In well-to-do circles in the West, it has become de rigueur to criticise China for its role in Africa. The Economist, the bible of the business class, has labelled the Chinese “new colonialists.” Concerned liberals in Hollywood accuse China of facilitating genocide in Darfur. More recently, the American and British governments have expressed disappointment that China, instead of throwing its weight behind sanctions against Zimbabwe, is giving the thumbs-up to talks between Mugabe and the MDC.
There is nothing radical in these attacks on “Chinese colonialism”. On the contrary, the assaults on China are motivated by a desperate desire to preserve Western influence in African affairs. The reason why American and European observers are so panicked by Chinese wheeling and dealing in Africa is because they fear it will undermine their own ability to boss African states around. In essence, they want Africa to remain the White Man’s Burden rather than becoming the “Yellow Man’s Burden”.
Many liberal-leaning NGOs and celebrity activists are using the opportunity of the Beijing Games to heap pressure on China over its “colonialism” in Darfur. Western commentators write furiously about China’s “complicity” in the Sudanese regime’s genocide. Yet, as one journalist has pointed out, the conflict over Darfur is extremely complicated and extremely messy, “and to put the blame on only one party (ie. China) makes no moral or political sense”. Western observers continue to rage against China, however, because they fear that the Chinese relationship with Khartoum is weakening their own imperialist clout in Sudan.
Throughout the commentary on China’s links with Khartoum, one can almost smell the fury of Western observers concerned that their plans to oversee a deal and effectively reshape Sudan have been threatened by Chinese meddling. One American columnist fulminated: “Sudan’s government feels it can ignore Western revulsion at genocide because [thanks to China] it has no need of Western money… China, along with Sudan’s other Arab and Asian partners, feels free to trample on basic standards of decency.”
Here, as in so much of the commentary on China and Darfur, the key concern is the standing of “Western revulsion” in international affairs — that is, the power of “Western revulsion” to force an African state to alter its ways and fall into line. Chinese investment is seen as undercutting the impact of “Western money”, too: it weakens the power of Western states to exert financial pressure in African states. The West is depicted as representing “basic standards of decency”, which apparently are being “trampled” underfoot by the immoral, avaricious Chinese. Such criticism is dressed up as “anti-colonialism”, yet its aim is effectively to defend one kind of colonialism — “decent”, anti-rogue Western colonialism — over another.
In relation to aid and trade, too, Western observers are concerned that Chinese investment in African economies and infrastructure is weakening the political power of Western funding. As China has increased its trade with Africa — rising from $12-billion per year in 2002 to $40-billion in 2006 — a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch argued: “China’s growing foreign aid programme creates new options for [African] dictators who were previously dependent on those who insisted on human rights progress.” In other words, Chinese trade is a problem because it means Western elements can no longer financially blackmail African leaders.
In recent weeks, China has been accused of interfering in Zimbabwe by continuing to deal with, and even provide arms to, Mugabe’s regime. Yet as we saw yesterday, when Western powers tried to drum up support for economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, the main concern, yet again, is to boost Western interference over Chinese interference. The concern is that Chinese dealing with Mugabe, and China’s insistence that the way to stabilise Zimbabwe is by “promoting dialogue, not continuing with sanctions”, is contradictory to America and Britain’s desire for a more heavy-handed, old-style colonial form of external pressure on Zimbabwe.
Of course, China’s motives in Africa are from pure: it is driven by a hunger for resources at any economic and political price. But don’t be fooled by the “anti-colonial” criticisms of China coming from the West. They are underpinned by an interventionist, imperialist ethos which is only disguised as “anti-colonialism”. Under the guise of attacking China’s meddling in Africa, Western observers are really jealously guarding their own power and influence on the continent. They are not calling for “hands off Africa”, in order that Africans might determine their own political destinies, but rather for “yellow hands off Africa”. Their message is clear: fundamentally, Africa still belongs to the white man.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
37 Responses to “The new scramble for Africa”
Zimbabwe’s ‘Look East’ policy launched in 2003, an attempt by President Robert Mugabe to offset the loss of Western investment in the wake of economic collapse, has produced far fewer dividends than Harare anticipated. Mugabe sought to capitalize on the rise of Asian economic powers, which have the requisite financial capital and technical expertise to replace dwindling Western investment and shrinking markets. The initial policy emphasis on Malaysia has gradually shifted towards China.
Whatever the West may say Mugabe is a visionary, that they West want by all means to get rid of, not because of his misrule, but because of his resolve to continue without their financies. Just in case Mugabe succeed they loses of Europe and the US over African resources will be great and their influence drastical cut without cheap or free alternatives. That is the cause of concern nothing else. China used to trade with Africa long ago, before the thief camped on Africa.
As part of its “Look East” foreign policy strategy, Zimbabwe has sought to strengthen its ties with China–a move that has alarmed many Western states. While not necessarily denying the pragmatism behind such a strategy, I examine how this policy represents an attempt by the Zimbabwean government and its leader, Robert Mugabe, to redirect the public imagination toward a different identity at the domestic and international levels. The government seeks to draw on its image as a freedom fighter and liberator to shore up its domestic legitimacy, while simultaneously reasserting its role as an important international actor. The rhetorical strategy used by Mugabe and his government has had material benefits, but its success in redefining Zimbabwe’s identity has been decidedly mixed.
Introduction
Zimbabwe’s “Look East” foreign policy is attracting much attention worldwide. President Robert Mugabe, who has faced widespread international criticism for his economic, political, and human rights policies has cultivated stronger ties with Asian states like Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Singapore. In particular, though, Zimbabwe has focused on developing a stronger relationship with China (Mandaza 2005). Supporters hail this relationship as evidence of the country’s resourcefulness in the face of condemnation and sanctions from Western nations (Zvayi 2005). Opponents have called it a cynical attempt by Mugabe to bolster a faltering regime with little domestic political legitimacy (Sokwanele 2005). Political commentators and government officials in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have expressed alarm over the growing ties between Zimbabwe and China (Vlahos 2005; Wilson 2005).
Scholars have paid a fair amount of attention to the growing ties between China and Africa. Many trace the closeness of China and African states to China’s desire to cultivate strong friendships with states that will overlook its human-rights record (Taylor 2004), its need to ensure resource and food security (Alden 2005), its attempts to deny Taiwan a place at the international table (Taylor 1998), and Africa’s attractiveness as a market for mass-produced low-quality goods (Wines 2005). China’s fast-growing economy undoubtedly needs the resources and raw materials available in African states in order to sustain its growth. In addition, much of its trade on the continent focuses on countries with which, for political or economic reasons, many Western states refuse to trade. China and these African states serve as important economic lifelines for each other.
It is striking how little attention has been paid to the other side of the equation. One cannot assume simply that African states are acted upon: they have a measure of agency in this relationship. By focusing on the interests and motivations of an African state in its relationship with China, rather than the other way round, we can not only achieve a greater understanding of this relationship, but also demonstrate that African states can be international actors in their own right (Dunn and Shaw 2001). What does an African state like Zimbabwe get from strengthening its ties with China? Is this simply a matter of pragmatism? or are more fundamental issues at stake?
I argue that the growing ties between Zimbabwe and China represent an attempt by the Zimbabwean government to redirect the public imagination on both a domestic and an international level, and to broadcast a different identity. The current emphasis on Sino-Zimbabwean relations fits within a pattern of ebb and flow in the relationship between the two countries, in accordance with Zimbabwe’s attempts to cultivate various identities. In essence, Mugabe uses the Look East Policy to reassert Zimbabwe’s role on the international stage to gain greater prestige and legitimacy at home and abroad. By situating this policy within Zimbabwean historical and political tropes, we can understand why his actions make sense. This is not to necessarily deny the pragmatism behind his turn toward China, but rather to place that pragmatism within a broader context. It is through the lenses of race, nationalism, and self-determination that Zimbabwe’s embrace of China can be seen as pragmatic. This project, then, seeks to elucidate why this action by the Zimbabwean government might make pragmatic sense. At the same time, it contributes to the growing literature on the use and deployment of state identity as a foreign-policy tool for states (see Goff and Dunn 2004).
