Since that article seems both more informative and more neutral (for example, it says "China may" while the other article says "China to"), we switched to it from https://www.africanstand.com/news/africa/east-africa/china-t.... Also, this one is still up and that one isn't. Thanks!
West African American here (Ghanaian - American). This article actually isn't true, while the Kenyan Chinese pact that led to the construction of the Nairobi - Mombasa Port does have clauses related to penalties around lack of payment, there has been no actual announcement or any signs of China declaring possession of the Mombasa Port. In fact, the big issue in Mombasa right now is actually revolving around a Kenyan state company taking over one of the terminals, a situation that doesn't delight the workers due to the late payment periods of said state company.
Speaking furthermore, I do find it highly concerning just how much of an echo chamber this place is in regards to this notion of "Chinese colonialism" and Chinese "debt - traps". Most African countries still owe far more to the IMF/World Bank than they due to China. Of the 54 African countries, only four are in severe debt to the Chinese (Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Zambia), and of those four countries China has gone the distance in terms of reviving moribund national rail systems and helping to set up industrial zones, which is in part why East Africa boasts the highest growth rates on the continent.
Africa is a vast continent with booming populations. They're also counties with deeply huge infrastructure needs. Ghana alone while one of the richer African countries is in desperate need of new roads, power plants (blackout issues), hospitals (we recently passed a universal healthcare law), and education(we recently launched universal free senior high school education). The funding to launch these countries into elevated statehood isn't going to come from the West. The city Of New York's pension fund isn't going to be investing likely in the KSE (Kenyan Stock Exchange).
So are there issues with Chinese engagement? Yes. Will some countries make a botch of it? Yes. But are other countries seizing the opportunity and using it to drive a higher standard of life? Yes. But in my opinion it is a far better arrangement than the European sponsored neocolonialism of the past. France in particular still operates a monetary zone that operates in 14 African countries in its former colonial obit, and we cannot forget the provocations against the Gaddafi regime earlier this decade which resulted in accelerating a migrant rush towards Western Europe. The Chinese stay out of African politics. and in historical terms have largely not interfered in the political processes of countries not in their "near abroad" to borrow a Russian political term.
Anyway those are my thoughts from someone who is African and has actually been to various countries in Africa.
I am an African and I live in West Africa. I think China is doing great job for the continent and it is helping Africa upgrade her infrastructure.
But we Africans should know that sustainable development and transfer of technology cannot come if we fail to build our own indigenous peoples and companies. Nobody is father Christmas, everybody is there to maximize his gains. So , we Africans should wake up and take our destiny into our hands.
I have some concerns with Chinese loans, they are tied to we using only Chinese companies, Chinese technologies, and in most cases only Chinese labour. This shows that Chinese loans are not in the same class as World Bank own. There is nothing like open bidding and fair pricing mechanism. If we use only Chinese oriented inputs what benefit is their for the local communities and businesses? We must nurture , support , and empower our people and businesses.
Chinese is just trying to continue her 'supersonic' growth via African loans.
We have been mixing cement and granite before now , suddenly we are watching foreigners doing same in our backyard. This is inexcusable, and I cry each time I pass such site.
> If we use only Chinese oriented inputs what benefit is their for the local communities and businesses?
When you buy a road, you get to transport things; when you buy a port, you get to do long distance trade. That happens even when no local job is created.
The benefit is there as long as the loans are for fairly priced infrastructure with real value. People (across the world) suspect this kind of loan because it is too often used for financing way too expensive infrastructure with no real value. The local population of a country has the challenge of allowing their politicians to do the first without allowing them to do the second, so if you trust your people and institutions to achieve that, there's absolutely no problem with the loans.
Here in Brazil people are starting to open up for the Chinese loans. It is happening at the same time as people are trusting a bit more the government to not be corrupt, but I don't think there is any causal relation.
> Here in Brazil people are starting to open up for the Chinese loans.
I read the opposite. What is that based on?
EDIT: In response to the reply below, a search shows plenty of research out there on this topic. (Sorry, I don't have time to read it myself right now.)
It's based on talking to people and watching them change their opinion though time.
It may be completely off due to sampling bias, but I don't think there is any source out there with better confidence, as I have never seen anybody doing a serious poll of the subject.
EDIT: Well, in reply to your edit, how did you search for that research? All I can see is trash news about some huge investment coming from China to Brazil in the future or how the next Brazilian president is a xenophobe that will reject money from anywhere. I still haven't seen any serious handle of the subject, by researchers or the press.
And honestly, you have every reason to tell me to fuck off and more besides. And I’m not Father Christmas, if you make a deal with me, I expect something in exchange.
Invest in African growth businesses(stocks at the moment, African focused mutual markets). Purchase African products. Lobby your government/EU governments to continue AGOA(US)/open the door towards African food/crop imports (unlikely). And honestly, tourism, some great destinations on the continent, and a great way to actually spend in local economies.
Africans don't need charity. The NGO industrial complex has failed to create modern states, it can deliver great help to badly affected communities but it can't leapstart growth. We all know the US won't invest tens of billions in African countries, but change your perception of Africa as some place to be helped, and countries that want investment, this explains why China has become such a big player on the continent.
I think the problem with the "West" and Africa, is that we view Africa as mostly a single unit, and not the individual countries that make up the continent. From a westerners prospective, African countries have a huge corruption issue, and years of "give-a-man-a-fish" charity from the West appears to have labeled westerners as someone to be taken advantage of and to get free handouts from. It's difficult to evaluate the legitimacy of a company ran be people who think much differently than you.
I've been following the story of a Westerner (I believe he is American) that is taking a land trip through Africa[1]. While there are areas of great, geniune people, many of his stories involve people, both government and private, in the countries trying to exploit him for money, gifts, etc...
He went into a rant in one of his posts that I think has been removed now, but the gist was that years of free handouts from the West is the reason for this behavior.
I don't know how to fix it, but this mentality and perception has to be fixed by the African people -- the West is not going to change on its own. The problem seems to ultimately have been created by the West, and should be fixed by the West, but the reality of the situation is that is not likely to happen. If Africa wants Western investment, it will need to address these stereotypes and perceptions, otherwise China will continue investing. They are not involved in African politics now, but wait 50 years and see if that is still the story. They have to establish their grip on the money first. Once they have solid control of the money, the control of the people will follow.
Your first point is spot-on (so much so that people have made things like this[1] just to point it out).
Your second is more complex, but the general principle of a rich visitor being shaken down is very, very old - after all, you clearly have the means to come visit, while the reverse is not generally the case.
> Africans don't need charity. The NGO industrial complex has failed to create modern states, it can deliver great help to badly affected communities but it can't leapstart growth.
Since this is a startup/hacker forum, what do you think about entrepreneurs moving there to not only start a business, while being ethically charitable and involved in the locally community (rather than just being a digital nomad). Would this be accepted culturally, or would I just be viewed as a rich foreigner trying to trick/scam the populace?
I've only visited the continent as a tourist, but am very interested in your perspective on cultural viewpoints. And followup question -- are certain African nations more open to outsiders than others?
Certain countries are more open to this than others. It'd be tricky to start such a business in West Africa but Kenya in particular is a big tech hub which has quite many Western expats playing a role in it. Kenya would be my pick for where you could do something like that and not be seen as weird/not welcomed.
In other African countries the racial context would prevent it (Southern African countries) or they're more protectionist(Anglophone West African states).
I could also see Uganda and Rwanda also being quite welcoming of such an effort as they're making big moves on trying to grow their tech sectors. The latter two are repressive dictatorships though politically. Economically and socially however the people are largely free. Kenya by comparison is a deeply messy and perhaps perpetually corrupt democracy.
It would be hard to quantify, what we can say is that China focuses more on hard infrastructure, which African countries have a huge lack of capacity of, and which the West has't really focused on development wise since the 1970s.
