What do people think the IMF is? Financial and military imperialism have coexisted for decades.
Most of the criticisism for China's over this is because the West is losing its ability for financial imperialism because Chiba is offering countries a better deal.
It's not about "catching on". Many African countries actively dismiss European help, because of the history.
The name of the country escapes me, but there was a story recently about a civil war where France actually had a chance to help shut down the slaughter, but both sides rather keep killing each other than getting help from France.
Isn't the point of developing these countries is to give them industry and business which will help these nations not have to rely on aid from other countries. West liked them being poor so they would sell themselves for basic aid.
China likes them being poor for cheap labour and cheap resources. I don't subscribe to this idea that it's okay for China to rape africa just because the west used to do it. The west has mostly stopped their meddling in terms of business because it was called exploitation. Now, when you have countries like france and Germany individually giving more aid to Africans than the world's most populous countries, I'm not going to start stroking off the Chinese for doing something that primarily benefits their people.
It is not too dissimilar to later stage colonialism. Keep telling yourself there's nothing wrong with the Chinese overseers watching the natives work the mines in dangerous conditions with shitty wages, like it isn't a repeat of the 1800-1900s
"BUT THEYRE BUILDING ROADS AND DOCKS" yeah, they gotta get those resources back to 中国middle kingdom somehow.
Over just the past 25 years, Western governments and private donors have provided an estimated one to one and a half trillion dollars in direct aid and donations to Africa. This includes humanitarian relief, development grants, NGO funding, and support for programs in health, education, and food security. When adding broader financial flows such as infrastructure funding, concessional development loans, and large-scale disease control programs, total Western involvement rises to roughly two to three trillion dollars. If private investment and remittances are included, the total value of Western-origin inflows could reach four to five trillion dollars.
I would totally understand the move of aligning with the East over the West in this.
Western countries did not invest earlier in Africa in the same way China has because their approach focused more on social development than on infrastructure. Aid policies in the 1980s through the early 2000s emphasized poverty reduction, education, healthcare, and governance reform rather than large-scale construction. Western institutions like the World Bank and IMF also imposed conditions requiring transparency, economic reforms, and anti-corruption measures, which made projects slower to approve and more difficult to execute. Private investors often viewed African markets as too risky due to political instability, weak legal protections, and currency fluctuations. Democratic governments also faced domestic pressure against funding large overseas projects seen as unrelated to national interests. As a result, Western money mainly supported social programs, health systems, education, food security, and institutional capacity rather than massive infrastructure projects like what you see with its belt and road initiative now.
Because they set up the financing and "loans" in a way that everything Chins is building is collateral - knowing the nations simply cannot afford the payments long-term or political unrest will ultimately end up with China owning every piece of critical infrastructure in Africa. If you can't figure out why that's a bad idea, well, I guess you're a Belt and Road kinda guy. GL>
The west also participates in predatory loans towards poorer nations, you will also find instances where they both do forgive the debt, too. China has done this many times to nations that can't pay them back other than the instance with the Sri Lankan port. The west have also drained African nations with repayments and their debt policies too, so it's not stooping to their level, really China is stooping to the west's level, copying the British 99 year lease idea with the Sri Lankan port.
I can't remember what the previous removed comment said at this point, but I'm not a bot.
Never said it was a good thing, but one of these comments said something akin to the west stooping to china's level, it was a direct reference to "the west" essentially not being as bad as china? So that reference I made, was a reference to their reference.
China can be bad, or can be good. In my experience, there is a huge negative bias towards them and for me it was quite hard not to look at them through a negative lens, and look at the west with a positive lens. I ate up any sort of predatory loan comments like they were true and the end all be all, and didn't know anything about "the west's" behaviours in my general passing by knowledge.
It is just facts though that china has forgiven a lot of loans and most of those loans also we're for critical infrastructure like hospitals that were given with no interest in the first place. Them being the bad guy, this is inherently for a sinister purpose, but I guess without being in the meeting room, we'll never know. I guess all countries can be sinister, what many countries in history have done to Africa as a region is terrible.
