Western Powers Go Full Retard on Africa, Part 1: China vs. AFRICOM, a Resource War

via chycho

In Africa, China has been securing access to resources through lucrative trade agreements while Western powers have decided to take the military option to secure their share of the pie.

“Across Africa, the red flag of China is flying. Lucrative deals are being struck to buy its commodities – oil, platinum, gold and minerals… From Nigeria in the north, to Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Angola in the west, across Chad and Sudan in the east, and south through Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, China has seized a vice-like grip on a continent which officials have decided is crucial to the superpower’s long-term survival.”

China in Africa: New Imperialism?

Chinese world trade has increase over 20-fold in under 20 years and even though Africa represents a minor portion of that growth at present, it is vital for China’s long term security and prosperity. Africa not only contains a vast quantity of the world’s natural resources (more info), it is also the second largest continent with some of the most fertile farmlands (pdf) in the world. This has ushered in the age of the “African land grab”.

continued at chycho

10 Comments on "Western Powers Go Full Retard on Africa, Part 1: China vs. AFRICOM, a Resource War"

  1. BuzzCoastin | Jan 22, 2013 at 7:00 pm |

    considering the military colonization of Africa by Europe over thousands of years
    especially the colonial military occupation period between 1870 & today
    China’s trade deals look benign in comparison

    Oh BTW: Uncle Homeland has about 100,000 troops in 35 African countries

    • China’s business is more about local investments. USA & Europe on the other hand is all about neo-colonialism. One of the two will prosper, the other will just cause suffering.

      • sveltesvengali | Jan 23, 2013 at 3:12 am |

        China hasn’t had as much time to play the post-colonial imperialist game in Africa as France, Britain or the US has. That being said, what they’ve done in practice so far isn’t always demonstrably better. Yeah, they may build some roads and improve the economy, but supporting the Janjaweed in Sudan to get their grubby hands on oil reserves there is pretty much equivalent to us similarly destabilizing Congo or Sierra Leone to get access to coltan or blood diamonds.

  2. Do you guys realize that if China got full control of Africa, they’d be getting THREE new armies PER TURN?

  3. The US approach to obtaining resources is like hiring mercenaries for a trip to the supermarket.

  4. I like how this story is all covered in Anglo-Franco cheese turds and jizz. Like any ‘country’ in Africa has ever been free of external control to pursue their own policies as a body politic unsaddled by debt and unburdened by ‘free markets’ to feed and cloth their own people.

    • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Jan 23, 2013 at 9:24 am |

      It would seem that every time they get close to some real measure of sovereignty, their ‘former’ colonial occupiers find out there are terrorists everywhere.

  5. This is what CNN says about China. The fact is that between USA, EU and China. China is way more civilized in their dealing with other countries.

    • sveltesvengali | Jan 23, 2013 at 2:37 pm |

      CNN may be an information front of the military-industrial complex, but it’s not as if such information is directly sourced from CNN. China has certainly blocked UN inquiries into arms sources for the Janjaweed, and the evidence that they’re arming them is pretty much in broad daylight if one actually makes an effort to look it up.

      I dunno, though…I make it my policy not to be an apologist for any of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, since they all hold the unaccountable monopoly on violence, politics and economics.

Comments are closed.