合), many Chinese state owned commercial shipping and civilian air cargo capabilities meet military specifications for defense logistics purposes.
China gains, so does the countries it trades with. Nobody is performing charity here, but mutual cooperation. You keep confusing potential for millitarization with active domination, because you’re working backwards from the conclusion that China is trying to dominate Africa and looking for any evidence to confirm that for you. Looking at the actual material facts, though, this is far from the truth.