Chinese policy in Africa - Page 6 - Political Forum

Luke · 02-11-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by africanhope

And I have tried to make it clear - it is not interference, it is engament, and there is a huge difference.

And if, like what is happeing in Sudan, it directly influenced neighbouring countries (Chad, CAR) which destabilisez the region, which is bad for the whole continent, then yes, we will engage.

China support Chad to do whatever they have to do to stop the spreading or refugees if Chad does not like it.

Quote:

And what do you call supporting the regime? That is not interference?

If the government does not want support, and we forcibly support, that is interference.

Luke · 02-11-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

This is kind of a funny statement. China gives a few loans and all of sudden she is Mrs. Generosity. Who has given more in total aid, the UK or China? I would bet that even a tiny country like the UK (compared to China) still have given more money in aid to Africa than has China. This doesn't even count the rest of Europe or the United States. Looked at it from a complete perspective, China is the one who is stingy.

God, United Kingdom is the "Sun Never Down Empire". How can China match up with that superpower!!

Basically, European aids in Africa are compensations for their atrocities in Africa, for the slave trade, robbing the gold, ivory, minerals for hundreds of years.... Even if Europeans pay ten times more to African countries, it cannot wash off the blood on their hands, especially British.

Luke · 02-11-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

It's an extremely odd perspective to look upon the ending of genocide as humiliation for the people inflicting the genocide. Verily, I don't employ those kinds of "standards."

As far as sovereignty is concerned, China is only acting out of self-interest, not out of any principle or devotion to this so-called cherished soveriegnty. China commits human rights abuses and by pretending to be interested in this great concept of sovereignty over people's lives and rights, she is merely trying to get people used to allowing human rights abuses in China by the CCP.

I really don't see the "Chinese model" of sovereignty as a viable option here, mainly because it's not a model at all. It's just a bunch of arguments about how the West should not objecting to China's human rights abuses and totalitarian government, under the guise of an international theory.

We have no "Chinese Model" to promote. We believe every country shall has its own models. We respect each African country as an independent unity, and we don't impose our own ideas on others.

Luke · 02-11-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Well, it's a complicated issue. I think most Chinese (Luke and winter included) do look forward to a future democracy. They are actually probably a lot more reasonable than many Chinese nationalists. I have only met those nationalists on military websites. Some of those nationalists are so stupid that they actually want to bring back a Qin Dynasty (221 BC) style of goverment (Legalism) since they put their nationalist pride ahead of reason.

I believe Confusionism, Buddhism, Taoism, Legalism and Western Democracy shall all be combined in China to have a Middle Path.

Luke · 02-11-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george.d

The US sells and provides arms to countries accused of human rights abuse. At one time we provided most of the arms and money to any S. American banana republic dictator who promised to eliminate communism or socialism in his/her country, complete with training their death squads. We supported the shah in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Saddam in Iraq, the current Iraq government, the Israelis, the Sauds, and on and on.

We're criticizing China for trade practices that include non-intervention?

Well Said!

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 02-12-2007, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george.d

The US sells and provides arms to countries accused of human rights abuse. At one time we provided most of the arms and money to any S. American banana republic dictator who promised to eliminate communism or socialism in his/her country, complete with training their death squads. We supported the shah in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Saddam in Iraq, the current Iraq government, the Israelis, the Sauds, and on and on.

We're criticizing China for trade practices that include non-intervention?

So, since the US did immoral actions in the past, then immoral actions should be perpetuated ad infinitum?

A million wrongs make one right?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 02-12-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

God, United Kingdom is the "Sun Never Down Empire". How can China match up with that superpower!!

Huh? When I compare things, both things being compared usually exist at the same time. I guess I got a little bit confused when you started justifying China's present and future actions based upon what the UK did 70 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

Basically, European aids in Africa are compensations for their atrocities in Africa, for the slave trade, robbing the gold, ivory, minerals for hundreds of years.... Even if Europeans pay ten times more to African countries, it cannot wash off the blood on their hands, especially British.

You've changed your argument. You dropped the "stingy" argument. What happened to that one? Is the West stingy or not?

I guess however little China gives, and however much the West gives, it somehow works out that China is generous and the West is stingy.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 02-12-2007, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

We have no "Chinese Model" to promote. We believe every country shall has its own models. We respect each African country as an independent unity, and we don't impose our own ideas on others.

That is the Chinese model. It's not a true model. It's Chinese national interests passed off as something more profound than it really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

I believe Confusionism, Buddhism, Taoism, Legalism and Western Democracy shall all be combined in China to have a Middle Path.

A fusion of Democracy and Totalitarianism is basically what this means. I don't see where Buddhism and Taoism comes into this.

I think China will be a full-fledged democracy eventually. Do you think China will become like Singapore, but on a more vast scale? I think that that model can only work in Singapore. I think Chinese people's attitudes will change and go against totalitarianism eventually, once other problems are solved (i.e. poverty, backwardness and Taiwan).

Perhaps someday even the people of Singapore will grow tired of their repressive government.

africanhope · 02-12-2007, 02:15 AM

Hey WEB. YEs, whites is about 10%. little more actualy, more like 15%, and then we have a people that is called the Colourds (their name for themselves) which is a mixed race between whites, blacks and the Malay slaves that was brought in. There is a rather large Indian population, and then the smaller ones like the San (Bushmen), Arabian, Jewish, etc. etc. etc.

francois60 · 02-12-2007, 09:40 AM

Wow, 70%? I thought that there were more Africans than that. I thought white South Africans were only 10%

Asians. Lots of Asians. Mixed race too. Mixed race are not considered black in Africa.

I assume we do not give loans to despotic governments in Africa. Also, Condi also called Zimbabwe an outpost of tyranny.

We do, but not to the worst of the worst.

The US sells and provides arms to countries accused of human rights abuse. At one time we provided most of the arms and money to any S. American banana republic dictator who promised to eliminate communism or socialism in his/her country, complete with training their death squads. We supported the shah in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Saddam in Iraq, the current Iraq government, the Israelis, the Sauds, and on and on.

We were fighting a proxy war against Communism. Somehow America's critics always leave that part out. We are employing the same policy today in the Middle East to prevent Islamists from taking over governments.

Since there are no particular national security interests at stake in Sub-Saharan Africa, we tend to have the luxury to be more moral in our foreign policy. We don't support South American dictators anymore either. There's no reason to.

Where do Sudan or Angola threaten you??

We aren't threatening war against either. Although we should be in Sudan's case.

China sympathizes if the oversea foreign citizens who are racially Chinese are discriminated. Vietnam war is purely for Soviet Union and Cambodia

Perhaps, but your government at the time said it was over Vietnam's treatment of Chinese.