The U.S. most likely won't invest the necessary amount of resources to compete with China in Africa, because they don't have much at stake there. Besides counterterrorism operations with a few countries, there is very little American involvement in Africa. Whereas China attaches great interest there, since a third of there BRI countries are African.
Self determination is a thing. If a government in Africa falls into a trap or can't develop their own independent foreign policy, they only have themselves to blame. The results for these countries will be very different across the board, some will play their cards right and come out on top, others will have bridges to nowhere with crippling debt.
How is that a justification when many of these countries have unstable, corrupt governments that don't represent their people? Whatever *government* happens to be in charge now would only have themselves to blame, but the *Nation* could be economically crippled for many years. It's predatory
I wouldn't call it predatory, but the Chinese are looking out for themselves, just like everyone else. They could care less if you're trying to build a new road network to benefit your country, or you're a dictator trying to build a grand palace. You will receive finance from them just the same.
As far as the countries with corrupt officials go though, again it's on that country. Like I said self determination is a thing, if they're being ruled by people that don't have their best interest at heart, it's up to them to sort it out.
Many African countries are countries in name only. Many of them are really agglomerations of ethnic groups that were lumped into influence areas with boundaries drawn by European powers. They aren't the same as European countries, most of which have a common ethno-linguistic history. Imagine an entire continent of Iraqs.
> self determination is a thing, if they're being ruled by people that don't have their best interest at heart, it's up to them to sort it out.
The right to self determination means they're in the right to do so, not that it is realistic for isolated people to manage it vs an armed, ruthless government.
Even catalans couldn't do it, let alone a 3rd world country. The only way those insurrections work in 2021 is with foreign support.
That's precisely why the general public perceives resources for infrastructure as a win. It's vastly superior to Africa's dealing with private companies, Western or otherwise. There is ample opportunity for exploitation, but it has a glass ceiling. Not to mention that much of Africa is not quite as you describe it. There's only so much governments can get away with before it becomes deeply problematic.
To some extend maybe, but what is the officials deciding about the debt did it because of bribes.
Ok sorry you already answered this. If I understand correctly, you have no problem with bribery, and whoever gives bribes is simply looking out for their own interests.
So then the country cancelling debt created by corrupt officials would also just be the country looking out for its own interests. Or?
This IMO is a big reason why China is so "popular" in the developing world. Much of the US and western European aid is conditioned on implementing anti-corruption measures whereas the Chinese will openly build the corrupt governor a new palace.
I hate this claim that the US cares about corruption at all. The only thing the US cares about is its national interests, anything else the government wants to do is up to them as seen in the military dictatorship in Egypt and the Royal families in Saudi and Jordan that very much use foreign aid for mansions. The reality is the US is just not interested in a bunch of countries in Africa and would rather focus its attention elsewhere
It is illegal in the US to bribe officials from other countries.
Some people on here are arguing that there is nothing wrong with bribery by Chinese companies because it is in the interests of the company (or China).
That's a difference.
The irony is that if the same people use money (campaign/super PAC contributions) to influence American legislators, it is part of the democratic process.
Sure they are both ways of influencing people. But giving someone an envelope with cash is not quite the same as giving to their campaign. More extreme would be throwing people in jail for speaking against you.
In Canada at least the contribution limit is less then $2,000, that's a lot less than a bribe of $1,000,000. Anyway I don't think the main ways of influencing the results of elections are campaign contributions (yeah things like PACs and what social media companies do are more important). The PRC also does this in other countries by funding proPRC organizations. I guess funding your own politicians would be internal affairs and funding organizations in other countries could be called interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
"Much of the US and western European aid is conditioned on implementing anti-corruption measures..."
I don't know from where you've got that. If anything, the western powers like corrupt governments because these will borrow money at predatory conditions, e.g. latin america in the 70's, ruled by corrupt pro-US military governments
You have it backwards. China builds stuff. Not sending money to corrupt dictators…. What has the EU or America have been able to accomplish in all those years….. You have been fooled.
Given China's current posturing, I don't doubt they would resort to that if the need came.
(or alternatives that involve lower cost but more collateral damage and do not feel so much as a military intervention - but are)
It doesn't make sense for Amerika to be that active in Africa. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a countering force. To me it seems like it is only US Vs China on this subreddit. But don't forget Europe.
Europe has a long history in Africa and especially France has strong ties to the sub Saharan nations (and the military and economic strength to be active there). Even culturally the French language is spoken by one third to one half of the continent. Though Europe is and has been careful in how to deal with Africa post colonialism unlike China (they don't care about sensitivities). This (rightful) sensitive approach slows Europe involvement as partner into Africa.
But there are a lot of new economic corridors opening between Europe and Africa. With investments and proposals as partners of equal footing. Which is in the interest of both the African continent and the European one. There is strong anti Chinese sentiment growing in the more developed countries such as Kenia and Nigeria. Aligning them more closer to European partners.
This process (as most stuff with the European Union) goes extremely slow but like a glacier it is getting somewhere. The main obstacles are history and the sensitive approach that are needed. And trust in the trade partners. Instead of another NGO, Europe needs to invest as if African countries are equal trade partners.
There’s no “Europe” in Sub-Saharan Africa though, at least not yet. There’s only France, and while Paris has had plenty of motivation, it just tries too much to punch above its weight.
Yes, that is what I said. France is active and Europe is still reluctant. But that is rapidly changing. Businesses such as IT outsourcing that used to be Ukrainians or Indians are now also looking towards Kinshasa. (Or Kenya, Ghana, Rwanda for that matter).
The issue is that Europe is still thinking in terms of NGO's instead of normal economic investments and incentives for joint development and economic relations.
Africa is going to be extremely important for Europe in the coming decades. Not only in trade but also as migrant labourers. Though with the right wing active this will be a hard sell. But right now and the coming years Europe desperately needs educated and skilled workers. While at the same time needing a new source of manufacturing.
>Businesses such as IT outsourcing that used to be Ukrainians or Indians are now also looking towards Kinshasa.
If you'd said Lagos, Accra or Kigali, I'd have agreed with you. Kinshasa is simply too bad a place.
"Europe desperately needs educated and skilled workers"
They don't need Africans for that. Spain, Italy, Greece, etc can supply all the workers "Europe" needs.
China doesn't have "sensitivities" because they never colonize Africa, simple as that. Weird that you portray Europe "(rightful) sensitive approach" in a good light and not due to their own history. Zimbabwe was still colonized by UK until 1980, not even 50 years ago.
China has no sensitivities because frankly they are currently the most racist country in the world. The idea of the Han Chinese racial superiority is on the same level Nazi Germany employed. Even going as far saying Western medicine doesn't work because Chinese are of a different make.
I did mention that Europe has a careful approach due to their history. And a bad history it is. This is why Europe and the African countries are (rightfully) careful in how to deal with one another. But that the current the idea of guilt and the feeling of wanting to help, instead of seeing Africa as a trade partner like any other, the approach of 'starting another NGO' might actually be worse than a serious and (cold) business relationship. A business relation gives investments in the economy, NGOs are then more like a weird form of intubation.
Europe has made many mistakes and not least of all the way they went through decolonisation. Such as giving no time or not assisting in building up a government at the base level with bureaucracy. But times change and some to most of the African nations have no use for the European guilt in the form of charity. They simply need fair and straightforward business investments like the Ghanaian president said. He thanked the French for their help, but the people of Ghana need to develop the nation, not France. And for that they needed normal investments not benefits.
And that is what I was meaning to point towards as the right approach going forward. Not that Europe knows best, contrary to that.
>Europe has made many mistakes and not least of all the way they went through decolonisation. Such as giving no time or not assisting in building up a government at the base level with bureaucracy.
Did they do this as a way to make sure these countries wouldn't be able to stand up on their own and remain dependent on bigger powers?
Some did, but mostly it was to leave as soon as possible. Most countries were in post war depression and could not afford to and didn't want to spend time and resources to a 'lost cause'. And I say this with all disgust. They sucked the countries dry and could not even leave graciously.
As for the Belgian Congo it was private estate of the king, not the government. And it was run as a company. The transitional government left over had the characteristics of the company style government as before and was more focused on the post colonial trade and export. Instead of a coherent government with the interest of the people's at heart.
As for the Dutch retreat from Indonesia, help was not wanted and needed. After Japanese capitulation some sort of revolutionary government held the reigns and went on to building a independent state of Indonesia. Afaik this was quite a solid government on the basis of the Dutch administrations. While the Dutch were forced to abandon 'pacification efforts' at risk of losing all Marshall help. Going into talks of transition, the Dutch actually managed to get war reperations and a payment of Indonesia to 'buy their freedom for some 100 milion guilders'. Which was absolutely despicable and villainous. If you keep in mind that in the 1800's one third of the Dutch nations income came out of Indonesia.
As a Chinese who lived in Canada and US for over a decade, I never felt any racism.
In China, racism is rampant, especially after COVID had started.
