The problem with tired dichotomies is you end up with these kinds of statements. Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Belgium do have long histories of violence in Africa through slave trading, colonialism, coups, and proxy wars. The Saudis, Emirates, Soviets, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans have had their share of violent extraction either directly or indirectly. The question is whether it adds value to always compare these countries over and over again claiming one is more extractive and violent than the other, and refusing to see how the real world is organized, not as a block of harmonious people under "country" but as distinct divisions even in the most unified of a country. Elitism is one of those things that can help us explain what is going on.

In almost all these discussions, you rarely hear people talk about the African people. As if they are passive objects to be moved around. You need to appreciate the everyday forms of resistance waged by farmers, women, semi-structured labour groups etc against the heavy weight of colonialism and apartheid. A major problem was/and continues to be betray from fellow Africans and allies for material benefits. This is where notions of China being more beneficial to Africa via infrastructure come in. Extraversion^1 is a concept you can use here, because Chinese EXIM bank, especially, works with African heads or states or their representative to okay very expensive loans to fund infrastructure, some even not priorities, benefiting those elites directly. In China too, like in the US and Britain et al, it is also the elite who benefot the most from these relations. Some not even in the interest of their countries.

China offers alternative options to Western funding for major public projects. They are fighting for their interests, just like Americans. Just like Africans. To assume other wise is to go down the boring route of "moral equivalencies" which is a waste of time. I am more interested in fighting for my people get a more dignified life, whether that comes from relations with China, Russians, North Koreans, or Britain. Or all of them.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (16 children)

You don't have to assume altruism here. The big difference between the west and China is that the west has lots of military presence in Africa while China does not. When countries refuse to work with the west on western terms then the west will either do a regime change, destabilize the country, or outright invade it as happened with Libya. The relationship between the west and the countries it subjugates is inherently coercive.

On the other hand, China does not have a history of using violence against countries that don't trade with China and it does not have the military presence to threaten the kind of violence the west has been using when it doesn't get its way.

[–] mwalimu@baraza.africa 2 points 2 years ago (15 children)

Heard of PLAN's base in Djibouti? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Support_Base_in_Djibouti

I refuse simplified dichotomies. They are not helpful to me. May be to you.

[–] Soselin@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Are you aware that base is literally just down the road from one of the biggest US bases in Africa that dwarfs it?

My understanding is Somalia invited them in because they didn’t want to just be a US puppet and inviting China in as a balance of power force is their best option, their least bad option. That’s basically what’s happening in all of Africa, you understand?

I don’t know, like sure I agree Somalia should be allowed to boot them out of Somalia chooses to do that but an actually rather small base to support specifically anti-piracy operations in Somalia seems like a pretty small bean to me.

In the purely abstract yeah sure I agree the best world is one without these bases but it doesn’t seem a tenable stance to pretend it’s imperializing Somalia when it is just down the road from a US base that is about 10-20x the size.

When China starts invading nations to force a permanent military occupation or refusing to leave when asked, then you have a point. But you don’t have that which makes pointing at this base hyperbolic and pale whataboutism to justify a massive western military presence that is often, even usually, not invited but imposed.

[–] mwalimu@baraza.africa 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

to justify a massive western military presence that is often, even usually, not invited but imposed.

You do not understand my point. I am not against China nor am I pro-United States. I am for Africa to make their own practical choices for their own dignified progress. Part of that may be kicking all these bases out. It could also be working with some and not others. No simple straight jacket answer.

This is why it is sickening to see someone come and say NATO looked down up you, but China not so much, er go, China is your better option. Like, that is simplistic dichotomy which I have been repeating all morning. Whether China has a smaller base than US, so what, to a Somali? Is it enough to know China will kill you less faster than the US? why can't Somali focus on building their security infrastructure? But that is not a perspective you have tried to integrate in your work because you are obsessed with China replacing America, and that tired dichotomy.

[–] Soselin@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You didn’t respond to what I wrote.

China is not imposing a military base, it was invited in to be a balance against US domination.

It’s not ideal but it’s not imperialism, it’s a move by the Somali government to counter the massive western presence.

Is this computing?

I’m sure Somali would prefer to have no military bases but since that option isn’t available to them, bases are imposed by the west, they’d prefer to also have China there and not just America.

This is playing out across Africa in terms of investment.

If you’re not factoring in balance of power geopolitics to understand why China is being welcomed then you’re just making anti-China noises.

Africa is inviting China in as a counter to centuries of western militaristic dominance. This is easy to understand.

I’m sure Africa would prefer to not have either but they certainly prefer to not only have the west. Since the west is by far the overwhelming military presence that refuses to leave, it’s only due to this that Africa wants to invite China in as a balance.

It’s their least bad option available to them and that is due to centuries of and continuing western military domination.

load more comments (13 replies)