Loading
Feb 18

Letter: China is helping Africa’s Development and Modernation Effort

Written by guest on Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Filed under:-mini-posts, News, politics | Tags:
Add comments

Chinese President Hu Jintao ended his tour of four African nations this week, having promised to deepen ties with the continent.

A lot of chatter has surrounded China’s interests in Africa. Media have branded China’s role in Africa as an invasion or an era of neo-colonialism with ulterior motives of pillaging Africa’s raw materials. Rhetoric from Chinese and African leaders includes words like “friendship,” “partnership” and “brotherhood,” stressing a shared history and common experience.

This report was produced last summer when WorldFocus traveled to East Africa.

World Focus Radio Blog (Feb 18, 2009)

Source: http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/02/17/tune-in-online-radio-show-on-chinas-role-in-africa/4089/

Vanguard Video (late 2008)

Source: http://current.com/items/89565630/chinatown_africa.htm


There are currently no comments highlighted.

47 Responses to “Letter: China is helping Africa’s Development and Modernation Effort”

  1. Shane9219 Says:

    Here is a link to the video report from Mariana van Zeller on China’s activities in Angola (included in this WorldFocus)

    http://worldfocus.org/other/videoembeds/rename-ChinaAf20090213.html

    Now, below is a really interesting interview with a European Parliament member, Astrid Lulling accusing China of neocolonialism in Africa. Well, the world is sure to have a vivid memory on what West’s colonialism look like. Watching this video reminds roles in Hollywood movies.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbf8VB7I6BU

  2. Charles Liu Says:

    Shane, “neo-colonialism with ulterior motives of pillaging Africa’s raw materials”

    May I suggest this could easily be reflection of a guilty mind. Why else would the Chinese go there, if not to do the very same deed we in the West have done?

    Take Darfur, my favorit pre-Olympics hate China gambit. Mia Farrow blamed China while ignoring the fact Darfur was the negative consquence of American power in Africa.

  3. Shane9219 Says:

    West is understandably uneasy at China’s effort in Africa when looking from afar since West explored Africa for several centuries, then left behind a war-torn continent.

    Countries carry out their diplomacy and foreign development with certain purpose. China is no exception. In the old days, China approached Africa to form the Third World alliance. Now, new emphasis is on development and market potential.

    China has a long view on its future together with Africa. It also wants to show the world that China is a large and responsible countries with both capability and political wills to help other nations in need. That certainly requires lots of upfront investment and hands-on hardwork at China’s part. I felt it is the right thing to put Chinese on the ground due to obvious reasons.

    Chinese present themselves as partner with can-do attitude, buying raw materials from Africa just like other places. More over, China does not seek to shut out other countries. The accusation of neocolonism is just groundless.

    It is important to say the West came to China since 80’s with similar purposes. The only difference is that China is able to rely on herself to manage her transformation proactively due to reasons like strong culture, robust political infrastructure as well as a hardworking ethics. Eventually, Africa countries have to come up to speed on those aspects.

  4. Wukailong Says:

    The West and China aren’t the only places in the world. Some African voices, notably Thabo Mbeki, have voiced concern over what he sees as a potentially colonialist relationship:

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/chin-f15.shtml

    Neocolonialism isn’t a very clear concept, and could include anything from sweatshops to direct colonialism like in the 19th century, so I’m not sure one can accuse China of neo-colonialism, but it can’t just be swept under the rug like a “Western construct” either.

    Also, I don’t think Africa now and China in the 80s are comparable. China made products with cheap labor, whereas Africa exports raw materials in exchange for goods. If Africa did the same thing as China in the 80s, then perhaps we would see more development there – unless it’s eaten up by civil or political disorder.

  5. WillF Says:

    @ Charles Liu 2

    I personally think Chinese trade with Africa has the potential to bring a lot of good to the continent. However, I take issue with your Darfur point.