America excels more traditionally on capacity("soft" work to do with say governance, healthcare, NGOs, and also committed through the IMF/World Bank).
Make America realize that helping other countries will benefit the world including the US in the long run.
America does realize this. It's why USAID, VOA, and other agencies spend billions of dollars each year for the last 60+ years building water systems, and swerage treatment plants, distributing medicine, teaching people better agriculture methods, stocking hospitals, supplying HIV/AIDS drugs to 80 million+ people, treating millions of people each year with malaria medicine, and a metric ass-ton of other things. All of this from tax dollars from the "America" the world thinks is full of hate.
Much of this money is spent in the very nations, especially in the Middle East, that have significant populations that chant "Death to America" every time a television camera is around, then when the news crews go away, return to eating food supplied by the U.S. government.
> Much of this money is spent in the very nations, especially in the Middle East, that have significant populations that chant "Death to America" every time a television camera is around, then when the news crews go away, return to eating food supplied by the U.S. government.
Are you meaning to imply that donating food should buy the U.S. some kind of credit allowance to conduct drone strikes that kill mainly civilians? In many cases, the food they're donating is needed in the first place because of actions the U.S. themselves participates in, see the genocide in Yemen for example.
Also, it's funny that you mention DTA chants, but forget that there are plenty of lawmakers in the U.S. spewing similar rhetoric. After the attack in Iran, the response in the U.S. was basically "they deserved it".
I think both your comments are legit. The US, like many countries, is very paradoxal in its decisions. I hope that one day such negative acts will be negligible compared to the positive ones.
You can build roads and infrastructure, create businesses and invest into education or have a supporting economy that does the same. China does many of these including their chat platform (Wechat) that enables a bunch of local businesses to be able to do what they want. I don't think that you can do too much more that that.
> Speaking furthermore, I do find it highly concerning just how much of an echo chamber this place is in regards to this notion of "Chinese colonialism" and Chinese "debt - traps". Most African countries still owe far more to the IMF/World Bank than they due to China.
I don't think that the amount of debt and the amount of countries in debt is a correct measure of influence that the IMF/WB or China has in the region. The IMF offers highly concessional loans in relatively moderate amounts with many strings attached. These 'neo-liberal' strings [1], which include mandatory monetary reforms and privatization could indeed be considered 'colonial', and their effectiveness can be doubted (or even seen as destructive), but they do seem to have a semblance of responsible debt management in their intentions (but perhaps not in their outcome).
China on the other hand, itself being on the brink of a major debt crisis, is handing out seemingly no-strings-attached YOLO-money, especially to debt-vulnerable countries that previously had large parts of their IMF/WB debts forgiven [2]. In some cases, especially in infrastructure projects, China requires the hiring of Chinese labor and further redirects money because there is a huge technology gap between local and Chinese companies.
These are no concessional loans, and China must know that (some of) these countries are inevitably going to default with major losses of land, infrastructure and natural resources as a consequence, to China's gain. It perhaps is too early to tell, but these measures seem far more 'colonial' to me in intent than the loan programs of the IMF/WB in the last 50 years.
> France in particular still operates a monetary zone that operates in 14 African countries in its former colonial obit
The countries are free to leave the Franc CFA, some of them did and came back, having a stable currency you can trust on in the region is invaluable so they keep it on purpose. Especially that they can trade with their neighbours much more easily.
While we can debate the relative merits and demerits of the CFA, it is still quite very strange and quite frankly colonial that the arrangement continues.And there have been coups in the past in the West African subregion which call into doubt this argument that Francophone African states have much sovereignty to change the situation.
Furthermore, regardless of the relative merits and demerits of the monetary zone, it can't be denied that France has an overt influence on its former colonies. Most of West Africa is essentially a French backyard policywise as France's political economy is highly dependent on African natural resources(Oil from Gabon, Uranium from Niger, Maganese and phosphate from some of the smaller Franco West African states). France's behavior is quite strange especially when one can see how Britain, Spain, Portugal and Italy largely don't politically matter on the continent anymore.
Lastly, one just has to compare the state of Francophone African states towards most of the Anglo states, they are on by definition normally poorer and more fragile. The likes of Togo, Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, and Guinea are on the whole basketcases, and play a part in why West Africa, which is the region China has lended to the most is the poorest.
> While we can debate the relative merits and demerits of the CFA, it is still quite very strange and quite frankly colonial that the arrangement continues.
It continues because it's becoming an African euro-zone, having the same currency is invaluable. Especially that the African currencies don't have a reputation for stability. It's not a coincidence Mali & Guinea left and then came back in.
> Lastly, one just has to compare the state of Francophone African states towards most of the Anglo states, they are on by definition normally poorer and more fragile
I don't really agree with that, you have counter example in both cases, on my case I could point Cote d'Ivoire where the Bank of Africa is located and on the other Anglo side you have Uganda which isn't exactly an example of a rich country, the Franc CFA definitely helped for that.
West Africa, the region with the most greatest number of Francophone states and influence is largely the poorest African region(some like to argue Central Africa, but people debate its composition and shape more readily than West Africa). My experiences in the region often reveal great resentment with the nature of French involvement within their political economy. Now you may disagree with that and think its all hunky dory in those countries, but for me its quite strange as a Ghanaian American to see, and we often feel sorry for them. We feel especially sorry for Togo, our bordering country next door which has lived under a family dynasty for 51 years, a dynasty overtly supported by France.
And we definitely felt sorry for Ivory Coast when French special forces busted into their presidential palace to resolve a domestic electoral dispute. But hey CFA Franc, stability and all that, yeah!
> And we definitely felt sorry for Ivory Coast when French special forces busted into their presidential palace to resolve a domestic electoral dispute.
You're referring to French forces arresting Laurent Gbagbo when he refused to cede power after losing the 2010 election?
Allowing his winning opponent to assume the presidency? Extraditing Gbagbo to stand trial at ICC in The Hague? Where there's a chance he might be acquitted of the crimes against humanity he's charged with for formenting election violence that killed 1,400+ people?
As far as terrible abuses of colonial power, enabling the transition to a democratically elected government and trying the former leader in a fair court of law (where he stands a chance of defending himself) isn't the best example.
Some will say that it was a good intervention, in my opinion it is the continued and sustained pattern of French intervention that has resulted in the continued fragile nature of these states. And oh please we all know it wasn't really about "democratization", it was about removing an opponent of French geopolitical aims.
Ivory Coast background - France enables a local despot, known as Felix Boigny, who does enable local economic growth but institutionalizes power to such an extent that the county falls into civil war and disrepair upon his death in the 1990s, leading to two civil wars in which France plays a major role.
Togo coup of 1963 in which France played a role - Togo remains a dictatorship for 53 years and now has a large and enraged protest movement. The regime has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of dissidents.
Cameroon's backing of Paul Biya - Despite his continued anti-democratic manners and blatant electoral rigging, France sticks by their man, leading to now a insurgent civil war in Anglophone Cameroon.
The Libyan intervention - What can be said that hasn't been said, a new failed state, arms flowing across the subregion which leads to trouble across the Sahel in Mali and Northern Nigeria.
Nobody's arguing colonial history doesn't have a huge number of mistakes.
But now, at this moment, policy going forward -- if not supporting democracy, democratically elected leaders, and the regular, peaceful transition of power, then what?
It's easy to cast stones, but useless without a better, prescriptive alternative.
Non-intervention on the world's part is why Gaddafi (42 years), Biya (43), Obiang (39), dos Santos (38), Mugabe (37), Museveni (33), etc. have been able (and are still able, in many cases) to rule their countries for decades.
Or, as Obama put it in his interview with Seinfeld in response to a question about how many world leaders are crazy, "A pretty sizable percentage [...] Part of what happens is, these guys, I think the longer they stay in office, the more likely that is to happen."
