Kurlantzick's article focuses on Zambia and the recent elections. Here are some key excerpts:
[M]uch of the Zambian debate centered on a completely different topic: China. Opposition candidate Michael Sata accused Chinese companies, which have invested heavily in Zambian copper mining, of exploiting Zambian workers and undercutting Zambian goods. "Chinese investment has not added any value to the people of Zambia," Sata told a Zambian radio station, also threatening to toss Chinese companies out of the country. In response, China's embassy in Zambia became directly involved in the election, very unusual for foreign diplomats in any country, warning that Beijing might sever ties to Zambia if Sata won. The incumbent president, Sata's opponent in the election, reportedly apologized to Beijing for Sata's comments. [. . .]
Zambia, in fact, offers a window into a phenomenon American policy makers have only just begun to discover. In a short period of time, China has become a major donor and investor in Africa, and it has begun to play a major role in domestic African politics--not only in Zambia but also across the continent. In fact, China has so quickly amassed power in Africa that it now rivals the United States, France, and international financial institutions for influence--and potentially damages Africa's economic and political renaissance.
This is where China can be a profoundly destabilizing force -- in pursuing a grand strategy that amounts to geopolitical passive-aggressivism couched in very realpolitik western terms. They are not about to mount an attack on the United States or any of our interests. In military terms, China poses little danger, and almost never has -- though potentially it could. But where China can be massively destabilizing is by joining forces with states that either do not much care about its people (ie -- Big Men love Bigger Partners) or with those states so desperate for anything resembling development that they will sell out the safety and security of their people for short-term gain that holds immense appeal even as the repurcussions hang like Domocles' Sword over the heads of the teetering state.
7 comments:
Interesting. Thanks.
Thank you. glad you liked it.
cheers --
dc
Hi,I'm doing research on Spams ,so ,I left my email here .Thanks for you help.
You mean "immoral"?
Nope. I mean "amoral." I mean that moral concerns are not part of the Chinese calculus in matters of foreign policy.
dcat
I see that, but the tone in this post is one of moral judgement, which appears to presuppose some sense of immorality as opposed to moral neutrality or irrelevance. I'm not so sure China - if it views policy in amoral terms of cold self-interest calculations - is much different than any other state. In fact, that's at the very root of how many traditionally define the state.
Helmut --
I think you make a good point, but let me try to explain what i mean.
China's foreign policy approach is, on its face amoral. In other words, morality does not come into play, positively or negatively. You'll never hear the Chinese make a strong case for acting for what's right or against what's wrong.
However, the outcome can be utterly immoral. in other words, China's amoral foreign policy has the effect of immoral real outcomes.
i hope this does not seem too clever by half, or to be needlessly splitting hairs. I think these diferences are important and worth parsing.
And yes, other nations can be accused of the same, but the problem is, most countries are subject to moral suasion because they do not stake an amoral claim. China has forsworn morality as a guiding principle and therefore is almost immune to such accusations.
Cheers, and thanks for pushing the discussion --
dcat
Post a Comment