    1. I don’t dispute that the US and John Garang had connections, but from the research I did it doesn’t appear that the US played more than a peripheral role in the Second Sudanese Civil War. The US trained John Garang, but that doesn’t mean the US is responsible for the Second Sudanese Civil War. Even so, John Garang was a leader of a different movement in a different part of the country and involved in a different civil war. The Darfur conflict and the Second Sudanese Civil War are not the same thing, and neither can be said to be primarily caused by or perpetuated by the US.

    2. Even if the US was involved in Darfur at some point, I see no evidence that the US is a significant player in the conflict today. Thus, you seem to be arguing that: the US was once (maybe) involved in Darfur; Mia Farrow is American; Mia Farrow criticized China without acknowledging her own country’s role in the crisis; therefore, those who criticize China over Darfur are wrong. That doesn’t even begin to make sense.

    3. China maintains close ties to the Sudanese government and has not taken significant steps to end the crisis, even though it has a great deal of leverage in Sudan. There is a valid argument that can be made that it’s none of China’s business. But that argument necessarily requires the premise that human rights are essentially a domestic issue, and other nations ought not get involved when a country is unable or unwilling to end a humanitarian crisis, or even when that country is perpetuating the crisis itself. I think this is also a reasonable idea, that human rights in certain situations transcend national boundaries and thus heighten foreign nations’ responsibilities to intervene. It is an idea that many Westerners subscribe to. You can argue that the West is inconsistent or even hypocritical in that it chooses certain conflicts to be indignant about (Darfur), ignores others, and perhaps even supports some (Palestine), but that criticism does not change the fact that China has made a conscious decision to ignore the Darfur conflict and not let it affect its relationship with the Sudanese government. You may think that China is right to do this from a foreign policy standpoint, and again, I can see the foreign policy arguments to be made in favor of this. But I think it is reasonable for people around the world to criticize China’s policies, since from their perspective China has a responsibility to help end the crisis. The debate is not about pro-China versus anti-China (though some people I imagine are quicker to condemn China than most other nations); rather, it has to do with a nation’s responsibility to intervene in humanitarian situations. To couch it as a simple pro-China vs. anti-China struggle is to both obscure the underlying issues and dodge the moral question.

  6. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Shane #3:
    nice post.
    “Countries carry out their diplomacy and foreign development with certain purpose. China is no exception.” – agreed. In fact, China would be abdicating her fiduciary duty if she didn’t explore any and all relationships that might benefit Chinese people.

    “Chinese present themselves as partner with can-do attitude, buying raw materials from Africa just like other places. More over, China does not seek to shut out other countries. The accusation of neocolonism is just groundless.” – agreed, for the most part. As long as China’s procuring of raw materials is done so at a fair price, the workers who are extracting said materials for China’s benefit are not exploited, and the Chinese market does not deplete these nations of the materials they might need for their own advancement, I agree that any emotionally-charged terms like neocolonialism are unjustified. To me, one aspect of colonialism is the pillaging of locals with no concern for their needs.

  7. Charles Liu Says:

    WillF, I like your “dodge the moral question”, especially given the fact we in the West have repeatedly failed Darfur over the years.

    Sure, China, along with the rest of the world, should do more. But what has come of it after the Olympics? In retrospect is holding the Olympics hostage, hurting the Chinese people’s feeling, really the way to ask them to help?

    I hear right now neither Khartoum nor Beijing has much influence over the tribesmen fighting for dwindling resource in the region (result of global warming.) As to our involvment in Africa, would it suprise you that ex-KGB mob boss Victor Bout, while running guns for Pentagon, had diverted Iraq arms to Africa? Here’s a Pravda article pointing finger at USAID (neocon Doug Feith).

  8. Raj Says:

    WillF, I like your “dodge the moral question”, especially given the fact we in the West have repeatedly failed Darfur over the years.

    What exactly could we do if countries like China were blocking UN sanctions? When people like Bush make unilateral decisions people recoil in horror and shout “war crimes! war crimes!” Yet when they fail to do anything because consensus cannot be agreed then they are also blamed.

