China move to Africa: Mutual benefits or neo-colonialism?

President Hu Jintau is currently on a eight-nation tour of the African continent with visits to, amongst others, Sudan, Liberia, Zambia, South Africa, and Namibia.

So, I was wondering exactly what Beijing’s motives are. What do they want? Perhaps they’d like to strengthen its economic and political ties with Africa? Very noble, I would say. Or perhaps, the Chinese have a more sinister motive, maybe they’re in search of something else… things like raw materials, oil, diamonds, copper, etc., … the things they need to sustain their economy.

I would like to hear what you all think.

Some reactions:

and

Others again, see the move to Africa as mutually benefitial to both parties. In the case of South Africa for example:

[quote]By the end of 2005, South Africa was exporting around $1.2-billion worth of goods to China while the level of imports was worth $4.35-billion.

While the balance of trade remains far in Beijing’s favour, Chinese firms are now getting involved in joint venture operations to access raw materials such as a tie-up involving Sinosteel and the Limpopo Province Development Corporation in a project that is mining 400 000 tons of chrome ore per year.[/quote]

and

All quotes from: int.iol.co.za/

Any thoughts?

They will be assimilated.

Resistance is futile.

Its all about whats good for China. Plunder and run.

Homey don’t play this game

[quote] Africa discovers dark side of Chinese master
By Colin Freeman in Chambishi, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:09am GMT 05/02/2007

In pictures: Trouble in Little China

The smooth red carpet rolled out across Africa last week for Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, did not quite reach the gates of Zambia’s Chambishi copper mine.
His plans to make an official visit yesterday to the plant, which re-opened under Chinese state ownership eight years ago, fell victim to a hitch he rarely encounters at home: the not-so-grateful worker.

Tipped off that miners were threatening protests about poor pay and conditions, Mr Hu changed his schedule, leaving the podium - specially built for the occasion - ungraced with his presence.

The miners, who lost 51 colleagues in an explosion at a subsidiary plant two years ago, were a rare dissenting voice on Mr Hu’s 12-day, eight-nation tour of Africa, which took in Cameroon, Liberia and Sudan last week and continues to Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique and the Seychelles.

Otherwise, it was choreographed all too smoothly: five-star hotels sealed off to accommodate his vast retinue, surreal “press briefings” at which no questions were permitted, and state functions to which awkward guests like Zambia’s opposition parties, who back the miners’ grievances, were not invited.

The VIP treatment was not surprising, however, given his country’s rapidly-expanding new role in Africa as an investor, trader and aid donor. As well as an army of trade delegates signing business deals by the hundred, Mr Hu came with £2.7 billion to spend in aid and unconditional loans, cash pledged when he entertained 43 African leaders in Beijing last November. Like the Europeans who scrambled for Africa in the 19th and early 20th centuries, his motives are far from altruistic: Beijing wants vast quantities of Zambia’s copper, along with Angola’s oil, Gabon’s timber and Zimbabwe’s platinum for its own massive economic expansion, which it hopes will turn it into a new superpower.

Yet to a growing number of African governments - especially the more corrupt and undemocratic ones - Mr Hu represents a much more promising saviour than George W Bush, Tony Blair or U2’s Bono. Thanks to his country’s long-standing “mutual non-interference policy”, Chinese aid and investment deals come on a “no-strings” basis, free of high-minded lectures or conditions about how the cash should be spent.

However, the enthusiasm of Africa’s ruling elites for a non-Western benefactor is not shared by the miners of Chambishi township, whose Chinese masters arrived after the mine had lain shut for more than a decade. The sprawling plant is now decked in Maoist-style slogans urging workers to make “vigorous efforts to make the company prosperous”, yet the way it is run is capitalism at its most raw.

As well as the mine’s questionable safety record, workers’ benefits have been slashed, unions discouraged and employees are paid as little as £53 a month, despite rising copper prices.

One miner - who would not give his name for fear of losing his job - told The Sunday Telegraph: "We are glad that the Chinese re-opened the mine, as unemployment here was very high and there were problems with theft and drunkenness.

“But they are difficult to work for. Safety is still poor even after the explosion that killed my friends, and when we ask for more money, they threaten to sack us. I would prefer to work for white managers - they are better educated and they understand what a Zambian needs to live on.”

A particular grievance among the miners is that they no longer have the generous cradle-to-the-grave benefits they enjoyed when the copper mines were in state hands.