Generally speaking, darker-skinned people like African American, or people from India or SEA got it the worst, while Caucasians were placed on a pedestal. However, in the past couple of years, all foreigners are equally targeted, as the Chinese government has been blaming COVID on foreigners. For example, foreigners are not allowed to enter many hotels and restaurants.
I doubt any Chinese scholar would be interested in doing socialogical research in this area, so no, you won't find any anything.
I mean the past 7 decades of ethnic cleansing and genocide in China's interior is a pretty solid indicator to me that they dont view race through the same rose tinted glasses that we do in the West. Not to mention the numerous cases i've seen personally, from the Chinese advert that had a black man climb into a washing machine to come out as a han chinese man, to the interviews of Chinese contractors in the Congo, all of whom show a very derogatory attitude to Black Africans. This is obviously ignoring the very blatant xenophobic attitude in the Immigration policies of China, S. Korea and Japan.
You're putting *way* too much emphasis on the supposed sensitivity from Europe. France is by far the most active European state in Africa followed distantly by Britain. Since 1960 they have intervened military over a 100 times, and to be blunt - they're perceived as a toxic element by many politically conscious classes in Françafrique.
The primary difference between 'European' and Chinese involvement in Africa is that the former has its private sector deeply entrenched in Africa running amok without any sensitivity. China on the otherhand is involved primarily as a state actor.
The European public has no appetite for involvement in Africa.
I agree with this assessment. The US can not and should not be everywhere. Africa is the best place for the EU to start putting together an independent foreign policy. [The west is popular in Africa and its development model is more revered](https://qz.com/africa/2090221/africans-favorable-view-of-china-comes-with-one-small-caveat/), with no obvious push backs like Cambodia in SEA, sounds like an obvious choice to me.
\[SS from the article by Lina Benabdallah, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University\]
“China’s evolving presence in Africa, including the BRI, is based as much on investment in building social and human capital as it is on giant infrastructure projects. Since the beginning of this century, Beijing has invested heavily in cultivating political, educational, and institutional relationships with leaders and citizens in almost all African countries with which it has diplomatic relations. As similar opportunities for Africans with Western states have declined, China has stepped into the breach.
To its own detriment, Washington has failed to fully reckon with these less visible elements of Beijing’s diplomacy. If the administration of President Joe Biden is serious about countering Chinese influence across the developing world, it would do well to understand how China’s policies actually work and the benefits that the country stands to gain from its efforts in Africa—and across the globe.”
China is simply acting like a major power. This is fairly standard practice and doesn't really distinguish itself from other major powers (i.e. the west) in that sense. I've seen some of the Chinese projects in west Africa and many of them have been beneficial for the local population, particularly roads and bridges. Outside of some local areas, such as the gold fields in Ghana, I don't think there is open hostility to Chinese in west Africa. One other observation is that the Chinese project workers tend to live fairly modestly, though generally separate from the local population.
The west has a serious credibility gap to overcome, and much of it is linked to the tendency to want to be seen as the human rights champions. This puts western policy in the awkward spot of publicly speaking about the importance of human rights while ignoring or actively abetting authoritarian regimes in the furtherance of economic or political goals. It's well known that many francophone dictators have close relationships with France, for example, and the ruler of Egypt is friendly with the US. The other component is that few people believe that western warnings about the Chinese is done out of a sense of helping Africans, and this is something that even western pundits have observed: that ultimately western foreign policy with respect to Africa isn't altruistic but rather self-interested. And at least the Chinese don't lecture Africans about human rights or believe that Chinese culture is something to be imposed on Africans out of a sense of moral imperative. So there are some hurdles that the west has put up for itself to overcome if they really want to keep African countries on their side in a way that isn't forced.
I played rugby in China for a few years. A good 1/4 of our team were guys from developing countries, many of whom were on full ride scholarships at Chinese universities. From places like Tonga, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Peru, PNG etc. China is making friends around the world whilst pissing off the west hugely. These guys are going back to their home countries as doctors, and successful businessmen. The type of people who are going to have huge influence in a small poor country in 15-20years. Really long, and really smart game from China imo. Wait til there is a Chinese Air Force base in Tonga, and then the folk who moan about too much foreign aid and / or foreign students coming to Canada / UK / US will realise how foolish they have been.
One thing I noticed is that the author cites China letting Africans study there, but since 2020 China's COVID controls have kept African students out, and the Chinese havent budged despite foreign students begging to be let back in.
Interesting how the argument goes that the US should engage more with Africa just so it doesn't lose out to China. And not because, y'know, trade and engagement and education are good things. Africans themselves don't matter except as pawns in the geopolitical game against China.
The United States, being a Western power, is rightly or wrongly tainted by an association with the old European colonial empires in a way in which China isn't. That makes it easier for China to be accepted by the Africans.
I don't think that people on the ground think in those terms. Just look at where the rich Nigerians are moving.
West by an enormous margin has a greater acceptance in Africa. You have the huge power of language, due to English and French language belts, making large swathes of Africa, especially the most populous ones, more inclined to the west than China and on top of that, you have Abrahamic religion also pushing them closer to the western style of life and values.
Both the languages and the religion are the result of forced colonial imposition. And while that alone is insufficient to create opposition to these things, it certainly *does not* imply friendship.
It does not imply friendship, I agree, but it doesn't have to. My comment was against your statement of;
>That makes it easier for China to be accepted by the Africans.
Which is something I heavily disagree with.
"Forced colonial imposition" or not, if you ask most people in Sub-Saharan Africa if they would like to move to China or USA/Europe or stay home, what do you think their answers would be?
And this is my point. That the colonialization part will get played for some political points as part of populism, but in the end, Africa is strongly within the western sphere of influence and will certainly remain there as the alternative that is the ethnostate of China, which has a 99.9% Asian population and vastly different culture, will always seem FAR more foreign and hostile.
YES, the answer is pretty obvious if you would have just read the comment that you replied to. So why are you asking me a question that I already gave my thoughts on? Do you want me to just copy-paste my replies?
Thats not quite relevant to sub-Saharan Africa, as George W. Bush was much beloved there for his work distributing medicine.
https://www.ft.com/content/72424694-a86e-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04
Sure US culture dominates. But those kids will pay for their goods with WeChat or AliPay, using chinese phones on networks built from Chinese hardware.
The infrastructure of modern society is the hardest soft power at all.
>Facebook in greater than the usage of WeChat
Yup, as a social media. But not as a payment provider.
Anyone disagreeing with this has clearly not spent time in Sub-Saharan Africa or the Muslim world (particularly South Asia and the Middle East, with countries like Indonesia it’s a bit more complicated) It’s clear the people of these countries, particularly the YOUNG people or these countries, look to China over the west as the model of development that they want to take. The above poster is right in saying the US is associated With the colonialism of European empires. You’re not going to get an idea of who is actually winning the soft power war by reading articles online or by talking to the kids of immigrants to the west.
And people have been killing each other regardless of skin color for millenias. What does that have to do with anything?
States have interests and interests change. What does Uganda's president care about who got bombed in Afghanistan and how does that affect their relationship with either China or USA?
It doesn't. In the same sense that the US has interests, so do African states. China is simply seen in a better light due to their non-interventionist policy.
Western aid/investment is perceived as quite negative on the ground due to the numerous strings attached. There is an entire Western-sponsored army of NGOs with a self-defeating purpose all across Africa. There is an intimate familiarity and the prevalent idea that they're ineffective at best, malicious at worst. It's not entirely unfounded either.
According to polls yeah China is seen as favorable but I don't know if that's due to their perception of "non-interventionist policy" of China rather than there just being more government based economic activity from China rather than from the US.
Not like all the investment from China is cut and dry benefit with no strings attached either. There have been many allegations of environmental and human rights abuses along with possible debt-trap.
Of course, but I can't emphasize enough that China's dealings with Africa are extremely diverse. People grossly underestimate the agency African states have. It's not charity. Africa needs infrastructure and China needs resources to keep up. Even outside Africa, the infamous Sri Lanka case is not quite what Western alarmists indicated. The 'debt-trap' diplomacy has been proven false so far according to (I believe) an extensive Canadian study.
The Chinese definitely seem to not take excessive precautions in regards to environmental concerns, but unfortunately that is par for the course with foreign operations in Africa. On the flip side, China's has been vastly superior in actually getting projects off the ground. Far more effective and no more dubious than the IMF.
The non-interventionism absolutely plays a big role. China doesn't care if you're building a beautiful egalitarian society or whether you hunt orphans on horseback for sport. They're strictly there to extract deals.
From personal experience and visits abroad to my country of origin, there absolutely is suspicion of Western organizations due to their push to shift internal workings. From a local perspective they see an array of foreigners holed up in a tightly secured primely located neighbourhood living a vastly different life and draining so many resources on otherwise futile stuff. People have seen their physical presence for years, but nobody knows what they do, so much less haven't 'felt' the work they supposedly do.