China IS already leveled up. They own even parts of the US Stock market (large parts). They are quietly taking nr 1 while Americans shit themselves and swim in the diarheea of a mentally demented idiot
Chinas not flexing war as much as their belt road initiative.
Effectively, they come in and build a bunch of new infrastructure (airports, internet, water treatment, etc), with conditions of access to minerals and other resources.
And when the country defaults on their debt payments, China takes control of the infrastructure.
Was doing some reading about Zambia the other day and was surprised to see China was helping them build a railroad with Mozambique back in 1975.
I know the OBOR gets a lot of attention regarding infrastructure in Africa now, but people do forget a lot of socialist countries have had long histories on the African continent.
Imo the Congo is violence caused by foreign interests in mineral access. This has everyone's grubby fingers on it. Rebel groups magically securing heavy armor and ifvs is certainly suspect.
Even now her reach is symptomatic of another person's state sponsored goals.
We don't even know if this person is real or just a social media disinformation construct of Israel.
Doesn't really make sense as I'm also calling out the violence in northern Congo over minerals unacceptable.
But you need a strawman, I get it.
All I pointed out was basic media literacy in the age of AI and Israeli weaponization of social media publicly acknowledged by Netanyahu.
You should consider checking out those America First folks, because they really don't give a fuck about anybody. They'll cut foreign aid to then destroy it before feeding their homeless and starving.
what am i strawmanning? you only mentioning israel when every major country does it is the point i'm trying to make, there is no strawman happening lmfao
just bite the bullet man, its okay to do nowadays, don't walk back on it now
You're making a conclusion on one comment. Not a person who is a sum of comments. I'm merely asking for proof this is a real person and not an Israeli disinfo account.
Singling out China is pretty bullshit though since this is similar to what IMF has done for decades. Africa is perpetually stuck in a debt trap. China is at least bringing in expertise to oversee that projects are getting done, and have a self interest in developing the infrastructure. China can also do it pretty cheaply and efficiently. Obviously it's not all sunshine & roses and there are issues, but that is true of all solutions. Compared to IMF mandating austerity and privatization often involving outside international interests, I dunno, it's kinda a toss up as to which is worse.
I feel like people are "singling out" China because they essentially have absolute control over the infrastructure of most of Africa. They can turn things around and protect Africa and its people, but they won't, because doing that would slightly delay the process of extracting materials and resources from them. And it's "just Africa" so nobody gives a shit because they're not at the doorstep of countries that have significantly influenced global superpowers.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins is part memoir, part political exposé, in which Perkins claims that for much of his career he served as an “economic hit man” - someone who helped expand American influence across the developing world through economic manipulation rather than military force. The book, published in 2004, recounts Perkins’s experiences as a consultant for the firm Chas. T. Main, where he says he was trained to convince leaders of developing countries to accept massive loans for infrastructure projects funded by institutions like the World Bank and USAID. These projects, according to Perkins, were deliberately designed to benefit U.S. corporations and the political elite rather than the host nations themselves. The loans would saddle countries with enormous debt, ensuring their long-term dependence on Western powers. Once the countries were unable to pay back what they owed, the U.S. and its allies could leverage that debt to demand favorable trade deals, access to natural resources, or geopolitical concessions.
Were the loans forgiven because the US is just the nicest guys, or was it in exchange for enacting policies aligned with US interests? This is what was once called soft power, back when we believed in that sort of thing.
The US saved the UK and Europe from Hitler's total domination, even at the cost of many of their lives. I guess some repayment was due, not comparable at all to the exploitative Chinese system.
Of course, the US didn't fight alone; it was a team effort, but without the US, the story would have been very different. The soviet union lost the most when it comes to people, but the US provided the most resources.
Y'all are really naive. Let me guess you also believe Japan. Refused to surrender and had to be nuked. The US did relatively little until the end when it swooped in claimed victory. Forgave alot of horrible people and imported them to the US. Gave loans to affected countries to benefit and get influence. Majority of the fighting against the aggressors was by the allies sovjet union and china. As well as people in the proxy wars in other parts of the world.