Sino-Zimbabwean relations provide an ideal venue for examining the interests of African states in pursuing closer ties with China. Though China provides aid to more than twenty African states, its relationship with Zimbabwe has received the greatest level of attention. After U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice included Zimbabwe in her list of “outposts of tyranny,” many expressed discomfort with the country’s growing bond with China, a nation with a dubious human-rights record. Further, Zimbabwe has more aggressively pursued an active and engaged relationship with China than other African states.
This paper proceeds in five sections. First, I examine the theories about foreign policymaking in Africa, paying special attention to the motivations of political leaders. Second, I briefly discuss the history of relations between ZANU-PF, Zimbabwe’s ruling party since 1980, and China. Third, I discuss the actual manifestations of the Look East Policy, exploring in particular what Zimbabwe receives from this policy. Fourth, I turn to Mugabe and members of his government to detail how they justify this policy to their fellow Zimbabweans and the rest of the world. Finally, in the conclusion, I touch on the successes and failures of this policy at the national and international levels
Foreign Policymaking in African States
Studying foreign policy decision-making processes anywhere in the world is a messy task. Foreign-policy analysis has made great strides toward theoretical and empirical rigor over the past thirty years, but analysts still need to study their subjects in multifactoral, multilevel, and multidisciplinary ways (Hudson 2005:2). Because foreign-policy analysis deals with humans and humans possess agency, any comprehensive analysis of a state’s foreign policy needs to draw on the insights of history, psychology, cultural studies, and anthropology. As Hudson argues, “Only a move toward placing human decision makers at the center of the theoretical matrix would allow the theorist to link to the social constructions present in a culture” (2005:3-4). The individual is important, but one cannot focus solely on individual policymakers abstracted from the society, history, and culture from which they come. In the case of Zimbabwe, one must situate Robert Mugabe within these other processes to understand his decisionmaking.
At one point, studies of African foreign policymaking focused almost exclusively on individual leaders. Analysts largely saw foreign policy as devoid of any broader political concerns. Government leaders saw foreign policy as a realm into which they could escape when the pressures of domestic politics became too great. Foreign policy gave a leader vital access to acquire the resources necessary to grease the wheels of
So ultimately what you’re saying is that Africa is still colonised by the European and later on, if all goes according to plan, will just be colonised by the Chinese?
Self-determination thus a myth.
Fortunately Africa is not alone in this. There are very few countries in the world that don’t dance to another’s tune. There are few real superpowers.
The UK dances when the Republican Puppeteer Walking Bush pulls the strings. And as for the Chinese not being colonisers, have you examined how much of the United States those clever gents behind the red silk curtain own, along with those white robed people of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds. See America jump. Cry, American, cry. Your fate is to trek to the corner shop to begin your second job after your first sixteen hour shift at the car factory is finished.
We can all just say who cares? Most of this stuff is outside of our control, is it not? Our elected (and unelected) representatives will sell us all off to the highest bidder anyway. I see you for one welcome your new masters. I couldn’t care less. I’ll smile and kowtow if I have to but that’s how different to now?
I think this article is grossly overexaggerated. I doubt there is anyone in the world who really thinks that “Africa still belongs to the white man”. If Europe and the US can exert pressure to make Africa a better place to live in for all its inhabitants, then they should do so. All countries dealing with countries in Africa have a moral responsibility not to make money out of suffering, China included.
The white man has long since shucked off his African burden. China is more than welcome to pick it up and, in Kipling’s words, “Watch sloth and heathen Folly/Bring all your hopes to nought”.
What you say is mostly true, big country power politics has been with us since Napoleon and was at it’s worst during the cold war as the nastiest Thugs played the USSR and USA off for their gain. In 1990 one hoped that with only one superpower the rest of the world would focus on deeds and not who was your mate or not. Cynical articles like yours encourage support for Thugs as long as it is in the supporters self interest. There is genocide going on in Darfur and the whole world; West, East, S and N. Americas plus Africa should say so and act accordingly.
Just one observation, there are in rural S.Africa ‘China Shops’ (little white buildings with that sign on them) springing up (seen a few in N. Zululand) and they sell 100% Chinese imported goods, employ 100% Chinese people from China and as of +- 12 months ago the shop i visited didn’t speak the local taal at all - guess this is 100% colonialism???