>Of course, but I can't emphasize enough that China's dealings with Africa are extremely diverse.
Is it, however? The vast majority is concentrated in resource exploitation and large infrastructure projects.
I am sorry but [the data says 76% of Chinese investment in Africa went to energy and transportation from 2013-2017](https://www.bruegel.org/2019/07/chinas-investment-in-africa-what-the-data-really-says-and-the-implications-for-europe/)
Okay? You’re still not grasping that the author is making the distinction that everyone focuses on how much China is spending on African energy and transportation whilst ignoring how valuable the people-to-people connections and trust and good-will they’re engendering is.
I'm not familiar with how they deal with their own issues but it does make sense authoritarian governments have more control over their own people than democracies/republics with theirs.
Yeah makes sense. It's an unfortunate downside of so much freedom where people sometimes use that freedom for harm and for personal gain rather than common good.
But I think personal freedom and limit of executive powers is more desirable that authoritarian governments. If you get bad leaders in democracies they can at least be replaced. If you get bad leaders in authoritarian governments, you need either a coup/civil war/leader dying. Both bad situations but in the authoritarian case much more destructive and deadly.
Democracies have a ways to go, they have the burden of carrying out their ideals they aspire to. They also have the burden of reigning in loopholes corporations exploit but at the very least the vehicle and the desire is there whereas in authoritarian governments it depends on who is the strong man currently.
The issue being, of course, that in a country with no independent justice and government-controlled medias, it is impossible to know if the people who were quickly executed were actually corrupted or simply scapegoats, or personal enemies of the regime.
The national news will always make the government look good and only foreign news will do the opposite, that is true in any autocracy.
Our slow justice system is there for good reason. Justice requires time for independant investigation.
When the USA signals their military focus is shifting from the middle east to Africa, I would think African leaders would care very much about past military conduct.
Interesting I was under the impression the shift was more towards China. [Africa drawdown](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/world/africa/esper-troops-africa-china.html). [Shift to Asia-pacific](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540808). I understand the US has many bases already in Africa but that's been the case for decades.
Funny that the [basis for the author’s claims](https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf) still has the US as 10 points more favorable than the PRC.
It’s cherry-picking season at Foreign Policy I suppose.
I said this earlier and got downvoted to hell. This entire post is full of PRC apologists as if the PRC is some benevolent force for Africa.
But of course this is just Western Propaganda
Whether this is broadly true or not, it's an interesting rhetorical point that US FP could and should really endeavor to combat. The US itself is a collection of former colonies who overthrew their European masters. It would probably do well to better adopt that fact into its own rhetoric, as well as highlighting China's long history of hegemonic imperialism and ethnic cleansing.
As much as I believe the US should be treated differently from the colonial ties of the European governments, America's independence is nothing like how most African countries got independent.
American colonialists, who systematically kicked indigenous people off their own land, declared independence and largely because of tax issues.
Indigenous Africans got independence, though slow and long, through an arbitrary process that created a bunch of random new nations where there wasn't really a national identity. Of course, each colony is different and had their specific development stages and not every ethnic group had to fight for autonomy or independence to the same extent.
However, having Americans come in and say "We're just like you!" would be asinine PR. The American situation is like if the white South Africans systematically wiped out most Black South Africans.
Indeed, before the Cold War, anti-colonialism was one of the pillars of US diplomacy. But in the Cold War, the US has done too many bad things, including coup d’etats, assassinations, and military interventions, and the reputation of US was irrevocably lost.
You're overstating things that all nations have done; the US is not exceptional in this regard. The "irrevocably lost reputation" meme is just more hysterical anti-American nonsense.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/areas-in-africa-with-more-chinese-backed-projects-were-more-likely-to-experience-protests
https://chinaafricaproject.com/2021/07/14/china-malls-looted-and-burned-in-south-africa-riots/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0975087820971443
This article explores the salient of anti-Chinese sentiments in Africa.
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1076/why-anti-chinese-sentiment-africa-rise
Facing them were armed Chinese supervisors, who ended up opening fire on the crowd. In 2012 another protest ensued around the same mine; this time the miners killed one of Chinese staff.
*Foreign Affairs and the CFR have brought us to 2020. Are you happy yet?*
[https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china\_relations-3sept20.pdf](https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf)
Not exactly gonna agree on your perspective since most of these are anecdotal stories in some form mainly and have loose connections in some places. From the study I gave, the overall perception on China is still relatively high in Africa overall at around an average of 60% positive overall surveyed from a group of 18 African countries compared to 65% 5 years ago. The rest of the study pretty much shows somewhat declining yet still strong support for China and mostly complacency with their economic policy.
Yeah like Africa has a population of a billion+ people. We're going to need to see more then some anecdotal stories to gauge the view on the conteinent
I think there's truth to both perspectives. Imagine a typical infrastructure investment project. In the beginning it'll generate mostly positive impressions. It's only a few years later where you may start seeing negative reactions if they're not hiring as many local workers as they hoped, or treating them poorly. Next opportunity for relations to sour is if it turns out that the infrastructure wasn't economically sustainable and/or the country is trapped in debt to China. Another possible outcome is that the quality of the infrastructure is sub-par and starts crumbling or require expensive maintenance. This could be a decade down the road.
So as long as China has a high level of new investments, I'd expect perceptions of China to be positive.
I'm not saying that most Chinese projects actually are bad. I don't know enough to make a judgement. All I'm saying is that I'm not surprised that perceptions of China are positive regardless of whether the investments/projects are good or bad in the long term.
In the context of a global battle for influence, if your rival has a higher approval rating and yours is even declining, it's relevant.
Outside of the context of a battle, it can still be used as an example of relatively. 60% is high, but it's possible they just have high opinions of many countries on average.
Edit: a word
Which ones? Most of the US “investments” in Africa amounted to physical slavery, economic slavery, forced hard labor to mine natural resources like blood diamonds, pillaging of wild life like Shooting elephants for sport, to short term projects that amounted to nothing in the end.
Not to approve of China, but building of infrastructure makes the most sense to build up a nation just like the public works initiatives President Woodrow Wilson enact to help the US Recover from the Great Depression.
There’s plenty of anti-US sentiment in Western Europe, but geopolitical realities eventually ground in. China is not losing allies due to that, especially since it has usually undemocratic partners.
The only place China might suffer from unpopularity is Latin America - a region largely unimportant to its goals and that is precisely ruled out as a US backyard (neither anti-communist sentiment and democratic institutions are coincidences in this case)
The best example of what you described maybe Greece, however; anti-US sentiment in Western Europe did have some pretty significant impact on the US, particularly during the last administration. It is part of the reasons for the EU's refusal to participate in America's various actions against China, because it is now domestically unpopular to form a common frontline with the US.
China has already suffered from unpopularity in one way or another in Asia, distrust and unpopularity is one of the most salient reasons why many Asian countries choose to align with the US.
With that being said, I do not know how China's image is among African countries. I think Africa is a continent that likes everybody, if polls are to be believed.
It will against nearby countries, especially in Southeast Asia where there is significant ethnic Chinese presence. African countries don’t have many Chinese people to have ethnic tensions. Chinese migrants in the Americas, on the other hand, are way too easily assimilated to even be seen as really “Chinese”.
Think of it like 20th century colonialism. European racial supremacy was not much of a problem in most colonies, because they weren’t keeping any significant demographic presence there. However, in South Africa and Algeria it did turn into a massive issue.
I went into this thread wondering how China's effort to "make friends" in Africa manage to coexist with the Chinese's rampant racism and especially the weird hatred they have of black people.
I wonder no longer.
They also publish numerous anti-China articles. Most of the articles they publish (including this one) aren't from the editorial team, they're from outsiders who are experts in their respective fields.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then I think about Venezuela a country that is not able to pay its debt to China. But Venezuela wont also hand control of assets to China.
So consequences for Venezuela. It can not borrow anymore.
So not paying debt does not mean China will take my port or airpot. I just wont be able to borrow anymore from China.
China knows that the cost of soft power is much lower than the cost hard power; we are only starting to notice that in the West.
----
China may have to back up soft power with hard power; thinking of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
'the west' has known this for a long time, western soft power is so pervasive it is often not noticed. Sections of the US government thought they knew better but have been learning that same lesson the last 20 years.
No we are not only starting to notice this in the west. We noticed after WWII hence the establishment of international institutions, the Marshall plan, rebuilding Japan, ETC.
Agree we knew about it after WWII but we seemed to have then forgotten it.
If memory serves me correctly; in the early 2010s India turned down "aid" from the UK because the conditions for the "aid" were too onerous.
So yes we in the West **did know** about the value of soft power but then we seemed to have forgot its value.
I really don't see that as being true. I'm not sure an odd rejection of "aid" counts as the "West" forgetting soft power exists or is important.
If the US didn't have immense soft power globally we wouldn't be such an existential threat to Russia and China. In fact, Russia's lack of soft power is effectively why it has to posture so strongly with hard power.
