The problem with tired dichotomies is you end up with these kinds of statements. Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Belgium do have long histories of violence in Africa through slave trading, colonialism, coups, and proxy wars. The Saudis, Emirates, Soviets, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans have had their share of violent extraction either directly or indirectly. The question is whether it adds value to always compare these countries over and over again claiming one is more extractive and violent than the other, and refusing to see how the real world is organized, not as a block of harmonious people under “country” but as distinct divisions even in the most unified of a country. Elitism is one of those things that can help us explain what is going on.
In almost all these discussions, you rarely hear people talk about the African people. As if they are passive objects to be moved around. You need to appreciate the everyday forms of resistance waged by farmers, women, semi-structured labour groups etc against the heavy weight of colonialism and apartheid. A major problem was/and continues to be betray from fellow Africans and allies for material benefits. This is where notions of China being more beneficial to Africa via infrastructure come in. Extraversion[1] is a concept you can use here, because Chinese EXIM bank, especially, works with African heads or states or their representative to okay very expensive loans to fund infrastructure, some even not priorities, benefiting those elites directly. In China too, like in the US and Britain et al, it is also the elite who benefot the most from these relations. Some not even in the interest of their countries.
China offers alternative options to Western funding for major public projects. They are fighting for their interests, just like Americans. Just like Africans. To assume other wise is to go down the boring route of “moral equivalencies” which is a waste of time. I am more interested in fighting for my people get a more dignified life, whether that comes from relations with China, Russians, North Koreans, or Britain. Or all of them.
You don’t have to assume altruism here. The big difference between the west and China is that the west has lots of military presence in Africa while China does not. When countries refuse to work with the west on western terms then the west will either do a regime change, destabilize the country, or outright invade it as happened with Libya. The relationship between the west and the countries it subjugates is inherently coercive.
On the other hand, China does not have a history of using violence against countries that don’t trade with China and it does not have the military presence to threaten the kind of violence the west has been using when it doesn’t get its way.
Heard of PLAN’s base in Djibouti? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People’s_Liberation_Army_Support_Base_in_Djibouti
I refuse simplified dichotomies. They are not helpful to me. May be to you.
Yeah I have, you seriously arguing this even begins to compare with AFRICOM?
Maybe they just don’t want to be inferior to the Chinese exploitation of the continent?
Last I checked it’s the west that’s been occupying Africa with a bunch of military bases, running coupes, assassinations, death squads, and other wholesome activities there. Maybe it’s time for Africa to shake off the parasites.
