Log in

View Full Version : Is China Africa's new imperialist power?



Connolly
6th January 2007, 21:23
Is China Africa's new imperialist power?

by Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt


Revolutionaries in Anglophone Africa have always seen Britain and France as the dominant imperialist powers on the continent, but other forces are emerging from the shadows to challenge their continued post-colonial dominance - and it’s not just the United States.

Southern African anarchist-communists would normally see the former British colony of South Africa as acting as a sub-imperialist power on behalf of the big capitalist powers and its own capitalist ruling class in the region, a sort of regional policeman as it were: if British interests in Swaziland are threatened by the democracy movement, we are sure that South African military might will intervene (as it did against Lesotho in 1998) to shore up the Swazi elite.

But the international scene is changing and today we can chart the rise of the People’s Republic of China as one of Africa’s most powerful kingmakers, whether backing the genocidal regime in Khartoum, or embarking on large-scale building projects including the new Luanda airport (in exchange for 10,000 barrels of crude oil a day) and the Number One Stadium in Kinshasa, a city that with its giant gold statue of a fat, Mao-like Laurent-Desire Kabila is looking like a city on the Yangtze River instead of the Congo (the DRC's mimicry of the Chinese national flag, before adopting a new flag this year, was too obvious to miss).

STATE CAPITALISM

Unlike the old Soviet Union, China has managed to engineer a successful transition from closed State-capitalism (the Maoist era) towards an export-orientated neo-liberal model. Its rapid economic growth and cheap goods - overseen by the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP - may see the country overtake the US as the largest manufacturing power worldwide by 2010.

This capitalist boom has been built on the back of a brutal suppression of the working class and peasantry. Strikes are illegal, dissidents are murdered, and the top 20% of households earn 42% of total urban incomes while the poorest 20% receive just 6%.

There has been a sharp rise in class struggle, with strikes rising from 8,150 in 1992 to 120,000 in 1999. Last year residents of the village of Huaxi, Zhejiang province, battled the police and local officials in hand-to-hand combat in April and drove them off. In December, hundreds of villagers armed with dynamite and petrol-bombs attacked police in Dongzhou, Guandong province, after police killed 20 villagers who had protested against land seized to build a power plant. A source close to the CCP central committee revealed last year that some 3-million workers took part in protests last year.

This is a country where the official monthly minimum wage is US$63 (compare that to US$45 to US$55 in rural and urban Vietnam, respectively, levels won by Vietnamese workers last year by embarking on wildcat strikes against their communist bosses), which has probably the worst mining fatality record in the world (the official Xhinhua News Agency figure is 5,986 dead in coal mines alone in 2005, resulting in some cases in miners armed with dynamite attacking their bosses), and multinational sweat-shop operations such as Nike and McDonalds setting up operations in special “economic exclusion zones”.

While terror and repression fuel China’s economy, the country’s capitalist ruling class looks outwards for cheap labour, raw materials and fuel supplies. Africa, economically sidelined in the world economic crisis starting in the 1970s, has suddenly become hot property. In 2005, the overall African economy grew at 5% - it’s fastest in decades - as demand for African raw materials shot up, with Chinese demand playing a key role. The 1980s and 1990s saw Africa fall off the investment map, with Africa getting less than 1% of all private direct investment to “third world” countries in 1995. Chinese (and South African) capitalists have increasingly taken the gap, and the trend is reversing.

CHINA IN AFRICA

China clandestinely traded with apartheid South Africa despite its funding of liberation movements in the country and in neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe. Formal relations with South Africa were re-established in 1998.

According to Martin Davies, the director for the Centre for Chinese Studies at Stellenbosch University (and a businessman with interests in Shanghai), last year, trade between China and Africa soared to US$35-million, with Chinese investment primarily centred on the oil industry, especially in Nigeria, Angola, Sudan and Equatorial Guinea.

Grim conditions in these countries have hardly worried the Chinese dictatorship: whether it is the total lack of democracy in Equatorial Guinea, the state-driven race-war in Sudan, or the fact that the blatant theft of oil wealth by the ruling cliques in Angola and Nigeria has fuelled conflict, with UNITA and the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, respectively trying to win back a slice of the pie.

