Readers’ Responses to Our Question (43)

Countries who violate human rights will find it difficult to criticize another country who ignores those rights. Darfur has been on ghe UN agenda for the last two years, but nothing has really changed. Politics and economic interests are more important than morality. In fact, many countries with democratic systems could also be criticized, and their need to work with the new wonder country 'CHINA', will, in my opinion, not react excessively. When Africa was decolonized, it was 're-colonized' in different ways. So we shall not see much change in today world.

Finally a glimmer of reality sneaks into Mr. Ignatius's thinking on Iraq. In truth, however, Mr. Ignatius is still basing his forecast on wishful thinking. It is not at all farfetched to assume that the American withdrawal from Iraq will more closely resemble Britain's horrific scamper from Afghanistan in 1842 than the minor harried finish to America's chapter in Vietnam. In other words, it is possible that we Americans will have to fight our way out of Baghdad through 300 miles of hostile territory as did the British as they desperately attempted to escape repeated attacks from Afghan fighters as they headed for the Kyber Pass. Baghdad is already mired in escalating and increasingly brutal battle, with scores dieing within earshot of the Green Zone. The road to the airport has always been extremely dangerous, forcing most dignitaries to helicopter to the Green Zone rather than travel by vehicle. Now that the Iraqi insurgents have figured out how to take down American helicopters, there is no safe means of travel from the center of Iraq to anywhere else.

When we finally announce our intention to withdraw, probably due to a broken military with supplies and munitions dwindling dangerously, all hell will break loose around us. And who will protect the hundred thousand contracters, the thousands of civilian bureaucrats and the hundred and fifty thousand troops as they head for the relative safety of Kuwait down a narrow highway?

It's not defeat that we should fear; it's abject humiliation as Americans flee for the border.

As Paul Valery wrote, at the beginning of the XXth century: "The time of the finite world begins!"

It is arguable our motto should now be: "Time to share the world"... China and India are already lending a helping hand.

Beijing has pressed history to promote its economic agenda, attempting to win African sympathy by emphasizing the common history of exploitation China and African nations have suffered at the hands of Western colonialists. This is a common theme in the pages of African newspapers, where commentators argue that Western investors exploit Africa, while Chinese companies tend to invest in businesses that are beneficial.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5106

Africa has an abundance of natural resources we however,have a shortage of skilled lobour,capital,technology and fare markets.China brings into Africa what it needs.What do you Inteligent people think?China is doing business i just hope that African leaders/politicians are signing these deals with Africans future
at heart.

Unfortunately for the continent of Africa, China's Africa foreign policy is a continuation of a history of economic exploitation and marginalization of issues of human rights. China's focus on Africa is obviously rooted in a real politik-based strategem calculated to expand China's global influence, enhance its economic clout and to counter US influence. As China's recent aid to Sudan suggests, Chinese relations with African countries are clearly not based upon or motivated by any moral or ethical considerations; rather, these relations sadly mirror the worst aspects of Western countries' (e.g. the U.S.) foreign policies relative to Africa. Sadly, and as historically has been the case, the losers are the average African men and women who struggle daily to realize fundamental rights to life, liberty and economic security (see Dafur).

Surely for most poor Africans, Chinese hegemonistic pretensions and behavior are no more attractive or desirable than those of the US, France, Britain or any other country. For them, the intelligentsia's debate over the desirability of a unipolar, bipolar or multipolar world is overshadowed by practical considerations of surviving the day, finding the next meal and eking out some measure of joy in otherwise bleak lives. It is an extreme pity for them that their humanity is accorded little or no weight, or relevance, in the political calculations of their own leaders and the leadership of the world's powers.

So, to me the utlimate question is whether China's involvement with Africa will advance the Continent's economic and human rights development? Taking China's Sudan foreign policy initiative as present and extrapolative evidence, the answer seems to be a resounding "No."

Todays leaders, and especially the Bush Administration have no sense of history about this region of the world. The following is a quote from the London Times:

"how much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavor to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for and do not want?"

This was in the London Times from 1920!. This was the sentiment of a growing number of British after uprisings in Iraq after WW1. They had just created and installed a new Iraqi Government after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It has always been astounding to witness how the lessons of history are completely lost on our leaders. That quote from 1920 is as accurate today as it was over 80 years ago.