    Do you back unilateral action or not?

  9. Wukailong Says:

    Methinks the ranking mechanism is being misused. I don’t agree with #1-#3, but why were they voted down?

  10. admin Says:

    @WKL,

    Yes, there are a few people who abuse the system by voting down comments with abandon. However, the system also allows everyone to counteract by voting these comments up, which I just did. ;)

    I have set the threshold to collapse a comments at -6 and I think it’s a reasonable buffer to against irresponsible voting.

  11. Wukailong Says:

    @admin: Thanks! I noticed the changed threshold. ;)

    As for now, someone has even given your post a thumbs down. Must be the first time…

  12. Oli Says:

    Well I just voted admin’s comment back up again for gratis…(chuckles)…

  13. admin Says:

    @Oli,

    Thanks! Glad to see you back.

    @WKL,
    The person who voted down my comment is the same person who voted down all comments in one of Steve’s threads.

  14. Wukailong Says:

    @admin: Seems it’s happened again in the open thread to #81-#83, which makes no sense. Well, perhaps it’s a sign of the large traffic FM attracts. ;)

  15. pug_ster Says:

    This issue with so called ‘China’s neocolonialism’ is about EU and the US jealous of China taking into their territory. This is all about money, and not lives of Africians. Take Darfur, China’s government seems to be in Sudan’s good side. Recently, I saw a newsclip about George Clooney went to Darfur with Nytimes Nicholas Kristoff and NBC’s Ann Curry parading around Darfur calling for Bashir to be arrested for charges of Genocide. All this because Sudan is sitting on black gold. Meanwhile, a war is going on in Congo where people are needlessly slaughtered today while the UN twiddles their thumbs.

    Oh yes the UN has acted in somewhere else in Africa, namely Somalia. They recently passed an unanimous resolution in that country to stop the pirates which are causing economic losses for the shipping fleet that goes thru there. These Somalian pirates just want the money, and did not treat the prisoners with any disrespect. However, the UN did nothing when 2.5 million Rwandans are killed 15 years ago.

    China has economic interests in Africa and they are not afraid to be dishonest about it. However, the US and EU wants everybody to think it is the ‘white man’s burden’ to ‘help’ out the Africians when they only care about the economic interest there.

  16. WillF Says:

    @ Charles Liu 7:

    I think you are missing my point. You keep focusing on West vs. China and which one is worse. That’s not really important. The issue is how countries SHOULD act when confronted with a humanitarian crisis in another country. The US certainly doesn’t have a spotless record in this regard. But that doesn’t give China a green light to act immorally. You can debate whether China is really acting immorally, and that would be a valid debate. But you keep dodging that debate by focusing on the West vs. China “issue”.

  17. Tom Says:

    Ranking System: Show both Vote Up and Vote Down total.

  18. TonyP4 Says:

    This article is over 1 year old. There are not much changes except the commodities and gas went down in prices. It would not be good for older investments as the rate of return would diminish.

    China and Africa should be good trade partners. When there is more money available, corruption follows. It happens in most developing countries. Human right is better with better economy in most cases. It is not China’s responsibility to fight for the human rights/freedom of their trade partners, but their own citizens’ – did the world learn from what Bush did to the Middle East?

    http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto012320081150031702

  19. Raj Says:

    It is not China’s responsibility to fight for the human rights/freedom of their trade partners, but their own citizens’

    If someone is attacked on the street, do you have a moral duty to call for help or stop the aggressor? Does it matter whether you are on holiday or in your home country?

    I think the answer from most caring people would be “yes” and “no”. So why should China stop caring about human rights as soon as the matter falls outside of its borders?

    did the world learn from what Bush did to the Middle East?

    Do you have to invade a country to do something about human rights? “Bush – Iraq! Bush – Iraq!” is not a valid argument against intervening against human rights abuses.

  20. Allen Says:

    @WillF #16,

    You wrote:

    I think you are missing my point. You keep focusing on West vs. China and which one is worse. That’s not really important. The issue is how countries SHOULD act when confronted with a humanitarian crisis in another country.