So it will come as no surprise that Chinese helicopter gunships have been used against civilians in Darfur, according to human rights activists. China - which maintains an electronic listening post on the Comores - gave Sudan massive military aid between 1996 and 2003, including jet fighter aircraft, shipped tons of arms to Ethiopia and Eritrea prior to the outbreak of their border war in 1998, and has sold jets, military aircraft and radio-jamming equipment (to prevent outside broadcasts being heard inside the country) to the Zimbabwean regime.

SOUTH AFRICA

China has greased its imperialist wheels in Africa by scrapping over US$1-billion in debt owed by 32 African countries and the SABC reported this year that South Africa’s trade with China is growing at 26% annually.

South Africa is China’s largest trade partner in Africa, with trade growing 400% over the last six years. South Africa supplies iron ore and other raw materials, and receives manufactured goods - and a new trade agreement will see China limit textile exports but strengthen co-operation in areas like nuclear energy. Meanwhile, South Africa’s trade with traditional partners like Britain is shrinking.

However, the importance of relations with China is relatively limited, given the strength and diversity of South African capitalism. On the other hand, Chinese investment looms very large in weak economies like those of Equatorial Guinea. China’s interest in securing direct raw material supplies - for example, oil outside the OPEC cartel - means we can expect these relations to intensify, and African elites to solidify their links with the East Asian power. Africa now provides around 30% of China’s oil imports.

SOLIDARITY OR XENOPHOBIA

But what does all this investment in guns, ore and oil mean? COSATU has reacted with alarm to a deal struck between the South African and Chinese governments, warning that with the country flooded with cheap imported Chinese clothing (a 480% increase since 2003), the already-fragile domestic textile industry (62,000 jobs lost in the same period) could collapse.

COSATU leaders were embarrassed last year when members of their affiliated SA Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union demonstrated against the fact that the congress’ red T-shirts were made in China. Many mainland Chinese textile operations have relocated to Africa in order to by-pass European and American quotas on Chinese imports, but they have often brought with them brutal working conditions. At the same time, COSATU and its ally, the SACP continue to praise China as a socialist country.

Neither position is correct. COSATU’s “Buy South Africa” campaign will do nothing to stop cheap Chinese imports. It promotes anti-Chinese racism and feeds into the poisonous xenophobia that afflicts the local working class. It also suggests that all South Africans, capitalists and workers alike, have a common interest. Nothing is further from the truth: South African capitalists are not the friends of South African workers.

Further, the ANC’s GEAR policy promotes free trade, so there is no prospect of the wave of imports subsiding in meaningful terms. COSATU is left with making futile appeals to the morals and patriotism of the South African ruling class - appeals that will achieve nothing. South African capitalists are developing a pact with Chinese capitalists: if these rivals can unite, why can’t the working class learn the lesson, and defend Chinese labour?

THE “CORE OF ENTERPRISES”

As we have noted in these pages before, both GEAR and NEPAD aim at attracting more trade and more foreign investment, and China fits both bills. Meanwhile, Intelligence Minister (and ageing Young Communist League politburo member) Ronnie Kasrils enthused in a glossy book China Through the Third Eye: South African Perspectives - funded by the China Chamber of Commerce and Industry in SA - that China’s building boom, including the controversial Three Dams project on the Yangtze that will displace 1-million people, “is a construction engineers’ dream”. This is a good thing, it seems: “If China is to remain a sustainable economy, it has to speed the transition from a rural to an urban society, from an agricultural to an industrial economy.”

Chief state spin-doctor Joel Netshitenzhe claimed in the same book that “South Africa and China share mutual goals as both countries are committed to ensuring a better life for all their citizens. Both aim to lower the levels of poverty.” Given the state-enforced poverty of the Chinese people, one wonders what Netshitenzhe has in mind when he praised the role of the Chinese state propaganda machine for “the rigour and focus with which China uses information to mobilise people around common objectives and a shared vision…”

A chill settles in one’s bones when one reads him hailing the “diversity of voices” in the Chinese media, while studiously ignoring state censorship and the complicity of Western search engines such as Yahoo in helping China jail political dissidents.

