PDA

View Full Version : How China has created a new slave empire in Africa



CG51
09-28-2008, 03:15 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-00DFEB80000004B0-995_233x349.jpg
Narrow escape: Peter Hitchens

I think I am probably going to die any minute now. An inflamed, deceived mob of about 50 desperate men are crowding round the car, some trying to turn it over, others beating at it with large rocks, all yelling insults and curses.
They have just started to smash the windows. Next, they will pull us out and, well, let's not think about that ...
I am trying not to meet their eyes, but they are staring at me and my companions with rage and hatred such as I haven't seen in a human face before. Those companions, Barbara Jones and Richard van Ryneveld, are - like me - quite helpless in the back seats.
If we get out, we will certainly be beaten to death. If we stay where we are, we will probably be beaten to death.
Our two African companions have - crazily in our view - got out of the car to try to reason with the crowd. It is clear to us that you might as well preach non-violence to a tornado.
At last, after what must have been about 40 seconds but that felt like half an hour, one of the pair saw sense, leapt back into the car and reversed wildly down the rocky, dusty path - leaving his friend behind.
By the grace of God we did not slither into the ditch, roll over or burst a tyre. Through the dust we churned up as we fled, we could see our would-be killers running with appalling speed to catch up. There was just time to make a crazy two-point turn which allowed us to go forwards and so out-distance them.
We had pretty much abandoned our other guide to whatever his fate might be (this was surprisingly easy to justify to myself at the time) when we saw that he had broken free and was running with Olympic swiftness, just ahead of pursuers half hidden by the dust.
We flung open a rear door so he could scramble in and, engine grinding, we veered off, bouncing painfully over the ruts and rocks.
We feared there would be another barricade to stop our escape, and it would all begin again. But there wasn't, and we eventually realised we had got away, even the man whose idiocy nearly got us killed.
He told us it was us they wanted, not him, or he would never have escaped. We ought to be dead. We are not. It is an interesting feeling, not wholly unpleasant.
Why did they want to kill us? What was the reason for their fury? They thought that if I reported on their way of life they might lose their livings.
Livings? Dyings, more likely.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02CF0F4100000578-247_468x393.jpg


Peking power: A Chinese supervisor cajoles local workers as they dig a trench in Kabwe, Zambia

These poor, hopeless, angry people exist by grubbing for scraps of cobalt and copper ore in the filth and dust of abandoned copper mines in Congo, sinking perilous 80ft shafts by hand, washing their finds in cholera-infected streams full of human filth, then pushing enormous two-hundredweight loads uphill on ancient bicycles to the nearby town of Likasi where middlemen buy them to sell on, mainly to Chinese businessmen hungry for these vital metals.
To see them, as they plod miserably past, is to be reminded of pictures of unemployed miners in Thirties Britain, stumbling home in the drizzle with sacks of coal scraps gleaned from spoil heaps.
Except that here the unsparing heat makes the labour five times as hard, and the conditions of work and life are worse by far than any known in England since the 18th Century.
Many perish as their primitive mines collapse on them, or are horribly injured without hope of medical treatment. Many are little more than children. On a good day they may earn $3, which just supports a meagre existence in diseased, malarial slums.
We had been earlier to this awful pit, which looked like a penal colony in an ancient slave empire.
Defeated, bowed figures toiled endlessly in dozens of hand-dug pits. Their faces, when visible, were blank and without hope.
We had been turned away by a fat, corrupt policeman who pretended our papers weren't in order, but who was really taking instructions from a dead-eyed, one-eared gangmaster who sat next to him.
By the time we returned with more official permits, the gangmasters had readied the ambush.
The diggers feared - and their evil, sinister bosses had worked hard on that fear - that if people like me publicised their filthy way of life, then the mine might be closed and the $3 a day might be taken away.
I can give you no better explanation in miniature of the wicked thing that I believe is now happening in Africa.
Out of desperation, much of the continent is selling itself into a new era of corruption and virtual slavery as China seeks to buy up all the metals, minerals and oil she can lay her hands on: copper for electric and telephone cables, cobalt for mobile phones and jet engines - the basic raw materials of modern life.
It is crude rapacity, but to Africans and many of their leaders it is better than the alternative, which is slow starvation.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02C1437500000578-637_468x524.jpg


The Congolese risk their lives digging through mountains of mining waste looking for scraps of metal ore

It is my view - and not just because I was so nearly killed - that China's cynical new version of imperialism in Africa is a wicked enterprise.
China offers both rulers and the ruled in Africa the simple, squalid advantages of shameless exploitation.
For the governments, there are gargantuan loans, promises of new roads, railways, hospitals and schools - in return for giving Peking a free and tax-free run at Africa's rich resources of oil, minerals and metals.
For the people, there are these wretched leavings, which, miserable as they are, must be better than the near-starvation they otherwise face.
Persuasive academics advised me before I set off on this journey that China's scramble for Africa had much to be said for it. They pointed out China needs African markets for its goods, and has an interest in real economic advance in that broken continent.
For once, they argued, a foreign intervention in Africa might work precisely because it is so cynical and self-interested. They said Western aid, with all its conditions, did little to create real advances in Africa, laughing as they declared: 'The only country that ever got rich through donations is the Vatican.'
Why get so het up about African corruption anyway? Is it really so much worse than corruption in Russia or India?
Is it really our business to try to act as missionaries of purity? Isn't what we call 'corruption' another name for what Africans view as looking after their families?
And what about China herself? Despite the country's convulsive growth and new wealth, it still suffers gravely from poverty and backwardness, as I have seen for myself in its dingy sweatshops, the primitive electricity-free villages of Canton, the dark and squalid mining city of Datong and the cave-dwelling settlements that still rely on wells for their water.
After the murderous disaster of Mao, and the long chaos that went before, China longs above all for stable prosperity. And, as one genial and open-minded Chinese businessman said to me in Congo as we sat over a beer in the decayed colonial majesty of Lubumbashi's Belgian-built Park Hotel: 'Africa is China's last hope.'
I find this argument quite appealing, in theory. Britain's own adventures in Africa were not specially benevolent, although many decent men did what they could to enforce fairness and justice amid the bigotry and exploitation.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02C1441900000578-102_468x422.jpg