China is doing in Africa what she has been doing in North America and Europe, China is establishing a source for raw materials and markets for her goods and services. The United States is in pretty terrible shape and it's likely to get a lot worse. It may fail entirely. Of the new jobs created last year in this country, three out of every ten were for a foreign worker; 9 out of 10 new hi-tech hires were for foreign engineers and scientists (53% were Indian, 32% Chinese). Of those 10 jobs, five were for sub-ten dollar an hour "service sector" jobs and those were the ones that went to U.S. nationals. With the trade imbalance and the falling dollar, it is just a matter of time before the price of oil is pegged to the Euro and the dollar and U.S. economy crash. China knows this even if our own government doesn't, so China is planning for the future. And, if you look at U.S. coporate moves lately, American (now - "global") corporations know this, too.

Chinese President Hu Jintao has promised to reduce China's $3 billion trade imbalance with Africa by increasing imports and promoting Chinese investment in African industry. He claims to be sincerely committed to Africa's long-term development, a true friend of the African people.

That's a lot of hooey--and Hu knows it.

China's Africa policy is a model of modern-day mercantilism with Chinese characteristics. Chinese investment and trade--and China's flag and arms--are all wrapped up in a single package. One does not follow the other.

Economic aid, including grants, loans and credits, and various forms of technical assistance, go hand in hand with commitments to develop oil fields, build refineries, roads, and railroads ... and, as shown by China's deepening involvement in genocidal Sudan, supply weapons regardless of a nation's human rights record or lack of transparency.

Prestige projects--a presidential palace here, a football stadium there--are also offered, along with no-strings arms deals, except for supporting China's position on Taiwan. Human rights and transparency are simply irrelevant.

State owned companies are key to China's Africa policy. In contrast with Western firms, Chinese companies answer to China's ruling Communist Party, not stockholders, even if some of the firms have sold minority stakes to investors in order to float and list shares in Hong Kong or New York.

Like Chinese capitalism--or Chinese socialism, for that matter--the state-owned behemoths that have gone public only resemble the real thing. Commissar-style spies and executives are assigned to every company to watch over senior management; and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, which holds controlling interests in roughly 200 large Chinese companies, monitors performance.

In other words, China's state-owned companies are tools of the state. As such, they do not invest overseas simply to make money; rather, they invest to augment the power of the state and support state policies. In Africa, this mainly means investing (a) to lock in longterm access to oil and minerals, and (b) to open up and expand markets for cheap Chinese goods.

-China Confidential
http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com

harm? to whom? every policy step causes harm, no matter the policy or the policy maker. The fantasy that there is a solution to any human social problem is puerile.

To PG

China's policy of investing in Africa without preconditions is strictly to advance Chinese interest. It is a bad policy that props up dictators like Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir at the expense of the Sudanese people.

The well advertised Chinese-African summit seemed like a brilliant idea, but the real message China has been sending to the African people can be summarized in the Sudan (below). If that isn't convincing enough, then China's support of North Korea which is one of the most oppressive regimes on earth, and is responsible for an estimated 4 million deaths from starvation, and politically related murder and torture, is a case, in point, of advancing Chinese interest despite the cost in human lives.

1. From Sabastion Mallaby, Washington Post:

"..."Sudan, by these standards, is an easy candidate for sanctions. But China's talk of "sovereignty" is code for the opposite policy. As well as paying for a presidential palace, Hu used his trip to cancel $80 million of Sudanese debt, to announce a plan to build a railway line and to visit an oil refinery that China partly owns, basking in the fact that 80 percent of Sudan's oil goes to his country..."

2. China has been accused by Amnesty International (2006) for the shipment of military equipment used in the abduction and killing of civilians in Darfur. Over 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur, primarily, by the government sponsored Janjaweed.

With the support of China, other (incompetent) dictators such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe could be kept in power for years to come. The Chinese policy of business without interference in the internal affairs of the country is a bad idea.

China playing all its card very carefully and wisely.

china find a gap to penetrate a virgin continent. While US and its Europian allies are occupied with middle east, and russia still settling its issues with its former brothers China is free to move in any dimension.

china very wisely exploring a market which is huge and still half un explored. I do not think that China is trying to colonize africa. in fact the term is obsolete and no more valid.

China is entering Africa with no competitor in site for a while and hence will be able to solidify its position .

Africa will be an asset for china if any time in future china demands itself to be upgraded to super power status

About Indian companies buying British counter-parts!

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1413

Tom Wonacott, your comment summarizes all the bad the rest of the world thinks of the USA: "The Chinese policy of business without interference in the internal affairs of the country is a bad idea."