I would love a wonderful world in which France generally supported democratic leaders and encouraged democratization. Such a world would likely prove the death knell of Francafrique. But it is a complete falsehood that France has that vision, it still supports scores of tyrants in the region, and has looked past the way quite a number of times in the last three years alone.
You seem to think this is still “colonial history”. It is very much still modern history.
I think France balances realpolitik against its ethics, with a veneer of corruption on top. Same as any world power.
That said, in comparison to post-WWII refuse-to-decolonize France? Objectively, modern France is far more ethical.
In regards to speed, as a political science professor once quiped to me, 'Countries don't change. The people with one set of ideas just get old and die.'
Pretty much every point in this article is demonstrably false and unsourced, it would take me a good 30min to debunk all of these (I might do it if I have time) but please don't trust anything written in this blog.
> [...] it would take me a good 30min to debunk all of these (I might do it if I have time) [...]
Claiming something is demonstrably false, then saying 30 minutes is too much time to spend demonstrating alleged falsehoods, in a debate on a forum where you've already been engaged in other responses to the same debate over time...
I shared the article in good faith, as part of the debate. Am I then to assume the article (as well as others that suggest similar points[0]) is false simply because you've said so?
"It could be claimed that the countries that operate with these currencies might freely leave the arrangement at any time. In truth, dozens of African leaders, from Silvanus Olympio in Togo to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, have tried in recent decades to replace these tools of monetary and financial control with a new common African currency. Almost all of them - with the possible exception of Malian President Modibo Keïta (1915-77) - have been killed or overthrown the very moment in which their attempts were close to succeeding." [1]
After visiting China and reading a lot about their society I have to say, I wish our governments cared even 50% about their citizens' security as China does.
And don't even start me on infrastructure and digitalisation.
What's lacking in a lot of people's views about China is objectivity. China is not just an "failing authoritarian shithole" or a tech-utopia filled with megaprojects. It's a bit of both, plus a plethora of descriptors in between. No nation, society, or people can be fully described in a few words or even a few sentences. Too many people in this world have one-sided views on too many things/concepts.
The way the Chinese government treats parts of their own population and the way the bully and steal technology from other countries already offers plenty of justification for the last few decades, not just today.
it's not the full story. the full story is more like this: media operates on the hypothesis that this kind of material is on demand, it produces accordingly, generates buzz and hypothesis verified! what's next? product more!
I think market oriented media is really nothing about truth/fact/moral, its only job is to reflect what people want. here is the full list of what people want:
- when we do well, tell me it's all my own hard work.
- when we are in bad shape, it's someone else's fault.
Thank you for sharing your point of view, just a small correction: Russian term 'near abroad' refers specifically to the former USSR republics in their relation to Russia, not to any neighboring country.
For example, this term doesn't apply to Finland or China.
Yes, and/or confirmation bias. There have been articles on the Chinese Road and Belt Initiative and their long-term geopolitical goals for a few years now.
That initiative has only became more newsworthy and pressing as the world's largest economy has turned inward.
The OP used the word frequency, I also noticed that lately we get at least 2 anti China articles on top page, maybe nothing changed on publishing side but the HN voting changed making this anti China articles stick to the top or on the first page a lot.
I don't care enough about it to investigate the numbers of articles on HN with China in title so is all something I noticed and I am not from US (so I have no horse in the trade war)
The current US administration clearly wants to pick a fight with China.
Massive resources are spent manipulating media including social media. And the biggest spenders are the established political parties and governments of the west.
Maybe what you are seeing is just randomness and confirmation bias but as the saying goes just because you are paranoid it does not mean that you are not being followed.
>Speaking furthermore, I do find it highly concerning just how much of an echo chamber this place is in regards to this notion of "Chinese colonialism" and Chinese "debt - traps".
Western media should not be trusted to report accurately about foreign non-western countries. They almost never do.
I won't argue over the title or echochamber... I can't even load the page (500 Internal Error). Have you ever heard of africastand.com? I can't find any information on them in google/wikipedia and the waybackmachine only has 4 snapshots between april and august with no contact information.
Are they western media or just yellow clickbait? Is everything in english western media?
I've never heard of them, which leads me to doubt their credibility. One particular problem on the continent at the moment is the wild rise of fake news on subjects ranging from politics to even entertainment. Mostly circulated via whatsapp through random blogs. For general Pan African news content I recommend the following
- Africa Report
- Jeune Afrique (Translate, its in French)
- Africanews.com (Relatively new, but has a CNN like approach)
- Al-Jazeera (some great African content at times)
- BBC Africa (can be a bit basic but gets the generals mostly right)
- Bloomberg Africa
There are better national specific resources than these, but you'd have to have an interest in a specific country to care about those.
I would in general start being much more sceptical about Western media (especially Western-EU media). Especially in the last few years (e.g. illegal immigration issue).
The echo chamber you mention doesn't simply exist here in the comments section, it's basically a narrative that's currently being pushed by the western media. I suspect at least a small part of it is motivated by guilt over European colonialism. This lets them say "See! the Chinese are worse!"
No doubt this comment will earn me an accusation of being a Chinese gov't shill as well.
+1, plus it threatens global Western influence. Ever since Western colonialism took off, in spite of the eventual independence of the colonies, the West has had economic and thus a lot of political dominance all around the world.
China was the richest country in the world, and through drugs and war even it fell to the British.
Now that the world is slowly returning to a state that makes more sense-- with the bigger countries with lots of human and natural resources climbing back on top, the West needs to cling on to something. The narrative that "China is worse" sounds to me like "China is worse, thus it's better for everyone if we keep the world order as it is".
I think everyone knows this won't be the case. Population alone, China has more people than the US and Europe combined-- that's not only more productive potential, but as purchasing power increases, a bigger market for companies to operate in. Factor in a much slower, but potentially similar story for India, and I think there's not much the West in general can do but accept the world can't all depend on a single bank and monetary fund ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
> This lets them say "See! the Chinese are worse!"
Seriously? Even if one believes in this Chinese colonialism thing, there's no way in hell partial economic control is worse than genocides and slavery that accompanied European colonialism in the past.
Unlike the fallacy you linked, which is comparing apples to oranges, I made a direct comparison of "colonialism" to colonialism, in response to a direct comparison of "colonialism" to colonialism. Not every comparison is whataboutism, you know.
The relevance can be clarified if we frame it like this: "My economic control in a foreign nation is okay because you're lynching negroes (or did so in the past)."
gp: Europeans feel guilty about the colonial past, so they try very hard to make the Chinese look worse.
me: How can it be worse?
Neither gp nor me mentioned anything being "okay", or blamed any party for completely irrelevant crimes (lynching or whatever). Might need to brush up on reading comprehension.
Having worked with the World Bank in the past, I think that’s a very uninformed and biased view. They have been very effective in reducing poverty and improving infrastructure in Africa.
I recommend that you read facts about what they do before reading random opinions online (from brand new accounts, especially).
Also, I know dang warns us about pointing out potential propaganda, but this seems like this post is a good example of what I’m talking about.
Yes, you can't break the site guidelines by insinuating astroturfing and bad faith by another user. If you think you're seeing abuse, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look for evidence. Someone else having a different view than yours is not evidence.
Nor is it a problem if people are inspired to create an account to comment. As long as they follow the rules, that's how HN is supposed to work.
> They have been very effective in reducing poverty and improving infrastructure in Africa.
I'm sure Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel prize winner in Economics, would disagree. In fact, he clearly articulated why in his book: Globalization and Its Discontents.
"[It] is a book published in 2002 by the 2001 Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz. The book draws on Stiglitz's personal experience as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton from 1993 and chief economist at the World Bank from 1997."
It's not really; Stiglitz actually worked at the World Bank - and wrote a book about it.
Another book to read is "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Both describe essentially what both the USA and China appear to be doing - increasing global power and influence using subtler means than gunboat diplomacy.
