Many studies have been conducted on China-Africa relations, including those written by Fairchild (2020), King (2020) and Nyadera, Agwanda
and Kisaka (2020). This article builds on the latter studies to confront the
real myths and realities of China‘s Africa policy. Firstly, It is worth noting
to highlight the significant contributions of Fairchild (2020)‘s research
study that revisits how sub-Saharan African countries especially those of
the continental coastal democracies with abundant mineral resources
engage with China for equal mutual benefit particularly in the context of
the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Okay, so of the 3 major contributions to this study, at least one, seemingly the most significant, states that Chinese diplomacy (particularly BRI) is mutually beneficial.
After a careful critical analysis of China‘s Africa engagement in the context of the three highlighted countries, FairChild (2020) argues that even though BRI has
been presented historically as a debt trap diplomacy, a mere
interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist risks analysing China through the
lens of European history that discounts the active role of African
countries. Forthright, he says that it is unfair to choose a one-size-fits-all
understanding of China‘s practices in Africa.
So Fairchilds (2020) study, argues that interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist is a reactionary Eurocentric view which both applies European imperialist intentions to China and removes the agency of African countries. Also that you can’t take a “one size fits all” understanding of Chinas involvement.
It is not far-fetched that this
argument is rendering FairChild (2020)‘s research to sound more like a
study conducted from a Chinese perspective that did not compare
China‘s involvement in the coastal democracies with the likes of In-land
African countries of Zambia, Angola and Kenya. Therefore, leaving us
with a gab as to how come this stance is not broadened and compared.
Hence, this study aims to build on top of Fairchild‘s study whilst
disagreeing on not choosing a one-size-fits-all definition.
So they accuse Fairchild (2020) of basically being a China simp for not researching and comparing inland African countries. They aim to disagree with the premise that you cannot apply a “one-size-fits-all” analysis to Chinas involvement.
There is also
the Study conducted by King (2020), that discusses the human resource
traditions of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and
those endorsed by the BRI with particular attention to the Education
Action Plan for the BRI published by the Chinese Ministry of Education
in the year 2016. The research article‘s value contribution stems from
explicitly comparing the FOCAC HRD pledges with the recent ones
related to Education Plan under BRI. A review of the same context is
done under FOCAC VI and FOCAC VII that compares the discourse of
action plans of the different plans, goals, and pledges in the
implementation in various African countries including in Ethiopia and
Kenya. A clear generated scholarly view from the study highlights that
King‘s study supports the two plans undertaken between both China and
the African States by indicating that social welfare is important to the
development and also quotes Xi in 2017 who highlighted that
―Improving people‘s livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of
development‖ (2020: 233). And additionally, supports his argument by
quoting (Frankopan, 2018: 242) who has described China-Africa relations
as ―win-win‖ through the mutual benefits and using cooperations
combined with incentives to weave countries, peoples, and cultures in a
so-presumed win-win scenario.
So now we establish that King(2020) also takes the view that Chinese diplomacy efforts are mutually beneficial after analyzing human resource traditions and those proposed by the BRI, particularly the education aspect of the plan.
It also references another study Frankopan (2018:243) who also describes Chinas relation as Win-Win and mutually beneficial.
We should then understand that the
current article seeks to differ completely with the above highlighted of
presenting China and Africa relations as win-win and add several relevant
empirical findings that render his article relevant but short-sighted and
best limited and myopic particularly looking at how China is not
engaging in a win-win in the countries under study.
So this study is specifically trying to argue against these previous significant contributions as being short sighted, particularly because China is not engaging in “Win-Win” under the countries they will research. Harkening back to their prior insistance that you can apply a “one-size-fits-all” analysis.
The study of
Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020) engage the attractiveness of China’s Africa engagement has raised some of the controversial perspectives and views recently.
Also, this is a tale that continues to be welcomed with mixed feelings,
from disquiet to confusion. They all show that China‘s Africa
engagement is driven by its demand for minerals and oil whilst it delivers
Africa‘s infrastructural needs. In Non-Economic drivers of China‘s
Africa engagement, they all pinpoint at personality traits of Xi. They
quote Cabestan in 2012 who understand XI‘s personality traits as driven
by his ―realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the
need for China to move towards a market economy‖ (2020: 09) that is
useful in analysing his approach to Africa. Prominent former and current
African leaders are understood to be in good books with Xi including
Robert Mugabe (Late and Former Zimbabwean President) who
described XI as a ―true and dear friend‖ of Zimbabwe. His personality
and leadership credentials and work have earned him his first honorary
degree by the University of Johannesburg (UJ) in 2019. He is also
understood to be having the choice of words, outspoken in nature that
increased his interactions with African leaders. The second reason relates
to the decline of Western countries‘ major investments in Africa in the
post-second world war.
So basically, we establish that yet another study, Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020), frames this relationship as Win-Win “we get infrastructure they get resources”. Which is partially informed by Xi Jinpings own established personality as a “realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the
need for China to move towards a market economy”. It also establishes that Xi is highly regarded among African leaders and institutions, and vice versa.
…
If you read the article you can know I’m not nitpicking positive aspects, I’m not jumping around, this is the start of the study.
To avoid making this comment as long as an actual breakdown of an entire academic article, having demonstrated my willingness to engage with the work, can you go ahead and state some of what you believe to be the more valid points against Chinese involvement/framing Chinese involvement as imperialist from the study.
Was Leopold bloody years of terror vastly worse? Yes. Who is arguing with that? Is China benevolent and non exploitative? The African studies done by locals tend to say no.