Actually, for your information, the 95% of the rest of the world population rather thinks:
"The American policy of business WITH interference in the internal affairs of the country is a bad idea." bad being a heavy understatement.

Let Chinese (and not China, for "China" as a such doesn't do business) invest in Africa. It's hard to see how it could be worse than what happened to Africans until now.

Oh please, China colonizing Africa? The world could be so lucky. At least China might be able to improve living standards and industrialize the region. Nobody else seems the least bit interested in attempting it.

China needs the oil. Sudan is willing to sell it to them. From time to time the Sudanese government will ask China for a favor (money or arms) and China will comply because of their trading relationship.

Should China be trading with Sudan? That's a different issue. If someone assumes God, Democracy and Capitalism are the 3 forces that should run everyone's life then the answer is no. If someone doesn't subscribe to these tenets then the answer could be anything from no to yes. In China's case they reject God and Democracy and have a strange type of State controlled Capitalism going on. The Sudanese majority has rejected Democracy, believes in Allah, but does have a Capitalistic system riddled with corruption. Sounds like a marriage made in heaven to me.

Considering we (The United States) are a country that invaded and now occupies a soverign state (Iraq), which committed no act of war against us, and hundreds of thousands of people are now dead because of the invasion and occupation we have no right to judge China's international moral obligations. When, and if, we develop some international morality over human rights then we can condemn China for trading with a country that has shown little regard for it's citizens lives. Until such a time we'd look a lot better avoiding these discussions in order not to look like a bunch of hypocrites.

Thank you Bush/Cheney. I really love being on the wrong end of human rights discussions.

Good

Why criticize China? It just wants Sudan's oil; and with over a billion citizens, it needs it to keep up with economic growth. China has nothing to do with the supposed "genocide" in that region; the Janjaweed is taking care of that.

Who says there's genocide anyway? Because you saw some images on the news of Darfurians being displaced from their homeland? Of course people will die--they were moved to another arid area with no food! How does this constitute genocide? China's not the only one after that oil...US, Canadian, Swedish, and Austrian companies were long in that area before China arrived(READ!)...China's just the one that is actually getting something done.

If China is indeed colonizing, it's a heck of a lot better than the way Europeans have been doing it during the past few hundred years!

So! The Africans would rather have yellow masters than white masters. Whites were removed from power in Africa to reduce the black population through starvation. The white farmers created a black population explosion with the excess food supply they grew.

The bankers,not wanting "inferior" genes introduced into the world population in such mass quantities, used the media to convince the black natives that the white farmers were "exploiting" their labor to become rich. The media eventually worked the blacks into a frenzy and the black natives murdered the white farmers and their entire families. Now, there is no food for them to eat and the blacks are starving after murdering their very saviors.

Won't you please send money to save these starving Africans? Thank you.

China can and will do as it wishes. The U.S. this late in the day still has not embarked on a discussion of whether it can fight a war or even defend itself at home (if it comes to that) anymore. In other words, we hear endlessly about the Iraq war being immoral, etc.--a thousand reasons for not fighting there (and of course everyone says they are being strategic, that it was impossible from the beginning)--but we hear absolutely no definition of the conditions in which the U.S. would actually be united in a fight. I would like to hear the conditions in which the liberals would be united with the Republicans for a war--and the Republicans actually with some heart themselves and willing to send their rich sons. So far I believe the U.S. can no longer fight a war--for whatever reason. I think China or anybody else can do pretty much as he pleases. The way this question is posed is as if the U.S. has a choice in the matter or something. I see no choice in the matter. China will do as it wishes. I really have no hopes in the U.S. anymore. I base this on my inability to have any conversations worth speaking of with my fellow Americans. I just finished trying to get some views across on the post's On Faith site when the question was on prayer, and it was impossible to converse--people literally could not grasp what I was trying to say. I fully expect people to be similarly obtuse when I simply ask what would be the right conditions for the political parties in the nation to put their differences aside and wage war. I fully expect people to not even contemplate those right conditions and to simply go on and on about how immoral it was to invade Iraq. People just do not think of anything in this country anymore. I find myself a profoundly isolated and unhappy man in my own nation.--Every effort at an intellectual life a complete waste. China quite simply will do as it will.

