[AFAIK]

I am interested in learning about the origins and evolution of European colonies. Are there any parallels with China's "soft power" and resource investments? What are the different political structures- protectorates, colonies......

[fuser]

You will have to be specific as European colinialism differed greatly in different places. It was a completely different process in Africa, Americas and Asia.

[AFAIK]

I'm curious about parallels with China's foreign policy.

Nigeria- China has rebuilt the nation's railways and gained access to many resources. How did Britain engage with the country?
Peru- China has the mineral rights to a large mountain (copper).
Afghanistan- China has quietly negotiated mineral rights and infrastructure projects.
SE Asia- China is economically and politically very active in Laos,Cambodia and Myanmar.

[ThirdTerm]

China has committed $75 billion for aid and development projects in Africa during the last decade, which is sill much less than the $90 billion committed by the US. Some African leaders worry that China is about to impose neo-colonial rule over aid recipient countries but China is playing the Japan card to improve its ties with developing countries and establish itself as a world leader and its scramble for Africa is the result of China's demand for raw materials. The African economy is entirely dependent on foreign aid and China's largess in Africa is largely beneficial for recipient governments and China's intention is no different from that of European nations, which continue to attempt to influence African countries for their sole benefit.

[youtube]7di4zMGlZY8[/youtube]

[Poelmo]

I am interested in learning about the origins and evolution of European colonies. Are there any parallels with China's "soft power" and resource investments? What are the different political structures- protectorates, colonies......

Yes, there are definitely parallels. Contrary to popular opinion many colonies were not officially governed by a European country and many were never invaded by Europeans or only at the request of a local faction. Colonial powers often created puppet regimes by helping a local faction win a civil war, or by lending local regimes more than they could pay back, or by offering "protectorate" status to weak states, this is similar to China's soft power today, though not unique to China.

[Smilin' Dave]

Are there any parallels with China's "soft power" and resource investments?

The closest parallel with the colonial era probably isn't in direct colonial rule, protectorates or similar. China's approach is probably closer to how one colonial power might undercut another by trying to secure resource rights, train the local military or similar etc. in the 'area of interest' of another colonial power. So for example the British were always worried about an concession the Russians could gain in Afghanistan, as it was perceived as undermining their own interests there. Or French attempts to cut deals with the Burmese and thus bypassing the British (eventually leading to the Third Anglo-Burmese War). So like China these other nations didn't necessarily have political power over the colonial possession, and they may not have even been seeking it, but they were interested in any gain that could be had.

The only other parallel that could be drawn would be with Germany and Italy entering as new players to the colonial world, but in a situation where most territories had sort of already been taken. So German and Italian colonial interests tended to be in areas where no one else already had a strong claim to begin with. The comparison with China is that their involvement in Africa and elsewhere has pretty much always been as case of getting in where other nations hadn't already staked a claim. In the Cold War of course one of those powers was the Soviet Union (though there are examples of post colonial states getting 'stuff' from the Soviets and the Chinese, though usually favouring one over the other), and perhaps one of the reasons Chinese activity in Africa is so prominent now is because the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War has given them even more room to move.

I suppose the recent interest China has demonstrated in constructing and expanding ports in the Indian Ocean could be compared to the trading post systems of older colonial powers, but I think that's a long bow to draw - trading posts were about acquiring goods, Chinese ports are more about receiving goods from elsewhere and potentially as staging areas for naval operations (perhaps this latter one then is closer to the old coaling stations?).

[Poelmo]

@Smilin' Dave

China has actually interfered in civil wars already and several governments are in their pocket through debts, others rely on China as protectorates, then there are the port towns you mentioned and the growing presence of Chinese civilians and property in other countries which China could use as an excuse to send troops in times of crisis (like many (ex-)colonial powers have done).

[Smilin' Dave]

China has actually interfered in civil wars already

Directly, or are you talking about the provision of arms and such? The latter is harder to fit into a traditional colonial definition as colonial and non-colonial powers do business with factions in civil conflicts for all sorts of reasons. Prior to colonisation and even during, guns (often of dubious quality) would be traded with the natives for other goods. It also potentially fits a Cold War model with proxy conflicts, and while elements of how the Cold War played out in the post-colonial world had some similarity with the activities of colonial powers, I think it was different in character as well as structure.

several governments are in their pocket through debts

Controlling governments through their debts and similar economic levers as far as I know if actually a relatively recent phenomena, it's probably something we could say that became more prominent in the post-colonial world. Colonial powers didn't really bother with the debts of their subjects, those costs were part of the administration of empire.

others rely on China as protectorates

Protectorate usually implies a legal status (often the result of a treaty), and I'm reasonably certain there isn't an example of this in China's case. Even the defacto status of colonial protectorates, where the local government rules essentially on behalf of the colonial power, is probably stretching it a bit. China doesn't actually have a strong enough interest in the general affairs of most African states to go to that extent - they're more interested in the raw materials.

then there are the port towns you mentioned

But as I mentioned those ports don't really fit into the idea of trading posts - small stop over points essentially on the edge of 'Darkest Africa' (or anywhere else thought remote) where goods could be had that the people manning the trading post have acquired from the locals (likely via trade). The ports that China is building up in the Indian Ocean are not to facilitate trade with the locals but more as waypoints for trade goods on their way back from Africa and the Middle East. I suppose these new overland trade routes could be seen as similar to the Panama Canal or maybe Russia's railway concessions in Manchuria, but as far as I know the Chinese don't have extra-territorial rights in these new ports etc.

The comparison with coaling stations also doesn't entirely work either, as those tended to follow on from colonial possessions, not be a form of colonialism themselves. You couldn't really have a coaling station in territory you didn't already control (in contrast to the trading post) and they were there to extend the operational capacity of your fleets, which were typically in existence to support empire.

the growing presence of Chinese civilians and property in other countries which China could use as an excuse to send troops in times of crisis (like many (ex-)colonial powers have done).

This assumes that they're there as part of a grand plan rather than being the 'natural' result of economic activity. Although I suppose parallels could be drawn between the Russians who had moved into Siberia prior to Russia conquering it. They mostly went in to facilitate the fur trade, but those trade links ended up being a draw which sucked the Russian government into just annexing Siberia. The difference is really only one of scale, and that probably has a lot to do with China's particular economic and labour situation.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Edward Said - Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism

[Thunderhawk]

Controlling governments through their debts and similar economic levers as far as I know if actually a relatively recent phenomena, it's probably something we could say that became more prominent in the post-colonial world. Colonial powers didn't really bother with the debts of their subjects, those costs were part of the administration of empire.

I thought it was through debts and other economic levers that the British got Egypt, Sudan.. and how the English got Scotland.

[Smilin' Dave]

I thought it was through debts and other economic levers that the British got Egypt, Sudan.

With Egypt it probably depends a bit on at what point we would say the British had the Egyptian government 'in their pocket'.

You could probably argue it started when the European powers made a deal with Muhammad Ali to guarantee his hereditary rule, which at face value would have given his family/government more power but in practice his status was dependent on European support. It was under Ali that Egypt started racking up debt to, to fund reforms and his military adventures. Which brings us back to his being installed as hereditary ruler, a deal which emerged in part because Ali's military forces had been defeated and he only agreed to the deal in the end because of actions by the British fleet.

how the English got Scotland.

Ironically Scotland's economic situation was the result of their own failed colonial plans - the Darien Scheme. They did I suppose raise some of the capital for this in London, but the English monarchy doesn't really seemed to have supported the exercise.

Was there anything like the IMF's "structural adjustments" in the colonial period?