Yup, so I certainly wouldn't expect them to rush into any deals with Western countries. I'm just saying that cash mimick the structure of the EU when they start building the rail system.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, yeah for sure. I do imagine that this deal looks more promising to Africa (than any Western one) solely because of China's lack of hard power in the region. China can't project power because their navy is tailored specifically for operation in the South China Sea. China's blue water fleet can't do shit. China knows this and Africa knows this. China only has soft power in Africa, so there's a strong incentive to keep everyone happy because they can't just pull an Iraq if someone doesn't pay.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perhaps. But has the US or anyone in Europe ever actually done that? Usually an invasion is due to terrorism, human rights violations, or violation of international law, not because of unpaid dues. If you look at pretty much every country the US has invaded, the US invested a ton into rebuilding and then left (some cases were handled better than others). I don't think anyone in either region really wants to inherit Africa's problems.

All major powers want access to natural resources, so Africa should recognize the position it's in and be very hesitant to give up anything other than guaranteed trade agreements (i.e. allow sponsors first dibs on X% of total production for Y years or something) in exchange for assisting them in building their own infrastructure (i.e. Africans run the project, sponsors merely share knowledge).

So I sincerely hope the deal between the AU and China (or any other countries they're courting) are beneficial to Africa and not just beneficial to the people in charge.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the US has the best track record, exactly... Afghanistan was a fucking mess.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, and it's a mess for a host of reasons. It's a classic case of the US expanding the scope of a mission far beyond what's necessary. What should've been a quick operation to neutralize a terrorist threat became an occupation with the stated intent being "spread democracy" in a region where centralization really hasn't been a thing.

At no point was the goal ever to establish a colony or create a trading partner, the US just wanted one less place for terrorism to breed.

On the other hand, Iraq is doing a lot better now. It's hard to compare whether it's better than with Saddam Hussein, but the region is seeing a lot more stability and local investment. It's possible we'll look back and consider Iraq a messy success story. I'm still don't think invasion was justified, but things have more or less worked out. And then you look at Japan, Korea, and Europe, which are shining success stories of US interventionism. It's very much a mixed bag.

So I understand countries being nervous about working with the US and Europe, but at least they're more of a known quantity. China can be very unpredictable, but it's clear that they're trying to extend their influence. That alone should make them very hesitant to get involved. Just look at when the USSR did something similar; the main difference is that the US eventually left. If China gets a foothold, will they eventually leave or try to expand their control in the region? I think that remains to be seen, but the history with Tibet and reigning in autonomous regions isn't promising.