Taking over: Chinese building workers in Zambia

It is noticeable that in much former British territory we have left behind plenty of good things and habits that are absent in the lands once ruled by rival empires.
Even so, with Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Uganda on our conscience, who are we to lecture others?
I chose to look at China's intervention in two countries, Zambia and the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo', because they lie side by side; because one was once British and the other Belgian.
Also, in Zambia's imperfect but functioning democracy, there is actual opposition to the Chinese presence, while in the despotic Congo, opposition to President Joseph Kabila is unwise, to put it mildly.
Congo is barely a state at all, and still hosts plenty of fighting not all that far from here.
Statues and images of Joseph's murdered father Laurent are everywhere in an obvious attempt to create a cult of personality on which stability may one day be based. Portraits of Joseph himself scowl from every wall.
I have decided not to name most of the people who spoke to me, even though some of them gave me permission to do so, because I am not sure they know just how much of a risk they may be running by criticising the Chinese in Africa.
I know from personal experience with Chinese authority that Peking regards anything short of deep respect as insulting, and it does not forget a slight.
I also know that this over-sensitive vigilance is present in Africa.
The Mail on Sunday team was reported to the authorities in Zambia's Copper Belt by Chinese managers who had seen us taking photographs of a graveyard at Chambishi where 54 victims of a disaster in a Chinese-run explosives factory are buried. Within an hour, local 'security' officials were buzzing round us trying to find out what we were up to.
This is why I have some time for the Zambian opposition politician Michael Sata, known as 'King Cobra' because of his fearless combative nature (but also, say his opponents, because he is so slippery).
Sata has challenged China's plans to invest in Zambia, and is publicly suspicious of them. At elections two years ago, the Chinese were widely believed to have privately threatened to pull out of the country if he won, and to have helped the government parties win.
Peking regards Zambia as a great prize, alongside its other favoured nations of Sudan (oil), Angola (oil) and Congo (metals).

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02C1444B00000578-899_468x286.jpg


Fighting back: Peter Hitchens with Michael Sata, the opposition politician nicknamed 'King Cobra'

It has cancelled Zambia's debts, eased Zambian exports to China, established a 'special economic zone' in the Copper Belt, offered to build a sports stadium, schools, a hospital and an anti-malaria centre as well as providing scholarships and dispatching experts to help with agriculture. Zambia-China trade is growing rapidly, mainly in the form of copper.
All this has aroused the suspicions of Mr Sata, a populist politician famous for his blunt, combative manner and his harsh, biting attacks on opponents, and who was once a porter who swept the platforms at Victoria Station in London.
Now the leader of the Patriotic Front, with a respectable chance of winning a presidential election set for the end of October, Sata says: 'The Chinese are not here as investors, they are here as invaders.
'They bring Chinese to come and push wheelbarrows, they bring Chinese bricklayers, they bring Chinese carpenters, Chinese plumbers. We have plenty of those in Zambia.'
This is true. In Lusaka and in the Copper Belt, poor and lowly Chinese workers, in broad-brimmed straw hats from another era, are a common sight at mines and on building sites, as are better-dressed Chinese supervisors and technicians.
There are Chinese restaurants and Chinese clinics and Chinese housing compounds - and a growing number of Chinese flags flapping over factories and smelters.
'We don't need to import labourers from China,' Sata says. 'We need to import people with skills we don't have in Zambia. The Chinese are not going to train our people in how to push wheelbarrows.'
He meets me in the garden of his not specially grand house in the old-established and verdant Rhodes Park section of Lusaka. It is guarded by uniformed security men, its walls protected by barbed wire and broken glass.
'Wherever our Chinese "brothers" are they don't care about the local workers,' he complains, alleging that Chinese companies have lax safety procedures and treat their African workers like dirt.
In language which seems exaggerated, but which will later turn out to be at least partly true, he claims: 'They employ people in slave conditions.'
He also accuses Chinese overseers of frequently beating up Zambians. His claim is given force by a story in that morning's Lusaka newspapers about how a Zambian building worker in Ndola, in the Copper Belt, was allegedly beaten unconscious by four Chinese co-workers angry that he had gone to sleep on the job.
I later checked this account with the victim's relatives in an Ndola shanty town and found it to be true.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02D204CE00000578-480_468x286.jpg


