China gifts new home to African Union - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#13892415
Zagadka wrote:Yea, because going back 100 years in technology and quality of life would be just super.

Its more like 75 years ago. And there was no public outrage over it,... that's the main point that such a thing was perfectly acceptable.

Are you nuts? The government around here goes nuts trying to build new things. It took them 5 years to close a street that intersected a major highway and caused constant traffic.

Nope. Last year we put in 200 km of extra highway lanes in my country. Before that 328km. That is about the length of the entire country plus the entire width. And its not like we got room to spare.
#13892970
Maas wrote:That is true. Than again, ignoring those countries have not produced results as in countries behaving the way the West wants them to behave. It only has caused that those people to remain to live in poverty with no end in sight.

True, but that is not China's problem, if people live in poverty in another country, that is a problem of that country. It is their internal issue. The same as poverty within China is China's internal issue. It is up to the people of China, to sort out their problems and come to a Chinese solution. The same as it is the matter of your problem to sort out your problems and come to a solution that works for you. That appears to be the Chinese outlook on the situation. In a way, isolationist and noninterventionist. It will get them early credit for not meddling in the affairs of others, but down the road, detrimental as it shows they don't care about the plight of people outside China.

The inverse of this happens with the USA. Discredited for meddling in the affairs of other nations, while liked for showing concern about the plight of other people in other nations.

Maas wrote:People living in a hypothical country with authorian rule and no freedom but with a house and some school to go to and good meals on the table are still better off than people who without such luxeries but in a democratic non-corrupt society.

To China, what you make of your nation, is your choice. The same as what China makes of itself, is its own choice.

Zagadka wrote:Well, given that they are a country frequently accused of sweatshops and bad working conditions, that is hardly surprising. Running a state as responsibly as China runs theirs isn't too much of a challenge; no expectations of democracy, centralized government that kicks people out of houses and completely skips any kind of worker safety and has ever-increasing levels of environmental decay... that may be a productive thing, but it may also be destructive in both the short and long term health of the country.

No disagreement from me, I didn't write that China was a shining example the world should emulate (nether is the USA).
#13893352
Tailz wrote:The inverse of this happens with the USA. Discredited for meddling in the affairs of other nations, while liked for showing concern about the plight of other people in other nations.

The US sold to a guy like Soeharto (dictator of indonesia) massive amounts of weapons while their intelligence gave lists of names of political opponents. It resulted of the slaughtering of up to 1 million people.

That's absolutely not showing any concern about the plight of people. Such meddling is what the US did in South America and North Africa too.

IMHO.. investing in farming and some business on the side will cause a lot less suffering.
#13895020
Maas wrote:The US sold to a guy like Soeharto (dictator of indonesia) massive amounts of weapons while their intelligence gave lists of names of political opponents. It resulted of the slaughtering of up to 1 million people.

That's absolutely not showing any concern about the plight of people. Such meddling is what the US did in South America and North Africa too.

IMHO.. investing in farming and some business on the side will cause a lot less suffering.

That is an example of misguided meddling by the Americans, they probably thought Soeharto is their man and give him the intelligence, not realising that Soeharto is his own man and used the intelligence for his own purposes (to secure his power and position). If my memory serves me correctly, Australia was also involved, training the Indonesian military, when ended up using that training to crack down on Soeharto's political opponents.

But this is why I did write, that the USA has/does meddle in the affairs of other nations - both for American self interest, and an interest towards human rights and democracy (although the push for democracy is a self interest towards stopping the spread of non-democratic governments).
#13895104
Teen Politican wrote:Diplomacy means cooperating and talking, not fighting and shouting.
Peace and independence is China's theme of its diplomacy.

Agreed. But also: Don't meddle in our internal affairs and we will not meddle in your internal affairs (even if you are murdering your own people).
#13895531
Maas wrote:The entire continent is hardly the interest of the UK ever since they lost their colonial posessions.

Oh, you think I was talking about the UK?

Maas wrote:It would only be obvious when you are fully Japanese.

:lol: You're making yourself very easily confused then.

Maas wrote:No, this is about China [and other Asian countries] getting the front seat for business oppertunities.

Good.

Maas wrote:Its a side effect, that I really like, that Afrian nations devellop with this... my humanitarian side.

I love it when you relegate your humanitarianism to a mere side-effect. It shows just how shallow it really is.