China has a simple philosophy - Chinese people first, and don’t interfere with local politics.
Africa’s dictators have a simple philosophy - themselves first.
However the whole world is global and all co-operate in certain matters. China’s main interest at the moment is the Olympics,and its main debtor is the USA which it therefore has to keep solvent. Russia’s main interest is the deal being structured with the EU.
I really think Zimbabwe is of minimal importance to either of them. Certainly they will not offend the AU and affect other interests in Africa. As long as the AU supports Zimbabwe - so will they.
Let’s not forget that the Chinese were previously disadvantaged in South Africa, so in terms of Colonial BEE they should have preference of colonisation
When the Chinese wring Africa dry - what next? Little men from Mars - Africans need to take control of their own destiny. But has decades of colonialism in one form or another left them incapable of fending for themselves without devouring one another? The last 50 years have been horrific, its looking like the next 50 will be more hell on earth for the vast majority of Africans. Poverty, hunger, violence, disease, ignorance, and early death. Perhaps ‘new’ colonialism is an option like ‘new’ persil - you can wash colours together!
You (and many other South Africans) confuse trade with colonialism.
Decades ago I saw a pedlar from the Indian subcontinent on a railway station platform in a small German town of under 10000 inhabitants.
He was selling cheap jewellery, probably from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
He could speak neither German nor English.
Would you also describe that as 100% colonialism?
We had visiting professor from the Uni of Cambridge who couldn’t resist throwing a passiv agressive comment on the ‘evil’ Chinese peresence in Africa…and it was completely off topic. lol
I wholly agree with you that the West is feeling uncomfortable about the Chinese presence in Africa. However, this stuff about China taking over seems exaggerated, and the Western ‘Moralists’ are unwittingly revealing their own inherent cynical agendas. Moral indignation doesn’t dress well on a (heterosexual, middle-class) white male… I suggest you visit TimWise.org/ for more info.
I think most Whites are completely clueless about what Blacks think. No wonder you still have White South Africans claiming that their longtime domestic servant is their ‘black friend’ - just like Richard Wright wrote about in “Black boy” over 50+ years ago.
Sounds like a bit of hot air to me. China will seek out economic opportunity, just as the west does. The problem is that as a prime representative of the non-aligned nations, along with economic development, China exports the acceptability of military dictatorship without hesitation. Nothing pretty about U.S. or EU business practices, but if the west has preferences there is a known wish, even if used only selectively, for democracy and freedom. Hearing that Zim’s economic problems are the result of sanctions or some action of the west is just like the same being said for widespread starvation and repression in North Korea. Colonialism is dead. And, China will never care what atrocities are committed in the countries it does business with. Or? In fact, they will give confidence to authoritative, totalitarian, military dictatorships, and give countries like South Africa the moral strength to use democracy as a precept all the while maintaining, even Zim style, essentially a one party permanent state. By the way, I wonder what happend to those Chinese weapons being shipped to Zim.
This article is so broad and biased that it is actually laughable. It is the stuff of pure politics; playing the blame game without any actual hard facts. It is straight from the La-la-land Times but I guess we all have an opinion on this one…
Sure, the West is greedy and motivated by profit but Zimbabwe has buggerall to offer except fleeing refugees. Are they running to China? I don’t think so! Britain is fast becoming a welfare state for refugees from the former colonies - ain’t payback a bitch!
America’s involvement in Africa is partly economic and partly guilt driven. Many of those “good-old-boys” are God fearing and prodded along by Christian guilt to provide humanitarian interventions. Aid money is raised using religious triggers. Britain is also driven by humanitarian motives, albeit less Christian and more new age politically correct guilt.
The Chinese? Are they driven by humanitarian guilt? I don’t think so! PLUS they don’t have a colonial legacy to answer for so they are free to practice PURE business. Do they care about charity? I doubt it. That is largely a Judo-Christian-Muslim invention.
Now watch Africans try to manipulate the Chinese with the race card and moral guilt. The Chinese owe them nothing and they are quite happy to do business with the dictators irrespective of whether or not the peasant masses starve while the leaders live it up in luxury.