Evidence of China is never very far away

Recently, a government minister, Alice Simago, was shown weeping on TV after she saw at first hand the working conditions at a Chinese-owned coal mine in the Southern Province.
When I contacted her, she declined to speak to me about this - possibly because criticism of the Chinese is not welcome among most of the Zambian elite.
Denis Lukwesa, deputy general secretary of the Zambian Mineworkers' Union, also backed up Sata's view, saying: 'They just don't understand about safety. They are more interested in profit.'
As for their general treatment of African workers, Lukwesa says he knows of cases where Chinese supervisors have kicked Zambians. He summed up their attitude like this: 'They are harsh to Zambians, and they don't get on well with them.'
Sata warns against the enormous loans and offers of help with transport, schools and health care with which Peking now sweetens its attempts to buy up Africa's mineral reserves.
'China's deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo is, in my opinion, corruption,' he says, comparing this with Western loans which require strong measures against corruption.
Everyone in Africa knows China's Congo deal - worth almost £5billion in loans, roads, railways, hospitals and schools - was offered after Western experts demanded tougher anti-corruption measures in return for more aid.
Sata knows the Chinese are unpopular in his country. Zambians use a mocking word - 'choncholi' - to describe the way the Chinese speak. Zambian businessmen gossip about the way the Chinese live in separate compounds, where - they claim - dogs are kept for food.
There are persistent rumours, which cropped up in almost every conversation I had in Zambia, that many of the imported Chinese workforce are convicted criminals whom China wants to offload in Africa. I was unable to confirm this but, given China's enormous gulag and the harshness of life for many migrant workers, it is certainly not impossible.
Sata warns that 'sticks and stones' may one day fly if China does not treat Zambians better. He now promises a completely new approach: 'I used to sweep up at your Victoria Station, and I never got any complaints about my work. I want to sweep my country even cleaner than I swept your stations.'
Some Africa experts tend to portray Sata as a troublemaker. His detractors whisper that he is a mouthpiece for Taiwan, which used to be recognised by many African states but which faces almost total isolation thanks to Peking's new Africa policy.
But his claims were confirmed by a senior worker in Chambishi, scene of the 2005 explosion. This man, whom I will call Thomas, is serious, experienced and responsible. His verdict on the Chinese is devastating.
He recalls the aftermath of the blast, when he had the ghastly task of collecting together what remained of the men who died: 'Zambia, a country of 11million people, went into official mourning for this disaster.
'A Chinese supervisor said to me in broken English, "In China, 5,000 people die, and there is nothing. In Zambia, 50 people die and everyone is weeping." To them, 50 people are nothing.'
This sort of thing creates resentment. Earlier this year African workers at the new Chinese smelter at Chambishi rioted over low wages and what they thought were unsafe working conditions.
When Chinese President Hu Jintao came to Zambia in 2006, he had to cancel a visit to the Copper Belt for fear of hostile demonstrations. Thomas says: 'The people who advised Hu Jintao not to come were right.'
He suspects Chinese arrogance and brutality towards Africans is not racial bigotry, but a fear of being seen to be weak. 'They are trying to prove they are not inferior to the West. They are trying too hard.
'If they ask you to do something and you don't do it, they think you're not doing it because they aren't white. People put up with the kicks and blows because they need work to survive.'
Many in Africa also accuse the Chinese of unconcealed corruption. This is specially obvious in the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo', currently listed as the most corrupt nation on Earth.
A North-American businessman who runs a copper smelting business in Katanga Province told me how his firm tried to obey safety laws.
They are constantly targeted by official safety inspectors because they refuse to bribe them. Meanwhile, Chinese enterprises nearby get away with huge breaches of the law - because they paid bribes.
'We never pay,' he said, 'because once you pay you become their bitch; you will pay for ever and ever.'
Another businessman shrugged over the way he is forced to wait weeks to get his products out of the country, while the Chinese have no such problems.
'I'm not sure the Chinese even know there are customs regulations,' he said. 'They don't fill in the forms, they just pay. I try to be philosophical about it, but it is not easy.'
Unlike orderly Zambia, Congo is a place of chaos, obvious privation, tyranny dressed up as democracy for public-relations purposes, and fear.
This is Katanga, the mineral-rich slice of land fought over furiously in the early Sixties in post-colonial Africa's first civil war. Brooding over its capital, Lubumbashi, is a 400ft black hill: the accumulated slag and waste of 80 years of copper mining and smelting.
Now, thanks to a crazy rise in the price of copper and cobalt, the looming, sinister mound is being quarried - by Western business, by the Chinese and by bands of Congolese who grub and scramble around it searching for scraps of copper or traces of cobalt, smashing lumps of slag with great hammers as they hunt for any way of paying for that night's supper.
As dusk falls and the shadows lengthen, the scene looks like the blasted land of Mordor in Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings: a pre-medieval prospect of hopeless, condemned toil in pits surrounded by stony desolation.
Behind them tower the leaning ruins of colossal abandoned factories: monuments to the wars and chaos that have repeatedly passed this way.
There is something strange and unsettling about industrial scenes in Africa, pithead winding gear and gaunt chimneys rising out of tawny grasslands dotted with anthills and banana palms. It looks as if someone has made a grave mistake.
And there is a lesson for colonial pride and ambition in the streets of Lubumbashi - 80 years ago an orderly Art Deco city full of French influence and supervised by crisply starched gendarmes, now a genial but volatile chaos of scruffy, bribe-hunting traffic cops where it is not wise to venture out at night.
The once-graceful Belgian buildings, gradually crumbling under thick layers of paint, long ago lost their original purpose.
Outsiders come and go in Africa, some greedy, some idealistic, some halfway between. Time after time, they fail or are defeated, leaving behind scars, slag-heaps, ruins and graveyards, disillusion and disappointment.
We have come a long way from Cecil Rhodes to Bob Geldof, but we still have not brought much happiness with us, and even Nelson Mandela's vaunted 'Rainbow Nation' in South Africa is careering rapidly towards banana republic status.
Now a new great power, China, is scrambling for wealth, power and influence in this sad continent, without a single illusion or pretence.
Perhaps, after two centuries of humbug, this method will work where all other interventions have failed.
But after seeing the bitter, violent desperation unleashed in the mines of Likasi, I find it hard to believe any good will come of it.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html

deagle
09-28-2008, 03:40 PM
well, at least they didn't kidnap them to farm on someones private land right ?

who knows, maybe they even pay them a suitable wage and provide accomodations.

LaoSexMachine
09-28-2008, 03:42 PM
Nothing new. Just another country giving it a try in the Dark continent.

SineJustitia
09-28-2008, 03:46 PM
Oh no. Some country is trying to exploit Africa? Stop the press.

Switek
09-28-2008, 03:52 PM
Nothing new. Just another country giving it a try in the Dark continent.

True... but I smell that this time China can achieve some successes for few decades in that region...

Lau
09-28-2008, 03:54 PM
We've all been there and now it's Chinas turn. Not exactly shoking news.

NavyTimes
09-28-2008, 03:59 PM
Oh no. Some country is trying to exploit Africa? Stop the press.


I am sensing a bit of cynicism here. p-)

LEB101
09-28-2008, 05:33 PM
i like how some poeple compare this to slavery from a hundered years ago. remember a hundred years ago is not now . this is sick . china dosnt even care about its own people so i didnt expect it to care about others

Rudolph
09-28-2008, 05:51 PM
I think this is an excellent op-piece: How Africa Underdeveloped Africa. (http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/underdeveloped.shtml)

Henry's Fork
09-28-2008, 06:14 PM
i like how some poeple compare this to slavery from a hundered years ago. remember a hundred years ago is not now . this is sick . china dosnt even care about its own people so i didnt expect it to care about others

The excuse of "Whitey did this 150 years ago, so its ok if we do the same today" has been brought up as a excuse more than once when "chatting" with the online PLA minions at various forums.

China does care about its people, see, they are stealing african jobs by putting their own people in africa to work. Win Win for China. Guess who loses?