    In some ways – this is precisely the type of attitude that rubs me the wrong way – that smacks of colonial arrogance. It presumes that (self-interested) powerful nations are in the best position to know about and to do something about humanitarian crises throughout the world.

    But for Western intervention, the world will be blind to abuses and incompetent to deal with crises!

    Humanitarian crisis is a result of lack of strong governance, and lack of economic and social developments.

    To solve the root of humanitarian crisis throughout the world – we need to tackle systemtatically those problems – not simply call for short term interventions here and there – taking sides in legitimate local conflicts at the behest of our private geopolitical agendas.

    I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: if the stronger nations are really responsible for humanitarian crisis throughout the world – let’s divide up the world into colonies again so the strong nations can make sure the more backward places of the world are better governed.

    Alternatively – let’s form a true world gov’t that works truly on behalf and for the benefit of all the people of the world. (Are we really willing to give up sovereignty and share our wealth and the world’s resources with the rest of the world?)

    The way humanitarian crisis have been dealt with by the powerful nations (i.e. the West) – we keep on (selectively) using humanitarian crisis as justification to push forward private political agendas.

  21. Charles Liu Says:

    Thank you Allen. I also find it interesting that it is suddenly “not really important” when we in the West are holding the long end of the stick on Africa’s suffering.

    From John Garang to Victor Bout, to USAID under neocon puppet master Douglas Feith – as if we haven’t learned our lesson with “unilatteral action” in Iraq and the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by economic sanction we spearheaded since George Bush the First.

    As far as I can tell, China has behaved far more morally than we have, based on the available evidence. Our suspicion of China is, reasonably, the result of a guilty mind.

  22. Allen Says:

    @Charles Liu –

    Here’s really my bottom line.

    I don’t think China should take on the responsibility of developing Africa. That is too much to ask of the CCP or the Chinese people.

    Africans need to take charge of their own destiny – just like Chinese do theirs.

    For people who argue that Africans are at the short end of the stick in interacting with China – well, maybe they should show the same compassion to Chinese who can be argued to be at the short end of the stick in interacting with the West.

    The thing is there will always be positives and negatives in any interaction. China’s relationship with Africa is no doubt providing opportunities for both Chinese and Africans.

    As for the politics, let the Africans be the masters of their destiny – and not assign China (or the U.S., or Europe, or the U.N.) to that role.

  23. Wukailong Says:

    @Charles Liu (#21): “I also find it interesting that it is suddenly “not really important” when we in the West are holding the long end of the stick on Africa’s suffering.”

    It depends on who says it, I would say. If someone defends “the West” in every possible way while criticizing China, then I say – let’em have it. But if someone is strongly against the war in Iraq and other modern colonial adventures (I think that’s the closest we get to direct colonialism in the 21st century) and then criticizes China as part of a larger context – I don’t see the problem.

    Originally this thread was about China’s interests in Africa, and whether they’re neocolonialist or not. I’m still undecided, though I know of Chinese who thinks it is indeed a sort of colonialism, and they are not pro-West. Quite on the contrary.

    As for Sudan, according to one report Russia contributed 87% of weaponry and China 8%:

    http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/PR_AT_data_2007.html/view?searchterm=darfur

    Perhaps Russia ought to get more of the criticism?

  24. yo Says:

    @Wukailong
    I can’t vouch for your numbers, but one of the criticism of china is that they are one of the largest suppliers of small arms.

  25. yo Says:

    imo, china is definitely helping Africa in their development, the notion of neo-colonialsim is more of a knee-jerk reaction to what the British did; any foreign power in Africa is viewed by some with suspicion. However, China’s role is trade and it has been beneficial for both sides. In addition, let’s face it, Africa is not on anyone’s top ten list of priorities right now(especially with the economy), China is filling in a void.

