Quote:
Originally Posted by george.d
I was trying to speak in comparison as to what the US offers Africa. China offers economic gain, how each country utilizes that gain is the non-interference policy.
|
I don't see China offering much gain as I explained above. China gets access to African markets, but African suppliers cannot compete in the Chinese market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by george.d
The US normally demands any trade agreement or development loan be met with adherence to US policy on governmental ideology, installation of US military facilities with complete disregard for local culture and ideology. Kind of an our way, one size fits all or the road offering as in the colonial days.
|
I don't agree with that. I believe we have free trade agreements with most countries. Let's use Brazil, India and South Africa as examples. So, if we have free trade agreements with them, where are these US-military facilities in those countries? Where have they signed onto our "governmental ideology" as you've claimed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by george.d
We're still in that nation building mode when limited natural resources are at stake, which common sense says should override our desire for economic imperialism.
|
This comment doesn't make much sense, not to me anyway. Although I'm not signing on to your economic imperialism argument, even if I did, this sentence contradicts itself. You juxtapose economic imperialism with the quest for scarce resources, when those are actually synonymous things.