Today, Chambishi’s roads are muddy and potholed, its menfolk spend much of their spare time getting drunk in local shebeens, and mine-sponsored soccer teams that once made the Copper Belt region a talent pool for the country’s national team are defunct.

“They have created employment but they should improve the social conditions,” said Isaac Lumba, 32, one of a group of miners drinking cartons of strong maize beer outside the Chember Grocery store, a small shack among Chambishi township’s rundown, single-storey cottages. “If they are taking our copper they should give something back to the community.”

The poor conditions in the Chinese mine were highlighted in a Christian Aid report released last week. It said that while other foreign mine operators, including Swiss and Indian firms, were often slipshod too, they provided at least some social benefits, sponsoring anti-malaria programmes and football teams. The report also described how two miners were shot and injured during a wages protest outside the Chinese managers’ compound last year, either by Chinese-hired security guards or by Zambian police. The shooting, it said, “confirmed in the popular imagination the idea that Chinese bosses were uniquely brutal and exploitative, and that the Zambian state’s relationship to them was too close”.

Fears about the Chinese way of doing business are not just confined to the Copper Belt. In Zambia’s capital, Lusaka, traders and manufacturers say the flood of cheap Chinese goods into their markets has made it all but impossible to earn a living. It is a complaint repeated in marketplaces in nearly every African country that has done a trade-for-aid deal.
Telegraph.com[/quote]

And ‘Chinese Mine Safety’ is world renowned…uh huh…

What’s so sinister about that? Aren’t those the things that all world economies need? And if they don’t sustain their economy, is that going to be to the benefit of the other countries that trade with them, i.e. Taiwan?

The quote from Mbeki is hilarious. Canada also “served as a source of raw materials and a market for goods manufactured in the countries of the colonisers”, in this case, Britain, and Canada turned out ok.

yeah, …er, …uh,…yeah…kay. :laughing:

If Africa turned out as well as Canada did… that’d be a boon.

I’ll need to think on that for a while.

[jeopardy music plays]

Yes like all ‘imperialists’ they join a long line from the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the Portuguese, to the British, to the USA, to the Russians to the Globalist corporations.

Not one of them did anything other than to benefit themselves.

Africa was better under colonization.

Yes like all ‘imperialists’ they join a long line from the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the Portuguese, to the British, to the USA, to the Russians to the Globalist corporations.

Not one of them did anything other than to benefit themselves.[/quote]

I don’t get it. What’s your point? :laughing:

I guess China missed the “Enlightened” course in World Nation College.

I find what China is doing pretty cool. I just wish I could get in on the action.

The Worldly West only wants to fight for and against the African nations, or bring them blankets and old clothes and foodstuff.

China is bringing jobs and making, surely, a killing. I wish more US companies would do the same.

[quote=“Anubis”]Or perhaps, the Chinese have a more sinister motive, maybe they’re in search of something else… things like raw materials, oil, diamonds, copper, etc., … the things they need to sustain their economy.

[/quote]

The nail on the head … this is a no-brainer …

Africa was better under colonization.[/quote]

It would be interesting to see the reaction to TC’s statement.

I for one, am tempted to agree.

[quote=“jdsmith”]

The Worldly West only wants to fight for and against the African nations, or bring them blankets and old clothes and foodstuff. [/quote]

And perpetual debt C/O the IMF and World Bank loan sharks.

China isn’t doing anything other than to benefit itself.
If there were no resources they’d be gone like a rat up a drain pipe.

Tainan Cowboy, you’re right. Without colonialization, they never would have access to Western practices like apartheid and international slavery.

Frank, perhaps you should read up alittle on slavery.

Western practice?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Perhaps you should read my posts a little more closely. It says “international slavery.”

You wrote “Western practices like apartheid and international slavery.”

Fuzzy prose equals fuzzy thinking.

I stand by my prose. Western culture is responsible for the international slave trade that took slaves from Africa and sent them to the Americas, the Caribbean, etc. Slavery goes back a long time, as you so eruditely pointed out. So does western culture. Without western influence, slavery on the african continent would have remained a local phenomenon as opposed to an international one.

If all you have to contribute to the discussion is criticism of my grammar, I suggest you read this comic:

You’re blathering sonny. France, Spain and Italy lost close to one-fifth of their populations to the White slave trade operating out of Africa between the 16th and 18th Centuries. I suggest you actually read up on the subject before you make yourself look even more idiotic.

Your grammar sucks, regardless of what your employer might think. Stick to reading comics, maybe they’ll improve your writing.