DANIEL:

The question arises why do you or the USA want to wage war, when war is the embodient of Shiva [The Destroyer], destroys infrasturture and the soul of the killer soldiers. Do you belive that the gain in USA GDP due to manufacturing armaments, bombs, rockets and ammunition really betters the lot of the USA citizens [aside from the few who do the manufacturing and own the companies thereto] at a time when natural resources are getting scarcer and or more expensive. Would not that amount spent be better utilized in increasing public transport to reduce your oil dependency? on medical insurance for the uninsured in the USA? Training better teachers for your failing school system? Working on finding more reliable water source for the Arizona N. Mexico and LA -- as all the reservoirs are going down in Western States.

The other point with respect to wanting war, you never know the unintended consequences. You and the rest of the USA seem to have forgotten the problems of Korean war [you drew in China], Vietnam, you could not win, even though you destroyed large percentage of the country [napalm and agent orange were your choice of weapons beside endless regular bombing] Iraq 3 years + after MISSION ACCOMLISHED. Do you and your compatriots enjoy the assymetrical warfare... remember if can come closer to you!

From the news from N Korea, it appears that your foreign policy took a reversal to Clinton years, as Bush and co had to capitulate, for the genie once out of the bottle can never be put back. you, looking for other genies to hound the USA?

Sorry Daniel, but it was immoral to invade Iraq, it is still immoral to have invaded Iraq and it will forever be immoral to have invaded Iraq. That ongoing excursion was and remains based exclusively on lies and deception. The whole community of nations knows that much. No amount of waffling will ever change anything to that.

You are right, China will do as it pleases. And why not? The West has very little credibility, anymore, to tell China what it should and should not do in the world. Even the question above, as to whether China is colonizing Africa, is nothing but a psychological projection, on China, of the West's colonial past. China is taking its place not only in Africa but in that whole world we all have to share. In so doing, it is contributing to the development of all continents. Be patient, this is just a modest beginning. The world has everything to learn from the Chinese. Their philosophy and outlook on life and on the world are very different from ours and mostly unknown to us. We ain't seen anything yet, Daniel! You'll see, we'll revisit, time and again, in the next few years, and in utter amazement.

Robert Rose

"...You are right, China will do as it pleases. And why not? The West has very little credibility, anymore, to tell China what it should and should not do in the world..."

I, quite frankly, do not understand that statement, Robert. The west not only leads the world economically, but provides an unending amount of assistance to the developing world through charity and development (business).

In addition the west is a showcase for the rest of the world for democratic values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, tolerance and all other values that you, apparently, take for granted while living in one of the great countries in the world that many, if not most people in most parts of the world, would give anything for the opportunity.

"...China is taking its place not only in Africa but in that whole world we all have to share. In so doing, it is contributing to the development of all continents. Be patient, this is just a modest beginning. The world has everything to learn from the Chinese. Their philosophy and outlook on life and on the world are very different from ours and mostly unknown to us..."

We do have a lot to learn from China, but, China is not investing in Africa to teach the Africans Chinese philosophy, but is investing at the expense of the African people, to gratify their newly found capitalistic hunger. In addition, China expects the US and NATO to solve the problems in the Sudan without participating in the process. Two hundred thousand dead people in Darfur, and the killing continues.

BobL

"...Considering we (The United States) are a country that invaded and now occupies a soverign state (Iraq), which committed no act of war against us, and hundreds of thousands of people are now dead because of the invasion and occupation we have no right to judge China's international moral obligations..."

This is your most common statement. Because we invaded Iraq, we can't judge anyone, and I fully believe that is totally wrong. We do have a right to judge China. They are a classic, oppressive dictatorship that is undermining the (UN) effort in the Sudan to stop the killing. Can you not see that?

If we are immoral in your eyes, how does that justify China participating in genocide? Forget the US (for once) and just judge the situation. According to Amnesty International, China is providing military equipment to the killers in Sudan. The investments just prop up another dictatorship responsible for killing thousands of innocent people.

Salamon (assuming that is you)

The whole world (with the exception of China and Russia) is calling for interference in the Sudan including the ultra left wing New York Times. You seem to care about the Sunnis and Shia dieing in Iraq, but could care less, obviously, about the innocents murdered in Darfur.

Turn the situation around, Salamon, and tell me you would support the US doing exactly the same thing as China, that is, exploiting the Sudanese for oil, supplying military equipment, and turning a blind eye to genocide. You would have another anti American fit...