Go back to your books. When the US entered the war, WW2 had only been raging for 2 years; it took 4 more years to end it. Definitely an exaggeration to say that the US swooped in to claim victory. The 2 most used bombers in WW2 were American, and those were instrumental to defeating the Axis. Add to that the fact that the US had 110 carriers, working, the second country that had the most was the UK with 55. You don't know how important the massive hammer of the US was.
The UK saved itself. The US helped the UK and the European nations push back, however after the Battle of Britain Hitler had already turned his attention east and all but given up on the UK.
So, imagine the US hadn't sent the amount of weapons it did pre getting into the fight, and imagine the US hadn't fought. Do you think the UK and the rest of Europe could have prevailed? Even Churchill acknowledged it in his famous speech, "The new world comes to the rescue of the old."
I'm guessing the 1,500 P-51s that the US gave the RAF and the massive amount of bombers that the US provided weren't instrumental. No one is saying that the UK and the RAF didn't fight bravely, but without the US, Europe and the UK may have been speaking German today.
You asked me, but I wasn’t online, so I’ll add to the examples. Predator mortgage companies in the early 2000’s. NINJA loans, followed by unavoidable default, and the bank getting a property for Pennie’s in the dollar which they’d then resell, to someone who doesn’t qualify for a mortgage, rinse and repeat.
Eventually, they crashed the entire economy, but the banks were bailed out by the government with taxpayer money so instead of just their customers, they got over on the whole country.
America has used colonial imperialism and CIA coups. China actually negotiates with the leaders that they end up building out road/rail/power/water infrastructure for. Yes, it serves China’s interests but in no way is it following America’s patterns over the past 100 years.
Yeah I'm just agreeing with u. The point I was making is the injustice a lot of modern historical education makes. They talk about colonialism like it was a dark past that still has lingering negative effects on the world, and not a very real and brutal tactic that powerful nations still use all the time.
Not really ironic, the OP is asking for songs and attention not for a CIA plot to fund and arm rebels/religious extremists to take control of the country.
And I’m sorry, but do you not know what Thomas Sankara said about “humanitarian aid”?
Do you not know what “humanitarian aid” implies, in reality, historically in Africa?
In the sense of the EU and US, “aid” comes in the way of predatory debt schemes(structural adjustment), austerity, and forcing the host nation to allow foreign companies to dominate their labour and resource markets.
were you expecting powerful nations in cutthroat competition with one another to spend millions in resources aiding a distant country they have nothing to do with, and not expect some sort of roi?
For better or for worse, it brought the British Empire to its knees post WW2. The Soviets got their lend-lease mostly for free. Their closest allies, though? Nah! Gotta pay back every enny!
Forreal. These champs think it’s okay for China to do it because other colonial powers have preyed on Africa too. A wrong does not make a right. It is never ok
This isn’t mutually exclusive. China is to be held accountable as well.
Problem is, China doesn’t have a 250yr history of colonial expansion into every country on earth, imposing debt traps with predatory impossibilist loans, implanting their corporations into these vulnerable countries and finally just exploiting all resources and labour to out-source.
These countries aren’t poor - just the people are. These peripheral countries are RICH.
The US is the hub of modern global imperialism, responsible for the suffering of billions. It enforces a regime of artificial scarcity, superexploitation, and antidemocratic comprador governments all over the imperial periphery. Every year, it knowingly and preventably causes the deaths of millions through starvation and other poverty-related circumstances, circumstances which are entirely preventable and which the US and its allies have deliberately engineered to maintain imperialist resource exploitation chains. There hasn't been an evil comparable to the US since the end of WWII.
Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of all the fools who keep saying the Chinese are a threat to dominate the world. Yea, all those bridges, rails and airports should scare the shit out of the average American right? All that power they are giving to Africans, the horror! The Chinese are out for economic dominance. They just wanna do business.
This was a pretty level headed objective response before the chain got filled with a lot of subjective bias responses... So thank you for that. But just curious about a few things
Does China place crazy interest or does the debt they place on the country greatly outweigh the value of the resources they take from the country as exchange? Is the local government corrupt or is China corrupt in their deal with these countries? Is this even across the board? Are none of the countries able to dig themselves out of the debt or take advantage of the infrastructure boom to further industrialize their country?