The Chinese are welcome to the “white man’s burden”, only I don’t think it will become a case of “yellow man’s burden.” Let’s see, perhaps the Chinese will lead through example. They aren’t lazy like the western colonials who indulged in the luxuries of cheap labour and who put up with lazy African “sloths”.
Methinks Africa will have to pull finger out once the Chinese arrive. It wouldn’t hurt us to start learning the language either.
America created UNITA in Angola to fight communism. Then America ditched UNITA in favour of MPLA, who were and still are communists.
America funded Savimbi and tried to maintain the facade of non intervention, but as soon as the hostilities ended, American firms moved in to tie up all the lucrative oil contracts.
How can America criticise China?
I was going to leave the phrase that Zimbabwe has bugger all to offer standing but then I thought better of it. I’d imagine there are few better places to reap minerals than a country on its knees but which still retains some semblance of decent infrastructure.
Does ‘Anglo makes huge investment in platinum mine’ ring any VERY RECENT bells?
Hi Old fox, the difference is that your trader in Germany was all by himself, the Chinese like the Europeans before them are part of a country take over - ie China first, politics does not have to be included - same objective different colour and strategy.
The answer is to keep them to trade only but do our leaders have the moral fibre and vision to resist and develop ‘Africa first’ winning strategies?
Well said. I don’t think we will need to learn their very difficult language - they are all learning the international languages especially English. More important, and easier, to learn something about their culture and values.
I would rather Chinese than black dictators any day. The West is too riddled with guilt and angst to be effective against dictators. Chinese would make both white and black work.
You should listen to national radio - it is hysterically funny to hear how all the black organisations have got their knickers in a knot about the Chinese being allowed “previously disadvantaged” status!
The truth is that Africa’s position in global trade has always been decided by others. It was true in the Trans-Atlantic trade triangle also known as the Slave Trade. China is also determined to mantain that status quo.
Can somebody tell me how many jobs besides the flea markets selling Cheap Chinese clothing (but expensive to most Zimbabweans) the look East policy has created. Do not mention Sino Cement because it was there before we were desperate.
That China always opposes when it comes to Zimbabwe because it realises the injustice of colonialism is the greatest myth. China and Russia simply oppose because it is their role to mantain the existence of the East pole.Otherwise can you explain why we have never seen the Russians in Zimbabwe and even the Chinese leader. There is an exaggeration of China’s dependence on a policy of appeasement of Africa’s kings and chiefs. After all China and India have the leverage on the instruments of extraction like BHP Billiton, Anglo, Rio etc.
The East and the West own each other’s companies. Dividends from Rio will flow to the East and vice-versa. Heard the anti-globalisation nationalist outcry about sovereign wealth funds and export of jobs being done by a race called capitalists. The shirt I am wearing is an American brand, made in Jordan with 90% of the material coming from America. My phone is a European brand made not in some African country but in China as is my pc. I was talking to a friend in Zimbabwe who told me that they had lost an order to make pants for this big in America lesisure clothing brand, guess to who? To a Chinese factory.
China’s relationship with the US is simply one of friendly competition. Who is not criticising China’s home human rights record? Who made China the biggest factory in the world and actually exported jobs and technology to them? How did it come about that the US’s biggest exports to China could be soya beans and its biggest imports, computer chips?
The Chinese position in Africa appeals to those with yearnings for socialism and communism, capitalism on the other hand is a global movement celebrating the individual over the collective, the acquisition of wealth by those able to. It is epitomised by the Mukesh Ambanis and swelling ranks of Chinese and Russian billionaires. It is epitomised by Tata’s purchase of the most British institution Landrover or is it the Goldman Sachs inspired purchase of Standard Bank by the Chinese. It is the sale of IBM pc unit to Lenovo of China. Capitalism embraces its own.
Capitalism is a force for social change. It deemed feudalism a hindrance for production, slavery a hindrance to technological and economic progress, colonialism a hindrance to further progress in production. China has learnt that. They say Capitalism is ruthless and so is the Capitalist competition between powers. The Chinese will do almost anything in their “see no evil hear no evil” non interference strategy of getting what they want. They are lucky because there are no movements in China to compel them to consider revising their policies.
In the eyes of the capitalists of China and the United States, Africans are people who occupy land on which there are resources they need. At the most generous we represent the a market for finished Chinese goods made in China by Western and Asian companies.