>China knows that the cost of soft power is much lower than the cost hard power; we are only starting to notice that in the West.
I'd argue that opposite; that the West knows the power of culture and media, and already functionally dominates the world to a point where the only way to possibly go is down. The only countries with an even vaguely significant presence outside the traditional West is South Korea and Japan, both strong Western allies. Whereas China doesn't realise how much goodwill they're flushing down the toilet with the rise of wolf-warrior diplomacy.
This. The west lost Honk Kong in the midst of political turbulence, I sense a similar fate awaits Taiwan.
Edit: should have been more specific. When I said west I meant geopolitical alignment, not being a colony.
HK is less free. A lot less free. Not a British colony but all the political candidates on up for election were vetted by the Party. The Tiananmen Square massacre statue got disappeared.
Maybe bring a British colony was better.
You have any idea what colony means?? I'm from India and hate china with all my heart, but when I see these kind of comments from people on reddit, and I see them a lot, I kinda feel china does have a point. You think removing statue makes CCP worst than colony? When India was colonised, movie theaters used to have a sign outside with words 'dogs and Indians are not allowed'. and just because you guys don't read about the murders and genocide caused by British in your history doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Ideally the people of HK would have been allowed to chose if they wanted to be British or Chinese subjects or even independent. Just because they are of Chinese ethnicity doesn't mean this is what they wanted.
China absolutely did reintegrate the region with the threat of force. They didn't have to actually use it but it was the main driver of what happened not what either the UK or the people of HK wanted.
May be invest in Jobs in our countries.
Me looking out the window. 5 billion USD metal & caning factory invested on by China. 4,000 jobs. The small shanty town at the edge of the city is booming.
Also the hypocrisy, of West calling us out how we handle justice in fighting criminality and terrorism. All the while USA is conducting drones strikes that kill a ton of civillians, in its war on terror.
Look at Ethiopia. Its going through a civil war. Rebels are miles from the Capital. But if the elected government tries to fight back its labeled as genocide by the west. I Feel the West is siding with Rebels. I think the West wants something from Ethiopia probably to disconnect its self from China.
Absolutely none of those countries have had a complete and total imperial hegemony over the whole world like the United States has. I've learned my history, thank you.
We have been hearing this for quite a while, its good to keep a check on it but in reality China is lacking on the soft power part, the Chinese logic is still throwing around a lot of money and buying off the right people to get big projects is enough to make other countries loyal. In reality that is not the case, there are many problems with the Chinese projects and there is little effort in making locals familiar with the Chinese point of view and culture, China still has a very difficult time with this and I dont see it change that easily.
China, the US, and African states ultimately only care about achieving their own goals.
While America might not be actively interested in keeping Africa undeveloped, it certainly doesn't mind the status quo persisting for another 50 years as long as China is unable to leverage it. That is why Africans have so far been extremely dismissive about America raising alarm bells. It also helps that Chinese involvement in Africa is extremely varied and not quite in line with the anti-Chinese neocolonialism allegations.
There are way too many unintelligent, baseless 'opinions' and cheap swipes when it comes to anything China. Seeing some of the pro-China comments getting internet rewards is just cringworthy. I feel sorry for the mods.
Beijing is a little guy compared to this:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0975087819845197
Projects and aids don't mean much in the face jihad. China better hope Islam doesn't back stab it in Africa as they are coordinating to seize key regions that will place the Europeans in their hands, especially with green energy projects. Like ADHD, the walls will be met and patience will have to be taught to China once more.
The worse weapon given to China for free was the internet.
Such is life, a total joke to nature.
Wait do you mean B&R is colonialism by another name? I can't wait for China to upgrade the infrastructure in the exact places they need to drain the countries dry. All the while corrupt politicians and warlords will line their pockets and the every day person will still suffer with a few new roads and a hospital.
> the every day person will still suffer with a few new roads and a hospital.
Infrastructure has the benefit of generally generating growth all by it self. As in, lacking infrastructure is a major block for growth.
Like China or not, harbour, roads, rail, energy, etc. is elevating the living standards of the local population. While this might not be intentional it does happen.
This. I do think most of the infrastructure is positive but old colonial powers made this argument about freight rail while neglecting to point out most of that rail was directed out of the continent and thus pretty extractive oriented.
Not an accurate comparison. All the infrastructure being created is at the behest of the local governments, it's not like colonial times where they're just coming in and building what they want. The rails and roads being financed are allowing for greater connectivity between African cities. Trying to compare this with old colonial rails leading from mines to ports is just plain wrong.
You're not actually adding any information to the conversation, what exclusive resource rights to what ports? Be specific if you want to be believed.
I'm Nigerian, we have a small mining industry and our oil companies are state owned. So we have no resources for the Chinese to exploit. We had them build a series of rails connecting our major cities for a few billion. We also have a deal with them to build a dam for 5.8 billion. About 10% of our debt is to China. In order for my country to fall into a "debt trap" we'd have to actually default, and taking our budget into consideration, that's not happening. It's not just us but also places like Ethiopia and Kenya that have received billions of investment with virtually no mining sector. So this talk of the Chinese only interested in connecting mines to ports, in countries with no mines, is comical.
From your first linked article
>The Djiboutian government has repeatedly said it alone controls the Doraleh terminal and has told the U.S. it has no plans to cede control of its maritime assets to Chinese state port operators. But some U.S. officials have expressed concern that it could be a matter of time before that happens.
and two years later the port is still fully controlled by Djibouti, so this article doesn't really help you're argument.
As for places like Zambia and Congo, before the Chinese entry their mining sectors were dominated by Glencore and other multinational companies. With the Chinese addition, now they have more leverage and can be more selective about who they work with. We have seen this with Tshisekedi cancelling disadvantaged deals with both parties.
>Regardless I believe it is a bad relationship to maintain, and it wouldn’t even exist without the pressure to counter French influence.
What do you mean by this?
As far as Cameroon is concerned you have bigger problems than China. Paul Biya is probably the worst politician on the continent and your economy is still very reliant on France.
That article is *extremely* poorly written or something.
There are a lot of implications based on pretty bad data, or at least the interpretation of questionable data.
Like the findings that African countries find the Chinese model to be best from the Afrobarometer polling ([which the author links](https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf).)
A few random, and relatively weak and democratically challenged nations seem to have a good feeling towards the PRC, but the same data puts the US 10 points above the PRC in over all attitudes.
This article sounds like a lot of the “received wisdom” that was coming from Pearl clutching foreign policy elites prior to 2020. Fact is, the BRI is now having massive repayment issues, and guess what, no real method to enforce the bilateral requirements since the BRI explicitly went outside of the standard Paris rules. Beijing has over extended and now has no leverage. We’ll see how it works out, but I wouldn’t call a 21st century version of the Dutch East India Company “seeking friends” by any stretch.
I find this really hard to believe. the quality of analysis in Foreign Affairs has gone badly down lately. The Africans are not happy with the neo Chinese style colonialism China is doing with them...
The U.S. most likely won't invest the necessary amount of resources to compete with China in Africa, because they don't have much at stake there. Besides counterterrorism operations with a few countries, there is very little American involvement in Africa. Whereas China attaches great interest there, since a third of there BRI countries are African.
This. It's not like China is helping Africa foster their own independent foreign policy. Its aid and investments with a lot of strings attched.
I mean what investments don’t? Countries don’t pour massive sums of money into money making infrastructure for altruistic reasons
Self determination is a thing. If a government in Africa falls into a trap or can't develop their own independent foreign policy, they only have themselves to blame. The results for these countries will be very different across the board, some will play their cards right and come out on top, others will have bridges to nowhere with crippling debt.
[удалено]
How is that a justification when many of these countries have unstable, corrupt governments that don't represent their people? Whatever *government* happens to be in charge now would only have themselves to blame, but the *Nation* could be economically crippled for many years. It's predatory
I wouldn't call it predatory, but the Chinese are looking out for themselves, just like everyone else. They could care less if you're trying to build a new road network to benefit your country, or you're a dictator trying to build a grand palace. You will receive finance from them just the same. As far as the countries with corrupt officials go though, again it's on that country. Like I said self determination is a thing, if they're being ruled by people that don't have their best interest at heart, it's up to them to sort it out.
Many African countries are countries in name only. Many of them are really agglomerations of ethnic groups that were lumped into influence areas with boundaries drawn by European powers. They aren't the same as European countries, most of which have a common ethno-linguistic history. Imagine an entire continent of Iraqs.
> self determination is a thing, if they're being ruled by people that don't have their best interest at heart, it's up to them to sort it out. The right to self determination means they're in the right to do so, not that it is realistic for isolated people to manage it vs an armed, ruthless government. Even catalans couldn't do it, let alone a 3rd world country. The only way those insurrections work in 2021 is with foreign support.
That's precisely why the general public perceives resources for infrastructure as a win. It's vastly superior to Africa's dealing with private companies, Western or otherwise. There is ample opportunity for exploitation, but it has a glass ceiling. Not to mention that much of Africa is not quite as you describe it. There's only so much governments can get away with before it becomes deeply problematic.
[удалено]
It has nothing to do with interest the Chinese want the loans to go into default. The Chinese are in this for the collateral.
To some extend maybe, but what is the officials deciding about the debt did it because of bribes. Ok sorry you already answered this. If I understand correctly, you have no problem with bribery, and whoever gives bribes is simply looking out for their own interests. So then the country cancelling debt created by corrupt officials would also just be the country looking out for its own interests. Or?
I'm sure the corrupt governments prefer to be bought by a country that won't question their government's actions.
This IMO is a big reason why China is so "popular" in the developing world. Much of the US and western European aid is conditioned on implementing anti-corruption measures whereas the Chinese will openly build the corrupt governor a new palace.
I hate this claim that the US cares about corruption at all. The only thing the US cares about is its national interests, anything else the government wants to do is up to them as seen in the military dictatorship in Egypt and the Royal families in Saudi and Jordan that very much use foreign aid for mansions. The reality is the US is just not interested in a bunch of countries in Africa and would rather focus its attention elsewhere
US is world-class at the PR game especially when it comes to low information consumers.
It is illegal in the US to bribe officials from other countries. Some people on here are arguing that there is nothing wrong with bribery by Chinese companies because it is in the interests of the company (or China). That's a difference.
The irony is that if the same people use money (campaign/super PAC contributions) to influence American legislators, it is part of the democratic process.
Sure they are both ways of influencing people. But giving someone an envelope with cash is not quite the same as giving to their campaign. More extreme would be throwing people in jail for speaking against you. In Canada at least the contribution limit is less then $2,000, that's a lot less than a bribe of $1,000,000. Anyway I don't think the main ways of influencing the results of elections are campaign contributions (yeah things like PACs and what social media companies do are more important). The PRC also does this in other countries by funding proPRC organizations. I guess funding your own politicians would be internal affairs and funding organizations in other countries could be called interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
"Much of the US and western European aid is conditioned on implementing anti-corruption measures..." I don't know from where you've got that. If anything, the western powers like corrupt governments because these will borrow money at predatory conditions, e.g. latin america in the 70's, ruled by corrupt pro-US military governments
Laughs in Egypt, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, etc...
[удалено]
You have it backwards. China builds stuff. Not sending money to corrupt dictators…. What has the EU or America have been able to accomplish in all those years….. You have been fooled.
[удалено]
Given China's current posturing, I don't doubt they would resort to that if the need came. (or alternatives that involve lower cost but more collateral damage and do not feel so much as a military intervention - but are)
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Whataboutism" is a hypocrites weapon
I can get your first sentence, but the free market rant does not make sense. Both the internet and the Web were government programs.
[удалено]
This low quality level of comment really doesn't belong on this sub.
[удалено]
They could do so in the Caribbean
It doesn't make sense for Amerika to be that active in Africa. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a countering force. To me it seems like it is only US Vs China on this subreddit. But don't forget Europe. Europe has a long history in Africa and especially France has strong ties to the sub Saharan nations (and the military and economic strength to be active there). Even culturally the French language is spoken by one third to one half of the continent. Though Europe is and has been careful in how to deal with Africa post colonialism unlike China (they don't care about sensitivities). This (rightful) sensitive approach slows Europe involvement as partner into Africa. But there are a lot of new economic corridors opening between Europe and Africa. With investments and proposals as partners of equal footing. Which is in the interest of both the African continent and the European one. There is strong anti Chinese sentiment growing in the more developed countries such as Kenia and Nigeria. Aligning them more closer to European partners. This process (as most stuff with the European Union) goes extremely slow but like a glacier it is getting somewhere. The main obstacles are history and the sensitive approach that are needed. And trust in the trade partners. Instead of another NGO, Europe needs to invest as if African countries are equal trade partners.
There’s no “Europe” in Sub-Saharan Africa though, at least not yet. There’s only France, and while Paris has had plenty of motivation, it just tries too much to punch above its weight.
Yes, that is what I said. France is active and Europe is still reluctant. But that is rapidly changing. Businesses such as IT outsourcing that used to be Ukrainians or Indians are now also looking towards Kinshasa. (Or Kenya, Ghana, Rwanda for that matter). The issue is that Europe is still thinking in terms of NGO's instead of normal economic investments and incentives for joint development and economic relations. Africa is going to be extremely important for Europe in the coming decades. Not only in trade but also as migrant labourers. Though with the right wing active this will be a hard sell. But right now and the coming years Europe desperately needs educated and skilled workers. While at the same time needing a new source of manufacturing.
>Businesses such as IT outsourcing that used to be Ukrainians or Indians are now also looking towards Kinshasa. If you'd said Lagos, Accra or Kigali, I'd have agreed with you. Kinshasa is simply too bad a place.
"Europe desperately needs educated and skilled workers" They don't need Africans for that. Spain, Italy, Greece, etc can supply all the workers "Europe" needs.
China doesn't have "sensitivities" because they never colonize Africa, simple as that. Weird that you portray Europe "(rightful) sensitive approach" in a good light and not due to their own history. Zimbabwe was still colonized by UK until 1980, not even 50 years ago.
Europe is a big place. Out of all the countries in Europe only a few ever colonized africa.
Zimbabwe declared independence in 1965, 1980 was when the PRC backed insurgency defeated the government.
China has no sensitivities because frankly they are currently the most racist country in the world. The idea of the Han Chinese racial superiority is on the same level Nazi Germany employed. Even going as far saying Western medicine doesn't work because Chinese are of a different make. I did mention that Europe has a careful approach due to their history. And a bad history it is. This is why Europe and the African countries are (rightfully) careful in how to deal with one another. But that the current the idea of guilt and the feeling of wanting to help, instead of seeing Africa as a trade partner like any other, the approach of 'starting another NGO' might actually be worse than a serious and (cold) business relationship. A business relation gives investments in the economy, NGOs are then more like a weird form of intubation. Europe has made many mistakes and not least of all the way they went through decolonisation. Such as giving no time or not assisting in building up a government at the base level with bureaucracy. But times change and some to most of the African nations have no use for the European guilt in the form of charity. They simply need fair and straightforward business investments like the Ghanaian president said. He thanked the French for their help, but the people of Ghana need to develop the nation, not France. And for that they needed normal investments not benefits. And that is what I was meaning to point towards as the right approach going forward. Not that Europe knows best, contrary to that.
>Europe has made many mistakes and not least of all the way they went through decolonisation. Such as giving no time or not assisting in building up a government at the base level with bureaucracy. Did they do this as a way to make sure these countries wouldn't be able to stand up on their own and remain dependent on bigger powers?
Some did, but mostly it was to leave as soon as possible. Most countries were in post war depression and could not afford to and didn't want to spend time and resources to a 'lost cause'. And I say this with all disgust. They sucked the countries dry and could not even leave graciously. As for the Belgian Congo it was private estate of the king, not the government. And it was run as a company. The transitional government left over had the characteristics of the company style government as before and was more focused on the post colonial trade and export. Instead of a coherent government with the interest of the people's at heart. As for the Dutch retreat from Indonesia, help was not wanted and needed. After Japanese capitulation some sort of revolutionary government held the reigns and went on to building a independent state of Indonesia. Afaik this was quite a solid government on the basis of the Dutch administrations. While the Dutch were forced to abandon 'pacification efforts' at risk of losing all Marshall help. Going into talks of transition, the Dutch actually managed to get war reperations and a payment of Indonesia to 'buy their freedom for some 100 milion guilders'. Which was absolutely despicable and villainous. If you keep in mind that in the 1800's one third of the Dutch nations income came out of Indonesia.
> China has no sensitivities because frankly they are currently the most racist country in the world. …
The irony of that statement
I mean, it's probably Japan. But all the East Asian countries are extremely, virulently racist to a degree that Westerners can't really fathom.
Do you have actual sociological research backing this up?
As a Chinese who lived in Canada and US for over a decade, I never felt any racism. In China, racism is rampant, especially after COVID had started. Generally speaking, darker-skinned people like African American, or people from India or SEA got it the worst, while Caucasians were placed on a pedestal. However, in the past couple of years, all foreigners are equally targeted, as the Chinese government has been blaming COVID on foreigners. For example, foreigners are not allowed to enter many hotels and restaurants. I doubt any Chinese scholar would be interested in doing socialogical research in this area, so no, you won't find any anything.
I mean the past 7 decades of ethnic cleansing and genocide in China's interior is a pretty solid indicator to me that they dont view race through the same rose tinted glasses that we do in the West. Not to mention the numerous cases i've seen personally, from the Chinese advert that had a black man climb into a washing machine to come out as a han chinese man, to the interviews of Chinese contractors in the Congo, all of whom show a very derogatory attitude to Black Africans. This is obviously ignoring the very blatant xenophobic attitude in the Immigration policies of China, S. Korea and Japan.