Kilgor
09-28-2008, 06:15 PM
You guys are clearly forgetting only white males can be racist.

Henry's Fork
09-28-2008, 06:20 PM
You guys are clearly forgetting only white males can be racist.

Zhu zui, Gwailo!

(j/k)
p-)

Rudolph
09-28-2008, 06:23 PM
You guys are clearly forgetting only white males can be racist.

Shut yo trap, cracker!!

Gunbird
09-28-2008, 07:09 PM
Unlike the short-sighted powers before it, China actually builds infrastructure where they undertake their new projects. They invest.

Those schools being built aren't for Chinese people, they are for the indigenous populations.

Sato would oppose god himself landing in his country, he is a populist.

Since the 1960s, over 15,000 Chinese doctors have worked in 47 African states treating nearly 180 million patients.

Eventine
09-28-2008, 07:27 PM
So what passes for empire, these days? If the Chinese are creating a new slave empire in Africa by investing and providing work (however shoddy) for the local population, then aren't we, technically, building a slave empire in China?

Jaegermeister + Red Bull
09-28-2008, 07:45 PM
So what passes for empire, these days? If the Chinese are creating a new slave empire in Africa by investing and providing work (however shoddy) for the local population, then aren't we, technically, building a slave empire in China?

Now now, some of the people here actually believe this...

hskywalker
09-28-2008, 07:55 PM
Old europe just can't accept the fact that their former colonies don't trust them, so they hurt whenever china doing bussiness there.

TheMiddlePath
09-28-2008, 11:29 PM
European Africa policy is based on invasion, bombing, unfair trade deals, arming rebels to destabalise unfriendly governments, threats, sanctions, boycott, faning ethnic hatred, imperialistic demands, military bases etc.

China Africa policy is based on mutual beniffit, mutual respect, territory integrity, non interference.

So why do you think that the last China-Africa stunned the West when over 40 head of state attended.

And why do you think the hastily arranged Europe-Africa summit later was a complete failure.

You reap what you sow. The world is sick of your policy. Your policies are in fact driving everybody to China. China do not have to do a thing. Thank you.

ocean
09-29-2008, 12:29 AM
"New"? as mean there has been "old"? How old has it been?

Supe
09-29-2008, 12:31 AM
China Africa policy is based on mutual beniffit, mutual respect, territory integrity, non interference.



You've been reading the Chinadaily bbs forum again haven't you? For those who don't know of it, it's rabidly nationalistic, racist, xenophobic, anti-Western China focus forum, though at times it has a delightful non PC like atmosphere. It presents the ugly face of China. If you've read the article (and others like it) then you'll see just how much nonsense your comments are. Your position is untenable.

Regardless of Africa's colonial past and exploitation from Europe/US, it is not a valid moral excuse for China to exploit, corrupt and undermine fragile states. China does not get a free pass on judgment. China is well on it is way to being just another imperialist robber baron nation state - only one that does not act without internal constraint or dissent from within. Oh and the Africans won't forget. They haven't forgotten Western imperialism. You can bet they won't forget Chinese adventures in their continent either.

MG 3
09-29-2008, 12:50 AM
I don't see how China is responsible for Africa's poverty. Africans work in the mines owned by Africans. Just because that copper is bought by the Chinese does it make them evil.
Chinese build infrastructure and instead to turning these nations in to looting adventures they want to create partners.

Why dont you ppl do a bit of research in to the coltan mining industry.
Cabot Corporation, Boston, MA
OM Group, Cleveland, Ohio
AVX, Myrtle Beach, SC
Eagle Wings Resources International, Ohio
Trinitech International, Ohio
Kemet Electronics Corporation, Greenville, SC
Vishay Sprague. Malvern, PA

Companies that the UN calls "the engine of the conflict in the DRC."

Eventine
09-29-2008, 01:01 AM
It's much too early to say whether China's role in Africa will be positive or negative. One thing is true, however - if the Africans "won't forget" anyone who comes to their continent to do business, pretty soon nobody will. Seriously, you're acting like Africans are incapable of xenophobia, racism, and/or misguided nationalism in their own world views. European imperialism left long scars across the continent, it is true, but that doesn't justify labeling every new power that comes to invest as "imperialist." The truth is that the Chinese have made such headways into Africa because of their "no strings attached" policy - African leaders like that, and so long as it remains "no strings attached," they'll continue to honor Chinese investors. But if someone else comes along with a better deal, or if they realize that the Chinese deal isn't really "no strings attached," they'll switch - and that's the difference between today's Africa and yesterday's.

Of course, the leaders of Africa do not necessarily represent its people, but what are you going to do - declare African governments illegitimate and invade in the name of democracy? Just to do business?

Supe
09-29-2008, 01:40 AM
One thing is true, however - if the Africans "won't forget" anyone who comes to their continent to do business, pretty soon nobody will. Seriously, you're acting like Africans are incapable of xenophobia, racism, and/or misguided nationalism in their own world views.

That's a given and need not be explained to most people. But we aren't talking about African foibles, we are within the context of the discussion talking about China and its own exploitative ventures in Africa. We have Chinese netizens saying essentially that it is ok to trample on the rights of Africans, take their resources because a)African govts allow this b)US/Europeans have set precedence and c)fool themselves into thinking that Chinese govt and business is benevolent and that China is lifting some Africans out of poverty. Which is bogus because Chinese govt is entrenching poverty (similar situation under colonialism, African elites get nice kickbacks), undermining African Govts through corruption, strip existing domestic industry because it is 'cheaper' to import from China - (bloating unemployment, reduce skills and knowledge -now outsourced to China) and stifle hopes of such states of ever getting out of the poverty cycle. China does not see that with power also comes responsibility. It blame shifts to the West - it is as if even the Chinese Govt does not believe its own miracle and continues to act accordingly. China could take the lead on these sorts of issues, setting itself up even greater things but while it plays this game, it will just be a second rate, playing by the old colonial handbook, exploiter of peoples and resources.


European imperialism left long scars across the continent, it is true, but that doesn't justify labeling every new power that comes to invest as "imperialist."

