Yup, so I certainly wouldn't expect them to rush into any deals with Western countries. I'm just saying that cash mimick the structure of the EU when they start building the rail system.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, yeah for sure. I do imagine that this deal looks more promising to Africa (than any Western one) solely because of China's lack of hard power in the region. China can't project power because their navy is tailored specifically for operation in the South China Sea. China's blue water fleet can't do shit. China knows this and Africa knows this. China only has soft power in Africa, so there's a strong incentive to keep everyone happy because they can't just pull an Iraq if someone doesn't pay.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Perhaps. But has the US or anyone in Europe ever actually done that? Usually an invasion is due to terrorism, human rights violations, or violation of international law, not because of unpaid dues. If you look at pretty much every country the US has invaded, the US invested a ton into rebuilding and then left (some cases were handled better than others). I don't think anyone in either region really wants to inherit Africa's problems.

All major powers want access to natural resources, so Africa should recognize the position it's in and be very hesitant to give up anything other than guaranteed trade agreements (i.e. allow sponsors first dibs on X% of total production for Y years or something) in exchange for assisting them in building their own infrastructure (i.e. Africans run the project, sponsors merely share knowledge).

So I sincerely hope the deal between the AU and China (or any other countries they're courting) are beneficial to Africa and not just beneficial to the people in charge.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

I don't think the US has the best track record, exactly... Afghanistan was a fucking mess.