The view of SACP deputy secretary general and one-man think-tank Jeremy Cronin is even more revealing. The SACP, terrified that the bubble of “real, existing socialism” was washing down the drain with the restructuring of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China, sent a delegation there in 2001 to check things out.

Cronin and his delegation were clearly wowed by their CCP hosts: he quotes a 1999 central committee document that “The public-ownership economy, which includes the State-owned economy, is the economic basis of China’s socialist system… China must always rely on and bring into full play the important role of the SOEs to develop the productive forces of the socialist society and realise the country’s industrialisation and modernisation…” China, it seems, is socialist as well as capitalist! What are we to make of such confused thinking?

“To manage SOEs well in general, efforts must be made to establish a leadership system and organisational and managerial systems in them that conform to the law of the market economy and China’s actual situation, to strengthen the building of their leadership, to give play to the Party organisations as the political core of enterprises, and to adhere to the principle of relying on the working class wholeheartedly…” And “rely” they do, for China’s miracle is built “wholeheartedly” on exploitation and terror!

A CHANGING OF THE GUARD?

So, Chinese communism is finally revealed as nothing more than a modernisation programme guided by authoritarian marketing and management gurus who double as Party bosses! And the Party itself is revealed as a clique of commissars that rides on the working class!

Cronin admits that the delegation “did not have sufficient time to gauge the degree to which” the central committee’s stated commitment to workers’ “democratic decision-making” and “status as masters of their own enterprises” - capitalist enterprises steered by the party - but he thought it significant that these cheap words had been put on paper.

Cronin lauds the regime for the “fairly clear socialist agenda [that] shines through…” “There is no reason,” he huffs, “why markets should not exist under socialism” - a liberal interpretation that allows for the coexistence of “the emergent small and medium privately owned service sector”. Where exactly “socialism” “shines” is not clear.

From such mixed economic thinking arises a confused politics, based on industrial and market requirements rather than people’s needs, where in Cronin’s view, wage increases in the public sector, adopted purely to stimulate market demand qualify as “socialist”.

So what we have is an ANC/SACP government that is not only increasingly trading with, but ideologically inclining itself towards, the world’s last large totalitarian state, a state that is so blatantly capitalist and simultaneously anti-labour that Cronin’s skill as a poet fails to gild the brutal reality. The SACP’s state-capitalist thinking has finally manage to find, in the Chinese example, a happy marriage with neo-liberalism.

PROTECTIONISM OR CLASS STRUGGLE

Chinese goods are cheap because Chinese labour is cheap. If COSATU wants to protect local jobs - and show its commitment to the international working class struggle - it should support trade union organising in China, and step up the class struggle at home and in southern Africa. Neo-liberal capitalism thrives on pitting cheap labour in one country against even chepaer labour in another, in a race to the bottom. The only way out is international solidarity and class struggle, starting with a struggle for an international minimum wage and universal union rights.

China has a proud tradition of class struggle - and this does not mean the CCP and Mao! Back in 1913, anarcho-syndicalists built the first trade unions in Canton, rising to challenge reformist and communist unionism in all the big industrial centres such as Shanghai in the 1920s. Armed anarchist peasant movements controlled huge swathes of territory in Fukien province and in Kirin province, Manchuria, in the 1930s and anarchist guerrillas fought alongside communists in the resistance to Japanese imperialism in the 1940s.

But after the Maoist coup d’état of 1949, China’s estimated 10,000 anarchist trade unionist militants were driven underground and Makhnovist-styled guerrillas such as Chu Cha Pei were forced to retreat into the hills in Yunnan province from where they continued to harry the new ruling class headed by Mao and his entourage of warlords and state-capitalists.

As Africa increasingly becomes the back-yard of China’s oil-driven imperialism, one has to ask firstly, whether the government will try to mimic the worst aspects of China’s enforced civil peace, a development that would prove a serious challenge to our own working class.

ANARCHISM OR MARXISM?