Actually it does. No nation gets a free ride on justifiable criticism. The West has been and will continue to be heavily criticised for past actions. Chinese govt does not have an excuse because it should know better. Especially having been exploited economically, politically and culturally by colonial powers. Or have Chinese people forgotten that their nation was carved up and made impotent in the 19th and early 20th century? I read Chinese forums from time to time and I've never read of a Chinese netizen going easy on Western exploitation and influence in China. I am positive that I would be flamed severely were I suggest that Western exploitation in China benefited the Chinese people - even were I to suggest the 'positives'. NO excuses for double standards.



The truth is that the Chinese have made such headways into Africa because of their "no strings attached" policy - African leaders like that, and so long as it remains "no strings attached," they'll continue to honor Chinese investors. But if someone else comes along with a better deal, or if they realize that the Chinese deal isn't really "no strings attached," they'll switch - and that's the difference between today's Africa and yesterday's.


Unfortunately, there is a dearth of good leadership in Africa. China is exploiting this state of affairs. This has unintended consequences though. Should Chinese exploitation be critical to undermining the state and welfare of African people - then the monkey on the back of the West on evils of colonialism will be displaced. China does not want to go there.

Noble713
09-29-2008, 02:23 AM
Hmmm, a few years ago I pondered the possibilities of a future career as a strike-breaker in Africa, working for the Chinese. Looks like opportunities in this field might be picking up soon. I doubt the typical Chinese minder gets paid much, but if one brings unique skills, background, and connections to the table, who knows?

Rudolph
09-29-2008, 02:29 AM
Hmmm, a few years ago I pondered the possibilities of a future career as a strike-breaker in Africa, working for the Chinese. Looks like opportunities in this field might be picking up soon. I doubt the typical Chinese minder gets paid much, but if one brings unique skills, background, and connections to the table, who knows?

Strike-breaker? Does it involve shooting, otherwise not interested? p-)

Noble713
09-29-2008, 02:34 AM
Strike-breaker? Does it involve shooting, otherwise not interested? p-)

I was thinking along the lines of targeted assassinations of "agitators". That would be in addition to the daily supervisory security work.

makavelli
09-29-2008, 02:47 AM
look at the bride side, they invest and give and take to the economy...
those indigenous people might stay at stone age without the chinese..

as long as there's no problem with the local..then so be it..
theres no riot yet..no rebellion yet (significant)...

Rudolph
09-29-2008, 03:03 AM
look at the bride side, they invest and give and take to the economy...
those indigenous people might stay at stone age without the chinese..

as long as there's no problem with the local..then so be it..
theres no riot yet..no rebellion yet (significant)...

Except the 1000's strong rebel army in Nigeria... oh, wait! They are attacking American and Dutch companies. p-)

Kaapeli
09-29-2008, 03:28 AM
Good luck China.
Maybe rest of the world can now cut some of it's development aid to Africa now that China has taken over the "operation".

Eventine
09-29-2008, 03:59 AM
That's a given and need not be explained to most people. But we aren't talking about African foibles, we are within the context of the discussion talking about China and its own exploitative ventures in Africa. We have Chinese netizens saying essentially that it is ok to trample on the rights of Africans, take their resources because a)African govts allow this b)US/Europeans have set precedence and c)fool themselves into thinking that Chinese govt and business is benevolent and that China is lifting some Africans out of poverty. Which is bogus because Chinese govt is entrenching poverty (similar situation under colonialism, African elites get nice kickbacks), undermining African Govts through corruption, strip existing domestic industry because it is 'cheaper' to import from China - (bloating unemployment, reduce skills and knowledge -now outsourced to China) and stifle hopes of such states of ever getting out of the poverty cycle. China does not see that with power also comes responsibility. It blame shifts to the West - it is as if even the Chinese Govt does not believe its own miracle and continues to act accordingly. China could take the lead on these sorts of issues, setting itself up even greater things but while it plays this game, it will just be a second rate, playing by the old colonial handbook, exploiter of peoples and resources.

Foreign policy isn't charity. China's position in Africa is obviously self-serving, but that's the natural state of relations between states. China has a need for Africa's natural resources; it bargains for said resources with Africa's leaders. Is it wrong to do so? Would you rather the Chinese adopted a policy like the West, wherein they'll trade with Africa "only if" Africa's leaders fulfilled certain conditions? The result of that particular policy has been widespread poverty as African leaders would rather refuse Western aid (or they'd take it and then misuse it, leading to the cessation of that aid or even sanctions) than bow to Western pressures on human rights, corruption, etc.

China offers an alternative - which may or may not be better for the development of Africa. Time will tell, but it's necessary to realize that the Chinese are approaching this pragmatically, as a state with its own interests and which is willing to accept African governments for what they are. They're not in it to "do good," but neither are they in it as "imperialists." The difference between today's China and yesterday's Europe is that the Chinese conduct their business through existing African governments and follow the normal protocols of trade between nation-states. They use their UN powers to maintain these trade channels, and to protect governments that are pro-China. All in all, it is a very shrewd system, as expected of the PRC.


Actually it does. No nation gets a free ride on justifiable criticism. The West has been and will continue to be heavily criticised for past actions. Chinese govt does not have an excuse because it should know better. Especially having been exploited economically, politically and culturally by colonial powers. Or have Chinese people forgotten that their nation was carved up and made impotent in the 19th and early 20th century? I read Chinese forums from time to time and I've never read of a Chinese netizen going easy on Western exploitation and influence in China. I am positive that I would be flamed severely were I suggest that Western exploitation in China benefited the Chinese people - even were I to suggest the 'positives'. NO excuses for double standards. What's happening now in Africa isn't what happened to China during the Qing Dynasty. The Europeans went into China with guns blazing and forced the government to do what they want. When the Chinese government refused to trade with them (ie due to concerns that the Europeans were trying to get the Chinese addicted on opium), the European powers attacked, occupied, and looted the Qing capital.

Do you see the Chinese sending their armies and navies into Africa? Do you see them sacking the capital of Zambia or the Congo over trade issues?

