Even the NY Times seems to have finally noticed China's move into supporting any African government which will sign trade deals with them.
China isn't the first outside industrial power to behave badly in Africa. But it should not be proud of following the West's sorry historical example.
And what exactly do we think anyone's going to do about it? We'll shake our head as we watch the millions die on TV and the dictators steal as much as they can, but at the end of the day we will do - nothing. We might send a little cash and dump our agricultural surplus onto their markets, but then we'll say there's nothing else to do. Ain't it all so depressing...
The stealing and the deaths are already happening, with or without PRC involvement. We are not doomed to repeat the past unless we ignore it and fail to learn any lessons.
One of the points I was trying to make was that the PRC is going down a path similar in some ways to the past history of Western powers in Africa. Another of the points I was trying to make was that some (including me and others here on Newsvine) have been talking about this effort by the PRC for quite a while now, but only recently have the Times and other news organs in the West "noticed" what has been going on.
PRC policies appear to be focused on securing their energy sources for the near-term future. I think PRC leaders realize pretty clearly that any slowdown in economic growth and expansion in China spell unrest and severe socio-political problems for their society in general and for the Party specifically.
Their modernization efforts absolutely require energy sources, and they are coming up on outstripping their local resource capabilities. They need stability and energy for continued growth. Like other societies in the past, they see growth with no limits as their "ticket" to the Party having any future.
Two very good points, Jeffs. The Chinese Communist Party is determined to maintain their grip on China and see economic growth as the ticket. No Glasnost here, thank you very much. Secondly, they are determined to secure energy and other natural resources, and care just as little as the rest of the world about what human rights abuses the providers of those resources may commit.
On a related note, why is South Africa so eager to help Mugabe? At least Chirac had the decency not to invite Mugabe to the big Africa conference he just held. France must not have any significant investments in the country...
why is South Africa so eager to help Mugabe?
IMHO, this is realpolitik gone mad in Africa. South African papers have begun commenting on how African governmental attempts to remain "in solidarity" with Mugabe may finally be ending (as in this article).
The current Franco-African summit in Cannes does not include Mugabe, because of an EU ban on his travel in Europe.
Africans are not boycotting in solidarity with Mugabe [...] 43 heads of state or government are attending the summit [...] The snub of Mugabe represents a marked change from the last France-African summit in France in 2003, when Chirac controversially waived the EU travel ban to allow Mugabe to attend.
An EU-Africa summit scheduled for Portugal has been "postponed indefinitely" since 2003 over this very issue. There is some speculation in the press that the strong attendance at the current summit in Cannes may indicate support for Mugabe by other African leaders is slowly ending.
Thanks for the link - it's the first good Zim news I've seen in ages!
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |