What's new

IS CHINA THE NEW COLONIAL POWER???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
848
Reaction score
0
IS CHINA THE NEW COLONIAL POWER???
Conal Walsh
THE OBSERVER , LONDON
Wednesday, Nov 01, 2006, Page 9

Once the targets of rioting and insurrection in Africa were European colonial overlords. Today, though, jet-setting Chinese businessmen, arriving in ever greater numbers, are causing a backlash in the world's poorest continent.
Zambia was the scene of the latest trouble early last month, when Chinese shopkeepers in the capital Lusaka were forced to use barricades to protect themselves from looters at the culmination of a bitter election contest fought largely on the issue of China's alleged "exploitation" of the southern African country.

Opposition leader Michael Sata won nearly a third of the vote after accusing the Chinese of making Zambia a "dumping ground for their human beings," and across Africa there is growing alarm, as well as excitement, at China's burgeoning financial and political involvement.

The perils and rewards of Beijing's engagement with Africa are well illustrated in Zambia, where Lusaka's community of Chinese entrepreneurs, diplomats and technicians has grown tenfold to about 30,000 in the past decade.

`Across Africa there is growing alarm, as well as excitement, at China's burgeoning financial and political involvement.'

Investment from China has resurrected the country's moribund Chambishi copper mine, raising the promise of vital revenue. But miners have protested over poor pay and dangerous working conditions, which led to dozens of deaths in an industrial accident earlier this year.

As China aggressively seeks new markets for its exports and new raw materials to feed its explosive economic growth, its involvement in Africa is increasingly the subject of heated international debate.

Just two weeks ago, Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, criticized China for ignoring human rights and environmental standards when lending to other developing countries.

Beijing, however, shows no signs of being deterred. Today and tomorrow it is hosting leaders from 48 African countries at a summit designed to cement its influence. China's trade with Africa has grown at an astonishing rate, from about US$10 billion in 2000 to an estimated US$50 billion this year.

Wei Jianguo (魏建國), a government minister, rejected Wolfowitz's criticism, arguing that China's investments were "like sending firewood in the snow" and would provide some of the world's poorest countries with the infrastructure development that they really needed.

He has a point. Chinese investors and state agencies have spent billions on roadbuilding in Kenya, a hydroelectric dam in Ghana and a mobile phone network in Ethiopia. Nigeria, where China has been snapping up oil assets, has a Mandarin-language newspaper serving 50,000 readers -- a community greater in number than the British ever were, even at the height of Empire.

Chinese investment in Africa has overtaken Britain's, and stands only behind that of France and the US.

The opening of new trade and investment corridors between developing countries -- confirmed as a growing phenomenon in UN figures released last week -- is a disconcerting sight for the old powers.

China claims with some credibility to be the champion of developing countries, and Africans are rightly suspicious of finger-wagging lectures from their former colonial masters.

Even so, it is fair to say Beijing is not up with the latest thinking on development. Like Wolfowitz, Bob Geldof, the Live 8 campaigner, has warned that attempts to stamp out corruption in Africa risk being undermined by soft loans and naked mercantilism from China.

The country's banks do not adhere to Western banks' environmentally-conscious "Equator Principles" of lending, and its companies are not required to be transparent about their deals with African dictators.

Beijing cynically sold arms to both sides in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It has swooped on investment opportunities in countries shunned by the West, such as Zimbabwe and Sudan. Its close relationship with Khartoum appears to have played a role in the UN's failure to take serious action against Sudan in relation to massacres in Darfur.

Human Rights Watch has condemned Beijing's attitude.

"China can't continue to protect human rights abusers at the expense of civilians just because it is profitable to do so," says Peter Takirambudde, the group's Africa director.

It is also claimed that some local industries are being snuffed out by cheap Chinese imports. Overall, however, Africa's annual GDP growth is a healthy 6 percent, and some experts suggest the economic benefits that China brings outweigh even the political risks.

"Chinese companies are building roads and hospitals, and generally going where Western companies do not dare to go," says Feng Zhang, an analyst at the Foreign Policy Center think tank in London.

"I understand the concern over human rights but so far China's interest has been very good for Africa," he says.
 
. .
IS CHINA THE NEW COLONIAL POWER???
Conal Walsh
THE OBSERVER , LONDON
Wednesday, Nov 01, 2006, Page 9

Once the targets of rioting and insurrection in Africa were European colonial overlords. Today, though, jet-setting Chinese businessmen, arriving in ever greater numbers, are causing a backlash in the world's poorest continent.
Zambia was the scene of the latest trouble early last month, when Chinese shopkeepers in the capital Lusaka were forced to use barricades to protect themselves from looters at the culmination of a bitter election contest fought largely on the issue of China's alleged "exploitation" of the southern African country.

Opposition leader Michael Sata won nearly a third of the vote after accusing the Chinese of making Zambia a "dumping ground for their human beings," and across Africa there is growing alarm, as well as excitement, at China's burgeoning financial and political involvement.

The perils and rewards of Beijing's engagement with Africa are well illustrated in Zambia, where Lusaka's community of Chinese entrepreneurs, diplomats and technicians has grown tenfold to about 30,000 in the past decade.

`Across Africa there is growing alarm, as well as excitement, at China's burgeoning financial and political involvement.'

Investment from China has resurrected the country's moribund Chambishi copper mine, raising the promise of vital revenue. But miners have protested over poor pay and dangerous working conditions, which led to dozens of deaths in an industrial accident earlier this year.

As China aggressively seeks new markets for its exports and new raw materials to feed its explosive economic growth, its involvement in Africa is increasingly the subject of heated international debate.

