I would say that I agree with the analysis of the article.

I do not agree with george's comment that China's exchanges with Africa will be a boon for Africa. It will mostly help China. China will get Africa's natural resources and access to Africa's markets. She will provide loans, which only help corrupt governments and will probably be squandered for Presidential palaces. African countries have little chance of penetrating the Chinese market, while China penetrates theirs.

I think the exchange probably hurts Africa a bit more than it helps.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

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.

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?

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.

I think the exchange probably hurts Africa a bit more than it helps.

I disagree there. I've always felt that the cries of economic imperialism from Third World countries and the left have simply been bitching that they aren't getting enough money out of the deal. Most Third World countries simply do not have the expertise to exploit their own resources. So they need outside help. Sure, they get bad terms, but then so would you if you found out you had oil or uranium in your backyard. That wealth in the ground is worth zilch if you can't get it out of the ground. So naturally, you aren't in much of a position to bargain with those who can get it out. And who will do all the investing and take all of the risk while you get free money because you were lucky enough to have valuable stuff in your backyard.

I think that in terms of raw economics, what China is doing in Africa is a great thing for both countries. I'm all in favor of it. THe part I don't like is where China teaches African nations how to get rich while still maintaining oppressive political systems.

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.


Part of that is domestic politics, and part of that is that we don't want to give money and have it go down the drain. We don't give money domestically without strings, we sure aren't going to give it to foreign governments without strings. If they don't want the strings, they don't have to take the money.

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?


Actually, we have free trade with none of those as of yet. Both we and they still impose tarriffs and quotas on each others' goods.

__________________
chicken butt

China will import African resources and export supply consmer goods to Africa, is that not trade?

Those countries are considered democracies, the US criterion for favorable government ideology and exempt from any US desired regime change.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to China using trade with non-interference compared to US nation building. I'd think most of Africa would prefer trusting trade to colonial era nation building.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

It was never a question of whether trade was occurring or not.

This caveat wasn't mentioned earlier.

I wasn't aware of any US plans to do nation-building in African countries. Even if there were, we have no plans to do so to any more than a handful of the worst ones, so this comparison is a comparison between something that exists, and something that does not even exist in any realistic plan. In other words, the comparison you make is between what China is doing and a strawman for US policy.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. The left is mad that they aren't making money from doing trade with third world countries? Is everything the left believes in due to anger at them not making profits from whatever the issue is? ..... lol

There's no risk involved with natural resources. It's sheer exploitation. The oil company takes the oil out of the ground. There's no risk involved in selling oil.

However, this is not what I was arguing. The issue here, IMO, is African domestic industries being wiped out by Chinese ones, and what does Africa get out of it? If I were a policy maker in any African country, I would definetely shield my countries economy from being reduced into a colonial economy that merely supplies raw materials.

I think that the raw materials thing is fine. We need more commodities on the world market since China is consuming so many now. I too disagree with the giving of soft loans and other gifts which entrench despots in power. I also think that African countries cannot freely compete against China. That will ruin them.

They cannot compete with China. They need a heavily modified and nuanced plan for international trade.

Moreso than we do with say, China?

This doesn't make a lot of sense. The left is mad that they aren't making money from doing trade with third world countries? Is everything the left believes in due to anger at them not making profits from whatever the issue is? ..... lol


I meant the left is mad on behalf of Third World Countries.

There's no risk involved with natural resources. It's sheer exploitation. The oil company takes the oil out of the ground. There's no risk involved in selling oil.


Sure there is. Prices fluctuate, you have to build the infrastrucure, and there are risks like oil fires, accidents, etc. Those things can cost money. Now granted, resource exploitation isn't risky like a tech or pharma company is risky, but energy companies can and do screw up and fail. Bush was on the board of one such company, Harken Energy.

For the entity that owns the oil but can't exploit it, there is no risk. They get royalties no matter what.

However, this is not what I was arguing. The issue here, IMO, is African domestic industries being wiped out by Chinese ones, and what does Africa get out of it? If I were a policy maker in any African country, I would definetely shield my countries economy from being reduced into a colonial economy that merely supplies raw materials.


There is no economic benefit in the longterm to shielding uncompetitive businesses from competition. Not much in the short term either. All you really do is preserve jobs. At the cost of future innovation and current consumer prices.

Yes, in the short term, Chinese companies will wipe out most African competition. But good African companies will prosper. And many Chinese-owned companies will want to build infrastructure in Africa, which will provide jobs and educate the next generation of African businessmen.

Without this trade, Africa is doomed to be where it is now for a very, very, long time.

They cannot compete with China. They need a heavily modified and nuanced plan for international trade.



They can compete in areas where they have comparative advantage. Such as agriculture and livestock. IF China opens their markets to African goods. Therein lies the problem. China is taking advantage of the world in the same way Japan did. But in the end, you pay the piper. Restrictive import policies will only harm China in the long run, because Chinese businesses will grow fat and complacent in the absence of real competition. China is an emerging economy so everyone is hungry now, but eventually they'll end up like Japan in the absence of real competition.

Moreso than we do with say, China?


China has Most Favored Nation trading status. It's not free trade like we have with Mexico and Canada, but it is better than the terms we give the countries you mentioned. Although one or two of them might have MFN status and I just don't know it.

__________________
chicken butt

BTW, another risk to exploiting natural resources that I can't believe I forgot to mention is being wrong about what's actually there. My grandfather dabbled in oil for awhile. He got a contract on federal property where his people said there was X amount of oil, and he paid on that basis. Turns out there wasn't a whole lot oil and his little venture was a failure.

__________________
chicken butt

Man, let's get a deal. If America fix Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, China will fix Sudan, Angola and Zimbabwe. How is this??