Maas wrote:And so would you. Because you don't want those people to seek economic prosperity in the UK [or any other country that you like].

Indeed, I'm glad you agree with me.

Maas wrote:It's your own character flaw that you can't step beyond pitty Japanese nationalistic sentiments.

It would be if that were my position, but unfortunately for you, I actually agree with you (as anyone actually reading my posts in this topic can see). Let's all team up and exploit Africa in every way we can, if they let us.

Your liberal humanitarianism is paper-thin, the difference between us on this issue is that you pretend to care deeply about what travesties are visited upon hapless Africans because of their political inability to do internal investment and development.

I at the very least am honest, so I announce that I am not seeking their best interests in my thoughts regarding their region. Hence why my posts in this topic are not insulting people's intelligence.

When Africans are killing each other in Darfur while land in Darfur is being hilariously sold to South Koreans - for example - you'd have to try really hard to make the humanitarian case for that, but I'm sure you'll manage it somehow, Maas.

The deep truth is that if Africans don't help themselves, then this will keep happening. And none of us have to even care.
#13895542
Beren wrote:And potential future markets and targets of investment and outsourcing.

African manpower and infrastructure is worth approximately zilch, which is why Africa is as poor as it is. African land and resources are the only thing valuable in the continent, outside of South Africa and the Sahara.
#13895731
Yet, despite the dazzling growth rate, Africa’s trade with China in fact now only accounts for 15% of its total trade, similar to sub-Saharan Africa’s share of total trade with the United States. Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa remains smaller still. By 2008, China’s FDI stock in Africa totaled US$7.8bn, whereas the United States’ FDI stock totaled US$69bn. China’s high visibility in Africa seems to reflect the speed, rather than the scale of the expansion in its trade and investment activities with the countries of this continent. North-South trade and investment still dominate the African scene, although much less so than a decade ago.


source.

And I don't mind if China invests in Africa. I encourage it. There seems to be this notion that somehow China being an investor and building relationships in Africa is like...colonialism and somehow the West will suffer for it. This isn't the case; we don't need to carve up Africa like the Europeans did a century and a half ago, we have global markets to allow American and Chinese and European companies to all work and invest in Africa together.
#13895771
Lexington wrote:And I don't mind if China invests in Africa. I encourage it.

I hope China invests Africa, as much as I hope Africa invests in China.

Lexington wrote:There seems to be this notion that somehow China being an investor and building relationships in Africa is like...colonialism and somehow the West will suffer for it.

Well kinda, and kinda not. Some see China's investment or involvement - in the form of exclusive deals that see Chinese firms building mines (or factories) that fly in Chinese labor instead of using local firms and local labor, being detrimental to Africa. Because the investment mostly stays within Chinese firms and Chinese employees, instead of local firms and local employees). This is a fulfilment of a narrative that Chinese investment is detrimental to Africa (not to the West) via African firms and work force missing out on opportunities that could have gone to local firms and workforce - at least that is the fear of local nationalists everywhere China does business. While the West sees expansion of trade deals with China as an increase of China's political reach around the globe, and thus a challenge to Western political reach around the globe.

Lexington wrote:This isn't the case; we don't need to carve up Africa like the Europeans did a century and a half ago, we have global markets to allow American and Chinese and European companies to all work and invest in Africa together.

China has no desire to carve up Africa, because China does not covet African territory or have hawkish nationalists that covet colonial territory (China's territory desires are on the border with India and Russia, not Africa), while the African's are more than happy to sell their resources to China in return for currency with no strings attached (eg: human rights reform, etc).

This is not a good thing, or a bad thing, it is just business. Although it does involve a little lack of empathy about the impact on peoples lives regarding the sourcing of those raw resources. But then again, how many people have empathy towards the impact of the manufacture of all those Chinese made goods?
#13895780
Yet, despite the dazzling growth rate, Africa’s trade with China in fact now only accounts for 15% of its total trade, similar to sub-Saharan Africa’s share of total trade with the United States. Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa remains smaller still. By 2008, China’s FDI stock in Africa totaled US$7.8bn, whereas the United States’ FDI stock totaled US$69bn.


4 years is a long time.

The NRL blows the AFL out of the water. What's th[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's revolutionary indeed that the bondage between[…]

A very rare Israeli interview to the Arab media. U[…]

They grabbed the opportunity pretty soon. 'Let's […]