this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
91 points (94.2% liked)

World News

32048 readers
1160 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Click on the multi-colored federation star to see exactly what you expect to

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

"Heh, nice try President of South Africa, but I think I know a little something about African-Chinese diplomacy from all the feddit articles whose headline and preview paragraph I've read."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

South Africa: "this is not a debt trap"

China: "this is not a debt trap"

The most smug person you've ever heard: "mmm, isn't there someone you forgot to ask?"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

America might lose interest in investing after the article.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

China good 👍

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Before anyone objects to the this statement: do you really think somebody would just go in fronw of the international community and tell lies?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Depends who and in what situation. USA or Israel do it more than not. This case? I don't see why, especially that it's in accordance with other countries, as quoted by few other posters in this thread.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Exactly, we should assume that any international representation is not transparent

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I'm glad we cleared that up

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well I mean... I sure hope not. I personally don't see any reason to think it's anything other than China trying to gain support from nations that are on the fence or don't care about them, which to be clear is not a bad thing. They're free to pursue any relations they desire, and the other nations are free to do the same. Hopefully the politicians involved are truly working for the betterment of both countries.

That said, the person making the shady deal would clearly say "it's not a shady deal", and the person duped by aforementioned shady deal would obviously not want to admit being duped by said shady deal. So everyone involved has every reason to say this anyway.

In other words: a lot of words to ultimately say nothing. Much like this comment.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In other words: a lot of words to ultimately say nothing. Much like this comment.

still not beating the liberalism allegations

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

if you want to see a debt trap in action take a quick glance at the IMF.

argentina sends its regards.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Hmmm, it might not be, but it's still within the interests of the chinese state. Let's say the CCP actually wanted Africa to succeed. They may see the ascendance of Africa into something close to first world conditions as beneficial to them, as now they would have this history of benevolence and investments with a market away from the US, thus slowly chipping away at their reliance to the west.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

but it’s still within the interests of the chinese state

Obviously lmao. Why the hell would a country do something for no reason

The more Africa develops with Chinese cooperation, the more China gets access to wealthier markets to sell stuff to that they have good relations with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Why the hell would a country do something for no reason

This is kinda astounding posting and i read it all the time everywhere. On one side we have western imperialists shamelessly and openly looting Africa for centuries, but liberals will suddenly expect China to just do one sided transactions that only cause them loss? And make it the implicit or explicit "both sides bad" argument? It's also usually from the proponents of capitalism and free trade, which is in theory supposed to benefit both sides.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, it would be nice to see a comparison between a Chinese loan and a loan by the IMF. Maybe the sting still has to come because they haven't been doing it for as long, but there's got to be a good reason those countries go with China instead of the IMF.

To me it seems like IMF loans involve privatising revenue generating assets, lowering taxes on the wealthy and austerity on the masses. The biggest criticism of the Chinese way of financing is that if you default on the loan you used to build a port/highway/railway line, they keep that specific asset. And I guess instead of using local labour they use Chinese workers.

There's definitely things to criticise there, but I know which option I'd pick if I needed a port in my country.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

It is in China's self-interest for the era of imperialism, complete with its colonialism and neocolonialism, to come to an end. It turns out, that's also in the self-interest of literally everyone, even the imperialists. So the fact that this is in the interests of China is sort of a moot point.

That's like saying a doctor is only curing people of life threatening diseases so she can eat a decent meal and sleep in a comfortable bed. Uh, sure... I think we can all agree that whoever helps out should get a good life. What's the point of saying what you're saying, exactly?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Right, of course not