What do you guys think of all the Chinese presence in Africa. They seem to be doing some good with investment and infrastructure building and they also support tyrants like Brashir in Sudan and Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Their profiting of a :mad2: Genocide in sudan by trading guns for oil is downright evil. What shoul we make of China and its Asian cousin India.

Good overall. There are sore points, like Zim. and Sudan. This shows that China really just wants resources, and is unconcerned with morals. That's not so nice i guess, although I really don't think the west has shown itself to be any different over the years.

In the end, however, i think relations with China do more good than bad. China invests directly, building roads, building stadiums, facilities, donating equipment, etc, etc, etc. The level of direct investment we see here is pretty good. Let's be honest: do you see such direct investment from the west? Not as often. There are tons of western companies investing in Africa, but they don't often just show up and construct these massive facilities with such regularity the way China does. Africa has to remember that.

Relations with the west should always be a priority, but relations with china will also be extremely beneficial to most African nations. With that investment, African nations can build stronger militaries and police forces(which can be a good thing), build better infrastructures quickly, etc, etc. The possibilities are endless.

So, in conclusion, yes, there is a darkside. But in the end, the good outwieghs the bad as far as I am concerned.

Asian countries pay little attention to the nature of regimes they invest in. During the go-go years from 1970-1997 when Indonesia and Thailand were growing rapidly Japan invested heavily in both nations (the largest recipients of Japanese ODA and FDI by far) despite neither having democratic governments most of those years. China, Japan and India today all invest in Myanmar, despite that country's horrible human rights record.

Asian investment is good for African economies but it might be bad for African democracy.

china build project as fast as western country and cheaper too
and african country cannot afford to waiste time and money

Good

China, IMO, is being used as a tool by the African countries (especially the less popular ones like Sudan and Zimbabwe) to lower Western influence in their countries and their development.

They are doing things that most Western countries are afraid to do. I heard of the Chinese helping the Ethiopians look for oil in their Somali region (where the attack was a while back), most Western countries would write off this region as lawless and let the place stay undeveloped, not China. They, unlike the US or Europe, see Africa as a continent of future potential where they could gain from economically, while the West still sees Africa as a weak helpless place where people are starving and we constantly need their help to live. They are strictly business, unlike the former, which mixes politics and makes business more messy.

There are some negative aspects to this, like ruining chances for democracy or human rights in some countries. There is also that factor that Chinese products flooding African markets will ruin domestic export. That's something that African countries need to work on.

Hopefully there will a time when African countries can be on a equal footing with their trading partners, but their economies are too weak globally for this to happen. When they become more powerful, then we can pull the shots on what will happen in our countries.

Good
I think that China has lowered the imperialist overtones of the West. Recently, the EU parliament voted to withdraw aid from Nigeria. The European Commission rejected the idea, probably realising that China now provides an alternative.

Also China is willing to help develop local man power, which the West have almost always resisted.

i would go for good bad is sudan and zim as some1 point out early

That's not so nice i guess, although I really don't think the west has shown itself to be any different over the years.
========================================================
Read "The Confession of an Economic Hitman", which explain well what the West is doing. Political string in giving out aid to countries in need of investment and aid always have an evil motive, do not be binded by the western propaganda. The Western countries are at all the material times acting for their own benefit and they do not mind it is obtained at the costs of continuing proverty of those aided countries, but as they control the English international media, they can promote themselves as charity. Do you really think the Western countries are concerning about the well being and democracy of the developing countries ? Ask people in South America. On the other hand China is also acting for its own benefit, but just as an equal trading partner doing its own business. If you read the book I referred to to, you will learn how a politicl elite trying to protect the interest of its own people can be described as evil in western propaganda and be destroyed.

Hopefully there will a time when African countries can be on a equal footing with their trading partners, but their economies are too weak globally for this to happen. When they become more powerful, then we can pull the shots on what will happen in our countries
==========================================================
20 years ago China has to give VERY favorable terms to foreign investment in order to make things started. Now China is giving less and less to foreign investment. Everything has a strating point and things will change along with the economic development, it is a dynamic process.

