- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
if you want to see a debt trap in action take a quick glance at the IMF.
argentina sends its regards.
I’m glad we cleared that up
deleted by creator
Well I mean… I sure hope not. I personally don’t see any reason to think it’s anything other than China trying to gain support from nations that are on the fence or don’t care about them, which to be clear is not a bad thing. They’re free to pursue any relations they desire, and the other nations are free to do the same. Hopefully the politicians involved are truly working for the betterment of both countries.
That said, the person making the shady deal would clearly say “it’s not a shady deal”, and the person duped by aforementioned shady deal would obviously not want to admit being duped by said shady deal. So everyone involved has every reason to say this anyway.
In other words: a lot of words to ultimately say nothing. Much like this comment.
China’s interest is in “win-win” deals, only one aspect of which is building good will. What they are investing in is infrastructure, things that other countries can build on to become more developed and secure trading partners. A country needs a (better) port to send and receive goods from China, or from a constellation if countries not attempting to isolate China and thus extend their Imperialist regimes. It’s not charity but it is a fantastically better way of doing things than the usual alternative of neoliberal loan terms. It results in actual ports, rail lines, power plants, etc.
I think the port (and even just railways) argument is a little poor, imperialists absolutely build big and good ports so they can efficiently extract a country’s resources, and use railways to connect the inland mines and what not to the ports. Basically, both China and the west have built railways in the global south, but the real difference comes from when you look at a map of the railways built: the west has always built railways nearly exclusively from inland at the locations of mining towns and towns located near other valuable resources to heighten the efficiency of their resource extraction but China builds railroads from inland city to inland city and from port to port, making internal economic development easier and easier for the country.
Yes, absolutely. Full agreement.
I have the same sentiment but here it is in my own terms. Ports are a tool of trade and can be used in favor of imperialists or against them or at least in a way that creates more independence. I do think there is a qualitative difference in associated development and loan terms here, though. Loans for ports foisted by Imperialists come with conditions that more or less convert an entire country’s economy into an extraction economy with unequal exchange, e.g. petrostates, mining states, cheap exploited labor states. With China it is just the port with decent loan terms. And as you mention, associated development lines up with building productive forces within the country rather than subordinating all of production to (neo)colonial extraction.
Hmmm, it might not be, but it’s still within the interests of the chinese state. Let’s say the CCP actually wanted Africa to succeed. They may see the ascendance of Africa into something close to first world conditions as beneficial to them, as now they would have this history of benevolence and investments with a market away from the US, thus slowly chipping away at their reliance to the west.
but it’s still within the interests of the chinese state
Obviously lmao. Why the hell would a country do something for no reason
The more Africa develops with Chinese cooperation, the more China gets access to wealthier markets to sell stuff to that they have good relations with.
Why the hell would a country do something for no reason
This is kinda astounding posting and i read it all the time everywhere. On one side we have western imperialists shamelessly and openly looting Africa for centuries, but liberals will suddenly expect China to just do one sided transactions that only cause them loss? And make it the implicit or explicit “both sides bad” argument? It’s also usually from the proponents of capitalism and free trade, which is in theory supposed to benefit both sides.
Right, of course not