We have no interest on following those leftists who hope for an end to “capitalist restoration” in China: China has been capitalist since Mao took power, and any Chinese revolutionary movement must jettison Marxism and its Maoist variant. Nor can we agree that China is - in fact - “socialist,” despite what SACP leaders may think.

Capitalism is a class system, and a class system means class struggles. Sooner or later China’s working class will rediscover its proud fighting tradition and take charge of its own affairs to the exclusion of parasitic Party leaders and capitalists - what is called in Chinese wuzhengfgu gonchan, or common production without government, in a word, anarchist-communism - and bury the CCP.

But until that day, there is a more serious question we have to ask, one with implications beyond our borders: will China replace Britain as South Africa’s imperialist power, a changing of the guard, so to speak - leading to South Africa embarking on military expeditions in Africa to protect Chinese capitalist interests. All serious anti-imperialists must consider and plan for the possibility of Africa becoming the future battle-ground between US-backed Western and Chinese expansionist interests, and unite the continent’s people in a battle against the oil barons.

http://www.zabalaza.net/index02.htm

Phalanx
7th January 2007, 00:10
Great article. As China goes capitalist, imperialist ambitions are inevitable, like taking Africa's resources. Right now, Africa is an imperialist 'battleground' of sorts between the United States, China, and France. France is struggling to maintain its influence over a continent it dominated for quite some time. Now, the role France plays is more based around the military, as seen in the Libya-Chad war and even the Chad-Sudan war. As they're getting bogged down in these conflicts, it's leaving a power vacuum which the United States and China are hoping to fill. The United States is also trying to leave its impression on Africa via force, while China plays almost an exclusively economic role. This is why China is doing the best out of all three imperialist powers. Naturally, most of those caught in between conflicts will support the anti-imperialist force, which is why America and France are having increasing difficulty over 'subduing' Africa, and eventually the situation will get out of their hands. This will leave China to 'pick up the pieces' and a new imperialist era will be ushered in.

Nothing Human Is Alien
7th January 2007, 00:14
Has finance capital become dominant over industrial capital in China?

Are all these conditions met in China's case?

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
[Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.]

Has this happened for China?

"The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the "geniuses" of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators." (p. 206-207)

Janus
8th January 2007, 08:34
I think that the Chinese enterprise in Africa is still too light to be considered economic imperialism at this point especially considering the fact that China has always had good economic relations with several African nations. Of course, the current policy is more directed towards pragmatism than ideology. Of course, this is more or less mirrored by the political developments in China in that as China continues to grow, it will seek to further its influence and market shares in all parts of the world. Right now, China is far behind the US and France as the largest trade partners of Africa.

Guerrilla22
8th January 2007, 18:54
I think we need to understand the definintion of imperialism here. Imperialism is controlling foreign lands/people directly or indirectly to exploit their natural resources. In this case China is simply trading or buying oil outright from these countries. There is no occupation, there is no control mechanisms.

As far as moving textile operations to South Africa, you can't really justify that, however, numerous companies in the west tap China's workforce for their own operations, while western governments impose maximum quotas on goods actaully made by Chinese companies in China, so there you go.

Severian
9th January 2007, 00:09
Originally posted by The RedBanner+January 06, 2007 03:23 pm--> (The RedBanner @ January 06, 2007 03:23 pm) Grim conditions in these countries have hardly worried the Chinese dictatorship: whether it is the total lack of democracy in Equatorial Guinea, the state-driven race-war in Sudan, or the fact that the blatant theft of oil wealth by the ruling cliques in Angola and Nigeria has fuelled conflict, with UNITA and the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, respectively trying to win back a slice of the pie.

So it will come as no surprise that Chinese helicopter gunships have been used against civilians in Darfur, according to human rights activists. China - which maintains an electronic listening post on the Comores - gave Sudan massive military aid between 1996 and 2003, including jet fighter aircraft, shipped tons of arms to Ethiopia and Eritrea prior to the outbreak of their border war in 1998, and has sold jets, military aircraft and radio-jamming equipment (to prevent outside broadcasts being heard inside the country) to the Zimbabwean regime. [/b]
Oddly, this seems to criticize China for not attaching more strings to its trade, investment and aid.

Those kind of strings are more characteristic of imperialist powers - that includes the "human rights" and similar conditions so beloved by liberal imperialists. They're usually a cloak for advancing other interests.


But until that day, there is a more serious question we have to ask, one with implications beyond our borders: will China replace Britain as South Africa’s imperialist power, a changing of the guard, so to speak - leading to South Africa embarking on military expeditions in Africa to protect Chinese capitalist interests. All serious anti-imperialists must consider and plan for the possibility of Africa becoming the future battle-ground between US-backed Western and Chinese expansionist interests, and unite the continent’s people in a battle against the oil barons.

More immediately, the U.S. is replacing Britain, France and other European powers in Africa, and the continent has become a proxy battleground between them. A number of proxy conflicts, including the 1994 Rwanda bloodshed, have this rivalry as one major factor behind them.

As for China, it's still a relatively minor player. In terms of classifying it as an imperialist country or otherwise, lemme just point out that foreign investment in China is much larger than Chinese investment abroad - especially when it comes to direct investment, like owning factories. China has a lower per capita GDP than some African countries.

But there is Chinese investment as well as trade, and ruthless exploitation of African workers in Chinese-owned businesses. One article with some specific facts on this. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7044/704404.html)


CdeL
Has finance capital become dominant over industrial capital in China?

Are all these conditions met in China's case?

State ownership is still dominant in the Chinese economy - especially in the financial sector.

Nothing Human Is Alien
9th January 2007, 02:11
Yes, I know. That was my intention of asking. I get tired of seeing the label "imperialist" thrown around so often and incorrectly. Imperialism has a specific meaning, which some comrades don't seem to realize.

Guerrilla22
9th January 2007, 22:01
Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 02:11 am
Yes, I know. That was my intention of asking. I get tired of seeing the label "imperialist" thrown around so often and incorrectly. Imperialism has a specific meaning, which some comrades don't seem to realize.
this unfortunately very true.

Edelweiss
13th January 2007, 01:04
Has finance capital become dominant over industrial capital in China?

Just a question of time.


Imperialism is controlling foreign lands/people directly or indirectly to exploit their natural resources. In this case China is simply trading or buying oil outright from these countries. There is no occupation, there is no control mechanisms.

A pretty naive approach. And plain wrong. China is owning oil fields in Nigeria for example, and this is just the beginning. Anyone favoring US imperialism over Chinese (upcoming) imperialism, in the hope that this will hurt or even stop the current capitalist system only to the slightest, or will change anything positively, is a fool and hasn't understood anything about how capitalism works. It's just the same foolness as supporting EU imperialism/nationalism over US imperialism.

refuse_resist
18th January 2007, 01:27
Who are the "neo-colonialists" in Africa?

In recent years, China and African countries have been making great efforts to establish a new strategic partnership with political equality and mutual trust, economic cooperation and cultural exchange. Both sides have made unprecedented achievements through mutually beneficial cooperation. However, some Western media have attempted to discredit Sino-African relations by propagating their African version of the "China threat theory".

Among other things, they preach that China is trying to impose a kind of neo-colonialism on Africa and that they are plundering Africa's resources. This is an attempt to drive a wedge between China and African countries and to destroy the Sino-Africa Cooperation. These statements lack historical basis and don't reflect the reality. Its deep-seated purpose is to obstruct Chinese enterprises from accessing the African market and safeguard the interests of Western countries in Africa.

It is well know that Western colonial powers committed numerous crimes including slavery in their exploitation of Africa. At a conference in Berlin in 1885, European powers secretly divided up Africa between them and rewrote the map of Africa by setting up about 50 colonies and protectorates. In addition to trade and military control, European powers also gradually molded African countries into their material suppliers and product-dumping markets. This too can be used as a measure of exploitation. It resulted in single and abnormal economic structures in many countries, thereby having a long-term impact on the sustainable economic development of these nations.

