• Gigasser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hmmm, it might not be, but it’s still within the interests of the chinese state. Let’s say the CCP actually wanted Africa to succeed. They may see the ascendance of Africa into something close to first world conditions as beneficial to them, as now they would have this history of benevolence and investments with a market away from the US, thus slowly chipping away at their reliance to the west.

    • Arcturus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      but it’s still within the interests of the chinese state

      Obviously lmao. Why the hell would a country do something for no reason

      The more Africa develops with Chinese cooperation, the more China gets access to wealthier markets to sell stuff to that they have good relations with.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Why the hell would a country do something for no reason

        This is kinda astounding posting and i read it all the time everywhere. On one side we have western imperialists shamelessly and openly looting Africa for centuries, but liberals will suddenly expect China to just do one sided transactions that only cause them loss? And make it the implicit or explicit “both sides bad” argument? It’s also usually from the proponents of capitalism and free trade, which is in theory supposed to benefit both sides.

    • jonne
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I mean, it would be nice to see a comparison between a Chinese loan and a loan by the IMF. Maybe the sting still has to come because they haven’t been doing it for as long, but there’s got to be a good reason those countries go with China instead of the IMF.

      To me it seems like IMF loans involve privatising revenue generating assets, lowering taxes on the wealthy and austerity on the masses. The biggest criticism of the Chinese way of financing is that if you default on the loan you used to build a port/highway/railway line, they keep that specific asset. And I guess instead of using local labour they use Chinese workers.

      There’s definitely things to criticise there, but I know which option I’d pick if I needed a port in my country.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The IMF also often includes terms that prevent food sovereignty, require food imports, and require anti-labor legislation.

        IMF loans are used to shackle a country to the neoliberal world order. All it takes us a single right wing government to take on one or more loans and now every government for decades on has to deal with the terms and the debt that prevent the country from developing and gaining security.