Arms sells is huge profit and influence in wartime. Its no different than when america supplied weapons to iraq during the iran-iraq war and to afganhastan when they were fighting russia. Like I said before and I did start this,but anyone who can read and read about what happens internationally know china is supplying weapons in the darfur conflict. The world plays dumb because they have 1b consumers,but that doesn't erase the fact they're dropping weapons and playing both sides
In other words, leebigez, you have no idea what you are talking about. China's total arms sales were worth about $1.5 billion last year; the mutual trade between China and Africa was worth $166 billion. Even if you assume that all of China's weaponry exports went to Africa, the Chinese would have to be dumber than George W. Bush to sacrifice $166 billion for a mere $1.5 billion. So your claims that China is arming and financing rebellions in Africa are just not credible. A rebellion in Africa is much more likely to be armed by the U.S. That is one reason why the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established in 2007: to ruin, or threaten to ruin, any country that does business with China. Notice that China's <b>economic</b> advance in Africa, greatly benefiting Africans, is being met by a <b>military</b> response from the U.S. China offers improved infrastructure and living standards to Africans; the U.S. offers the war's desolation. If you are African American and you support what the U.S. has done and is still doing in Africa, you are one messed up puppy.
Allegro- either you've been hiding under a rock or you've be brainwashed. There have been ample proof of china supplying weapons in africa. The systemic genocide of africans by africans isn't chinas fault,but they're not helping by giving weapons that winds up with the militia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7503428.stm I guess they lying too or isn't credible. This do belong in D&D, but this ain't the 1st time I've mentioned this.
Much thanks for the link. I have heard of the Darfur genocide situation, and it's been a terrible situation for a while. As far as I can tell, China had existing ties with the Sudan government and believed in a different answer than UN sanctions and arms embargo that we supported. Unfortunately, the Sudan situation may have already crossed a critical threshold. The conflict had caused the UN to divide Sudan into 2 separate countries: South Sudan and Sudan. When it comes to world politics, China (and frequently Russia) have unfortunately come down on different sides as the US. Sudan is just one example, Palestine being another, amongst others. In general, I do believe that China/Russia do typically try to do the right thing on the world stage, but sometimes these right things don't coincide with what we believe is right. Anyway, I am not sure how much influence Yao could yield in such situation, or if he even wanted to engage in such decision-making. However, it is nice to hear you and others bring up the concerns and discussions, because informed debate is an important avenue to justice in our world today. Thanks.
The article mentions finding Chinese lorries (trucks) in Sudan. So what? You'll also find lots of American, British, and French materiel in the Sudanese conflict. You think these things aren't available on the open market? And yes, the BBC is probably lying, or at least not telling the whole truth. Wouldn't be the first time either: they were just as loud as the neocons in accusing Iraq of harboring WMDs, when it was obvious at the time to any thinking man that that was total nonsense. You are seriously gulping the blue pills if you think the BBC is reliable on any subject that relates to British (and U.S.) imperialism. Sudan also happens to be a perfect example of what I have been saying. The country was peaceful when China was buying oil from them. But any oil not under control of the West was intolerable to the U.S., so a rebellion started up with the loud approval of Hilary Clinton. The country may or may not have been a paradise when China was influential there, but I can almost guarantee that life for the average citizen is far worse now. (Yes, they had an election. But life still sucks worse that it did -- just as in Iraq.) Wrecking countries is what the U.S. does best. If you are African American and you care about Africans, then you seriously want China to succeed there. Given the West's horrifying history in Africa, you have to believe me when I say that China is Africa's only hope for a decent life.
Redlawn- I don't mean to single out yao ming, maybe its not his cup of tea. Athletes used to stand for something, but now it seems the most popular with the most influence just collect checks and keep it moving. I'm pretty sure if yao wanted to bring attention to the darfur situation, he could make waves. When mcgrady was throwing his hat in that arena, if yao would've been part of that, it could've been huge. He didn't for his own reasons, but china's government involvement probably had something to do with it. I hope his anti poaching campaign goes well, but the atrocities in darfur being helped by china would've been big.
It's a terrible situation, true, but the African Union does not agree that it was a genocide, regardless of what the the U.S. Secretary of State at the time (Colin Powell) tried to claim. Most of the deaths were a result of drought.
What? If this was happening in ireland,england or anywhere else in the world, there would be outrage. Of course, its africa and the world is late or posters like u make excuses or deny claims. I will be exiting this thread to avoid arguing with stupid people.
I am not an expert in African geopolitics, so what I say may not be as nuanced or informed as I wish. I think it is admirable for athletes like McGrady, and celebrities like Clooney to be involved. I am not sure of their positoins, but were either advocates for South Sudanese independence then? From an Asian perspective, due to many countries being divided against their will, many countries have despised the division of nations from superpowers. I imagine this is China's position for supporting the Sudanese government, rather than the division into 2 nations. In popular tellings of history, many people believe that Germany, Italy, and Japan were the losers of the WW2. However, this is only partially true. It can be argued that Vietnam, Korea, and Palestine were even bigger losers, as they played no part in the war, yet had their lands divided or lost all of it. The effects of those actions still resonate today.
Can you read? The union of African countries (African Union) does not consider the Darfur situation a genocide. The deaths were mostly caused by drought. The West has a horrifying history in Africa, and you as an African American want more of the same? Someone is terrifyingly stupid in this conversation, but it's not me.
I would not be surprised if either of these situations were true, given our history to initiate wars based on false pretenses, and other unsavory actions in foreign lands. It does sound like you are at least somewhat informed. Do you have any links? It would help us all, I think.
Here I did some legwork. Allegro's claims do seem plausible. African Union chief criticizes genocide charges against Sudan president http://www.sudantribune.com/African-Union-chief-criticizes,35693 This is from 2010. I do not know if things have changed. Other people can chime in too.
Come on, man... And even when the US was so-called "isolationist" before WWII they weren't really so.
i do believe China's official statements have often been to the tune of ... "we don't believe nations should interfere in other's internal affairs", "strong borders, strong security", etc?
Thanks for finding the link, redlawn. I didn't have one (oops) because I was going by memory that the Darfur disaster was not a genocide in the eyes of the countries in the African Union. Most of the deaths there were from starvation due to drought.
I see that leebigez does not have the courage to continue a conversation he provoked. Well, regardless of what he prefers, China will continue to improve African living standards on a massive scale -- and the U.S. military (AFRICOM) will continue to try to wreck the continent. An example which may actually be on topic for this thread: does anyone here remember the friendship between Yao and Dikembe Mutumbo? They were serious buddies, almost like brothers. One reason for it, perhaps, was that the Congo (Deke's home country) was one of the first recipients in 2008 of the amazing deals that China has been offering to African countries. And China has come through by building a $400 million hydroelectric dam 2050 miles of paved roads 2000 more miles of roads repaired 32 hospitals 145 health centers In addition, China has been training Congolese doctors and engineers. With enough engineers, eventually Congo will be able to build its own roads, bridges, hospitals, hydropower stations, and so on. In other words, their development will be self-sustaining. In return, China gets a small fraction of the country's minerals. It's a win-win situation -- and I remember how euphoric Deke was. Has the U.S. done anything like this, despite having literally centuries of opportunity to do so? The answer, of course, is no -- not even close. In fact, the most recent U.S. contribution to the Congo has been to start a civil war. I have to shake my head in sorrow. Leebigez is an African American, right? How can he rationalize his support for the U.S.'s destructive actions in his mother continent? I don't know, but I suspect that he would make an interesting study in abnormal psychology.