Until we realise that we are people who if it were possible could be wished away from the resources which the Asian and Western powers have identified as useful for them but in time like asbestos can be unwanted then we are doomed. Imagine if the Americans stopped glamourising diamonds. The Indians stopped liking gold. The Philip Morrises and BATs of the world lost the tobacco fight what would become of us?
The Forbes bible we shall read. Our sermons shall be Bloomberg, Summit and Financial Times television. That applies to all corners of the globe, all races and creeds.
Kit,
No political stability, no platinum mine. Who is going to do the actual work? Zanu PF supporters? They want their free farms for subsistence, not hard manual labour in the mines!
American inspired sanctions = no market for Zim platinum or else no market for other Anglo offerings. We were all waiting for that bastard to shuffle off and allow business to take hold but no…
I still maintain that because there isn’t oil to be exploited, Zimbobwe as a country has bugger all hope of getting out of its economic depression. Bob and Grace will blow the annual profits from one platinum mine on one shopping trip to London!
Why on earth would China or anyone else bother to go to the expense of propping up Mugabe? Much cheaper to buy the country after it has declared bankruptcy - which is has no choice but to do.
Do you know how “a ring” operates at an auction? The buyers get together and decide who will have what and then don’t bid against each other. The West AND China AND the USA can do the same.
There is no need for an economic recovery to exploit minerals. None. The DRC isn’t exactly a booming hotspot of the thriving economy variety but there are a good few foreign firms positively reaping that.
The biggest threat to Anglo’s investment is international sanctions. Implying that there’s no one to do the work is a bit tunnel-visioned. If Bob really is holding on wrongfully, the vast majority of Zimbabweans aren’t Zanu PF supporters; and if you’ve ever visited a mine somewhere like Australia you’ll understand just how expensive it is to get minerals out of the ground in that kind of economy. Far better to do it for the cost of cheap housing and a square meal a day.
I just don’t share the view that there is nothing left worth exploiting just because there is no oil. Look at Chinese investment in copper mining, multinationals investing in platinum mining…most of these investments are in uncomfortable places. So what?
There will still be drones who are willing to work for you - scarcity of decent employment and food means that there is unlikely to be any shortage of skilled and semi-skilled people willing to do it in Zim. They’re not all dead yet, although you seem to think they are.
He has already apparently on-sold the mineral rights to China for weapons he has already received. Every-one now realises Mugabe tries to sell everything twice - including the land! And all businesses must be 51% owned by Mugabe’s pals (just like BEE) - so why invest 100% infrastucture for 49% profit - when you can invest ANYWHERE else?
Not that a nutcase like Gadaffi might not gatecrash - he has the ego and the money and the boredom! Plus he dislikes Mbeki (not that he is alone there!).
They might as well be dead. How motivated do you think those downtrodden people are right now? I imagine it would be far less trouble to simply pack up and flee across the border to whatever country than to work in Bob’s mines - reitterated on 702 this morning. Funny that…
Sanctions will kill the markets for any minerals from Zim. I repeat: the country has buggerall left to offer the world or its citizens.
The awful truth is that there is a core of people STILL walking to work for hours each morning and back each day and the money they make doesn’t even buy chewing gum. Why? Because work is important, they live in hope that if they keep that scarce job, when it comes good they have something. And also because what else is there to do? And some of them have decent bosses who make sure that they’ve got a bit of something for lunch and something small to take home for the kids.
That’s what I mean about Anglo being able to do it cheap. People are not actually dead. They’re still people and what makes them do what they do is a mystery to all of us. Some people are even afraid to come to SA after hearing tales of violence, some can’t afford to get out, some are afraid to leave their families behind. A reasonably square meal at lunchtime and some semblance of a salary (and square meals are provided in Australian mining for sure) and there will be people willing to provide the labour.
As for higher level labour…people work in some right crap places for the right price. I have never wondered what it is that makes so-called ’security personnel’ go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is pretty obvious.
But local Zimbabweans’ resourcefulness won’t be with us much longer I fear, and this works not if Anglo can’t get the stuff out. Depends also on whether they’re seen as Bob’s mines or Anglo’s and who has the final say in management I’d guess.