The test of China's devotion to the concept of non-intervention and international trade will be when one of China's partners in Africa go belly up and Chinese assets are directly threatened. So far, the extent of Chinese meddling has been limited to threatening to pull out their investments (acceptable), protecting pro-China governments in the UN (tolerable in the context of what the US, Russia, etc. does, but at times immoral due to the especially unpleasant nature of African governments), and selling weapons to friendly regimes (less tolerable, and this is the crux of current international criticism against China's foreign policy). If and when they start sending in armies and overthrowing governments, then the comparison with European imperialism will be apt.


Unfortunately, there is a dearth of good leadership in Africa. China is exploiting this state of affairs. This has unintended consequences though. Should Chinese exploitation be critical to undermining the state and welfare of African people - then the monkey on the back of the West on evils of colonialism will be displaced. China does not want to go there.The problem is if you want to do business in Africa, you have to deal with the regimes in power, and striking any deals with those regimes is likely going to violate a number of human rights just because of what they are. I agree with you that China's interactions with Africa could potentially undermine the state and welfare of its people, but like I said, the Chinese aren't approaching this from a humanitarian perspective. They're dealing with what's there, and assume that the opposite side will take care of its own interests. If we are to label this as "exploitation," then we're basically buying into the liberal notion that countries shouldn't be pursuing their own interests but should be working to build a better world.

It's a nice thought, but is it realistic?

Supe
09-29-2008, 09:42 AM
Foreign policy isn't charity. China's position in Africa is obviously self-serving, but that's the natural state of relations between states. China has a need for Africa's natural resources; it bargains for said resources with Africa's leaders. Is it wrong to do so?

No. And of course all nations have self-interests. However, when a Chinese netizen points to me all the ills of the West (see TheMiddlePath) and then glosses over Chinese exploitation as being for the betterment of Africans, less harmful - and inserting the age old childs excuse 'well he did it first!' then it deserves comment.



What's happening now in Africa isn't what happened to China during the Qing Dynasty. The Europeans went into China with guns blazing and forced the government to do what they want. When the Chinese government refused to trade with them (ie due to concerns that the Europeans were trying to get the Chinese addicted on opium), the European powers attacked, occupied, and looted the Qing capital.

Do you see the Chinese sending their armies and navies into Africa? Do you see them sacking the capital of Zambia or the Congo over trade issues?

If the outcome for the average African is the same as it was for the average Chinese person, where they were disempowered, disenfranchised, national fate left to foreign political overlords and corporate interest as it was to a Chinese person - then it does not matter how it came to pass does it? We are then talking semantics. Arrival to that situation and the specifics involved may have differed but the end result is the same. Coercion and co-opting can be done with money and other soft incentives. It need not come out of a barrel of a gun or an 'opium pipe'.



The test of China's devotion to the concept of non-intervention and international trade will be when one of China's partners in Africa go belly up and Chinese assets are directly threatened. So far, the extent of Chinese meddling has been limited to threatening to pull out their investments (acceptable), protecting pro-China governments in the UN (tolerable in the context of what the US, Russia, etc. does, but at times immoral due to the especially unpleasant nature of African governments), and selling weapons to friendly regimes (less tolerable, and this is the crux of current international criticism against China's foreign policy). If and when they start sending in armies and overthrowing governments, then the comparison with European imperialism will be apt.


Insightful. I disagree with the last portion though. If Britain, US, Japan had co-opted Chinese elites (and thus the state) through financial incentives, would a Chinese citizen think of this as anything less than imperialism if the outcome had mean't that they weren't in charge of their own affairs and subject to the political/business whims of foreign overlords? I think the average Chinese person would react strongly to that notion.


If we are to label this as "exploitation," then we're basically buying into the liberal notion that countries shouldn't be pursuing their own interests but should be working to build a better world.

I'm a little suspicious of your interpretation of exploitation as it seeks to water down and minimise Chinese govt intentions and outcome for those African states dealing with China. By any fair and reasonable assessment, what the Chinese govt (and business) is doing constitutes exploitation. Conflating the word with 'liberal' doesn't magically make it any less meaningful or somehow less wrong.

Pragmatically speaking, exploitation will in the long term lead to failure of Chinese govt plans in securing access to resources. I hope Africans do not become pawns in the next round of geo political scrabbling.

Rudolph
09-29-2008, 10:08 AM
Everyone comes through SA first before going into Africa. When the Chinese government had a delegation here some two years ago, local newspapers ran funny stories. Like excerpts from Chinese University studies where they absolutely believe that Africans are biologically inferior, and that they disregard South Africa's claim as the origin of mankind, saying it's central China. They also belief there's "Chinese" within white people, therefore their success. What else... when they invited leaders from all over Africa to China, they had made up this whole cultural image to make them feel at home. Except, they had guys with bones through their noses and such, never realizing there's a difference between say an Australian aborigine and the average African... Funny stuff, I loved it.

damagejackal
09-29-2008, 10:59 AM
Everyone comes through SA first before going into Africa. When the Chinese government had a delegation here some two years ago, local newspapers ran funny stories. Like excerpts from Chinese University studies where they absolutely believe that Africans are biologically inferior, and that they disregard South Africa's claim as the origin of mankind, saying it's central China. They also belief there's "Chinese" within white people, therefore their success. What else... when they invited leaders from all over Africa to China, they had made up this whole cultural image to make them feel at home. Except, they had guys with bones through their noses and such, never realizing there's a difference between say an Australian aborigine and the average African... Funny stuff, I loved it.

So what ...I've heard people claim that Native American's are the ancient descendants of europeans, rather then the tribes that crossed the Bering-Strait bridge. An dont get white nationalist's started on the "Tocharians Civilization Bearers to the Chinese" crap, the so called ayrans of asia.

Eventine
09-29-2008, 01:55 PM
No. And of course all nations have self-interests. However, when a Chinese netizen points to me all the ills of the West (see TheMiddlePath) and then glosses over Chinese exploitation as being for the betterment of Africans, less harmful - and inserting the age old childs excuse 'well he did it first!' then it deserves comment.

That's fair.