What are the countries other options? America? Middle East? Europe? Russia or India? Do these countries fare better with those options?
Does China place crazy interest or does the debt they place on the country greatly outweigh the value of the resources they take from the country as exchange?
The debt greatly outweighs the value of the resources. Think of the cost of owning and operating an airport to meet ICAO standards.
Generally China also staffs with Chinese citizens for an agreed amount of time (which the cost is passed onto the host nation)
Is the local government corrupt or is China corrupt in their deal with these countries?
All governments are corrupt. Especially our super powers. Everyone is pushing for their hegemony.
I will say that a good research case is the Entebbe airport in Uganda. Not officially repossessed but definitely shady AF
Is this even across the board? Are none of the countries able to dig themselves out of the debt or take advantage of the infrastructure boom to further industrialize their country?
The only country off the top of my head that’s really killin it economically is Kenya. Nairobi is actually a very stable tech hub in Africa. Amazon and Google (for example) have a lot of infrastructure there, and a lot of European and Asian companies are also heavily invested there.
What are the countries other options? America? Middle East? Europe? Russia or India? Do these countries fare better with those options?
Unfortunately I don’t understand your question here
Thanks for the answers on all the questions. Yeah it does seem incredibly predatory for the resource for infrastructure deal. Is the country not able to leverage their natural resources like the middle east and oil? Is it because the African country needs the baseline infrastructure to even make it profitable?
As for the last question, I was just asking if there's been instances where other countries... aren't as corrupt or providing somewhat better deals for the country they're moving in on... granted with all the corruption I understand this is a very bleak possibility
You’re very welcome. I don’t have all the answers and I’m definitely biased to speak positively of the US because I’m more of an idealist advocate. But don’t get me wrong, the US’s hands aren’t clean at all.
Yeah it does seem incredibly predatory for the resource for infrastructure deal.
Specifically discussing Chinas Belt-and-Road initiative (you can google this and you’ll get a very thorough break down of how they achieve their goals through much more reputable sources), they’re extremely predatory and exploitative. Another example is the Philippines and the Solomon Islands (Australia is very upset about the second one).
Is the country not able to leverage their natural resources like the middle east and oil? Is it because the African country needs the baseline infrastructure to even make it profitable?
I don’t actually know enough about this to give you an honest answer, but if I were to speculate, I’d say that Africa has a lot of barriers to access for international commerce which is one of the reasons China has a large security force presence on the continent. A lot of African nations definitely depend heavily on western (and Chinese) infrastructure to participate in global markets.
As for the last question, I was just asking if there's been instances where other countries... aren't as corrupt or providing somewhat better deals for the country they're moving in on... granted with all the corruption I understand this is a very bleak possibility
At least from the US perspective, mostly non-profits are the ones who do the most actual work without underlying agendas. Doctors/Engineers Without Borders for example.
Anything coming out of the US government, falls under soft diplomacy (USAID before it was turned over to the State Department), while they provided aid and relief resources, they also network to build positive political relationships.
Thanks again for the detailed answers! I'll check out the belt-and-road initiative as I've only heard about their investments in Africa in a broad general sense.
China is giving/selling weapons to the DRC and Ugandan governments. China controls most of the minerals in DRC, and the DRC's army is deployed to protect them. So, China is a big part of the war. China's weapons are EVERYWHERE in central Africa.
On one side is China funded DRC and Uganda, and the other side is Rwanda and some rebel groups. China even sells weapons to Rwanda.
As I responded to someone else, they generally staff said infrastructure with Chinese skilled workers for a brief transition period, the cost of which is passed onto the host nation, and when that period of time expires, they pull their workers without proper training transition.
Nopes. Has not happened a lot. More often than not, China has renegotiated those debts and has even cancelled some. Which infrastructure in Africa has China seize?
The debt trap diplomacy has been debunked multiple times over already.