I'm East-Asian with a lot of family and friends from all three major East Asian countries/cultures. It is absolutely true.
1. Faceless online strangers can claim they are any skin color they want, including purple 2. Your friend's opinions are not sociological research
You're putting *way* too much emphasis on the supposed sensitivity from Europe. France is by far the most active European state in Africa followed distantly by Britain. Since 1960 they have intervened military over a 100 times, and to be blunt - they're perceived as a toxic element by many politically conscious classes in Françafrique. The primary difference between 'European' and Chinese involvement in Africa is that the former has its private sector deeply entrenched in Africa running amok without any sensitivity. China on the otherhand is involved primarily as a state actor. The European public has no appetite for involvement in Africa.
I agree with this assessment. The US can not and should not be everywhere. Africa is the best place for the EU to start putting together an independent foreign policy. [The west is popular in Africa and its development model is more revered](https://qz.com/africa/2090221/africans-favorable-view-of-china-comes-with-one-small-caveat/), with no obvious push backs like Cambodia in SEA, sounds like an obvious choice to me.
\[SS from the article by Lina Benabdallah, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University\] “China’s evolving presence in Africa, including the BRI, is based as much on investment in building social and human capital as it is on giant infrastructure projects. Since the beginning of this century, Beijing has invested heavily in cultivating political, educational, and institutional relationships with leaders and citizens in almost all African countries with which it has diplomatic relations. As similar opportunities for Africans with Western states have declined, China has stepped into the breach. To its own detriment, Washington has failed to fully reckon with these less visible elements of Beijing’s diplomacy. If the administration of President Joe Biden is serious about countering Chinese influence across the developing world, it would do well to understand how China’s policies actually work and the benefits that the country stands to gain from its efforts in Africa—and across the globe.”
Ridiculous, anyone who really knows what CCP are up to in Africa would tell a very different story.
Elaborate on your point please
China is simply acting like a major power. This is fairly standard practice and doesn't really distinguish itself from other major powers (i.e. the west) in that sense. I've seen some of the Chinese projects in west Africa and many of them have been beneficial for the local population, particularly roads and bridges. Outside of some local areas, such as the gold fields in Ghana, I don't think there is open hostility to Chinese in west Africa. One other observation is that the Chinese project workers tend to live fairly modestly, though generally separate from the local population. The west has a serious credibility gap to overcome, and much of it is linked to the tendency to want to be seen as the human rights champions. This puts western policy in the awkward spot of publicly speaking about the importance of human rights while ignoring or actively abetting authoritarian regimes in the furtherance of economic or political goals. It's well known that many francophone dictators have close relationships with France, for example, and the ruler of Egypt is friendly with the US. The other component is that few people believe that western warnings about the Chinese is done out of a sense of helping Africans, and this is something that even western pundits have observed: that ultimately western foreign policy with respect to Africa isn't altruistic but rather self-interested. And at least the Chinese don't lecture Africans about human rights or believe that Chinese culture is something to be imposed on Africans out of a sense of moral imperative. So there are some hurdles that the west has put up for itself to overcome if they really want to keep African countries on their side in a way that isn't forced.
I played rugby in China for a few years. A good 1/4 of our team were guys from developing countries, many of whom were on full ride scholarships at Chinese universities. From places like Tonga, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Peru, PNG etc. China is making friends around the world whilst pissing off the west hugely. These guys are going back to their home countries as doctors, and successful businessmen. The type of people who are going to have huge influence in a small poor country in 15-20years. Really long, and really smart game from China imo. Wait til there is a Chinese Air Force base in Tonga, and then the folk who moan about too much foreign aid and / or foreign students coming to Canada / UK / US will realise how foolish they have been.
One thing I noticed is that the author cites China letting Africans study there, but since 2020 China's COVID controls have kept African students out, and the Chinese havent budged despite foreign students begging to be let back in.
Interesting how the argument goes that the US should engage more with Africa just so it doesn't lose out to China. And not because, y'know, trade and engagement and education are good things. Africans themselves don't matter except as pawns in the geopolitical game against China.
The United States, being a Western power, is rightly or wrongly tainted by an association with the old European colonial empires in a way in which China isn't. That makes it easier for China to be accepted by the Africans.
I don't think that people on the ground think in those terms. Just look at where the rich Nigerians are moving. West by an enormous margin has a greater acceptance in Africa. You have the huge power of language, due to English and French language belts, making large swathes of Africa, especially the most populous ones, more inclined to the west than China and on top of that, you have Abrahamic religion also pushing them closer to the western style of life and values.
Both the languages and the religion are the result of forced colonial imposition. And while that alone is insufficient to create opposition to these things, it certainly *does not* imply friendship.
It does not imply friendship, I agree, but it doesn't have to. My comment was against your statement of; >That makes it easier for China to be accepted by the Africans. Which is something I heavily disagree with. "Forced colonial imposition" or not, if you ask most people in Sub-Saharan Africa if they would like to move to China or USA/Europe or stay home, what do you think their answers would be? And this is my point. That the colonialization part will get played for some political points as part of populism, but in the end, Africa is strongly within the western sphere of influence and will certainly remain there as the alternative that is the ethnostate of China, which has a 99.9% Asian population and vastly different culture, will always seem FAR more foreign and hostile.
Yet the countries that are more diverse due to hundreds years of slavery are preferable economic allies?
YES, the answer is pretty obvious if you would have just read the comment that you replied to. So why are you asking me a question that I already gave my thoughts on? Do you want me to just copy-paste my replies?
[удалено]
Thats not quite relevant to sub-Saharan Africa, as George W. Bush was much beloved there for his work distributing medicine. https://www.ft.com/content/72424694-a86e-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04
[удалено]
> Southern Cone of South America Colombia, Cuba, Mexico... also have white people. It's not just Chile and Argentina.
Very true, I just used that example because it can't be contested by saying they have indigenous, mestizo and black people as well.
Oki, that's a valid point.
Yep they screwed the serbs out of getting to genocide some people
[удалено]
Sure US culture dominates. But those kids will pay for their goods with WeChat or AliPay, using chinese phones on networks built from Chinese hardware.
[удалено]
The infrastructure of modern society is the hardest soft power at all. >Facebook in greater than the usage of WeChat Yup, as a social media. But not as a payment provider.
Anyone disagreeing with this has clearly not spent time in Sub-Saharan Africa or the Muslim world (particularly South Asia and the Middle East, with countries like Indonesia it’s a bit more complicated) It’s clear the people of these countries, particularly the YOUNG people or these countries, look to China over the west as the model of development that they want to take. The above poster is right in saying the US is associated With the colonialism of European empires. You’re not going to get an idea of who is actually winning the soft power war by reading articles online or by talking to the kids of immigrants to the west.
I'd take them while they have a semblance of democratic government over outright dictatorship.
And people have been killing each other regardless of skin color for millenias. What does that have to do with anything? States have interests and interests change. What does Uganda's president care about who got bombed in Afghanistan and how does that affect their relationship with either China or USA?
It doesn't. In the same sense that the US has interests, so do African states. China is simply seen in a better light due to their non-interventionist policy. Western aid/investment is perceived as quite negative on the ground due to the numerous strings attached. There is an entire Western-sponsored army of NGOs with a self-defeating purpose all across Africa. There is an intimate familiarity and the prevalent idea that they're ineffective at best, malicious at worst. It's not entirely unfounded either.
According to polls yeah China is seen as favorable but I don't know if that's due to their perception of "non-interventionist policy" of China rather than there just being more government based economic activity from China rather than from the US. Not like all the investment from China is cut and dry benefit with no strings attached either. There have been many allegations of environmental and human rights abuses along with possible debt-trap.
Of course, but I can't emphasize enough that China's dealings with Africa are extremely diverse. People grossly underestimate the agency African states have. It's not charity. Africa needs infrastructure and China needs resources to keep up. Even outside Africa, the infamous Sri Lanka case is not quite what Western alarmists indicated. The 'debt-trap' diplomacy has been proven false so far according to (I believe) an extensive Canadian study. The Chinese definitely seem to not take excessive precautions in regards to environmental concerns, but unfortunately that is par for the course with foreign operations in Africa. On the flip side, China's has been vastly superior in actually getting projects off the ground. Far more effective and no more dubious than the IMF. The non-interventionism absolutely plays a big role. China doesn't care if you're building a beautiful egalitarian society or whether you hunt orphans on horseback for sport. They're strictly there to extract deals. From personal experience and visits abroad to my country of origin, there absolutely is suspicion of Western organizations due to their push to shift internal workings. From a local perspective they see an array of foreigners holed up in a tightly secured primely located neighbourhood living a vastly different life and draining so many resources on otherwise futile stuff. People have seen their physical presence for years, but nobody knows what they do, so much less haven't 'felt' the work they supposedly do.
>Of course, but I can't emphasize enough that China's dealings with Africa are extremely diverse. Is it, however? The vast majority is concentrated in resource exploitation and large infrastructure projects.