That’s an awfully dismissive comment to a well laid out argument, you’re not really helping make a case for World Bank, which has been rife with corruption for decades.
The World Bank had free reign largely in Africa from the 1960s until the early 2000s. They and the IMF had an untrammeled monopoly for the most part, which was further supercharged by the 1980s Washington consensus. In that time period African states on the whole became poorer and state infrastructure crumbled. Now its not entirely on the World Bank/IMF of course, as in many countries there was misgovernance, but we can wholly agree they did not create Eden in Africa.
What has changed the equation for the continent started in the 2000s, the commodities boom along with telecommunications improvement, along with the entrant of new players such as China, India, Turkey, and until recently Brazil(in the Lusophone states).
So if we choose to look at those historical datapoints, without even getting into abuses at the IMF/World bank, we can effectively agree that the Bretton Woods sisters have done very little to move the needle on African prosperity.
Can anyone blame Africans for ignoring the World Bank and IMF when the countries that did ignore its orthodoxy, from China in the late 1970s to then India in the early 1990s, prospered?
Can you back up this claim? My understanding is that, speaking very generally about a large continent, most African countries did not implement the economic fundamentals preached by the World Bank and IMF, but failed to due to corruption and institutional problems, including a lack of the rule of law. What African country adopted the rule of law, open markets, stable monetary policies, a significant reduction in corruption, and failed to prosper?
> the countries that did ignore its orthodoxy, from China in the late 1970s to then India in the early 1990s, prospered
China and India did not at all ignore the 'orthodoxy', but enacted it and that is credited with their economic expansion. China and India adopted capitalism, opened their markets, and adopted economic fundamentals such as stable monetary policy.
It is to my understanding that China was a relative latecomer to the World Bank and has never been a particularly heavy lender from the bank or the IMF, not to the extent that African states were subjected to. And furthermore while China did follow certain strains of the orthodoxy, it retained heavy state control and influence over many sectors and industries, something very few African states were able to retain following the Washington Consensus.
African states on the other hand, about 40 states in the 1980s underwent what we would call Structural Adjustment programs. State owned enterprises were sold, huge slashing cuts were made to education and healthcare(This in part decimated Nigeria's regional class university system), and various legal reforms for the benefit of Western investors. The results of those experiments were generally failed and led to a disastrous late 1980s and 1990s on the continent.
In terms of a country that implemented many of those reforms and failed to get that far. I would say both Ghana and Tanzania are pertinent examples. Ghana has implemented about three to four rounds of IMF engagement since the 1980s and is hailed regionally for its rule of law and stable political and investment climate, it still only has a GDP per capita of $1,641. Then you have Tanzania which since the 1980s has largely abandoned state socialism and embraced a mixed market economy, its GDP per capita? a whopping $936.
Please discuss which points are biased and how so. Dismissing a long form, fact-specific write up on some of the positive impacts of Chinese investments in Africa as propaganda and adding nothing to the conversation seems to me as lazy-mans propaganda.
I agree my comment doesn't justify my 'speculation'. I apologise and acknowledge that I could have done a better job.
I intended to add a word of caution to the original comment, while completely acknowledging that I may be totally wrong. New account, redirection of the topic while not addressing the specific points of criticism, in conflict with other investigative journalist reports. Here's why I put on a tin foil hat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/1...
FWIW, I'm appreciative of quite a number of 'bold' policies of the Chinese government dared to experiment with and implement. It's just that undisclosed affiliations bother me.
Of course they didn't orchestrate it, but without Sarkozy's calls for an air intervention,which America and Britain then went along with, the war likely would have fizzled or resolved in a way in which there wouldn't be a massive power vacuum. Along with Iraq it stands as one of this century's greatest follies as it resulted in Libya having very factionalized governance, and furthermore then led towards arms being spread across the Sahel, which led towards trouble in Mali and in Northern Nigeria the rise of Boko Haram.
Furthermore it backfired on the EU as Gaddafi was instrumental towards regulating migratory flows, even during the protests and the civil war.
A power vacuum was certainly created as a result of the Gaddaffi regime collapse, yes.
But Boko Haram started its big rise already ca.1-2 years before the protests in Libya even begun, therefore the Libya situation did not directly create the rise of Boko Haram.
Also, it is not clear if things would have fizzled out without an intervention. The Syria war happened in parallel, and whoever was left to rule Libya (in whole or in parts) would have had to face the Battar Brigade, and then eventually the ISIL in Libya. Given that those actors obviously received clandestine backing (money, equipment, training) from "somewhere", thus greatly increasing their strength against any more organic movement(s), and given highly possible political reluctance to arm/support the opposite side, it is conceivable that the entire Libya could have eventually become an ISIL stronghold.
The whole Arab Spring was strategically bad news for the EU, including France. They had nothing to gain from orchestrating such a thing. But without any intervention (read: attempts to control) the Libya situation could have turned into something much worse, given that the likes of AQIM existed already in the neighbourhood before the Libya protests started, and this can explain the eagerness to try to clean up the mess as quickly as possible.
As someone who doesn't consider themself to be a bot - if that is your inference - I upvoted because i found the post particularly well-written and informative from someone 'on the ground' so to speak.
- ed
(also somewhat contrary to my preferred Euro-friendly narrative)
No, I did not infer that he/she got upvoted by an army of bots or some such.
I just thought, like I wrote, that the mass of karma per time unit was (for lack of a better word, in all friendliness) impressive.
The posts are certainly informative. However, some details are not factual. To claim that the "provocations of the French" somehow made the migrant influx to Europe happen is wrong, the influx was due to the Libyan civil war collapsing the Gaddafi regime. The French did not start the Libyan protests and neither the civil war. Of course, one could argue that the French and NATO method of weakening Gaddafi's troops did not play out so well in the end, since it did not succeed in creating a stable new government, but this was mainly due to the effects of the Syrian war spilling out to Libya.
Also, claiming that the rise of Boko Haram was due to the Libyan civil war (and by some, perhaps imagined extensions, the French "provocations") is wrong, Boko Haram were already on the rise before the protests in Libya even started.
As for the Chinese building infrastructure left and right: the roads and rails can transport people or resources. I think it is mainly to do the latter towards harbors and mainland China, but supports the former as well. Is it good for the African nations? Certainly, more infrastructure that works will be a boost to the economies of the continent. However, to be a realist: building roads, rails, harbors, airports and such is not done as a gesture of goodwill or some kind of a gift or a form of help. Thinking so is very naïve. There is always some catch, with everything. Some catches are win-win, some are not. Time will tell what this will be.
The title is false; nowhere in the article says that Kenya is unable to pay loan payments. It merely states that there's a contract clause that says China might take over Mombasa port if payments are not due.
Kenya is not Sri Lanka, it's a wealthier country. They will find a way to pay back the payment. What can be discussed is if it was the right decision to build a high speed train. A much better decision would be to stick upgrading the road network.
It's still controversial. KBC (state media) has an article[1] disproving the claim. The Standard (one of 2 major local news) has an article[2] exploring alleged papers from the Attorney General's Office that specify Kenya's port income as collateral. The papers were exposed by John Githongo[3], a politician who has tendencies of uncovering government misdeeds. He was in exile a while back...
The Sri Lanka case is the only credible case of "infrastructure seized by China because of insolvency"...but the media has used it to spread lots of fake stories about "China taking over Africa".
Glancing at the Wikipedia article the port wasn't exactly seized due to insolvency. There was a debt for equity swap on 70% of the port and then China agreed to pay $1.4bn for a 99 year lease on the port and some surrounding land.
There were several stories a few months ago about how China’s Silk Road projects were being given to countries they couldn’t pay them back. I guess it’s true. Look for more of this.
rich loan to poor to get richer. this is new to you? you think china is the first or the last to do this? IMF is doing this wherever they can. the west is annoyed china is doing this too so they push all these "amg china is evil" articles to stir the pot and try to turn the locals against chinese.
I am not sure why your comment was downvoted. I thought it's well known how the IMF ruins countries and I feel the modus operandi of the IMF isn't that much different from perhaps what China is doing right now. Except, now it's not the Western world / the US (through the IMF) that indirectly is pulling the strings anymore.
I feel the Western world is not in a position to judge China in this while the IMF is preventing third world countries from developing through its policies in much the same way.
Much easier to blame the IMF than the fact that if you want to spend more than you take in in taxes you’re going to have inflation and currency depreciation unless you have capital controls. Also, the IMF doesn’t really lend large amounts of money to countries that can access global capital markets generally. Non-concessional lending is mostly for when no one will lend your country money because you’re not expected to be able to repay. Concessional lending is interest free so I struggle to see how they’re supposed to make money on that.
American's are largely unaware of the IMF and World Bank. It's not something that is mentioned in any huge way. I'd be surprised if more than 15% of the country could give a broad definition of each organization.
No one takes money from the IMF unless they are so screwed that they have no other options. The reason they have no one willing to lend to them is that their government has enacted policies that destroyed their economy and the IMF requires concrete changes to get them back on the right track.
The alternative to taking an IMF loan is so bad (collapse of country) that they take it. It isn’t the IMF’s fault, it’s what happens when those in power loot their country via corruption, huge bloated public sectors, unsustainable pensions, crony capitalism, etc.
Did Argentina get trapped in debt with IMF because a meteor hit Buenos Aires?
Did a tsunami hit Athens?
These countries burned through their reserves with no responsibility at all, reserves which were hard earned money from the population, and people demonize the IMF alone?
It has become popular on the left to blame the IMF for a country’s problems, when the IMF is the last resort for a country that has shot itself in the foot. Some people can’t handle reality when it conflicts with their fantasy.
As someone on 'the left', the criticism are both of the IMF and the local governments. Pretending however that the IMF does not play a role in many 'misfortunes' is laughable. It is also ignorant to pretend that because Africa has been more or less 'independent' for over 40 years, that the history of colonialism should be discounted as having no effect on the present anymore.
This does not mean that the countries themselves should bear no responsibility and few are making that claim.
Since 'the left' isn't a monolithic entity, it's hard to describe a singular solution that we all agree on, or even name everything off the top of my head, but in my view, a good start would be to stop overthrowing people that do not open markets sufficiently to our interests, try to limit trade in USD/EUR etc. or otherwise do not align with 'our' interests.
More favorable terms would also certainly help, so would actually listening to the local populace, instead of handing money to a corrupt central government. Corruption itself mostly stems from lack of sufficient resources and progression for everybody, which is not helped by pouring more money into the very machine powering it.
NGOs can also be incredibly corrupt and wasteful, see Haiti.
Instead of sending in money, fund concrete projects to build infrastructure and provide good paying jobs by having locals build it. Work with local communities to set up small businesses and help them set up networks to export their goods etc.
There's plenty of failures to study from and some successes that need to be expanded. The big problems with such projects tends to be that even when the "grand goal" is good, if you will, locals are not consulted, farmers are displaced etc. which only breeds hatred towards the people telling themselves they're helping.
Stop being arrogant and thinking that we "know better" than the people who actually live in the area. Might be a good starting point.
What is the right's solution? Repeat what was done till now and expect a different result, do not participate at all...?
> Stop being arrogant and thinking that we "know better" than the people who actually live in the area.
I believe this is the problem - the locals that have ran their country into the ground have proven that they do not how to manage their own country. This is why the market, which expects to be paid back, will no longer fund their mismanagement.
You have an extremely warped view of foreign countries that are forced to take loans from the IMF - these countries have economies that are collapsing.
> the locals that have ran their country into the ground have proven that they do not how to manage their own country
The locals did not yet have much of a chance to actually run their own country, without facing coups, sanctions etc. from former colonial masters the moment they actually try to act sovereign. Having some dictator approved by France/U.S. running things is not my definition of locals running things.
> You have an extremely warped view of foreign countries
Take this advice yourself. The U.S. supports 75% of the world's dictatorships. If you believe that being exploited for centuries and then being forced down various neoliberal/'free market' policies down their throats by their former colonial masters after supposedly gaining independence, while the west props up some absolutely corrupt fu*k just so they can continue exploiting, then sending clothes in to feel better, without actually developing the local economy, if you think these things are not going on you're seriously delusional.
Read up on the history of Haiti. Then come back and we may have a real discussion.
> The reason they have no one willing to lend to them is that their government has enacted policies that destroyed their economy and the IMF requires concrete changes to get them back on the right track.
I blame the IMF beacuse its austerity numbers were based on a non peer reviewed paper with arthritic errors that simply said what they wanted to hear. That bullshit put the nail in the coffins of several countries.
How does this happen, a website, literally created on 5 months ago, probably just for this article, hits the HN front page. If you google africastand it asks "do you mean africasand". OP how did you come across this article?
Edit: my bad made a typo. Ignore the google part. But the post still stands.
"The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" talks about China moving into the loans and takeover market, following in the footsteps of the United States.
> I think when compared with Chinese imperialism, people will miss the US
Could you clarify which people you are thinking of and your specific meaning of what they would miss?
I'm thinking about those historical track record. I'm thinking of those millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians whose lives were ended. I wonder about the millions more whose futures were ruined. I'm thinking about those millions of Iranians trapped by blowback to the Mossadegh coup. Nicaraguans? Guatemala. Honduras. Pakistanis? Afghans? Somalis? Iraqis? Yemenis? Those are just the ones we see in the news. Who knows about all the ones we don't see.
>I'm thinking of those millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians
China was involved in that as well. They supported North Vietnam and backed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They even invaded Vietnam after the war.
>Could you clarify which people you are thinking of
It’s interesting that you mention Vietnam and Cambodia because 90% of Vietnamese and 85% of Cambodians surveyed believe the US has a positive impact on the region. The numbers are above 70% for most Asian countries outside of China [1].
Horrible things have happened under US dominance--the US has been directly responsible for some of them, but let’s not pretend that China in a similar position wouldn’t be much worse. Just look at how China treats its people internally--mass reeducation camps for political prisoners, censorship on a scale undreamed of outside of the minds of dystopian scifi writers, authoritarian leadership appointed for life. Imagine how they would behave if they become the dominant superpower. Their neighboring countries think that it would be worse. Most of Asia is terrified of Chinese military ascendancy.
Obviously most countries would prefer if the US didn't have so much power--provided someone like China doesn't come along to take their place. If the choice though is between China and the US, I think it's pretty clear which would be worse.
I wasn't the person your were initially asking, but assuming you're asking which people would prefer US dominance to Chinese dominance, the US is currently the most positively viewed nation in Vietnam, so presumably all of the Vietnamese people who view the US favorably, with the possible exception of the 10% who view China favorably (assuming there is overlap) [1].
Assuming China becomes the single dominant power and they behave how I believe history has indicated they will, my answer is: most of the world outside of China.
I think people are overstating the chinese capacity to run a world-class imperialist project. China still has a long way to go to making their own country functional before they can do this kind of outreach
> China still has a long way to go to making their own country functional before they can do this kind of outreach
China has massive amounts of US dollars (and lower, but still decent, amounts of Euros) which are useless at home but can move literal mountains in Africa.
Basically China can act like a VC fund in Africa: spend shitloads of money and pray that 1 of 100 projects is gonna be a unicorn... the game is to not do it like Europe dumping their used clothing and overproduced food over Africa, but to provide infrastructure so that the billions of people in Africa actually have the means to buy... yep, Chinese products.