  26. Charles Liu Says:

    Wukailong @ 23, definition of colonialsm is a fairly popular search on Google. If China is a “neo-colonialist”, Is China doing any of the things the old colonialist used to do?

    – conquest and exploitation of a weaker country?
    – extending national sovereignty beyond its borders? Establishing colonies?
    – displacing the indigenous population? creating administrative dependency?

  27. Wukailong Says:

    @Charles: Neo-colonialism is a very vague term, which is why I can’t decide whether China’s practices in Africa are or not. The questions you ask are about “old colonialism.”

    We’ve been through the reliability issue with Wikipedia many times, but this might at least serve as a start for the discussion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

    “Neocolonialism is a term used by post-colonial critics of developed countries’ involvement in the developing world. Critics of neocolonialism argue that existing or past international economic arrangements created by former colonial powers were or are used to maintain control of their former colonies and dependencies after the colonial independence movements of the post World War II period. The term Neocolonialism can combine a critique of current actual colonialism (where some states continue administrating foreign territories and their populations in violation of United Nations resolutions[1]) and a critique of modern capitalist businesses involvement in nations which were former colonies. Critics of neocolonialism contend that private, foreign business companies continue to exploit the resources of post-colonial states, and that this economic control inherent to neocolonialism is akin to the classical, European colonialism practiced from the 16th to the 20th centuries. In broader usage, current especially in Latin America, Neocolonialism may simply refer to involvement of powerful countries in the affairs of less powerful countries. In this sense, Neocolonialism implies a form of contemporary, economic imperialism: that powerful nations behave like colonial powers, and that this behavior is likened to colonialism in a post-colonial world.”

  28. Shane9219 Says:

    Apart from the behavior and policies of their governments, white colonists in the old Africa had a clear master to slave/servant relationship with local population. They home-steaded almost the entire continent until the second half of 20th century.

  29. Shane9219 Says:

    Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
    by John Perkins

    “Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.”

    This is a revealing book quite interesting to read.

    http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018

    Here is a John Perkins interview

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&hl=en&v=yTbdnNgqfs8

  30. Toady Says:

    WillF,

    The SLA leader got a red carpet welcome at White House at the height of the Darfur genocide cliam in 2005. JEM has an office in London as I type. Both started the whole freaking episode in Darfur when they broke the seize fire in 2005. The Western media hardly mentions these peeps, or who is financing or arming these machette wielding, arm cutting bandits, rapist and rebel. It’s a civil war, yet when Sudanese legit govt tries to attack, take back control and bomb rebel controlled villages it’s genocide pasted in nearly every Western media… yet blames the legt govt of Sudan for not able to protect the Darfurs or feeds them in rebel positions.. It’s Farked up logic, if you simply read the western news and ignores the so-called Journalist opnions. Did you know the the Sudan govt brought “Free Darfur” to british media authority back in late 2007, for their claims of 200,000 death.. and they could not prove it, and was judged that “Opinions is not facts”.. and none of the western news reported it .. not even BBC. Even worst, it was reviewed that “Free Darfur” did not give a single cent from their received donations to the Darfur.. but all went into advertisment. With USAID in the Darfur distributing radios in the middle of the night (He was shot).. one wonders what frequencies those radio are tuned to ? – “Voice of America” equivalent ?

    The above a just raw facts.. and it’s isn’t difficult to draw conclusion why Darfur? “Oil” in Chinese hands.

  31. Allen Says:

    @TonyP4 #18,

    What do you mean the article is 1 year old?

    The link provided by Shane9219 points to a recent radio blog (1-2 days old) and a video clip which looks about 3 months old.

    I will edit the entry to incorporate the radio and video to make things clearer.

  32. Charles Liu Says:

    Wukailong @ 27, per wikipedia’s definition of neo-colonialism, “developed countries’ involvement in the developing world”, disqualifies China, as China is still a developing country.

    If the critique is based on “modern capitalist businesses involvement in nations which were former colonies”, then the entire Western hemisphere, along with “capitalist China”, are guilty.