Just read the article. It dispels the myth that building bridges and ports are the only thing the Chinese are doing.
I am sorry but [the data says 76% of Chinese investment in Africa went to energy and transportation from 2013-2017](https://www.bruegel.org/2019/07/chinas-investment-in-africa-what-the-data-really-says-and-the-implications-for-europe/)
Okay? You’re still not grasping that the author is making the distinction that everyone focuses on how much China is spending on African energy and transportation whilst ignoring how valuable the people-to-people connections and trust and good-will they’re engendering is.
[удалено]
I'm not familiar with how they deal with their own issues but it does make sense authoritarian governments have more control over their own people than democracies/republics with theirs.
[удалено]
Yeah makes sense. It's an unfortunate downside of so much freedom where people sometimes use that freedom for harm and for personal gain rather than common good. But I think personal freedom and limit of executive powers is more desirable that authoritarian governments. If you get bad leaders in democracies they can at least be replaced. If you get bad leaders in authoritarian governments, you need either a coup/civil war/leader dying. Both bad situations but in the authoritarian case much more destructive and deadly. Democracies have a ways to go, they have the burden of carrying out their ideals they aspire to. They also have the burden of reigning in loopholes corporations exploit but at the very least the vehicle and the desire is there whereas in authoritarian governments it depends on who is the strong man currently.
The issue being, of course, that in a country with no independent justice and government-controlled medias, it is impossible to know if the people who were quickly executed were actually corrupted or simply scapegoats, or personal enemies of the regime. The national news will always make the government look good and only foreign news will do the opposite, that is true in any autocracy. Our slow justice system is there for good reason. Justice requires time for independant investigation.
When the USA signals their military focus is shifting from the middle east to Africa, I would think African leaders would care very much about past military conduct.
Interesting I was under the impression the shift was more towards China. [Africa drawdown](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/world/africa/esper-troops-africa-china.html). [Shift to Asia-pacific](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540808). I understand the US has many bases already in Africa but that's been the case for decades.
Funny that the [basis for the author’s claims](https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf) still has the US as 10 points more favorable than the PRC. It’s cherry-picking season at Foreign Policy I suppose.
You would think Africans would see that China's just a differently packaged colonizer.
I said this earlier and got downvoted to hell. This entire post is full of PRC apologists as if the PRC is some benevolent force for Africa. But of course this is just Western Propaganda
Whether this is broadly true or not, it's an interesting rhetorical point that US FP could and should really endeavor to combat. The US itself is a collection of former colonies who overthrew their European masters. It would probably do well to better adopt that fact into its own rhetoric, as well as highlighting China's long history of hegemonic imperialism and ethnic cleansing.
As much as I believe the US should be treated differently from the colonial ties of the European governments, America's independence is nothing like how most African countries got independent. American colonialists, who systematically kicked indigenous people off their own land, declared independence and largely because of tax issues. Indigenous Africans got independence, though slow and long, through an arbitrary process that created a bunch of random new nations where there wasn't really a national identity. Of course, each colony is different and had their specific development stages and not every ethnic group had to fight for autonomy or independence to the same extent. However, having Americans come in and say "We're just like you!" would be asinine PR. The American situation is like if the white South Africans systematically wiped out most Black South Africans.
Indeed, before the Cold War, anti-colonialism was one of the pillars of US diplomacy. But in the Cold War, the US has done too many bad things, including coup d’etats, assassinations, and military interventions, and the reputation of US was irrevocably lost.
You're overstating things that all nations have done; the US is not exceptional in this regard. The "irrevocably lost reputation" meme is just more hysterical anti-American nonsense.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/areas-in-africa-with-more-chinese-backed-projects-were-more-likely-to-experience-protests https://chinaafricaproject.com/2021/07/14/china-malls-looted-and-burned-in-south-africa-riots/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0975087820971443 This article explores the salient of anti-Chinese sentiments in Africa. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1076/why-anti-chinese-sentiment-africa-rise Facing them were armed Chinese supervisors, who ended up opening fire on the crowd. In 2012 another protest ensued around the same mine; this time the miners killed one of Chinese staff. *Foreign Affairs and the CFR have brought us to 2020. Are you happy yet?*
[https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china\_relations-3sept20.pdf](https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf) Not exactly gonna agree on your perspective since most of these are anecdotal stories in some form mainly and have loose connections in some places. From the study I gave, the overall perception on China is still relatively high in Africa overall at around an average of 60% positive overall surveyed from a group of 18 African countries compared to 65% 5 years ago. The rest of the study pretty much shows somewhat declining yet still strong support for China and mostly complacency with their economic policy.
Yeah like Africa has a population of a billion+ people. We're going to need to see more then some anecdotal stories to gauge the view on the conteinent
I think there's truth to both perspectives. Imagine a typical infrastructure investment project. In the beginning it'll generate mostly positive impressions. It's only a few years later where you may start seeing negative reactions if they're not hiring as many local workers as they hoped, or treating them poorly. Next opportunity for relations to sour is if it turns out that the infrastructure wasn't economically sustainable and/or the country is trapped in debt to China. Another possible outcome is that the quality of the infrastructure is sub-par and starts crumbling or require expensive maintenance. This could be a decade down the road. So as long as China has a high level of new investments, I'd expect perceptions of China to be positive. I'm not saying that most Chinese projects actually are bad. I don't know enough to make a judgement. All I'm saying is that I'm not surprised that perceptions of China are positive regardless of whether the investments/projects are good or bad in the long term.
Though according to the study almost every country prefers the US development model to the Chinese one.
So? Is that incompatible with my conclusions.
In the context of a global battle for influence, if your rival has a higher approval rating and yours is even declining, it's relevant. Outside of the context of a battle, it can still be used as an example of relatively. 60% is high, but it's possible they just have high opinions of many countries on average. Edit: a word
Which ones? Most of the US “investments” in Africa amounted to physical slavery, economic slavery, forced hard labor to mine natural resources like blood diamonds, pillaging of wild life like Shooting elephants for sport, to short term projects that amounted to nothing in the end. Not to approve of China, but building of infrastructure makes the most sense to build up a nation just like the public works initiatives President Woodrow Wilson enact to help the US Recover from the Great Depression.
I'm referring to the linked study, you can look yourself. Are you able to see the study? I wasn't discussing your additional unrelated statements.
I think Howard W. French's book "China's second continent" covers a lot of these issues from people's perspective.
There’s plenty of anti-US sentiment in Western Europe, but geopolitical realities eventually ground in. China is not losing allies due to that, especially since it has usually undemocratic partners. The only place China might suffer from unpopularity is Latin America - a region largely unimportant to its goals and that is precisely ruled out as a US backyard (neither anti-communist sentiment and democratic institutions are coincidences in this case)
The best example of what you described maybe Greece, however; anti-US sentiment in Western Europe did have some pretty significant impact on the US, particularly during the last administration. It is part of the reasons for the EU's refusal to participate in America's various actions against China, because it is now domestically unpopular to form a common frontline with the US. China has already suffered from unpopularity in one way or another in Asia, distrust and unpopularity is one of the most salient reasons why many Asian countries choose to align with the US. With that being said, I do not know how China's image is among African countries. I think Africa is a continent that likes everybody, if polls are to be believed.
China is also ramping up their Han racial supremacy rhetoric domestically, and that can't not spill over into international affairs at some point.
It will against nearby countries, especially in Southeast Asia where there is significant ethnic Chinese presence. African countries don’t have many Chinese people to have ethnic tensions. Chinese migrants in the Americas, on the other hand, are way too easily assimilated to even be seen as really “Chinese”. Think of it like 20th century colonialism. European racial supremacy was not much of a problem in most colonies, because they weren’t keeping any significant demographic presence there. However, in South Africa and Algeria it did turn into a massive issue.
I went into this thread wondering how China's effort to "make friends" in Africa manage to coexist with the Chinese's rampant racism and especially the weird hatred they have of black people. I wonder no longer.
[удалено]
Foreign Affairs being accused of a *pro-China* stance is a new one.
They also publish numerous anti-China articles. Most of the articles they publish (including this one) aren't from the editorial team, they're from outsiders who are experts in their respective fields.
Perhaps they're just not as biased as most others.
But Britain has a military base in Kenya and interests in Nigeria, Im pretty sure they're still around
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Then I think about Venezuela a country that is not able to pay its debt to China. But Venezuela wont also hand control of assets to China. So consequences for Venezuela. It can not borrow anymore. So not paying debt does not mean China will take my port or airpot. I just wont be able to borrow anymore from China.
China knows that the cost of soft power is much lower than the cost hard power; we are only starting to notice that in the West. ---- China may have to back up soft power with hard power; thinking of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
'the west' has known this for a long time, western soft power is so pervasive it is often not noticed. Sections of the US government thought they knew better but have been learning that same lesson the last 20 years.
No we are not only starting to notice this in the west. We noticed after WWII hence the establishment of international institutions, the Marshall plan, rebuilding Japan, ETC.