If the outcome for the average African is the same as it was for the average Chinese person, where they were disempowered, disenfranchised, national fate left to foreign political overlords and corporate interest as it was to a Chinese person - then it does not matter how it came to pass does it? We are then talking semantics. Arrival to that situation and the specifics involved may have differed but the end result is the same. Coercion and co-opting can be done with money and other soft incentives. It need not come out of a barrel of a gun or an 'opium pipe'. But there is a very real difference between the two. Morality isn't determined by the results alone; it is also determined by the means and the intents. Bush is not being tried for war atrocities even though the Iraq War resulted in 100,000+ dead. There is such a thing as legitimate trade, just as there is such a thing as legitimate warfare. It is true that legitimate trade could lead to the misery of certain groups of people - no doubt some victims of outsourcing in America would claim that it was trade with China (or India) that destroyed their lives.

At the end of the day, however, this is not a matter of criminal exploitation by an imperial power but of national policy, which can be exploitive - but if so, who's the culprit? Nobody's forcing the US economy to outsource, just as nobody's forcing the African governments to sign treaties with the Chinese. They're being opportunistic. You argue that the Chinese should be more attentive to the interests of the average African when conducting trade, but trade issues are never worked out "with the average African" - it's always worked out by the governments. China does not govern Africa; they're not responsible, technically, for the welfare of Africans - African governments are. If African governments fail to provide what they ought, does that mean the Chinese shouldn't do business with them? If so, is it also true that the West - which holds China's human rights record in contempt - should not do business with China?


Insightful. I disagree with the last portion though. If Britain, US, Japan had co-opted Chinese elites (and thus the state) through financial incentives, would a Chinese citizen think of this as anything less than imperialism if the outcome had mean't that they weren't in charge of their own affairs and subject to the political/business whims of foreign overlords? I think the average Chinese person would react strongly to that notion.I'd argue that all states exert influences on other states through "checkbook diplomacy," and China, being the recipient of significant Western investment, to the degree where a huge chunk of its economy comes from foreign-owned businesses, is already "co-opted." Thus, the Chinese elite must consider Western opinions when they make certain decisions or risk the consequences. But this doesn't mean - in either China's case or Africa's case - that the state is led by foreign overlords. It simply means that states are not fully independent of one another - it is the degree of dependence that determines whether a state exists in bondage.

If you can prove to me that African governments act precisely as the Chinese tell them to, and dare not do otherwise, then perhaps your argument will have more merit. As it is, though, it seems to me that the African governments are in this business voluntarily; there is even talk that they're welcoming the Chinese as a way of forcing the West to offer better deals.

The absence of military coercion is significant in determining the nature of a relationship. Few people would say that the US's relationship with Saudi Arabia, for example, is imperialistic, even though we exert an enormous amount of power in that country due to our economic and political links with the House of Saud. At some point you simply have to admit that economic influence is inevitable in a globalized economy and that certain levels of compromise in sovereignty are acceptable or even normal.

To this end, I would invite you to follow the various NGOs that report on international attitudes around the world. My impression is that Africans largely view China as a positive force on their continent. Thus, at least at the moment, it might be said that the Chinese are welcome in Africa. In the future, depending on circumstances, this may no longer be the case - it is how China acts then that determines whether it is truly an imperialist power in Africa.


I'm a little suspicious of your interpretation of exploitation as it seeks to water down and minimise Chinese govt intentions and outcome for those African states dealing with China. By any fair and reasonable assessment, what the Chinese govt (and business) is doing constitutes exploitation. Conflating the word with 'liberal' doesn't magically make it any less meaningful or somehow less wrong.

Pragmatically speaking, exploitation will in the long term lead to failure of Chinese govt plans in securing access to resources. I hope Africans do not become pawns in the next round of geo political scrabbling.I don't know what your definition of exploitation is, but I suspect that it is broad enough that you could apply it to any lopsided relationship between big states and small states. As an experiment, consider the US's relationship with Mexico - would you call it exploitive?

As for Chinese intentions and outcomes, the former is pretty transparent (they're in it for their own national interests). The latter is not yet determined - the Chinese, as I said, are offering work and infrastructure. Corruption endemic to Africa ensures that part of the earnings goes into the elite's pockets, and that safety standards are not always followed. But that's inevitable when you're dealing with Africa. Is what remains harmful to Africa in the long-term? Nobody, as far as I can tell, is able to say for sure. Certainly, more hospitals, roads, and factories are traditionally considered "good things." What may prove too high a cost is the human factor - but where do you draw the line?

At any case, I think the Chinese government is well aware of its position in Africa. They know, more so than the West, how African governments work, and in this respect, I'm not sure your "populist" argument is sound. In other words, the West has been approaching Africa through ideology - we consider the plight of the "average African" in determining whether we're going to offer aid, and try to follow Western rules of labor and engagement. The Chinese, on the other hand, have been approaching Africa through pragmatism - they consider the power relations in Africa, and then deal with those who are in charge. So far, with African nations flocking to the Chinese, it's the Western approach that's failed. So in that respect, what you are asking of the Chinese (which seems very like what the West currently practices) would have the effect of locking them into the same position as we are, when it is precisely this position that they were trying to avoid in the first place.

And then there's the obvious problem - how can you expect the Chinese to treat African workers better than they treat their own? Just to give an example relevant to the article, mines in China are notoriously unsafe. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, die every year in mining accidents. As for the general harsh treatment of workers - do you really think that Chinese workers have it much better? That these same problems would be true in Africa is, then, of no surprise - it's the same procedures all around.

The way to address this problem, at least in terms of modifying Chinese policy, is not to focus solely on Africa as an example of "imperial exploitation," but to understand the lack of labor rights and adequate safety standards in Chinese business practices. Until those problems within China itself are addressed, there is little that Africa can do except refuse to do business with the Chinese, and that's something African governments are responsible for. You can't expect the Chinese to take the initiative in modifying their business behavior in Africa when, in their eyes, native Chinese workers have it just as bad.

PVJ
09-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Providing jobs to poor africans? We better call sanctions on China to stop this evil.

seathru
09-29-2008, 05:48 PM
What bothers me about the article is the generalization it makes. There are immoral capitalists in every nationality. But exactly how many Chinese are exploiting Africans as described in the article? Not many, I suspect. The majority of mine accidents in China occurred in illegal mines. I could imagine that some similar characters are doing business in Africa. They are there, but they are few and far between, just like in China. By the way, exactly how many Chinese are racists? Again, a few I would say. But the article gives you the impression that pretty much every Chinese is an immoral, racist thug.