I am a chinese.
China now is somewhat like US before WW II. It is a isolationism country.
Except Taiwan issue, Chinese people still are not ready to interfere into foreign issues,let alone african affairs,although Chinese economy is being developed fast,and its power and influence increases also very much.

BTW,China now has trillion of redundant fund.
those redundant fund are looking for chance of investment.
that is why China now is so interested in African resource.

After all, US dollar is being devalued,while mine won't devalue.

I honestly don't understand why people complain about China's relationship with Sudan or Zimbabwe.
I actually appreciate that China is NOT a hypocrite, after all, it is NOT a democracy and its own human rights record is NOT good so it has no business telling another country how to run itself.
I am also really sick of the West trying to "protect" Africa from the big bad wolf..ugh. Africa is not a child that needs protection through the West. It can take care of itself, and if it doesn't, then it will have to face the consequences by itself.
The West needs to back off and accept that Africa is not its backyard anymore.

China is NOT a hypocrite, after all, it is NOT a democracy and its own human rights record is NOT good so it has no business telling another country how to run itself.
=========================================================
Chinese are living happily, they may even have more freedom then people in some countries who are "good friends" of the the West provided they are not planning to overthrown the government. Chinese do not need the West to teach them how to run their country, naturally Chinese will not "tell" other countries how to run their countries. Every country have its own history, its own culture and has its own problem to solve. Only the people of the particular country can decide how to take care of their own business. The West should stop labelling other country who do not run their country as what they are told by the West by all the nagative labels. The West should stop behave as if they are morally superior, their hands are in fact most dirty.

THE FRENCH OCCUPATION IN ALGERIA 1830

STOLE EQUIVALENT OFF 10 BILLIONS $ (ACTUEL)


BUTIN DE GUERRE ALGER (FRENCH )
TO READ

http://dzlit.free.fr/ppean.html


AND NOW WESTERN POWER ARE COMPLAINING AGAINST CHINA

LET ME LAUGH

WESTERN STOLE AND OCCUPY AFRICA THEY TOOK GOLD ,SILVER, SLAVE TRADE AND NOW THEY USE
RIGHT OFF HUMAN :ohno:

too early to tell, give it time. for now we africans lets just trend carefully

China's partnerships are less one sided than western "partnerships" because they do benefit African and we don't have to sell our soul in the process. It would be great not to need technical and financial assistance but the fact that they don't look to influence domestic policies and economic policies makes them a much better partner.

The Sudan civil war was caused by the different religion belief of the North and the South. China is in the neutral standpoint, has not supported any side. China can not interfere Sudan's internal affairs based on western values and interests. China hoped all parties in Sudan can come up with a peaceful solution. China already gave $7 million humanity aid to Sudan refugees, ask what other countries have done to Sudan refugees? Any foreign country attempts to overthrow the Sudan government, is a infringement to Sudan's Sovereignty, is a violation of the United Nations' laws and regulations.It will only cause the civil war of Sudan to break out on a large scale which will lead to more people lost their life. China can not do such, also oppose any country does such. This is the Chinese government's viewpoint that I learn from Chinese news paper. While everybody watches CNN, also need to watch CCTV to get a balance point of view.

The Sudan civil war was caused by the different religion belief of the North and the South. China is in the neutral standpoint, has not supported any side. China can not interfere Sudan's internal affairs based on western values and interests. China hoped all parties in Sudan can come up with a peaceful solution. China already gave $7 million humanity aid to Sudan refugees, ask what other countries have done to Sudan refugees? Any foreign country attempts to overthrow the Sudan government, is a infringement to Sudan's Sovereignty, is a violation of the United Nations' laws and regulations.It will only cause the civil war of Sudan to break out on a large scale which will lead to more people lost their life. China can not do such, also oppose any country does such. This is the Chinese government's viewpoint that I learn from Chinese news paper. While everybody watches CNN, also need to watch CCTV to get a balance point of view.

Chinese are isolationists! they are not ready to interfere in African affairs .

African are all independent now. so they could take care of themselves.

USA was in the first place trained and armed the seperatists and rebels in Africa and is the evil behind who in fact started and promote those civil wars in Africa. What USA need is civil wars in Africa because it can guarantee Africa will never developed and remain the raw material supplier forever. Corrupted dictators ? If any of them takes side with USA he will not be described as such but a good friend of the West. Human right and democracy ? Ask USA to promote democracy in Sudi Arabia, it is still a country run by Kings and Princes.

After due reflection I came to the conclusion that my initial enthusiam is muted! So it´s a mixed bag! Chinese are extremly clever-minded and business-orientated people! So we have to display an alertness of mind otherwise we will start accusing the Chinese of "stealing, robbing, possessing and sucking Africa dry in 30 years time"!
So we must wake up now or never!

Nothing comes for free in life and every nation on this palnet has interests and no friends and nobody will give you a bed of roses for free!

China needs Africa for cheap ressources, China needs Africa for selling its own products (vast potential business market) and China needs Africa because of geo-political reasons (in the future)! And China - despite its wonderful economic boom - is still a brutal dictatorship with severe death penality (I have read about it). These are plain facts!

Matthias
I agree with you on every point, except that we have to look at comparisons. I still believe that China offers a better alternative to Africa, if we make the best of it. Considering the fact that Nigeria is now being ruled by Yar' Adua/ Goodluck, I can see that they will ensure that Nigeria gets the best deal. I believe that the same applies to South Africa, Ghana and some other African countries.
In terms of brutality, I believe that the US does not lag far behind China, to be honest. The only difference is that the US controls the world media whilst China does not.

there is no free dinner

Chinese lack of resouce. unless hard work, Chinese even can not feed themselves.
So, Chinese have to work hard out all kinds of products and research engine tech,just to exchange all kinds of resouce they needed.

to finish an infrastructure or a product, Chinese also have to work hard.
Those wonderful infrastructure and Chinese products are all output of Chinese hard work. Chinese have no duty to gift them freely to African.

African luckily are gifted lots of resouce by God while Chinese lack of resouce. SO,African can live on resouce .even without hard work,those resouce still can make lots of African live a cozy life.

is still a brutal dictatorship with severe death penality (I have read about it). These are plain facts
=========================================================
You are brain washed. If you take into account of the population, China has less death penalty then USA, and Chine has much less people in prision. You should not be fooled by those anti China propaganda. When you compare the percetage rather than the absolute figure, you will know the true picture.

is still a brutal dictatorship with severe death penality (I have read about it). These are plain facts
=========================================================
You are brain washed. If you take into account of the population, China has less death penalty then USA, and Chine has much less people in prision. You should not be fooled by those anti China propaganda. When you compare the percetage rather than the absolute figure, you will know the true picture.
somebody likes being brainwashed.

After due reflection I came to the conclusion that my initial enthusiam is muted! So it´s a mixed bag! Chinese are extremly clever-minded and business-orientated people! So we have to display an alertness of mind otherwise we will start accusing the Chinese of "stealing, robbing, possessing and sucking Africa dry in 30 years time"!
So we must wake up now or never!

Nothing comes for free in life and every nation on this palnet has interests and no friends and nobody will give you a bed of roses for free!

It is all true, you are dead on. Africa must be wary of that fact.

China needs Africa for cheap ressources, China needs Africa for selling its own products (vast potential business market) and China needs Africa because of geo-political reasons (in the future)! And China - despite its wonderful economic boom - is still a brutal dictatorship with severe death penality (I have read about it). These are plain facts!