Just two weeks ago, Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, criticized China for ignoring human rights and environmental standards when lending to other developing countries.

Beijing, however, shows no signs of being deterred. Today and tomorrow it is hosting leaders from 48 African countries at a summit designed to cement its influence. China's trade with Africa has grown at an astonishing rate, from about US$10 billion in 2000 to an estimated US$50 billion this year.

Wei Jianguo (魏建國), a government minister, rejected Wolfowitz's criticism, arguing that China's investments were "like sending firewood in the snow" and would provide some of the world's poorest countries with the infrastructure development that they really needed.

He has a point. Chinese investors and state agencies have spent billions on roadbuilding in Kenya, a hydroelectric dam in Ghana and a mobile phone network in Ethiopia. Nigeria, where China has been snapping up oil assets, has a Mandarin-language newspaper serving 50,000 readers -- a community greater in number than the British ever were, even at the height of Empire.

Chinese investment in Africa has overtaken Britain's, and stands only behind that of France and the US.

The opening of new trade and investment corridors between developing countries -- confirmed as a growing phenomenon in UN figures released last week -- is a disconcerting sight for the old powers.

China claims with some credibility to be the champion of developing countries, and Africans are rightly suspicious of finger-wagging lectures from their former colonial masters.

Even so, it is fair to say Beijing is not up with the latest thinking on development. Like Wolfowitz, Bob Geldof, the Live 8 campaigner, has warned that attempts to stamp out corruption in Africa risk being undermined by soft loans and naked mercantilism from China.

The country's banks do not adhere to Western banks' environmentally-conscious "Equator Principles" of lending, and its companies are not required to be transparent about their deals with African dictators.

Beijing cynically sold arms to both sides in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It has swooped on investment opportunities in countries shunned by the West, such as Zimbabwe and Sudan. Its close relationship with Khartoum appears to have played a role in the UN's failure to take serious action against Sudan in relation to massacres in Darfur.

Human Rights Watch has condemned Beijing's attitude.

"China can't continue to protect human rights abusers at the expense of civilians just because it is profitable to do so," says Peter Takirambudde, the group's Africa director.

It is also claimed that some local industries are being snuffed out by cheap Chinese imports. Overall, however, Africa's annual GDP growth is a healthy 6 percent, and some experts suggest the economic benefits that China brings outweigh even the political risks.

"Chinese companies are building roads and hospitals, and generally going where Western companies do not dare to go," says Feng Zhang, an analyst at the Foreign Policy Center think tank in London.

"I understand the concern over human rights but so far China's interest has been very good for Africa," he says.

I don't know what to say about the irony here of China being called colonist by West nations.

February 20, 2007

Deborah Brautigam

Doing Well or Doing Good?

Africa has a long history of unhappy experiences with outside powers coming to exploit the continent. This is the background for Adama’s concern that China is a new “imperial power” with a “colonialist project” who will “pretend to be the savior of Africa”. Once they get what they want, Adama fears, they are then likely to “forget about Africa.”

Adama, we should be wary of slotting the China-Africa relationship into categories we know from the colonial period or the Cold War. There is no evidence that China is trying to carve up Africa or form cozy relationships with a few proxy states that bow to its ideology or grant it military bases. They may be sending hard-nosed, profit-oriented investors, but China does not demand that African countries grant it imperial preferences, captive markets, or land.

I respect and share Adama’s concerns that China’s neutrality about dreadful dictators in places like Zimbabwe or Sudan makes no contribution to regime change in these countries. Chinese leaders have repeatedly stressed the principle of “mutual noninterference in domestic affairs” since the Asian-African Bandung Conference in 1955. But be careful, Adama, what you wish for. Do you really want to see a China that interferes in the domestic affairs of African countries?

Is China an “unreliable partner,” as Adama charges? I disagree. China did not “forget about Africa” after 1978. China’s top leaders made high level visits to Africa in 1979 (Li Xiannian), 1982-83 (Zhao Ziyang), 1984, 1997, 1999, 2001 (Li Peng), 1992 (Yang Shangkun), 1996, 2000, and 2002 (Jiang Zemin), and 2002 (Zhu Rongji - twice). Vice-premier Qian Qichen visited more than thirty-six African countries between 1990 and 1998. We just weren’t paying attention.

During these years, China also kept up an active menu of aid projects in more than forty-five African countries. Their annual aid commitments in Africa sometimes surpassed those of Japan, Norway, Sweden, and even Britain. The flurry of activity we see today has deep roots.

Adama is right that the Chinese are not “philanthropists.” But they never claimed to be. Since the days of Zhou Enlai, Chinese leaders have repeatedly said that their aid program is not a form of charity but based on “mutual benefit.” One rarely sees this kind of frankness in aid programs of the West.

All good relationships involve communication. I see some signs that China is listening. When South Africa complained about the “tsunami” of textiles from China, Beijing agreed to voluntary export restraints. When Zambian workers rioted at Chinese-owned mines, Chinese officials openly criticized the owners’ labor practices. There are clearly rocky areas in this relationship, but on balance, I see more on the positive side of the ledger here. Yes, the Chinese are certainly doing well by Africa. It is up to Africans to ensure that the net result for them, too, is good.
 
. .
Starting a topic on a 2006 article?

I think CapAm here is trying to grasp anything that can be used to bash China with. He just got a slap on the face by his own government by not sending the carrier into the Yellow Sea.
 
.
I think CapAm here is trying to grasp anything that can be used to bash China with. He just got a slap on the face by his own government by not sending the carrier into the Yellow Sea.

leave them man is really china care articles?:P
 
.
What's the point of posting a four year old article and that too in a wrong section.

Closed.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom