For the sake of the world's economic health, China has to step in and fill the void being left by the struggling US/EU economies. There is no question that the magnitude of our economic troubles and future problems created by our excessive debt have/will limit our ability to invest/aid developing nations in the years to come, so we need those who are flush with cash (namely the Chinese, but also the oil-rich Arab nations) to step in and help fill the void. So yes, China is concerned first and foremost with its own national interests, as it should be, but in upping its investments in developing nations it is also serving the world's own economic well-being. The world needs China to spend and spend some more, both as a consumer economy and as an investor. This is good news...
China needs to let its currency float to allow for these African countries to fairly compete on the global economy.
It might or might not stop right away. But that doesn't mean "they" should continue aiding by trading with killers. I am surprised by your logic.
one can argue that if they become desparate, they may speed up the process. i don't think by stopping trading would benefit them much if at all. isolation will serve no good. it's probably better to enage them and hope they can change after some economic developement. there is really not much options here, other than foreign military interference to overthrow them.
Good point that it would not stop but you are right. It is not wise for China to invest there. I am with you on this. Gotta watch Tmac's three point doc.
Well I think there is some confusion here. China does not have an obligation to STOP what's going on there. But China does have an moral obligation not to contribute to what is clearly wrong there.
i don't know all of the details going on there, so i am not going to defend them. but, is there any direct evidence of investment contributing to the process? i don't think there were any military help. to me, if investments have no influence on the process, then there is no moral obligation at all.
Basically my sentiment. I think ANY investment in the region is good. Pour money in there, provide modernization, education, etc. Make them more involved with the international community. It can't possibly be bad for these African countries long term. Even if there's strings attached to the arrangement.
You obviously didn't read first 3 page posts. We were arguing whether China has a moral obligation not to trade with an Africa country that is clearly engaging in genocide. Some posters think China does not have such obligation, b/c the Chinese gov't only has obligation to Chinese citizens, not citizens of other countries. It was debate about a principle in foreign policy.
The important thing is that China doesn't care. That's a good thing. They are not giving cash. They are providing infrastructure, etc, etc. There is a slot of corruption that can be done around that but I think China's view is... "We didn't come to fix the problems here. All we know is you have extra oil and we can build fast. If there is genocide in your country, 2 years from now, it will be a country with genocide, but no surplus in oil, a more developed infrastructure, and more jobs created. We didn't fix the genocide problem, but both sides improved as a result." What's happening is that China is minding its own business and helping in functional ways. Again, I can't stress how important it is that these deals are rarely CASH deals - they are exchanges. It is the best China can do. They aer doing a great job and achieving an economic advantage over the US by providing a better service at a better price - story of the last 10 years.
Good point. The Chinese are building a LOT of roads and rail to places that previously did not have any. They're doing this of course, primarily to create the infrastructure needed to haul the iron and other resources back to China, but this infrastructure is also of benefit to local populations, and aren't going to disappear into a corrupt politician's pockets.
If you are not sure Darfur is a clear case of genocide, then what the hell you are crying about? Also how is non-interference based foreign policy nonsense? I don't know American law schools are hotbed for neocon converts.
I was not crying about anything. I think you were the one being over-defensive w/o a clear position. Is it Ok under your non-interference theory China deals with a dictator for special access to his country's resources on a minority tribe's land for discounted price. The dictator could do that b/c he profited the money personally and quashed people from that tribe with the money China give me. Under your non-interference theory it would be perfectly ok, right. Then where is your stop? I was imply advocating a standard that is easy and minimum enough to adopt. I don't think it will hurt China, and I think adopting it would actually help China in many ways in its energy plan. I don't get you neocon reference. I thought my approach is pretty liberal.
I'm inclined to agree. While Yallmean has a point that immoral behavior by a regime should be rewarded at the sametime what good does it do to the country if it is left in poverty with no investment or infrastructure? The PRC has the money to invest in Africa which is overall a good thing. While I would wish they would be a little more discriminating in how they invest hopefully economic development will change things in Africa for the better. Also from a purely business standpoint if the PRC can convince African regimes that they need to reform for the good of the PRC's return on investment that might help to foster positive change.
If you check my post , I was clear pro China's assistance-for-energy plan in Africa. However, what I tried to get across for awhile now is that there gotta-be a bottom-line standard for China in doing that, so that it can defend itself easily when others accuse it of being a neo-colonist. The "willful blindness" approach China defended itself on in Darfur IMO is too easy of a target. Bad policy, bad publicity, and in the run long MAY scare other potential willing partners away.