European colonial powers also introduced new languages and new clans to Africa, which created ethnic conflicts, incited religious dissent and provoked religious conflict, thereby undermining the traditional African social and economic order. As a result, African countries have been in a poor and backward state since they were granted independence. Even today, those industries which are of utmost importance to African countries' economic lifeline ¨C such as heavy industry, mining and manufacturing ¨C are manipulated by Western multinational corporations. From 1840 China suffered under colonial aggression, and thus has many common grievances with African countries. China and Africa have never come into conflict. Instead, they have a tradition of friendship and cooperation.

Facts speak louder than words. It was the Western powers that brutally colonized and frenziedly plundered African resources.

Since the 9/11 attacks, Western countries have adjusted their policies toward Africa. However, they started to attach greater importance to African countries because of the significance of its resources. The proportion of African oil imported by the United States has risen to 16 percent and is expected to hit 25 percent by 2015. Nigeria is Africa's largest oil producer and the world's sixth largest oil exporter. However 95 percent of its daily oil output is under the control of Western oil companies.

In order to maximize profits in Niger Delta oil-producing areas, major Western oil companies reduced spending on infrastructure construction. Frequent pipeline ruptures have led to the spontaneous combustion of oil spill fire. Large areas of farmland and forest have been burned to ashes. Thick smoke has generated heavy pollution in the air, soil and rivers. Surrounding residents cannot even drink clean water. Long-term exploitation by Western companies has led to recurrent violence in the area. Since the second half of last year, the unstable situation in this region has become the major reason for the rise in international crude oil prices. The predatory exploitation of African resources by Western transnational corporations is a blatant example of the so-called "economic colonialism" of Africa, which Western media have been accusing China of so enthusiastically.

In the 50 years since China and African nations established diplomatic relations, they have been pursuing a plan for peaceful development, consistently stressing the democratization of international relations and developing friendly relations based on the principles of respect for sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit.

China has always provided assistance to Africa without attaching any political strings or special requirements. It has also respected the sovereignty of African nations. This has won wide acclaim from African countries and peoples. Today, the major reason that China and African countries have been able to become all-weather friends, sincere partners, and close friends, is that they all understand the pain of colonialism and the importance of fighting against it. History has shown that China's policy on Africa differs markedly from that of Western colonialists, past or present. Commenting on the hearsay being spread by Western media, visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said this: "No one can claim China is practicing neo-colonialism in Africa."

By People's Daily Online
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/2...626_277401.html (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/26/eng20060626_277401.html)

Edelweiss
18th January 2007, 01:55
Some superficial piece of Chinese governmental propaganda. Very convincing indeed... ;)

Spirit of Spartacus
18th January 2007, 07:01
Well, while I don't exactly agree that China is an imperialist power (at the moment), there is one thing...

Malte is right about the article quoted from the People's Daily Online.

It appears to be a very bad attempt at refuting allegations of neo-colonialism. There is a deliberate attempt to direct attention towards the Western powers and their neo-colonialist activities in China, and the only refutation of the allegations against CHINA is a quote.

A quote by Wen Jibao. <_<

Severian
18th January 2007, 07:43
Originally posted by Malte+January 12, 2007 07:04 pm--> (Malte @ January 12, 2007 07:04 pm)
Has finance capital become dominant over industrial capital in China?

Just a question of time.

[/b]
Also it&#39;s "just a matter of time" before we all die and the sun goes out.

Making offhand predictions, which may or may not be accurate, does not substitute for a serious analysis of the world situation today.


some PRC propaganda mouthpiece
In order to maximize profits in Niger Delta oil-producing areas, major Western oil companies reduced spending on infrastructure construction....Long-term exploitation by Western companies has led to recurrent violence in the area.

Chinese companies have also been the target of Nigerian protest - recently 4 Chinese telecom employees were abducted.

Chinese mining companies have also (http://www.hermes-press.com/africans_protest.htm) maintained hideous conditions for workers and provoked protest and fightback.

Guerrilla22
18th January 2007, 18:15
A pretty naive approach. And plain wrong. China is owning oil fields in Nigeria for example, and this is just the beginning. Anyone favoring US imperialism over Chinese (upcoming) imperialism, in the hope that this will hurt or even stop the current capitalist system only to the slightest, or will change anything positively, is a fool and hasn&#39;t understood anything about how capitalism works. It&#39;s just the same foolness as supporting EU imperialism/nationalism over US imperialism.

