this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
113 points (94.5% liked)
World News
32285 readers
792 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
It is in China's self-interest for the era of imperialism, complete with its colonialism and neocolonialism, to come to an end. It turns out, that's also in the self-interest of literally everyone, even the imperialists. So the fact that this is in the interests of China is sort of a moot point.
That's like saying a doctor is only curing people of life threatening diseases so she can eat a decent meal and sleep in a comfortable bed. Uh, sure... I think we can all agree that whoever helps out should get a good life. What's the point of saying what you're saying, exactly?
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.
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.
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.
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.