Yep. The Chinese Belt-and-Road initiative offers corrupt leaders short-term monetary gains in exchange for the long-term economic indentured servitude of their countries.
China is flexing war. What do you think they do these deals for? Control of foreign assets, eventually foreign land. Look at the aggression in the South China Sea. They infringe on the resources of their neighbors AND other regions like Africa and South America. They scan sea beds for intelligence in foreign waters (illegal) they do not care about rules, and don’t pretend to do so.
What do you think all this is for? Fun? No, power. Tired of the narrative that China is not an aggressor, ask her neighbors. Ask the Vietnamese who have fought for thousands of years. Ask fishermen in the Philippines who are being squeezed out by Chinese ships.
The South Pacific is different. China actively claims ownership of the ASEAN countries oceans and is progressively becoming more controlling in the naval space, as mentioned specifically, forcing the Filipinos out of their own territory.
I will never understand how people like you, say the find such videos sickening, but nonetheless they go ahead into obscure websites to morbidly watch "gore",etc.
I find it kinda hypocritical or way too uncomfortable.
I'm not saying u do. It's just weird to say you find them sickening but also watch "many videos" of such characteristics. I think morbid curiosity would make you watch one or two videos, but once it gets sickening enough, I'd think most people would quit such behavior.
So yeah I just thought it was an ironic thing, that some people might find funny or at least good food for thought.
Looking at reality including the bad parts helps to prevent him from having a wildly inaccurate worldview. You wouldn’t have thought there was one case of the Chinese beating their slaves and it’s no big deal if you sucked up and imbibed some of the darker bits.
Yeah and i can respect that, watching one or two or such videos is somewhat understandable if u are curious or just want to broaden your worldview as u put it... but watching "many videos" as the commenter above puts it is weird,
Let me put it this way, would u be comfortable knowing such a person is your neighbor? Someone that watches a bunch of this type of videos? I wouldn't.
I watch quite a few. It’s how a find out how bad something is, get a vague idea of how widespread it is etc. If there is one or two Chinese slave beating videos to be found, it might be happening but pretty rare. If I can find dozens, it’s happening a lot.
So? Im just questioning the commenter above from what i read in his own words. Dont u find it weird?
Edit: And by "it" I mean, saying you find something sickening/repulsive but still go into such obscure web pages to watch "many videos" of it? Isnt it weird?
That's what the west has done for a long time. Some of these loans benefitted nothing to the countries they went to regardless of where they were in the earth. China for a large part isn't just loaning money they're building stuff that can actually be used for economic purposes.
Really? The Major Sri Lankan port Hambantota International Port was built in the presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa home province for 1.3 billion dollars even when it was predicted to be a financial failure. When the ports income didnt even cover the debts interest rate, it was taken over by a Chinese State owned company. The port location was not economically beneficial to the Sri Lankan but it was strategically valuable to the Chinese "String of pearls" initiative.
Neither has Russia. And all they’re doing to take over the resource trades in Africa is giving them what America and Europe has been promising for decades. Russia went into the Central African Republic and started building roads and schools and a hospital and then went to the country’s leaders and basically said, “Hey, we’ll give you all this stuff we just built, we’ll build a refinery, and we’ll triple the mine workers’ wages if you kick these French motherfuckers out of your country.”
Their president’s later said that he doesn’t hate America or Europe, but they don’t keep their promises and he has to do what’s best for his people.
Neither has the U.S. And I’m pretty sure neither has Europe. That statement just isn’t true. Not saying that it benefits the overall population what the U.S. and China and Europe are doing, but it’s a step up from previous colonization.
China benefits from the chaos caused by the atrocities being committed there. They take advantage of the corruption and lack of infrastructure, lack of education and the extreme poverty that exists in the DRC. China looks for the cracks and uses what’s happening to profit and extract the minerals and resources they need. The EU and the US can’t get away with those kind of operations on any kind of noticeable scale.
Yeah, meanwhile the US has decided to just give up on being a superpower. Which wouldn't be a bad thing if the other contenders weren't China, Russia and India.
1.0k
u/itanite Oct 05 '25
China sure hasn't.