This seems like the situation where Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" on page 194 described how Western democratic nations did not put too much pressure on human rights issues on Asia due to those countries' businesses putting pressure on their Western governments not to go into the human rights issues too much. This was because those businesses had strong dealings with those Asian countries (China is one of the countries), and the Western governments were convinced that economic relations with those Asian countries would have been disrupted. At that time, those Western businesses were trying to expand further into those Asian countries.
I bring this up because it seems as if this could apply to China in a way. The Western governments want China to use its economic leverage in Sudan to convince the government to do something significant to deal with the genocide issues in Darfur. However, China has asked Darfur to do something about the genocide issues, but has not made it mandatory to do so. I believe China is in the same situation as those Western nations in the past, where the Western government was convinced by the Western businesses to not meddle too much in China's domestic affairs so that economic integration could expand. China probably believes that strongarming Sudan now would only hurt China's ability to continue with its expansion of economic ties with Sudan.
It seems that China has caught up to the Western nations' dilemma of trying to do what they feel is right morally yet wanting to keep economic terms with less developed country strong so then both parties would do well economically. In the end, the human rights pressure was diluted to the point where economic ties win out over moral issues.

To all readers: the simple point I was trying to make is our nation seems incapable of basic reflection so it is useless to expect ourselves to prevent China of anything. By basic reflection I mean simply if we find ourselves in the situation of fighting an immoral war as so many say about Iraq--and therefore guaranteed to lose it because no one wants to fight--then quite logically we should hear arguments about what would unite us for a fight. But there are no such arguments...Another example: We have a discussion about climate change and all hinges on whether the science is true or not--this determines how we should act. But no one asks why it is we should get in the situation in the first place and why it should depend on carbon emissions to be able to act...It makes little difference if global warming is occuring or not--we should be able to counter it regardless. The same with war: that we are fighting an immoral war should not compromise our capacity to fight a war. But can we fight a war? Can we stop global warming even if it is occuring? Every question should automatically lead to a posing of its opposite in other words...That the U.S. cannot do that is a very disturbing sign--and we all are indicted in this regard.

To all readers: do I need to be clearer (since so many are obsessed about the war in Iraq)? What would and what would not unite the U.S. for a war? We hear that the war in Iraq is immoral--and I am not questioning that--but what then is a moral war? What would unite the nation in war and make the liberals and the rich sons of Republicans volunteer to fight? Again, every situation must be put in a total light...If the U.S. cannot fight a war anymore, what point in talking about what to do about China? Or are we supposed to depend on other methods to stop China? But if other methods, will we not once again get into whether they are moral or not? And is it not likely going from the current political climate that virtually all actions will be considered immoral on our part? So what will be moral with regard to China? What actions on our part? And will these no doubt constricted because moral actions make any difference at all? And why is it me posing these questions? Are they not obvious? That should clarify matters a bit....

At least Chinese arrived in Africa without troops. They consulted the African people. If someone still consider it's colonization, then it's a better one, isn't it? It's not conquer and commmand, it's not slave and master, it's just..Let's do business, shall we?

Benjamin

"...China probably believes that strongarming Sudan now would only hurt China's ability to continue with its expansion of economic ties with Sudan..."

I certainly agree with most of what you are saying, for example, the US does not push to hard (if at all) for democratizing Saudi Arabia because of the economic ties we have with the Saudis, but there is a point when you cannot look the other way because of economic reasons. The Sudan is that place, in my opinion.

Supplying military equipment, and propping up Bashir cannot, in any way, be good for the people of the Sudan. Lets not forget that Bashir led a civil war against the South (Sudan) responsible for two million MORE deaths.

From Wikepedia:

"...In 1989 a coup d'état brought control of Khartoum to the hands of Omar al-Bashir and the National Islamic Front headed by Dr. Hassan al-Turabi. Both groups are Sunni fundamentalists drawing most of their ideology from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Together they formed the Popular Defense Forces (al Difaa al Shaabi) and began to invade the tribal south and eliminate the Christian minority.[citation needed]

The attempted genocide went on for more than twenty years, including the use of Sukhoi sorties, Tupolev bombers and napalm to devastating effect on villages and tribal rebels alike..."

TOM:
Whereas the USA/UK invaded Iraq contrary to UN authority, therefore all who conspired to allow this event to occur: US Congress members voting for war, UK Parliament members voting for war are WAR CRIMINALS. The USA/UK citizens re-elected numerous members who are guilty or war crimes, thus these two countries collectively lost all moral stature with respect to any human right issue. As an aside the tragedy of IRaq far surpasses all events in Sudan, so after the USA/UK solve the problem of Iraq, then they can talk about other issues FOR:

According to the Final Judgment at Nuremberg, a ruling that has provided all succeeding generations with the classic pronouncement on the illegality of aggressive war: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." See Final Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals (September 30, 1946), specifically "The Common Plan or Conspiracy and Aggressive War," from which this passage derives.

