Posted on 11/05/2006 2:06:18 AM PST by MadIvan
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has hailed China as his “second home” and praised Beijing for its refusal to link aid and investment to human rights or democracy as it scrambles for assets in Africa.
Mugabe’s remarks came in an “exclusive interview” with the Chinese state news agency Xinhua, which rarely boasts of its exclusives but was eager to publicise his appreciation of China’s friendship in contrast to “western hostility”.
The red carpet has been laid out for 48 African leaders, including Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, as China revels in hosting its biggest summit with the continent since the foundation of the People’s Republic in 1949.
“In most recent times, as the West started being hostile to us, we deliberately declared a Look East policy,” Xinhua quoted Mugabe as saying.
“These were the friends we relied upon during the liberation struggle and they will not let us down,” he added. “For Zimbabwe, going to China is going to our second home. We regard China as a part of us.”
Xinhua said China had just extended a £2.7m loan to Zimbabwe to refurbish its biggest stadium, which was built by a Chinese company.
It has also offered £110m to finance agricultural production and the purchase of three Chinese-made passenger planes.
Opposition groups and human rights activists say prestigious projects such as the stadium refurbishment are inappropriate when millions of Zimbabweans have been impoverished by inflation and disastrous economic policies.
But the Zimbabwe deals are emblematic of China’s refusal to let political criticism stand in the way of its demand for oil, minerals, diamonds and timber from Africa.
Xinhua frankly admitted that China invested billions of pounds in Zimbabwe because it is “keen to secure strategic natural resources to help sustain its mouth-watering economic growth of more than 10%”.
Mugabe said such investment was welcome because it made Zimbabwe less vulnerable to “pressure and political manipulation” by the West.
That theme was underlined yesterday when China promised to double its aid to Africa and pledged billions of pounds in loans to forge a “strategic partnership” between the two giants as a political and economic counterweight to western power.
The announcement came in a speech by President Hu Jintao to his guests that also challenged the West’s attempts to link human rights and democracy in Africa to aid and development.
Mugabe and Sudan’s Bashir listened with evident approval as the Chinese leader talked of “a regular high-level political dialogue . . . to enhance mutual political trust”.
In Sudan, China’s strategic interest in securing oil supplies has led it repeatedly to block any efforts by the United Nations Security Council to intervene in the conflict in Darfur, where aid agencies say a human catastrophe has occurred.
Hu blandly told the Sudanese leader last week that he hoped Bashir’s regime “can find an appropriate settlement, maintain stability, and constantly improve the humanitarian conditions in the region”. Chinese diplomats have also frustrated any UN sanctions against either Sudan or Zimbabwe.
Hu preferred to focus on “win-win” economic growth — China and Africa conducted £22 billion worth of trade in the first nine months of this year, up 40% on a year earlier — and of “cultural enrichment” through exchanges of ideas.
The latter has baffled many Beijing residents as their capital has abruptly been plastered with propaganda posters promoting all things African — although some of the African visitors may not be wholly pleased by the visual emphasis on elephants, jungle, warlike tribesmen and colourfully clad women of ample proportions carrying outsize bundles on their heads.
However, both sides are determined to overlook any unfortunate cultural misunderstandings in their enthusiasm for doing business without strings attached.
The Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao said China’s aid to Africa would, as always, be “sincere and altruistic” and China has just announced it will cancel about £1 billion in debts owed by some of the poorest African nations.
However, China has also revealed itself extremely sensitive to accusations that it is behaving like a modern colonial power. Xinhua yesterday dedicated a commentary to refuting what it called “the fallacy that China is exercising ‘neo-colonialism’ in Africa”.
“The forces that are circulating the fallacy are fearful of China’s fast growth and the positive development of Sino- African relations,” it said, identifying the culprits as “some people from the West”.
Their aim, said Xinhua, was to “block China’s peaceful development so as to maintain their established interests in the world arena”.
China has devoted an extraordinary effort to make Beijing pristine, pollution-free and devoid of traffic jams for the summit, in a useful dress rehearsal for the 2008 Olympic Games.