  33. TonyP4 Says:

    @Allen #31

    I did not refer to the article in your letter, but the one in my post #18. Sorry about the confusion.

  34. Wukailong Says:

    @Charles Liu (#32): I guess China can never be guilty then, because it will be “developing” for a long time, despite the fact that it’s more affluent than most African countries it’s trading with. As for the Western world being guilty too, yes, that’s what neo-colonialist discourse is all about!

    You still seem to assume that there is no criticism against the Western world in the West and so all criticism against China is void.

    As I said, I’m undecided. Obviously you think China is not guilty, and I’m going to register your reasons, but I was hoping for more than “the West is doing the same thing, so China is right.”

  35. Wukailong Says:

    @Charles: If you’re really interested in more thorough criticism against the Western world (the US in particular) not just because of China, then I can recommend Joseph Stiglitz’ “Making globalization work”.

    Also, so we not forget it: Thabo Mbeki doesn’t seem to think that just because Western countries did a lot of harm to African countries, China can’t do the same. He has his extreme sides, but his voice is important in this matter.

  36. Wukailong Says:

    @Toady: Interesting. Can you provide links to this?

  37. Toady Says:

    Here’s some interesting read which will pretty much covers what I mention…. mainly not from Mass Media Services. See how much facts wasn’t included in their reports. Independent news agencies rules.

    The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

    Ten Reasons to Suspect “Save Darfur” is a PR Scam
    http://www.alternet.org/audits/69170/

    Who Is Blocking Peace In Darfur?
    http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=33334

    Darfurism, Uganda and the U.S. War in Africa
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7311

    This for the visit from SLA leader to white house 2006. the SLA and JEM broke the seize fire in 2003 (sorry made a mistake) at the that time Collins powells was in UN manufacturing the consent for invasion of Iraq and Sudan.. but sudan case took second stage by the media) . Also notice how BBC tried to wiggle out the accusations of atrocities committed by SLA, by instilling doubt ?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5224098.stm

    As to Sudanese govt bringing “free Darfur” to court.. story killed can’t find anywhere anymore thru google… i’ll try history cache.. later.

  38. Toady Says:

    What happened to my previous post ???

    Anyway.. the “Save Darfur” judgement in 2007 is here

    http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42993.htm

    A fleeting mention of this case by Harper.
    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001385

  39. huaren Says:

    @Toady

    Thx for sharing the links. There is one more you ought to include in your list on Dafur. This is a 10-minute segment explaining the history of conflicts created during West’s colonization of Africa:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAJ7XmTFs4A

  40. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Allen #20:
    “Humanitarian crisis is a result of lack of strong governance, and lack of economic and social developments…
    To solve the root of humanitarian crisis throughout the world – we need to tackle systemtatically those problems – not simply call for short term interventions here and there – taking sides in legitimate local conflicts at the behest of our private geopolitical agendas.” – that is indeed a fantastic goal. But what do you suggest in the meantime? How do you put into place strong governance and nurture development without first stopping the carnage? Once again, your “private…agenda” seems to put you at odds with many things “humanitarian”, and your “high bar” for intervention would ideally see to it that there is nothing left to intervene upon.

  41. huaren Says:

    @SKC, #40

    “But what do you suggest in the meantime?”

    Ha, funny question you should ask. For the last 200 years, what have your “activist” types done? The carnage in Africa are a result of tribes or religious factions killing each other – much of which were perpetuated by the West.

    Did you watch “Chinatown, Africa,” yet? The answer is there – China is showing the world how Africa can develop on their own. You build the schools, hospitals, and infrastructure first. Also, you don’t show up thinking you are God. You show up doing a simple trade – not thinking you are there to do them a favor. Everything else follows.

  42. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren:
    “The carnage in Africa are a result of tribes or religious factions killing each other – much of which were perpetuated by the West.” – that would be a sweeping statement. Now, as I learned from Oli, if that’s a sweeping statement of opinion, no worries from me. But if that’s supposed to be a sweeping statement of fact, then I dunno, buddy…

    “You build the schools, hospitals, and infrastructure first.” – agreed. However, if the situation is such that someone can step in and start on those things right away, then I’m not sure said situation would necessarily qualify as a “humanitarian crisis”. For instance, I’m guessing what you’ve suggested, though laudable, wouldn’t necessarily fly in Darfur in the immediate future. And my point is that you can’t take a Darfur, and make it into a situation where you can “build the schools etc” without some intervention in between. If you think you can, then I’d love to see it.

  43. huaren Says:

    @SKC, #42

    lol. Great at dodging questions, aren’t you? What have you or the Canadian government done for Africa?

    Not sure why you are infatuated with “sweeping statements”. Look at the video on post #39. You talk about Dafur – the whole of Sudan was put together by the Brits to be royally screwed.

    “And my point is that you can’t take a Darfur, and make it into a situation where you can “build the schools etc” without some intervention in between. If you think you can, then I’d love to see it.”

    I understand that’s your belief.

    China IS showing the world how that precisely can be done. Don’t stay home with your mom and only read your Canadian press. You won’t get enlightened that way. Most of the world is basically following China’s approach on how to support Sudan government on how to get out of the mess the Brits created long time ago. Just hang on (like you activist types usually end up doing anyways) and watch. :P with a little bit of patience of course.

  44. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren:
    “China IS showing the world how that precisely can be done.” – do you mean standing around and watching all the killing? I was hoping you’d be “showing” me something a bit more substantial…and a little less bloody. Oh well, for the umpteenth time, to each his own.

    “Don’t stay home with your mom and only read your Canadian press.” – you are really a doof…but I knew that already.

    “Most of the world is basically following China’s approach …” – Huh? In fact, I’m not a fan of sweeping statements, and it is precisely because of folks like you. You give sweeping statements a terrible name.

  45. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren:
    “What have you or the Canadian government done for Africa?” – personally, nothing. My donations have been going to the Caribbean region. The Canadian government announced today that they will be distributing about $360 million to 6 countries in Africa this year. They have been doing this every year for many years, though admittedly in the past there were more recipient countries.

    So, what have CCP-apologists like you done lately?

  46. huaren Says:

    @SKC, #44, #45

    LOL. China’s trade with Africa reached $100 billion in 2008. $360million in exchange for what? Weapons to “abused” groups so they can fight their governments? Did you watch the segment on Angola – Canada is not even close to size of a fly on an elephant’s butt in terms of making a difference there compared to China.

    This is not about me – the point behind my question is that you seem to care a great deal about the Africans or Chinese or various people. I am trying to say you are a fake. The “human rights” toting portion of the Canadian government is a fake.

    But if it helps you sleep better, I donated $200 to Achieve in Africa last year. I just filed my 2008 tax return.

  47. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren:
    you are a doof of staggering proportions. Yes, China’s “trade” is staggering. And I’m sure they get what they pay for. They might even get some stuff they don’t pay for. Canada’s meager sum is foreign aid (ie. we just give it to them); however, I don’t have numbers on our “trade” with Africa. As for making a difference in Africa, if Darfur is any indication, that’s a “difference” i’d rather not be associated with. But thanks for the offer. You go right ahead and enjoy that “difference”.

    Now, you’re not the only one who can ask questions. So if you ask, then be prepared to also answer. That’s the way it works in the real world.

    “you seem to care a great deal about the Africans or Chinese or various people.” – and it is clear that you don’t. Fortunately, that’s not my concern.

    Your stomping on human rights doesn’t appear fake. That seems like the true motivation inside your numb skull. As to whether the CHinese government’s stomping on human rights is “fake”….well, that seems pretty clear too, doesn’t it?

    Oh, and back to the questions, since you enjoy them so much:
    “do you mean standing around and watching all the killing?” (#44)

    How d’ya like them apples?

Leave a Reply

Powered by sweet Captcha