YOU WILL NOTE that the judgement was by USA Jurists among others.

Tom,

I think it's fairly obvious I concur with Mr. Rose, "but it was immoral to invade Iraq, it is still immoral to have invaded Iraq and it will forever be immoral to have invaded Iraq."

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq came about as a result of reactionary forces in this country in response to 9/11. GW and Cheney wanted to get rid of a thorn in their side (Saddam) and make an attempt at stablizing Iraq through regime change and establishing Democracy in Iraq. Only one problem: they didn't have a reason. They manufactured one. Whether it was just outright lying or some serious twisting of intelligence it has turned out to be false. These facts are no longer even in dispute. Then to try an end run around the fallacy of WMD's as justification we started to hear Saddam was a bad man anyway and it didn't matter if there were WMD's because he deserved to go down. anyway.

This puts me in a position where I personally condemn what is happening in the Sudan and China's participation, but as an American citizen I'm not really in a position to be throwing stones. We (America) can't expect to run around the world and engage in immoral wars with soverign states and at the same time condemn other countries for their immoral acts. It would reek of hypocracy.

Daniel, while seeming to deplore, in your words, that « so many (readers) are obsessed about the war in Iraq you ask : « If the U.S. cannot fight a war anymore, what point in talking about WHAT TO DO ABOUT CHINA? Or are we supposed to depend on other methods to STOP CHINA? » (my emphasis).

Nobody but you, Daniel, seems to be obsessed by « what to do with China ». Nobody but you seems to be obsessed with what you consider the need for the US to be able to « unite… to fight a war… to STOP CHINA ». Salamon’s comment remains therefore the most pertinent : « Daniel : … why do you or the USA want to wage war… ? ».

Can you not, do you not conceive of any other types of relationship between individuals, groups and nations than war ? What is supposed to be China’s reaction to an attitude such as yours ? By «China», I mean here both Chinese authorities and the Chinese people.

I can very well understand that there be countries that feel threatened by a country like the US, which has bases and nuclear arsenals in every part of the world, the number of which is expanding every day like cancer. I can well understand that there be countries that feel threatened when foreign diplomats tell them that « unless you do as we tell you, we’ll bomb you into the stone age ». I can well understand that there be countries that feel threatened by a country that has, for decades now, subverted democratically elected governments, put in place the worst dictators and supported them to the limit in every part of the world, with millions upon millions of civilian victims, dead, maimed, deported, refugees in their own countries and in foreign lands. (Read Chomsky and draw a detailled list, for every continent). That I can understand.

What I cannot understand is that citizens of the most powerful country in the world constantly live in fear, feel threatened, whatever happens and wherever they be. That they feel the compulsion to constantly « do something about the next guy », the urge « to fight him », « to stop him ». Zen Master D. T. Suzuki, used to say : « At war with the gods, at war with Nature, at war with others, at war with oneself… strange religion ». I myself would paraphrase : « … strange humanism ».

I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, Daniel, I only wonder : What in the world could possibly, one day, turn Americans like you into fearless, serene, peaceful, compassionate beings who live and let live ?

Reading many of the comments here answered my key question: what are the terms of this aid? It's obvious that it's more of the same aid/trade that have complemented the misgovernance of too many African countries. What's the Chinese equivalent of the Trojan Horse?

Tom, I take no values for granted, quite the contrary, yet I do feel like BobL-VA says he does (please refer to his last paragraph), and do resent hypocrisy. Ultimately, I believe it will be for Africans, and for Africans alone, to judge and decide whether « China… (will have been) « investing at the expense of the African people », as you claim they are. Africans do not need us for that, they can « be their own light », as the Buddha said.

On the West providing « an unending amount of assistance to the developing world through charity and development (business) », as you write, I could mention, for instance, 1. Hancock Graham’s book «The Nababs of Poverty» showing how «disinterested» we all are, helping Africans…, 2. the work doctors Krisana Kraisintu (Thailand) and Beat Richner (Switzerland) are currently accomplishing, in Africa, attempting to have produced, manufactured and distributed, there, cheap generic drugs against HIV and paludism, and available to all, while undoing the lethal business of the pharmaceutical industry, in Africa -- lady Professor Kraisintu admits candidly : « The multinationals want me dead. I have repeatedly received death threats. ». You can Google search all their names. But that is not the most important yet.