For Mugabe, the reference to China as a “second home” may be more than a pleasantry. Some diplomats in Beijing think the Zimbabwean leader would be assured of a safe refuge there should he ever fall from power.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Good. They richly deserve each other. And if one could, by some magic wand, saddle the Chinese with every basket case in the world, they would surely collapse under the weight.
Hopefully the chi-coms will make inroads in Haiti also.
They are realists and tough-minded in pursuit of their own interests. They going to do very well in Africa and elsewhere and get what they want (oil, allies on their UN votes) while Western governments funnel all their aid $$ through NGOs which sit around dithering about whether enough gender equity seminars have been held in the donee country.
Maybe Africa could export some of their AIDS to China.
Why would they want or should make such link? They are pragmatic, they want resources, markets, and allies.
Inflow of money WILL improve lives of Zimbabweans. For example they will work at this stadium refurbishment and they will use it.
Haiti already gets US help.
China is one superpower that could go in and clean up the tribal messes of Africa in a colonial way without anyone (MSM)calling them racist. Not saying this bodes well for the rest of the world but Africa needs a babysitter willing to kill off the murderous thugs that have ruined this continent.
I know, that is my point.
We keep throwing money into that pit to no avail like we have so often Africa in the past.
Let the chi-coms throw their money away.
And second prize is ?
A lot of it really is just basic economic development. Africa needs all the foreign investment it can get. A stadium is better than no stadium, regardless of how little perceived benefit it is to the "average" Zimbabwean. Western NGOs have a tendency to forget this and end up throwing money on unproductive social projects that are even less beneficial to the "average" man than a stadium. China got significantly wealthier over the last decade from undiscriminately accepting foreign investment all over the world. The Chinese appear to have considerable faith in Adam Smith's "invisible hand," while many leftists in the West have lost that faith.
As French and Bolshevik revolutions demonstrated, scouring will scour, burning will burn, slashing will slash.
What is needed is building, humility and patience. Things like stadiums add to the infrastructure of civilization. Purging, killing, bombing will satisfy Puritan arrogant passions while bringing misery and destruction.
China has jumped the shark. Africa is a bottomless pit.
Africa had better bring a very long spoon.
Not so many years ago China and India were seen as hopeless cases. Now Africa undergoes the period of hidden growth.
Trivial things which do not show much in GDP statistics like organizing local schools, introducing electric grids, radio or TV, some gadgets and second hand goods can be revolutionary. People are waking up and learning. Give them 20 more years and you will be amazed.
Maybe since Fukuyama admitted the error of nation-building in Africa there is hope.
I'm sure it's much easier for these corrupt thugs to sell out the assets of their countries to the chicom, who could not care less about anyone's rights. Think of the people of darfur.
I don't think we have anything to worry about. China can pour all the money they want down Mugabe's rat hole and it will remain a rat hole. The "money to refurbish the stadium" is a clear indication of this. Talk about a waste of money. If they really wanted a return on their investment they would sink money into roads and actual useful infrastructure. But then Communists have never been smart. They are sinking money into a country with an economy that is shrinking on an average of 8% a year.
On the other hand India is investing in Kenya and Tanzania where the economy is expanding on the average of 6% a year.
The smart money is on India.
And you are doing exactly that.
China is showing vast stupidity by supporting Mugabe and Bashir. There were plenty of other places that they could have invested time and money and gotten a far better return but like to like and China has an affinity for murderous thugs that will come back to bite them.
Somehow the murderous thugs are always on the other side
I will give you example. During Reagan administration Iraq attacked and waged bloody war against Iran. Iranians were bad guys and Iraqis were the good guys.
At that time Iran accused Iraq of using poison gas. It was dismissed as an Iranian propaganda. After Iraq invaded Kuwait and fell out of favor, the criminal use of poison gas and other Iranian accusations became the absolute truth.
Don't you find it a little confusing? Or is your thinking so flexible that it always matches the official and changing position, even about the past events?
Iraq was never the good guys something easily shown by their being armed by the USSR, China and france all open supporters of bloody tyrants.
Of course maybe to you they were the good guys.
Do you remember how US navy was sent to protect Iraqis? (It was when the Iranian airliner was shot down).