True, but keep in mind Africa's needs as well. Africa could use more markets for its resources. China wants to seel it's stuff in Africa, meaning it's willing to invest heavily and directly, building tons of factories and churning out cars and other things right on African soil. Africa needs the goods, they need that investment, and they need those jobs, so this is a win-win for both sides. This could lead to a better market environment, and that could help these nations ultimately become more diversified as their manufacturing and financial sectors grow thanks to Chinese direct investment on such a large scale.

China does need africa for geo political reasons, but again, that arrangement could end up benefitting both sides. China will get it's geo political edge, and Africa will get a lot of things, stuff that china will be willing to do to ensure that geo political edge stays.

overall, its as I said-I still think the good outweighs the bad when you take everything in and look at it.

Those who do not know the Chinese language will easily be misled by the English media. They are fed by what the international media want to let them know about China. Those international media are controlled by the West, and serve the interest of the West but claimed to be impartial. I read many traveller's (especially the Americans and Europeans) report for what they see in China, they are very surprise to find it is not the "China" they have been told.

Those who do not know the Chinese language will easily be misled by the English media. They are fed by what the international media want to let them know about China. Those international media are controlled by the West, and serve the interest of the West but claimed to be impartial. I read many traveller's (especially the Americans and Europeans) report for what they see in China, they are very surprise to find it is not the "China" they have been told.

The founder of CNN call the Chinese:"Chinaman" last month, people should know what the CNN is.

And China - despite its wonderful economic boom - is still a brutal dictatorship with severe death penality (I have read about it). These are plain facts!
Please explain "brutal dictatorship with severe death penality" to me.

Please explain "brutal dictatorship with severe death penality" to me.
he must heart about it on CNN or VOA.

he must heart about it on CNN or VOA.
=============================
CNN and VOA even said US of A go to Irag for giving peace and democracy to the Iragis. Any one said he believe in such crap must be making a joke. Perhaps we should not blame people being fooled by those international media, they are still dominating the world media. For a long time in the past and perhaps even in the future, "international" more less mean "the West", and the media in the West is able to present and make people believe the interest of the West or USA as the interest of the whole planet.:ohno:

he must heart about it on CNN or VOA.
=============================
CNN and VOA even said US of A go to Irag for giving peace and democracy to the Iragis. Any one said he believe in such crap must be making a joke. Perhaps we should not blame people being fooled by those international media, they are still dominating the world media. For a long time in the past and perhaps even in the future, "international" more less mean "the West", and the media in the West is able to present and make people believe the interest of the West or USA as the interest of the whole planet.:ohno:
Exactly,the most laughing thing is when you heard about the so called "international community", like "international community has expressed concern...",or "international community is outraged by" ....and we know all who are the international community

That is true. The voice of the developing countries are selom heard or quoted. All the blame to those lazy journalist who just quote news from BBC, CNN, VOA, Routeurs etc. and take them as the bible. If not for the internet, we can hardly know how people in the other side of the planet actually think.

Exactly,the most laughing thing is when you heard about the so called "international community", like "international community has expressed concern...",or "international community is outraged by" ....and we know all who are the international community
"international community " now usually means "western countries".

somtimes I wonder whether western media know 1.3 billion Chinese people also live on earth instead of on Mars

The most funniest thing I have ever heard was that when Bush talking about the "interest of USA" as if it was something everyone on this planet have to worship about.

Exactly,the most laughing thing is when you heard about the so called "international community", like "international community has expressed concern...",or "international community is outraged by" ....and we know all who are the international community

Yeah, I wonder about that also.

Oppenheimer sees a bright future (http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/BusinessTimes/Article.aspx?id=481067)

http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/thumbnail.aspx?type=img&id=39866

03 June 2007

Positive Outlook: De Beers chairman Nicky Oppenheimer has faith in future of Africa as a global success. Picture: Robert Botha

‘China’s involvement has ended European and American complacency’

The De Beers chairman believes new partnerships and deeper co-operation will steer Africa towards success, writes Rowan Philp.

Oppenheimer believes that Africa is on the path to long-term success.

Its “brighter” future, however, no longer relies on links with Europe and the US — for whom Africa was merely “a continent for assuaging guilt”.

Deeper co-operation between the nations of the continent, and with China and India, will steer the way to success.

Oppenheimer was speaking at a major security think tank in London, the Royal United Services Institute, after he launched the institute’s Africa programme, on Thursday. His speech was surprisingly critical of western countries.

After his address, the diamond tycoon told the Business Times that, “sadly”, Western nations continue to see Africa as a charity case, rather than a potential economic partner.

He said that “successful countries are too often lumped together with failing ones”.

The address, “ Why Africa will succeed”, described how Africa’s fortune will be made with those who take its talents and resources seriously — China, India and Africans themselves — and how its former Cold War and colonial masters would miss out.

Addressing an audience of almost 200 heavyweight analysts and investors, Oppenheimer pointed to a 7% average economic growth among “leading” African countries over the past three years.

“Africa is succeeding — not in spite of the international community’s apathy or unreliability, but because of it. Successful African countries have had to become more self-reliant and take greater responsibility and these attributes mark out the reformers from the laggards, and the performers from the spectators … What a change from the dismal ’80s and ’90s when growth averaged little over 2% [for the continent].”

Speaking on the day British Prime Minister Tony Blair was telling an audience at the University of South Africa how the commitments of the G8 made at Gleneagles to Africa had transformed the continent, Oppenheimer said the G8’s “fine-sounding words” had been largely hollow.

They had already been replaced on the agenda by Iraq and global warming.

By contrast, he said: “China’s rising profile in Africa is perhaps the most significant development for the continent since the end of the Cold War.

“It has sparked new interest in Africa’s economic potential. China’s involvement has ended European and American complacency that Africa would always belong to their sphere of influence — a continent for assuaging guilt rather than building growth.”

Oppenheimer painted a dramatic picture of Africa’s road to success.

He said that Africa’s dealings with former colonial and Cold War masters had seen the continent go backwards in terms of its share of trade.

Relationships were condescending and aid-based .

“Africa’s share of global capital flows declined five-fold during the post-independence years to a level of just 1% at the start of this decade.”

But, he warned that Africa shouldn’t look to the export of value- added goods for its prosperity solution.

Oppenheimer suggested that South Africa’s dream of becoming a manufacturing export tiger, a la South Korea, was effectively finished, thanks to the competition from Asia, which it cannot match.

A new road to the same kind of prosperity lay simply in cleverly answering the needs of the booming developing world, and China in particular.

“Given China’s [and Asia’s] industrial pre-eminence, some avenues for African development, such as high- volume manufacturing, have been curtailed. A combination of natural resource exploitation, agricultural self-sufficiency and high-value agro- exports, and the expansion of its unique range of service industries, including tourism, would seem to be the most likely and rewarding growth path for many African states.”

Oppenheimer was proud to relate how an increasingly self-reliant Africa had found its own solutions.

# Entrepreneurship and democracy were being boosted by the quick spread of cellphone networks.

# Internal conflict resolution mechanisms had helped reduce the number of major conflicts in Africa by two-thirds in the past decade. “Look at Rwanda. It has gone from being the continent’s greatest source of insecurity into a provider of security as a key part of the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Darfur .”

# South Africa had demonstrated that “social change can cohabit with economic growth”.

# An African country — South Africa — was emerging as “the most important source of foreign direct investment for the rest of the continent”, including R50-billion-worth of trade.

# There has been a transition “from autocracy to democracy” in almost 40 African countries, where only three — Senegal, Botswana and Mauritius — where democratic prior to 1980.

Oppenheimer told Business Times that even new democracies like Nigeria and Ethiopia, which featured flawed elections and even sliding government services, were “a vast improvement” on their dictatorial past.

“Even when things seem worse under democracy, you have options for change you didn’t have before. There lies the hope, and there lies the future,” he said.

However, Oppenheimer’ s sparkling prediction was dulled a little when he was questioned about the Zimbabwe crisis .