The infrastructure is a loss leader, but ya gotta get the product into the continent somehow. Europe and the US won't be able to profit from the infra, we don't export anything of value except cars and software since all our manufacturing and industry was shuttered and off-shored to... China.
Mods should, at the very least, change the title, since it is very misleading.
There is language in the deal that would give China control over the port if Kenya was unable to pay back the loan. While concerning, this is very different from that actually happening.
I know nothing about it, but comments to that article (in Google Cache) seems to view the article as alarmist: for example, say that the grace period is until 2023, so we are talking years, not weeks before something happens. No idea if it is true or not, more info/references would be great. Can someone give more insight?
I'm an African myself, but while Chinese model is different from the aid model we are familiar with, it's helping solve so many problems that we had no alternatives for. China is willing to come in with loans without political strings attached. Yes, there are collaterals but Africa has its own negotiators too, and we know the deal we get is much better than any other country or institution would be willing to give.
I truly wish you guys the best. I'm all for any kind of new approach to economic development.
I would caution your use of "without political strings attached"
Trust me, anything at that scale? It has political strings attached. What concerns me -- and why I commented -- is the perception that there isn't.
Large groups of people working together always do things for political reasons. Not altruism, morals, or some other attribute an individual might have. Large groups of people working together are not just some huge version of a person.
I don't know the details here, and I think even if I did a lot of it is going to have to shake out over the next few years anyway. Best of luck! I sure hope this doesn't end up screwing over folks in Africa yet again under the guise (and perhaps honest mission) of helping them.
By the way, the same goes for folks who oppose such efforts. Groups like spinning things as if they are all of one mind, but these are complex decisions with many groups and levels of politics to consider, not good guys versus bad guys. That kind of stuff is just the pablum they sell to the folks back home.
No political strings attached? You mean, they just takeover and don't need political strings?
They benefit far more, their own workers do 80% of the work and nothing is helping the local economy. The loans also have to be paid back to China ( because they lend the money).
This is a very good way to create growth on the shoulder of others.
Building infrastructure is the way to help everyone gaining fortune again and the economy.
It's not just the roads, but everyone involved ( workers, companies, ...). But if you don't let the locals do it, you reduce the improvement a lot for the local economy.
Not to mention, that the infrastructure that is build, is mostly to guide resources away from Africa instead of improving the economy. And the strategic airports that are build with the Chinese help, are strategicly located. But there is no demand for it => It goes broke without enough income.
In the contract, the Chinese can gain the lease for 100 years. So the countries loaned money for a "prestigious project", eg. a strategic airport. It's build with Chinese people and chinese companies. The loan has to be repaid to the Chinese, but paid by the countries.
So yes, these "infrastructure" projects don't help the local economy and the countries take all the risk. China has got the money ( or infrastructure in possession), the workers employed and the influence of the Chinese companies in Africa.
To further butress DanielBMarkham's excellent comment below, here is a HN discussion [0] from early this year where China gave Africa a no strings attached helping hand that turned out to be "Greek gift" where they snoop on all communications.
Okay that's enough China bashing threads. On the positive side, China has in the past waived some debts of African countries, which don't get to top of HN.
Your article talks about the same issue as the one being discussed here. And my comment is to shed light onto this issue from the other side (debt issuer). Anything wrong with that?
I see these stories popping up every now and then usually from debatable sources and people continue to believe them because they fit "the suspected plot" even when concerned parties deny them.
I hate to sound like that conspiracy guy but could it just be that some people are not happy with China getting into partnerships with African countries?
An acquaintance travels around Africa relatively frequently and his observations seem to be in line with the OP article sentiment. From China’s perspective it makes a lot of sense to buy up Africa, it’s a resource rich continent and was essentially given up by the west.
I grew up in Africa myself. And yes, China is getting more involved in more projects than it used to but it's only because their terms are more favorable than our darling western powers'. African countries are not some teenager girl who is being duped into doing something they don't see themselves.
Well to be honest China could not have brought democracy to Iraq. First of all they are not a democracy and second they do not have a Dick Cheney. (/s)
- Provide unfettered economic access to China for 20 years in exchange for having the country's debt paid by them.
- Seed a few alarmist articles.
- Wait until USA and EU go crazy over that and summarily agree on a debt write-off.
I mean Greece is selling EU permanent residency to Chinese for 250K euros (property purchse), you can take with you all your parents and kids, best of all, it doesn't require you to actually live there to get it.
Greece did play that card: the government visited china and russia asking for loans . Did not change anything as far as i know. (The chinese already had a strategy for greece and the balkans though which is progressing steadily - they are part of one belt one road)
Greece is in EU and NATO. EU, monetarily and NATO in defense have Greece by the, you know what. No one can give Greece the money that EU gives them and if Greece loses NATO, Turkey is waiting. So no Chinese or Russian base will be allowed in Greece or Turkey gets a wink and a nod to remind Greece which side the bread is buttered. http://www.ekathimerini.com/235989/article/ekathimerini/news...
Russia swooped in to help Venezuela it’s possible there’s an oligarch out there who might be interested. Suppose it depends on the leverage they could get from their state.
China is using political prisoners as organ farms. Russia is flat out physically attacking LGBT individuals and lead by a dictator for life. America is still a shining beacon of freedom in comparison.
Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here? Snarky flamebait, especially on inflammatory topics like this one, is definitely what they ask you to avoid.
It would be good if you could stop posting unsubstantive comments in general too.
Because IP is so much more valuable than lives the Chinese helped save while the west offered nothing (except for even way worse deals through the IMF and WB).
I'm completely against using prison labor for profit, and there are inequalities in the US system...but prisoners in the US have had due process. Despite our problems, the protections for the accused in the US are among the best in the world.
To pretend that there isn't an enormous difference between labor camps in China and prison labor in the US is absolutely absurd.
Prisoners in the US have largely been screwed into pleading guilty through a horrific bail system combined with malicious plea deal bargains (over 90% of convictions did not go to trial - https://theoutline.com/post/2066/most-criminal-cases-end-in-...). The Chinese camps are terrible in a different way, that doesn't excuse any of the inadequacies of the US prison system.
>Prisoners in the US have largely been screwed into pleading guilty through a horrific bail system combined with malicious plea deal bargains
Largely implies that the majority are innocent. There is nothing to support that claim. I disagree with the way our bail system works, but keep in mind that the US has ranks very highly with respect to limits on pretrial detention in general.
>over 90% of convictions did not go to trial
That number is meaningless by itself without knowing how many of those people were actually guilty. Our ability to collect convincing evidence has drastically improved over the last century, of course guilty pleas have gone up.
I agree that there are perverse incentives, unfair treatment with respect to race and class, horrible prison conditions, too many custodial sentences for non-violent crimes, and numerous other issues that we should fix immediately.
>The Chinese camps are terrible in a different way, that doesn't excuse any of the inadequacies of the US prison system.
No it doesn’t. Are you reading the entire thread or are you just replying to my comment in a vacuum?
It implies nothing about their innocence, only about whether they have gone through a trial or been coerced out of doing so. The ability to hold someone in jail for years without trial and to apply coercive punitive sentences to anyone who chooses to go to trial is a much stronger factor in guilty pleas than any evidence.
I did read the entire thread, but if you said something elsewhere that acknowledged that it is wrong for the US to use prisoners as slaves, I missed it.
It does because you said "screwed". If someone is guilty and receives a lesser sentence in exchange for admitting guilt, you can hardly say they've been "screwed".
>The ability to hold someone in jail for years without trial
You can't hold someone for years without trial unless they explicitly agree to it. The way you structured you sentence "hold without trial" and "plea bargains" implies there is some other way to forgo a trial.
>much stronger factor in guilty pleas than any evidence.
I'm sure the plea bargain system is abused and I'd support switching to a schedule system like the UK has, but to say that it has a higher impact on guilty pleas than "any evidence." Surely you have proof for such a strong claim?