Actually, China is buying stakes in pre-existing oil operations, meaning they&#39;re securing oil, or buying it, Chinese companies aren&#39;t actually on the grounf there. again, I think people need to realize what the definition of imperialism is, before they start throwing the word around. Its not necessarily ethical, but far from imperialism.

synthesis
19th January 2007, 08:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:34 am
Chinese enterprise in Africa is still too light to be considered economic imperialism at this point especially considering the fact that China has always had good economic relations with several African nations.
This is only partially true. One of the key facets of neo-colonialism is fostering dependence and China has been doing this in certain underhanded ways, especially regarding architecture and technology. For example, in Ghana there were several important government buildings, built on loaned money and skill from the Chinese, which had been in a state of extreme disrepair for several years because only the Chinese architects knew how to repair the building. It&#39;s a small example, but you get the idea.

Cheung Mo
19th January 2007, 22:29
As soon as someone in Africa tries genuine socialism, Beijing will do the same for that someone&#39;s oppnents as they did for the Royal Nepal Army: Work with the West to sell them weapons.

Janus
20th January 2007, 20:48
One of the key facets of neo-colonialism is fostering dependence and China has been doing this in certain underhanded ways, especially regarding architecture and technology. For example, in Ghana there were several important government buildings, built on loaned money and skill from the Chinese, which had been in a state of extreme disrepair for several years because only the Chinese architects knew how to repair the building.
I&#39;m not sure how that is underhanded, it&#39;s more of a technical issue than an economical one. Any country which actually uses the technology of another is thereby dependent on the technological skill of foreigners. China had a very similar thing with the USSR before the split.

JKP
11th February 2007, 09:37
It would seem that China has a greater presence than some might expect:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...6831-1,00.html

China has 4000 troops deployed in Sudan to protect its oil interests. The article baldly states -



A Chinese state-owned company owns 40% of the oil concession in the south of Sudan, and there are reportedly 4,000 Chinese troops there protecting Beijing&#39;s oil interests.


And according to this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../18/82202.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/18/82202.shtml)


David Hale, an economist who specializes in Chinese affairs, warned that the People&#39;s Liberation Army has deployed about 4,000 troops to southern Sudan. Hale stated in a recent speech that the Chinese troops are there to protect an oil pipeline.
The news that China is expanding its overseas forces in Sudan comes as no surprise to Eric Reeves, a human-rights activist and Professor at Smith College.
There are certainly a considerable number of Chinese troops or armed workers in southern Sudan, especially in Eastern Upper Nile. This area has been much less accessible than Western Upper Nile, site of the major producing consortium.
But it is also worth nothing that Amnesty International reported (May 2000) that they had received accounts from Western Upper Nile of armed Chinese workers, who appeared ready to use their weapons (see www.amnesty.org)," stated Reeves.
China will continue to search out new supplies of oil for the foreseeable future; petroleum consumption grows by approximately 10% a year, even as the present state of the Chinese economy makes it especially sensitive to volatility in oil prices. They are desperate for secure off-shore oil sources," noted Reeves.
Given China&#39;s utterly ruthless behavior in southern Sudan, future extraction ventures-whether in Africa or elsewhere- should be a major human rights concern," said Reeves.
The first link in the chain of Beijing&#39;s oppression is to garrison 4,000 troops in Sudan to control the access to oil. The next link is to control the seas in order to acquire the oil.

Janus
12th February 2007, 02:18
China has 4000 troops deployed in Sudan to protect its oil interests. The article baldly states -
The claims range from tens of thousands to 700,000. All of these claims of Chinese soldiers on Sudanese territory have yet to be verified.

It&#39;s highly possible that the Chinese brought in their own security teams to secure the oil fields against the rebel threats yet the scale of this is most likely exaggerated. Even 4,000 is a large force and difficult to hide especially from observers on the ground who have yet to verify this.