“It is quite clear that quiet diplomacy of the kind seen from South Africa has been a failure. It’s equally clear that the megaphone diplomacy [from the UK] has failed by just as large a margin. I believe the solution lies in engaging directly with the people of Zimbabwe … I believe it’s incumbent on the South African government to make it absolutely clear that the breakdown of the rule of law and order which has taken place in Zimbabwe will not take place in SA.

“A nd that’s something we haven’t heard enough of from the government. But I think we’re now on the right road,” he said.

Till today Africa is not free.....and the western nations have treated Africa has garbage for centuries and centuries now...and its still the same way....Hopely China's emergiance has a global power can help Africa...USA dont really care about africa...thats why u dont see alot of american companies in africa...cuz they dont think they can profit from the african continent....So i think CHina will be good for africa...they will build your road if u pay them....build stadiums....they are very smart and business smart.
But what africa shouldnt do is kiss up to china....like they kiss up to the west. Kissing ass is for suckers....if china sees your kissing their ass they will start treating africa like suckers just like the west did.

just keep your hopes alive!

you guys have made some good points. Africa can use Chinas investments and infrastructure building. There are also some good investment coming in from china. China can be used to negotiate better terms for trade but you guys are overlooking the fact that china is destroying the people of Darfur by not only giving money for oil but directly supplying helicopters and guns. Dont overlook the Genocide. the excuse china makes when criticised by the west is " you got to kill the Africans, why can we'. that is unacceptable. hundreds of thousands of africans being raped and murdered and you guys are impressed by exploitative communists that are only looking for their best interest. China will not help africa develop. only africans can help africa develop.

the fact is that europe,asia and united states are only interested in there own future,i'm sure they don't like africa overtaking them militarily or economically.
very true!

you guys have made some good points. Africa can use Chinas investments and infrastructure building. There are also some good investment coming in from china. China can be used to negotiate better terms for trade but you guys are overlooking the fact that china is destroying the people of Darfur by not only giving money for oil but directly supplying helicopters and guns. Dont overlook the Genocide. the excuse china makes when criticised by the west is " you got to kill the Africans, why can we'. that is unacceptable. hundreds of thousands of africans being raped and murdered and you guys are impressed by exploitative communists that are only looking for their best interest. China will not help africa develop. only africans can help africa develop.

Like I said earlier; China wants resources. They are no different from the west in the way that they don't really care about moral issues.
The difference between china and the west is that the west sees Africa not as a potential trading partner, but as a charity case, while China sees a future trading partner. It is this relationship that I believe, in the end, will indeed help Africa develop.

Like i said: I still think the good outweighs the bad.

the west sees Africa not as a potential trading partner, but as a charity case, while China sees a ...........
=======================================================
For the past several hundred of years the west has been living in a wealthy manner at the cost of the poverty of Africa, and it is obvious they would like the situation be continued forever.

the fact is that europe,asia and united states are only interested in there own future,i'm sure they don't like africa overtaking them militarily or economically.
very true!

Ye but If you think about it, The US and Europe dont want China to overtake them militarily or economically either, but still there are billions of Dollars and Euros pouring into China now, which the chinese are benefiting from.
That's the thing about capitalism everything but money becomes secondary. Politics, morals etc.
Just as long as there is a good deal to be made.

Thus I think Africa will benefit imensely from its relationship with China, however what is happening in Darfur is unacceptable.
I think the African Union should and is obligated to make a public request to have China stop selling weapons to Sudan.

Would the EU accept if China sold weapons to armed groups in Europe (such as ETA or IRA). I don't think so.

The civil war started in Sudan because USA supported and armed the rebels/seperatist. No country on earth will accept foreign power to support rebels/seperatist in a civil war. Whatever the excuse is. The difference is only whether the country's leaders are friends of USA/West or not. It will make a great difference, it will make the leaders the dictator or the rebel/seperatist the terrorists.