I can’t read that as it’s paywalled. Anyway here’s a lot of links about this topic, several from African leaders and diplomats on the difference between Chinese trade and development in Africa and actual imperialism as practiced by western countries:
It’s not paywalled. I think you didn’t even bother to click “read full article” or whatever the button name is. They might ask you to register witb a free account.
If you want to use other people opinions as an argument, I’m going to ask you for what you asked for - studies. Preferably published in journals, not essays by socials celebrities like Caitlin Johnstone, nor articles in Chinese newspapers, nor Reddit. And that’s because a deluge of weak sources is worthless - that’s how US propaganda works and enforces itself.
Extra points if the studies are not from China or it’s close Allies, just so that you have exactly the same requirements as the ones you asked for.
Say what you want about China but they aren’t out there enslaving the population and raping women. At worth they’re doing what the FMI is doing with their debt trap. How dare you compare that shit with real life violence
Something like a one-party political system with dear respected leader, concentration camps, surveillance, social rating system, GFW?
Note how I don’t say anything about propaganda from every crack. That’s because western propaganda has successfully evolved in the conditions of outright censorship not being allowed. Like killing cockroaches in a building again and again you make them evolve for the poisons used in the past.
If you are going to pick the “all this is not credible” line, then don’t bother. Also credible is a synonym for “believable”, and nobody can make you believe things you don’t want to believe.
The USA is a one party system in many ways so is the EU when it comes to imperialist and neoliberal policies every single party is on board doesn’t matter who you vote for.
This is just vague-posting unless you actually link some credible china-bad studies that aren’t sourced from British or US state media.
University of Limpopo, South Africa, on China neocolonising Africa - https://www.jstor.org/stable/27159668. Is that credible enough for you?
If not, is there a source that you would call credible - and if it exists, what is it?
Note: I hope I don’t come as aggressive, I was trying to be succinct.
Okay, so of the 3 major contributions to this study, at least one, seemingly the most significant, states that Chinese diplomacy (particularly BRI) is mutually beneficial.
So Fairchilds (2020) study, argues that interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist is a reactionary Eurocentric view which both applies European imperialist intentions to China and removes the agency of African countries. Also that you can’t take a “one size fits all” understanding of Chinas involvement.
So they accuse Fairchild (2020) of basically being a China simp for not researching and comparing inland African countries. They aim to disagree with the premise that you cannot apply a “one-size-fits-all” analysis to Chinas involvement.
So now we establish that King(2020) also takes the view that Chinese diplomacy efforts are mutually beneficial after analyzing human resource traditions and those proposed by the BRI, particularly the education aspect of the plan.
It also references another study Frankopan (2018:243) who also describes Chinas relation as Win-Win and mutually beneficial.
So this study is specifically trying to argue against these previous significant contributions as being short sighted, particularly because China is not engaging in “Win-Win” under the countries they will research. Harkening back to their prior insistance that you can apply a “one-size-fits-all” analysis.
So basically, we establish that yet another study, Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020), frames this relationship as Win-Win “we get infrastructure they get resources”. Which is partially informed by Xi Jinpings own established personality as a “realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the need for China to move towards a market economy”. It also establishes that Xi is highly regarded among African leaders and institutions, and vice versa.
…
If you read the article you can know I’m not nitpicking positive aspects, I’m not jumping around, this is the start of the study.
To avoid making this comment as long as an actual breakdown of an entire academic article, having demonstrated my willingness to engage with the work, can you go ahead and state some of what you believe to be the more valid points against Chinese involvement/framing Chinese involvement as imperialist from the study.
Sorry is China cutting people hand because they didn’t pick up their quota of rubber for the day? Ah that’s right, it was Belgium.
Quit downplaying the horror of real colonisation.
Where am I doing that?
This is literally whataboutism.
Was Leopold bloody years of terror vastly worse? Yes. Who is arguing with that? Is China benevolent and non exploitative? The African studies done by locals tend to say no.
StudieS? You linked one, idiot
I can’t read that as it’s paywalled. Anyway here’s a lot of links about this topic, several from African leaders and diplomats on the difference between Chinese trade and development in Africa and actual imperialism as practiced by western countries:
It’s not paywalled. I think you didn’t even bother to click “read full article” or whatever the button name is. They might ask you to register witb a free account.
If you want to use other people opinions as an argument, I’m going to ask you for what you asked for - studies. Preferably published in journals, not essays by socials celebrities like Caitlin Johnstone, nor articles in Chinese newspapers, nor Reddit. And that’s because a deluge of weak sources is worthless - that’s how US propaganda works and enforces itself.
Extra points if the studies are not from China or it’s close Allies, just so that you have exactly the same requirements as the ones you asked for.
Can be paywalled.
Edit: I highly recommend you read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290551890_Genocide_and_Mass_Violence_in_the_'Heart_of_Darkness'_Africa_in_the_Colonial_Period
Say what you want about China but they aren’t out there enslaving the population and raping women. At worth they’re doing what the FMI is doing with their debt trap. How dare you compare that shit with real life violence
Something like a one-party political system with dear respected leader, concentration camps, surveillance, social rating system, GFW?
Note how I don’t say anything about propaganda from every crack. That’s because western propaganda has successfully evolved in the conditions of outright censorship not being allowed. Like killing cockroaches in a building again and again you make them evolve for the poisons used in the past.
If you are going to pick the “all this is not credible” line, then don’t bother. Also credible is a synonym for “believable”, and nobody can make you believe things you don’t want to believe.
The USA is a one party system in many ways so is the EU when it comes to imperialist and neoliberal policies every single party is on board doesn’t matter who you vote for.
Can you name a single piece of anti-China propaganda from the West that you don’t accept unquestioningly?