For brevity’s sake (others may want to take part in this discussion…), let me just add those few lines from Margaret Atwood’s « Letter to America », published in 2003 by the International Herald Tribune :

« Dear America: This is a difficult letter to write, because I'm no longer sure who you are… Let's talk, then, not about what you're doing to other people, but about what you're doing to yourselves…

If you proceed much further down the slippery slope, people around the world will stop admiring the good things about you. They'll decide that your city upon the hill is a slum and your democracy is a sham, and therefore you have no business trying to impose your sullied vision on them. They'll think you've abandoned the rule of law. They'll think you've fouled your own nest.

The British used to have a myth about King Arthur. He wasn't dead, but sleeping in a cave, it was said; in the country's hour of greatest peril, he would return. You, too, have great spirits of the past you may call upon: men and women of courage, of conscience, of prescience. Summon them now, to stand with you, to inspire you, to defend the best in you. You need them. »

Hence my daily prayer : « God save our souls ! »

Daniel,

Actually, the last war we fought was the second world war. We haven't declared war on anyone since them as fas as I know. Now we're having a war on terrorism. Very similar to Caligula declaring war on Neptune.

We've become a very strange nation. We don't declare war on Iraq, but we fight a war in Iraq. Iraq isn't experiencing civil war. It's only secretarian violence. Civilians don't get killed. Now we have collateral damage. Friendly fire only kills and injures our own troops. Hostile fire kills enemy troops. (I'm sure the recipients of friendly fire feel better about the fact they shot themselves)

No one will argue effectively the United States hasn't done marvelous things around the world in the last 75 years. They have. WWII and Lend/Lease come to mind. Advances in medical research, charitable work, etc. etc. However, no thinking person can deny the facts the United States has also done some really stupid vile things as well. Just because you drive your car obeying the speed limit 90% of the time is not a defense for a deserved speeding ticket. When we're wrong we need to say so. We need to take responsiblility and try to right our wrongs. We don't need to invent new slogans to make a feeble attempt at covering up our errors.

Our consistent use of military force in order to impose our will on other societies and cultures is an error the US makes on a regular basis and it needs to stop except in circumstances where an actual act of war has been committed against this country. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq are conflicts that should have never been fought. There was no justification for any of these conflicts. Korea and Vietnam over stopping Communism and Iraq for an attempt at bringing peace(?) to the ME. All that happened in the first two conflicts was millions of people died. At the rate we're going another million will be added in Iraq and for what? To save us from what?

A lot of us are consumed by Iraq. We're consumed because of how stupid, immoral and inhumane our going there was, is and will continue to be.

How's China's relationship with Sudan any different then ours has been with numerous dictatorships around the globe? The only difference it's the Chinese and not us in this case. There is also one other difference when talking about the Chinese. We're not about to tell them we'll bomb them back into the stone age or threaten them with military action. We don't have the military or the manpower to pull anything like this off and they know it. Hence, in the case of the Chinese we'd better start making diplomacy a real priority because we don't have a choice.

Anyone who genuinely has Africa's and Africans' best interests at heart will acknowledge that this surge in Chinese FDI, no matter how imperfect, IS A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD overall, especially given the failure of the Western neo-liberal IMF/W. Bank policies that have been forced on the African countries for the past two decades, and the west's abandonment of Africa, plus all the stereotypes about it being a 'dark and hopeless continent'...

Also, a brief question for those of you criticizing China: What is the alternative? That Africa should continue listening to the west and allow them to subdue Africans into a state of perpetual dependency, subservience and pauperization? Think again!

Improved security in and around the Continent’s national parks has helped boost Tourism demand for the West. So do new attractions such as the Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary, where visitors can now see six of rare animals.

The latest James Bond film from the West also has a starting scene placed in Mbale, Eastern Uganda (on the slopes of Mt. Elgon). This, too, has brought more focus on Uganda’s tourism attractions.

Therefore The West and Africa are always Camel and Milk relationship

Managing Editor And Publisher
Geeska Afrika Magazine (1985-2007)
www.geeskaafrika.com

Improved security in and around The Continent’s national parks has helped boost Tourism demand for the West. So do new attractions such as the Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary, where visitors can now see six of rare animals

The latest James Bond film also has a starting scene placed in Mbale, Eastern Uganda (on the slopes of Mt. Elgon). This, too, has brought more focus on Uganda’s tourism attractions.