>I did read the entire thread, but if you said something elsewhere that acknowledged that it is wrong for the US to use prisoners as slaves, I missed it.
Here is a random major news article about how plea bargaining is broken, to introduce you to the topic (it cites lots of references for you to follow up with if you don't feel like it is a complete introduction)
Here is a bail payment fund, which finds that 55% of their clients, who were in jail and would stay there because they couldn't afford bail, are not found guilty (which may mean the charges are just dropped) after their bail is paid. (I've seen similar numbers from the local bail fund I volunteer with, but don't have actual figures available to share). However, the vast majority of people do not have access to any such assistance, and 92% of people held in jail and unable to afford their bail plead guilty. Because the clients who have access to a bail fund are selected almost randomly (basically by having a court appointed lawyer who knows about the bail fund application and submits their case while the fund has available cash) we can take that as very simple evidence that many of those pleading guilty were innocent. There's definitely more detailed work available, probably cited in the articles above.
> You can't hold someone for years without trial unless they explicitly agree to it. The way you structured you sentence "hold without trial" and "plea bargains" implies there is some other way to forgo a trial.
This is disappointingly uninformed. The way to forgo a trial is to not hold a trial. What do you think happens, they say "excuse me sir, you can't afford bail and you say you are innocent, would you like to go home til we get around to doing something or stay here in jail?" Here are just a few cases:
tl:dr; the US criminal justice system today is largely administered through the process of setting bail and then expecting plea agreements, and many convicted criminals have not received what most Americans think of as 'due process'.
>Here is a bail payment fund, which finds that 55% of their clients, who were in jail and would stay there because they couldn't afford bail, are not found guilty (which may mean the charges are just dropped) after their bail is paid. (I've seen similar numbers from the local bail fund I volunteer with, but don't have actual figures available to share). However, the vast majority of people do not have access to any such assistance, and 92% of people held in jail and unable to afford their bail plead guilty. Because the clients who have access to a bail fund are selected almost randomly (basically by having a court appointed lawyer who knows about the bail fund application and submits their case while the fund has available cash) we can take that as very simple evidence that many of those pleading guilty were innocent. There's definitely more detailed work available, probably cited in the articles above.
I see where you’re going with this, but it really doesn’t imply what you’re saying it does. First it’s unlikely that access to the bail funds is actually random. It’s very likely that defense lawyers are more willing to go out of their way to find bail money for clients who they believe are actually innocent.
It’s also likely that many of the 55% that are found not guilty are actually guilty, but there isn’t enough evidence to convict. Prosecutors tend to move slower when defendant isn’t in custody and cases can go stale, so people out on bail are less likely to be convicted. If a guilty person pleads guilty, despite the fact that there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The person wasn’t “screwed”. The ethical dilemma arises when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, or wrongfully admits guilt. The numbers you gave don’t show the rate at which that happens.
>This is disappointingly uninformed. The way to forgo a trial is to not hold a trial. What do you think happens, they say "excuse me sir, you can't afford bail and you say you are innocent, would you like to go home til we get around to doing something or stay here in jail?"
There is no universal right in any country I’m aware of to avoid jail while awaiting trial. Bail is a privilege. The problem is that the privilege is unfairly dispensed, not that it is inherently immoral to make someone wait in custody for their trial. Telling someone that if they voluntarily admit guilt, they can avoid waiting in jail for a trial isn’t the same thing as incarcerating someone without a trial.
All of these cases are extraordinary. They make the news specifically because they aren’t the norm. You’re first example even has “extraordinary tale of justice delayed and denied.” as a subheader.
In the Jerry Hartfield case he was released despite being convicted of murder because the trial was delayed for such an extremely long time. Had the trial taken place when it was supposed to, he’d probably still be in jail.
The second case doesn’t have much information beyond a single sentence. In the 3rd case, Kalief Browder’s family settled a lawsuit with the city, got cash and an agreement to close Reikers and stop putting people under 21 in solitary confinement.
Regardless, you are offering proof for a narrow claim: There are people who are coerced into pleading guilty--they exist. And using it as evidence for a much stronger claim: The majority of prisoners have been screwed into pleading guilty.
There are problems with our criminal justice system. Black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive harsher sentences. It’s a complete and utter travesty--we should do better.
However, it’s not close to a system where the majority of prisoners have been denied due process. You can criticism our system without making a moral equivalence to a totalitarian regime.
Your argument is that, because they had a fair trial and were found guilty, it is ethical to force them to work without compensation?
> Over the years, the courts have held that inmates may be required to work and are not protected by the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. They have also consistently held that inmates have no constitutional right to compensation and that inmates are paid by the ‘grace of the state.”
>Your argument is that, because they had a fair trial and were found guilty, it is ethical to force them to work without compensation?
Yes to some extent. I think forcing prisoners to cook their own meals, clean up after themselves etc... is fine. I draw the line at contracting out prisoners for money, or selling products that prisoners make--not because I think requiring work as a part of fairly meted punishment is inherently wrong, but because I believe it creates perverse incentives.
My primary argument is that requiring work as a part of punishment for an offense for which they were convicted at a fair trial is not remotely comparable to forcing hundreds of thousands of unconvicted political prisoners into labor camps.
I have little sympathy other than for the people of Mombasa and Kenya who want autonomy over this port and have no say in these deals. The damage done here appears to be self inflicted.
As with any sales there could be that factor of China trying to sell more of their product/services(just like US does to sell weapons in various nations) but I find it strange that people are trying to politicize it being debt trap and trying to garner sympathy towards the defaulter than towards the victim who didn't get paid.
It's because it's very clear that China's intent with such loans is to create a casus belli for such seizures or create complete economic reliance. Nobody is going to sympathise with a predatory loanshark when they don't get paid and use it as an excuse to grab what they really wanted all along.
>>but I find it strange that people are trying to politicize it being debt trap and trying to garner sympathy towards the defaulter than towards the victim who didn't get paid.
I find it strange that new accounts are defending China using academic language that is not commonly used in HN discussions.
To take over Mombasa port is the equivalent of a strategic takeout/takeover of a number of East African countries. Mombasa port and its adjoining highway connects Uganda, South Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi. 100% of East Africa's export cash crop produce (Coffee, Tea) flows through the port which translates to significant revenues and GDP. I really hope that African para-state agencies (African Dev Bank) steps in and provides monetary assistance to Kenya.
Times like this make me wish that the EA community takes off and together these tiny countries are able to better band together and pony up.
For those interested in the more nefarious paths these situations could take, you might read _Confessions of an Economic Hitman_. This books talks about how nation states and corporations can work together to create situations for global influence.
The first shots of the next world way where fired decades ago. Nobody saw them light up the sky, for they where delivered by paper. No one read the news, for the catualtiea would not fall until several decades later.
> Before we throw about the term "Imperialism", let's remember what kinds of things the European powers did
You imply a relationship between the two throughout the rest of your comment, starting from the first sentence. Just because you make the refutation in the last sentence does not suddenly wave away the whataboutism you employ through the rest of your comment; directly comparing the two.
You radically overestimate the competence of the Chinese government. The BRI is a white elephant, a foreign policy initiative with Xi’s imprimatur. It’s more important to be doing BRI things than that they make money.
Eh. Who knows. More economic activity usually helps. It's how the people react to it, it's very behavioral. I'll say that for asians usually if they do the same thing in Asia it has positive consequences.
Your first thought has no explanation in it. Maybe they simply have a growing middle class and thus soon their economic activities in the west (that we gladly consume) would become hindered by their own growth, so they're looking for their equivalent of what China was to the west in the 90's and 00's and their own regions are not viable for that, just like manufacturing in rural USA didn't work for the west. If that's wrong, how can you live with yourself? Or is it wrong simply because this time it's China doing it? Isn't that hypocritical?
Edit: I would appreciete if people stopped downvoting for asking a question. That's not how you discuss.