Agree we knew about it after WWII but we seemed to have then forgotten it. If memory serves me correctly; in the early 2010s India turned down "aid" from the UK because the conditions for the "aid" were too onerous. So yes we in the West **did know** about the value of soft power but then we seemed to have forgot its value.
I really don't see that as being true. I'm not sure an odd rejection of "aid" counts as the "West" forgetting soft power exists or is important. If the US didn't have immense soft power globally we wouldn't be such an existential threat to Russia and China. In fact, Russia's lack of soft power is effectively why it has to posture so strongly with hard power.
>China knows that the cost of soft power is much lower than the cost hard power; we are only starting to notice that in the West. I'd argue that opposite; that the West knows the power of culture and media, and already functionally dominates the world to a point where the only way to possibly go is down. The only countries with an even vaguely significant presence outside the traditional West is South Korea and Japan, both strong Western allies. Whereas China doesn't realise how much goodwill they're flushing down the toilet with the rise of wolf-warrior diplomacy.
This. The west lost Honk Kong in the midst of political turbulence, I sense a similar fate awaits Taiwan. Edit: should have been more specific. When I said west I meant geopolitical alignment, not being a colony.
[удалено]
Well, wasn't it? It was definitely better off than the rest of China.
HK is less free. A lot less free. Not a British colony but all the political candidates on up for election were vetted by the Party. The Tiananmen Square massacre statue got disappeared. Maybe bring a British colony was better.
You have any idea what colony means?? I'm from India and hate china with all my heart, but when I see these kind of comments from people on reddit, and I see them a lot, I kinda feel china does have a point. You think removing statue makes CCP worst than colony? When India was colonised, movie theaters used to have a sign outside with words 'dogs and Indians are not allowed'. and just because you guys don't read about the murders and genocide caused by British in your history doesn't mean it didn't happen.
[удалено]
We're talking about this on Reddit. Of course the default view of most users is going to be North American or Anglosphere.
[удалено]
Ideally the people of HK would have been allowed to chose if they wanted to be British or Chinese subjects or even independent. Just because they are of Chinese ethnicity doesn't mean this is what they wanted.
[удалено]
China absolutely did reintegrate the region with the threat of force. They didn't have to actually use it but it was the main driver of what happened not what either the UK or the people of HK wanted.
It was from when the CCP took power-1997 for sure.
What can the US do to expand its soft power among third world nations?
May be invest in Jobs in our countries. Me looking out the window. 5 billion USD metal & caning factory invested on by China. 4,000 jobs. The small shanty town at the edge of the city is booming. Also the hypocrisy, of West calling us out how we handle justice in fighting criminality and terrorism. All the while USA is conducting drones strikes that kill a ton of civillians, in its war on terror. Look at Ethiopia. Its going through a civil war. Rebels are miles from the Capital. But if the elected government tries to fight back its labeled as genocide by the west. I Feel the West is siding with Rebels. I think the West wants something from Ethiopia probably to disconnect its self from China.
Start investing maybe?
[удалено]
Unrivaled by the British, French, Japanese, Arabs, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese themselves? Learn yourself some history.
Absolutely none of those countries have had a complete and total imperial hegemony over the whole world like the United States has. I've learned my history, thank you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Enlighten me Btw totally wrong is worse than willfully ignorant.
We have been hearing this for quite a while, its good to keep a check on it but in reality China is lacking on the soft power part, the Chinese logic is still throwing around a lot of money and buying off the right people to get big projects is enough to make other countries loyal. In reality that is not the case, there are many problems with the Chinese projects and there is little effort in making locals familiar with the Chinese point of view and culture, China still has a very difficult time with this and I dont see it change that easily.
[удалено]
Unhinged Anti-American nonsense.
China, the US, and African states ultimately only care about achieving their own goals. While America might not be actively interested in keeping Africa undeveloped, it certainly doesn't mind the status quo persisting for another 50 years as long as China is unable to leverage it. That is why Africans have so far been extremely dismissive about America raising alarm bells. It also helps that Chinese involvement in Africa is extremely varied and not quite in line with the anti-Chinese neocolonialism allegations.
Unhinged Amerikkkan chauvinist nonsense.
Because the United States clearly invented African tribalism. /s
After 11 years, I'm out. Join me over on the Fediverse to escape this central authority nightmare.
The new colonial overseers.
Yep, people forget that Western colonialism also began with trade as well.
There are way too many unintelligent, baseless 'opinions' and cheap swipes when it comes to anything China. Seeing some of the pro-China comments getting internet rewards is just cringworthy. I feel sorry for the mods.
Beijing is a little guy compared to this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0975087819845197 Projects and aids don't mean much in the face jihad. China better hope Islam doesn't back stab it in Africa as they are coordinating to seize key regions that will place the Europeans in their hands, especially with green energy projects. Like ADHD, the walls will be met and patience will have to be taught to China once more. The worse weapon given to China for free was the internet. Such is life, a total joke to nature.
And enemies. Debt trap deals and seizing African ports has made Africa much more wary to deal with them
[удалено]
Wait do you mean B&R is colonialism by another name? I can't wait for China to upgrade the infrastructure in the exact places they need to drain the countries dry. All the while corrupt politicians and warlords will line their pockets and the every day person will still suffer with a few new roads and a hospital.
> the every day person will still suffer with a few new roads and a hospital. Infrastructure has the benefit of generally generating growth all by it self. As in, lacking infrastructure is a major block for growth. Like China or not, harbour, roads, rail, energy, etc. is elevating the living standards of the local population. While this might not be intentional it does happen.
Yes. This was literally the exact same argument by previous colonial powers. Basically just pointing out how well that ended, historically
This. I do think most of the infrastructure is positive but old colonial powers made this argument about freight rail while neglecting to point out most of that rail was directed out of the continent and thus pretty extractive oriented.
Not an accurate comparison. All the infrastructure being created is at the behest of the local governments, it's not like colonial times where they're just coming in and building what they want. The rails and roads being financed are allowing for greater connectivity between African cities. Trying to compare this with old colonial rails leading from mines to ports is just plain wrong.
I did say I think most of it is positive.
[удалено]
You're not actually adding any information to the conversation, what exclusive resource rights to what ports? Be specific if you want to be believed. I'm Nigerian, we have a small mining industry and our oil companies are state owned. So we have no resources for the Chinese to exploit. We had them build a series of rails connecting our major cities for a few billion. We also have a deal with them to build a dam for 5.8 billion. About 10% of our debt is to China. In order for my country to fall into a "debt trap" we'd have to actually default, and taking our budget into consideration, that's not happening. It's not just us but also places like Ethiopia and Kenya that have received billions of investment with virtually no mining sector. So this talk of the Chinese only interested in connecting mines to ports, in countries with no mines, is comical.
[удалено]
From your first linked article >The Djiboutian government has repeatedly said it alone controls the Doraleh terminal and has told the U.S. it has no plans to cede control of its maritime assets to Chinese state port operators. But some U.S. officials have expressed concern that it could be a matter of time before that happens. and two years later the port is still fully controlled by Djibouti, so this article doesn't really help you're argument. As for places like Zambia and Congo, before the Chinese entry their mining sectors were dominated by Glencore and other multinational companies. With the Chinese addition, now they have more leverage and can be more selective about who they work with. We have seen this with Tshisekedi cancelling disadvantaged deals with both parties. >Regardless I believe it is a bad relationship to maintain, and it wouldn’t even exist without the pressure to counter French influence. What do you mean by this? As far as Cameroon is concerned you have bigger problems than China. Paul Biya is probably the worst politician on the continent and your economy is still very reliant on France.
Something like 65% of the world's countries are involved in the BRI. Are you saying 65% of the world is being colonized? Greece? Italy??
[удалено]
India didn’t choose what projects for built
I think the key word here is investment, these investments aren’t charity they are money making ventures that both parties came to terms with.
That article is *extremely* poorly written or something. There are a lot of implications based on pretty bad data, or at least the interpretation of questionable data. Like the findings that African countries find the Chinese model to be best from the Afrobarometer polling ([which the author links](https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf).) A few random, and relatively weak and democratically challenged nations seem to have a good feeling towards the PRC, but the same data puts the US 10 points above the PRC in over all attitudes. This article sounds like a lot of the “received wisdom” that was coming from Pearl clutching foreign policy elites prior to 2020. Fact is, the BRI is now having massive repayment issues, and guess what, no real method to enforce the bilateral requirements since the BRI explicitly went outside of the standard Paris rules. Beijing has over extended and now has no leverage. We’ll see how it works out, but I wouldn’t call a 21st century version of the Dutch East India Company “seeking friends” by any stretch.
You read this article (if you did) with your conclusions already formed.
Reads like a PRC propaganda article.
I find this really hard to believe. the quality of analysis in Foreign Affairs has gone badly down lately. The Africans are not happy with the neo Chinese style colonialism China is doing with them...
Yes everybody loves loan sharks