A lot of the security personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan are white ex-police pushed out of our sevice by racism. They do have families to support you know.
As for Anglo - it is a London stock exchange listed company as well now and its head office is in Canada, not South Africa - it divested after Mbeki had that spat with Anglo. If the G8 go for sanctions, so will they.
Exactly - they have families to support. So why go to Iraq and come back in a body bag when you could go to the UK and work there and come home every day or start your own business and live here? People make that particular choice for a reason and institutionalised racism isn’t one of them. The lack of it perhaps…
Saying that the ’security’ guys go to Iraq because they can’t find a job here (nor anywhere else in the world clearly) just isn’t the obvious answer.
I am really impressed by the body of free speach, and yet I feel that something more needs to be said, even though I am interupting.
I have witnessed people protesting free houses because they didn’t get one, saying NGO’s out.
Big problem, this free speach place may be shut down.
Guess you can tell where I am from.
Two things. Ignorance, and blame the west.
Something is not going to add up here. By speaking up are we going to prevent Rwanda 2 or three.
I don’t think there is any guilt in the west. Slaves, whatever, that ain’t here and now. As Blacks in the US are empowered, and flexing their muscle, Africa needs to be more worried about black americans colonizing than Chinese.
Interesting discussion, sorry to bring up military dictatorship and other uncomfortable ideas.. South Africa has some problems, and it may well be that choices are going to be made soon. Seeya free speach would be a bad one, but may be coming.
It is not only China and the USA that are interested in minerals in Africa. South African countries are mining in other African countries. As are Australian and Canadian companies too, for example. Likewise, China is sourcing minerals from around the world, and not just Africa.
“From Canada to Indonesia to Kazakhstan, Chinese firms are gobbling up oil, gas, coal and metals, or paying for the right to explore for them, or buying up firms that produce them. Ships are queuing off Australia’s biggest coal port, Newcastle, to load cargoes destined for China ; at one point last June the line was 79 ships long.”
CfF: A ravenous dragon, Mar 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The same article, A ravenous dragon, states that “African and Latin American economies are growing at their fastest pace in decades, thanks in large part to heavy Chinese demand for their resources.”
Needless to say, Chinese demand (and to a lesser extent, India’s demand) for resources has increased prices to the benefit of all (non oil) mineral exporting countries. (Its unclear though what factors contributed to the rapid oil price increase, but this can’t be blamed largely on China or India which have had steady, if not predictable growth for well over a decade).
In conclusion, Africa benefits from exporting minerals to China, as well as other countries. African countries would be worse off if they insisted that the minerals not be mined at all.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Brendan O'Neill is the editor of spiked, the "sassy, irreverent, UK-based online magazine of news and opinion", as the San Francisco Chronicle described it. He has been labelled "one of Britain's sharpest social commentators" by the Daily Telegraph and as a "loony lefty hack" by the far-right British National Party. His journalism is published widely on both sides of the Atlantic and is collated at: www.BrendanONeill.net.
For years Bob Geldof, former Boomtown Rat turned self-styled saviour of Africa, was celebrated as a secular saint. To the annoyance of some of us -- i...
Over the past seven days there have been two major demonstrations in London: the anti-capitalist, banker-baiting protests outside the Bank of England ...
Britain’s political and media elites are still reeling from the revelation this weekend that the House of Lords might be corrupt, after four lords a...
Loading ...
Zimbabwe’s ‘Look East’ policy launched in 2003, an attempt by President Robert Mugabe to offset the loss of Western investment in the wake of economic collapse, has produced far fewer dividends than Harare anticipated. Mugabe sought to capitalize on the rise of Asian economic powers, which have the requisite financial capital and technical expertise to replace dwindling Western investment and shrinking markets. The initial policy emphasis on Malaysia has gradually shifted towards China.
Whatever the West may say Mugabe is a visionary, that they West want by all means to get rid of, not because of his misrule, but because of his resolve to continue without their financies. Just in case Mugabe succeed they loses of Europe and the US over African resources will be great and their influence drastical cut without cheap or free alternatives. That is the cause of concern nothing else. China used to trade with Africa long ago, before the thief camped on Africa.
(Report abuse)