They were not sent to protect Iraqis they were there to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers and keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
I know that you and Saddam have a tendency to think that Kuwaiti is part of Iraq but they are separate countries.
Do you have any more faux-history you would like to pull out?
"China is showing vast stupidity by supporting Mugabe and Bashir."
You mean like the US did with Saddam, Castro and countless other dictators?
As A. Pole has already stated, the Chinese are very pragmatic and unlike the US, their moves are very calculated with a great deal of thought given to the long-term future.
I wouldn't say the Chinese are being stupid at all. There's obviously something they want and apparently they're getting it.
Iraq was allowed to put Kuwaiti and other foreign flags on Iraqi tankers.
I will remind you another detail. Do you remember how USS Stark was attacked by Iraq on May 17 1987 what resulted in 37 deaths? Somehow the bias against Iran was so strong that this attack was disregarded. Don't you find this amazing?
Now if the USS Stark was sunk without survivors, how likely is that Iran would be blamed?
Go back to the history books. Look for transculturations - the many failed attempts [start with the Katyn Forest massacre - it is the easiest one to analyse, everything is on the surface] and the two large scale successes [even then the degree of success is somewhat dubious] - early expansion of Islam and the creation of Spanish colonial empire in South America. Both were genocidal. This would give you an idea of the depth of scouring required.
I can not only dismiss it but laugh at it.
If China wishes to pour money down that rat hole that is their business.
The Chinese ARE building roads and other useful infrastructure like generators, schools and satellite communication networks.
Not.
Chinese money is going into swiss bank accounts except for a few projects like the mad one's palaces.
It will be fascinating to see what happens when he falls. China will find it's self out in the cold again.
Irrelevant. That was between Iraq and who ever else. Not us.
Now if the USS Stark was sunk without survivors, how likely is that Iran would be blamed?
You have now moved from fact into the realm of wild speculation.
China needs the mineral resources of southern Africa (South Africa and Zimbabwe). China does NOT need the Africans. They have millions of excess peasants who can come over and work the mines and the farms. The Africans will then be treated like the American Indians: driven off or killed
In exchange for being the figurehead who allows this, Mugabe will be allowed to retire to a nice estate in China, and will bring along all the women he wants to grab
More faux-history.
It is amazing that how the defenders of Communist regimes all have the same talking points.
Now there is a far more likely scenario then the "benevolent Chinese" being pushed by many.
Mao killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million Chinese during his rule. South Africa has a population of just 44 million. Genocide on that scale is well within Chinese capability
Why are these commie defenders on an American political forum?
Because they are the major counter balance to the Chinese.
Do you have any idea how many Indians live in Africa? They are not just trading they are going in buying land and living there.
You don't see Chinese, not even in the game parks. You do see a lot of Indians.
You get three guesses and the first two don't count. :)
"More faux-history.
It is amazing that how the defenders of Communist regimes all have the same talking points."
I'd suggest that you take a look at the links bookmarked in my profile as well as my blogsite. You'll find that I'm no defender of Communist regimes.
As for referring to my previous statement as "Faux-History", call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that many of the dictators that have been a pain in our arse, are the ones our governments policies have helped bring to power.
Mao [ca. 60 million dead] has never attempted a 'transculturation' - "transcivilization", rather - but functioned fully within the Chinese civ, as a modern day "Son of heaven", albeit in a rather modern garb. One could argue that transcivilizing the Chinese would have taken not 60 million dead but many more.
Your statement was an out and out lie. The US had nothing to do with bringing Saddam to power.
No need. I just got back from there in March.
You may believe what the newspaper says. I will believe my not lying eyes.
On the other hand the UK is doing a marvelous job building a very nice road in Kenya. That was another thing that I saw.
"Your statement was an out and out lie. The US had nothing to do with bringing Saddam to power."
I didn't say the US brought Saddam to power, but the US DID SUPPORT him during the Iran - Iraq war. That's a fact, Jack.
That's what happens when you rely on short-sighted foreign policy.
Kind of old news. China has been investing quite a lot of dough to develop African resources for quite a few years now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.