Generalization is bias. Some uneducated and uninformed Chinese write stupid things in blogs. And some Western media use these to imply that the majority of Chinese are racist, nationalistic extremists. The article is similar to this kind of reporting in generalization. It is exactly in the same category of the Western reports of the Tibet riot during the early stages, which was a fiasco for the credibility of Western media in China. Now, many Chinese are no longer believe the Western media.

Calanen
09-29-2008, 07:40 PM
Providing jobs to poor africans? We better call sanctions on China to stop this evil.

You ever worked for the Chinese? I have. Everyone thinks they work hard, but NOBODY works as hard as them. Nobody. And nobody expects you to work harder for them.

In China - in workshops - thousands upon thousands of people for naff all are below catwalks where overseers walk above them to make sure they are working. Its even hard to take a P**s break, for 12 hours a day..dont look up - work, and tally the amount of Ipods or Iphones you make in one day.

Having a job is one thing. Paid slavery with no account of occupational health and safety, is another.

PVJ
09-29-2008, 08:43 PM
You ever worked for the Chinese? I have. Everyone thinks they work hard, but NOBODY works as hard as them. Nobody. And nobody expects you to work harder for them.

In China - in workshops - thousands upon thousands of people for naff all are below catwalks where overseers walk above them to make sure they are working. Its even hard to take a P**s break, for 12 hours a day..dont look up - work, and tally the amount of Ipods or Iphones you make in one day.

Having a job is one thing. Paid slavery with no account of occupational health and safety, is another.

Everyone has to start somewhere. Call it paid slavery but its a start and its better than many alternatives. Hopefully soon, but eventually conditions will improve and the infrastructure the Chinese build can be useful for future investments once those African countries are politically stable.

Kilgor
09-29-2008, 10:07 PM
Look at the way China treats its own people. How can anyone with half a brain even think they building infrastructure for some kind of Altruism. This is a party that kept the poisoned milk issue quiet during the Olympics when thousands of children where falling ill.

They dont give a sh!t

seathru
09-29-2008, 11:21 PM
For the real Chinese haters, the Chinese are damned no matter what: they are slaves if they work hard, and they are slave drivers if they do not work hard. The article implies that ordinary Africans are idiots who do not know how to fend off evil Chinese at all, let alone make a decent deal with Chinese that could be mutually beneficial. Europeans doing business in Africa is helping the development of Africa, while Chinese do the same thing, it is called the modern day slavery. Europeans can whine all they want, but it would not change the fact that they can no longer compete economically with the Chinese effectively in Africa.

TheMiddlePath
09-30-2008, 02:54 AM
SUPE Posted
"No. And of course all nations have self-interests. However, when a Chinese netizen points to me all the ills of the West (see TheMiddlePath) and then glosses over Chinese exploitation as being for the betterment of Africans, less harmful - and inserting the age old childs excuse 'well he did it first!' then it deserves comment. "

What a load of lies. Please do not put words into other people's mouth. I do not think you can compare what the West did and what China is doing.

chino65
10-02-2008, 03:29 AM
For the real Chinese haters, the Chinese are damned no matter what: they are slaves if they work hard, and they are slave drivers if they do not work hard. The article implies that ordinary Africans are idiots who do not know how to fend off evil Chinese at all, let alone make a decent deal with Chinese that could be mutually beneficial. Europeans doing business in Africa is helping the development of Africa, while Chinese do the same thing, it is called the modern day slavery. Europeans can whine all they want, but it would not change the fact that they can no longer compete economically with the Chinese effectively in Africa.

Ah, you must be one of the evil "PLA netizens" since you dare abstain from condemning China.:)

Apparently these PLA netizens get paid everytime they defend China.

The people who believe these "PLA netizens" myths can't see the absurdity of it. As if there is a lack of patriotic Chinese. I wonder how much those overseas Chinese student fighting European protestors trying to disrupt the torch rallies got from the PLA?

chino65
10-02-2008, 03:38 AM
When I saw this thread my first reaction was "here we go again..."

But all that I wanted to say has been said:

- There are no PLA troops in Africa enforcing trade negotiations. If some of you do-gooders feel that the Africans had been jibbed in their business deals with China, too bad the Africans didn't invite whitey to make business decisions for them.

- If Chinese supervise, they are slave drivers, if Chinese work, they are taking away African jobs.

The conclusion is obvious: China leave Africa to people who really know what's good for Africans and had a really "great" human rights records with the Africans - white folks.:)

muttbutt
10-02-2008, 03:54 AM
When I saw this thread my first reaction was "here we go again..."

But all that I wanted to say has been said:

- There are no PLA troops in Africa enforcing trade negotiations. If some of you do-gooders feel that the Africans had been jibbed in their business deals with China, too bad the Africans didn't invite whitey to make business decisions for them.

- If Chinese supervise, they are slave drivers, if Chinese work, they are taking away African jobs.

The conclusion is obvious: China leave Africa to people who really know what's good for Africans and had a really "great" human rights records with the Africans - white folks.:)
who are you calling "whitey" you toss bag:roll:


quick someboady call the PC police, I have been racially offended....oh wait they won't respond to my call's

muttbutt
10-02-2008, 04:00 AM
For the real Chinese haters, the Chinese are damned no matter what: they are slaves if they work hard, and they are slave drivers if they do not work hard. The article implies that ordinary Africans are idiots who do not know how to fend off evil Chinese at all, let alone make a decent deal with Chinese that could be mutually beneficial. Europeans doing business in Africa is helping the development of Africa, while Chinese do the same thing, it is called the modern day slavery. Europeans can whine all they want, but it would not change the fact that they can no longer compete economically with the Chinese effectively in Africa.So all those report's coming out of Africa (besided Mr Hitchens) are what?...lying?. yes Oxfam that great Western capitalist tool of oppresion is lying, how about the the report's of let's not call them riot's but civil disturbances against Chinese busineses in certain countries. hell even in Zimbabwe they have complained, and that's with Bobby Mugabe in charge.....yeah it's all a conspiracy, we'll see.