China has two major projects to dam up the white nile and the blue nile upstream from Egypt and Sudan (who curreently use 90% of the Nile water) Ethiopia, and Kenya will take control of the Nile and the two countries that currently consume 90% of the Nile water will be starved into submission by their Chinese landlords through taxes and fees over water. China needs a port for their Navy so they can 'protect' their 'investment'. There are many Chinese projects ongoing in Africa and there are whole towns that look like they were imported from China.The concept of 'lebensraum' and the hunger for growth among the powerful continues to disrespect geographical boundaries that gave rise to the magnificent diversity on this planet. The only loss that I mourn is the set of unique cultures and heritage of the many people inn Africa. The great homogenizer (capitalism, growth,etc) will obliterate the diversity on that continent. OTOH, maybe the hybrid vigor of Afro-Chinese offspring will give rise to a new more robust strain of humanity.
> disrespect geographical boundaries that gave rise to the magnificent diversity on this planet.
You mean boundaries set by colonialism?
> The only loss that I mourn is the set of unique cultures and heritage of the many people inn Africa.
Again, what about the ones destroyed by decades of European colonialism? Many African countries speak French and English, ever morned the loss of their old tongues?
The amount of propaganda is damaging my experience here. Not unlike Facebook and other platforms, HN seems to resist discussing how its platform is being abused and how it damages user experience; users are forbidden from discussing it publicly (in fact, I hope this comment is on the ok side of the guidelines, as I'm not accusing anyone in particular). I'm confident that HN works on the issue, so perhaps my difficulty is with a lack of transparency (again, similar to Facebook) - we have no idea what is being done; we're in the dark. We can't trust that the content we see is in good faith; it's a constant frustration and struggle to read, and most of my time is spent on noise. Propaganda is the worst content; it's noise to the signal and it's worse than noise because it manipulates HN users; we also now know, if it wasn't clear before, that it's a danger to free, democratic society - which is not something abstract, but something that happens right here on HN.
The pattern I see, so often that it's predictable and a source of frustration: 1. It's easy to stay beneath the moderators' radar by sounding 'reasonable' (in fact, on other topics, that's an explicitly taught strategy to white supremacists [0], it's a well-established technique of propaganda going back decades if not centuries, and I expect that professional astroturfers in any domain have the same skills); 2. the astroturfers almost always appear; I expected to see many pro-China comments appear here, including from purported Kenyans / East Africans (I certainly wouldn't say all are propaganda, but the pattern over many discussions seems clear enough that it's predictable); 3. on issues about which few HN users have knowledge or expertise, such as this one, there aren't even many people who can rebut the astroturfers; it's one-sided.
EDIT: Major revisions; apologies to anyone who read an earlier draft.
[0] ... he presented himself as polite, articulate and interested in cultural politics, and though his views are abhorrent, he stated them all so laconically you might forget that he actually believes in the concept of a white ethnostate. And that’s the point: The genius of the new far right, if we could call it “genius,” has been their steadfast determination to blend into the larger fabric of society to such an extent that perhaps the only way you might see them as a problem is if you actually want to see them at all.
No, this is not on the "ok side of the guidelines"—it's a gross violation. They say, and for good reason: "Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) You did just the opposite. We've warned you about this before. We ban accounts that keep breaking the site guidelines, and if you keep doing this we will ban you.
No one is resisting discussion of abuse. We work against the abuse of Hacker News every day. When people raise concerns we look into it every time. The problem here is that you're inventing it out of whole cloth. What is the evidence? Some "pro-China comments" that "sound reasonable"? Someone expressing views you don't like is not evidence. People here have a wide range of backgrounds and therefore views.
In one sentence you project astroturfers out of purest imagination, and in the next are already talking about them as if they've been substantiated. That's the cheapest of internet cheap shots, it's poison to the community, and you can't post like this here.
General remark:
In the last few months this class of posts has migrated from "You're a Russian spy" and "how much did Putin pay you to post that" to "You're a Chinese shill". It's obviously the same phenomenon, and the fact that it swings so dramatically with political fashion already shows that this phenomenon is not factual, but mass-psychological.
There's an internet law that the probability of users accusing someone of astroturfing rises with the intensity with which they disagree with their view. I hope someone comes up with a pithy formulation and snappy name for it. Anyone?
> In the last few months this class of posts have all migrated from "You're a Russian spy" and "how much did Putin pay you to post that" to "You're a Chinese shill".
You are confusing me with someone else. I posted none of those things.
> We've warned you about this before.
I don't think so, but maybe a long time ago. Again, I think you're confusing me with another user.
You mischaracterize my comment in many ways; specifically, I didn't ask you to address astroturfing in this discussion, but instead was making a point about my user experience; I wouldn't have a reason to follow the guideline about emailing you as I understood it (though I'm not an HN lawyer and don't want to be one). But more than that, I spoke politely and tried to address problems I have as a user, and tried to avoid violating any guidelines by not accusing anyone. I don't think I deserve attacks and unfounded personal accusations about my motivations introduced into my day; I don't see how the latter is ever appropriate or necessary. Just say, 'that's not allowed here, here is why, please don't do it.' If I make a mistake, I'll apologize and try not to do it again.
Happy holidays.
P.S. I'll edit my other recent comment, which in this context might be inflammatory.
That sentence is a general observation about a large class of posts to HN and how they have been changing lately. I didn't mean you wrote all of them. To make that clearer, I've taken out the word "all" out and added "general remark" above.
Thanks. I still think you're thinking of someone else; please see my edit.
To be clear, I also think those remarks (accusing people of being shills) are a problem; I didn't think I made one, though I'll stay even further away from them.
This seems as if its pointed at me. I will say that I find it sad that modern discourse has reached such a sad state that we suspect everyone who has a nonconformist opinion of being a bot/robot/astroturfer.
All I will say is that I am no lover of China. Chinese civilization, like Western civilization has exhibited anti-black tendencies and attitudes. The Chinese are great lovers of African markets, but not African people.
I do encourage you though to try to understand the African perspective on this issue, as well as other related issues that you may not generally understand before you try to characterize it as propaganda. Modern Africa is in a state of flux and deeply in need of infrastructure. There are many who say there are heavy costs to Chinese built infrastructure in Africa, Those same analysts will not reflect on the severe costs currently to Africa of its lack of infrastructures. The absence of intra-regional rail, highways, of connected electricity grids, of pipes and pipelines. If the West is truly concerned about African welfare, they can always step to the fore with their own expansive infrastructure agenda, but they largely won't, and we all know the reason why.
It was not pointed at you or at anyone; it was a comment about my general experience as an HN user. I didn't realize that your account existed before you replied. My motives and knowledge, including about Africa (a word I personally wouldn't use for a very large and diverse area), are not what you assume; please don't attribute things to me.
FWIW, Western analysts have talked about the problems of Sub-Saharan African infrastructure extensively and for a long time, and the West has attempted to fund it. IIRC, generally it has been found that foreign-built and -funded infrastructure projects fail, due to problems like corruption, rule of law issues, lack of involvement by local communities, lack of understanding by foreign funders, and lack of capacity for maintenance. As an analogy, you can't just drop an infrastructure project on a country any more than you can just drop an ERP system on a company; the company has to be ready, have capabilities, and needs a lot of highly effective consulting if you want a chance of success. The West's prior attempts at funding led to a massive 'debt trap' for many poor countries, making debt relief a major priority (and one that was resolved to a large extent). As I understand it, the predominant view now is that developing local capabilities, including building institutions and functioning government, is a necessary precursor to things like infrastructure. Kenya's problem with the port, on its surface, would seem to be a repeat of the old development pitfalls.
It was, but it wasn't actually condemned. In fact, the West scrambled for Africa. They still are, just that they have another player who doesn't play by their rules now.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3CnkxG...