Therefore The West and Africa are always Camel and Milk relationship

Managing Editor And Publisher
Geeska Afrika Magazine (1985-2007)
www.geeskaafrika.com

Rhino, camel and James Bond are fine, but Africans are still dying like flies, in this safer world.

Salamon

"...Whereas the USA/UK invaded Iraq contrary to UN authority, therefore all who conspired to allow this event to occur: US Congress members voting for war, UK Parliament members voting for war are WAR CRIMINALS. The USA/UK citizens re-elected numerous members who are guilty or war crimes, thus these two countries collectively lost all moral stature with respect to any human right issue. As an aside the tragedy of IRaq far surpasses all events in Sudan, so after the USA/UK solve the problem of Iraq, then they can talk about other issues FOR:..."

This is all a bunch of BS, Salamon. Since you are obsessed over the US invasion of Iraq (and US policy, in general) and cannot discuss any other issue in the Washington PostGlobal without references to Iraq, then lets discuss the Iraq invasion.

1. Invasion of Iraq was legal under UN resolutions, 1441, 678 and 687.

2. Inspectors were not allowed into Iraq for nearly four years, from December, 1998 until September 2002.

3. Iraq could not account for stockpiles of banned weapons, which was required under the peace treaty signed by Saddam after the Kuwait invasion (UN resolution 687).

4. Numerous UN resolutions passed to encourage Saddam to conform to the terms of UN resolution 687. Iraq was bombed by the US in 1998 because of those violations.

Saddam's record as President of Iraq:

1. Illegal invasion of two countries.

2. Responsibility of the deaths, by war, murder and torture of 1-2 million (MILLION) people.

3. Illegal use of WMDs to kill (gassed) thousands of Kurds.

4. Systematic use of oppression, torture and murder of Iraqi Shiites.

Saddam had every opportunity to cooperate with the UN, but played a cat and mouse game with the inspectors. Saddam was a brutal dictator and the world is better off that he is gone. Al-Bashir of the Sudan is even worse.

Iraq war illegal say legal experts and Kofi Annan

In a recent BBC interview UN Secretary General Kofi Annan … (declared) that their invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter.

…

Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression.

These experts are none other that the world's foremost international law experts who make up the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists who prepared a statement called The Legality Of The Iraq War…

This document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of the war against Iraq.

Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion:

(1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and

(2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

These experts deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

They draw three conclusions. It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that:

(1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct;

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is false;

(3) therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and fabrication…

Messrs Bush and Cheney…

(1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under
international law;

(2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they are cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!";

(3) their argument is legally-meritless nonsense; and

(4) they have repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law.

(The Guardian September 22, 2004)

To Robert Rose, Salamon and Bob. If I understand you correctly what you are suggesting is that the U.S. become something of a nation in as near perfect emulation of Ghandi or Christ as possible--something of a life of non-action. An interesting proposition. But how is this different from the suicide of the nation? In other words, say the U.S. becomes something of a composite of your views. Would the nation continue to exist? Or does that make a difference? It seems at least from Robert Rose's views it makes no difference (and out of compassion I fail to point out that the zen Robert Rose spouts and seems to associate with strictly Christ-like morals was also the philosophy of samurais...). Perhaps the three of you can suggest some political science books--or some reading in general. I like to read and I would like a clearer understanding of your views. So far I find it difficult to disassociate your views from psychological warfare pure and simple. But perhaps you three are nothing but moralists (and how is that different from psychological warfare?). In essence, if I and my nation were to become as you suggest, would that compromise the ability to ask questions? Or is it useless to expect from you a simple answer to this question? I am condemned to being a questioning and answering being, and may this be the fate of my nation.

I find it extremely interesting that when I ask what exactly it would take for the United States to be politically united for a war these days everyone asks why it is I would want war...I simply point out that if Iraq is considered an immoral war and worth losing regardless of what this means to the nation, what exactly is a moral war--what exactly is there worth fighting for? I am not asking whether or not Iraq is immoral. I am asking what then is a moral war? Or is it the nation will be as divided as today regardless of whether a war is moral or not? Did it really make a difference whether or not Iraq was immoral? Would we not be in the same position as today politically? Is it not true that even if we had not invaded Iraq a great part of the nation would have been opposed to war? I guess what it comes to is the question of whether the U.S. can fight any war at all. But the way opponents of the war in Iraq frame it, Iraq is immoral and that is all (in other words, they suggest there is a circumstance in which they would fight a war--and I once again ask: what are these circumstances which would unite us as a nation in war?). Terrorists brought down the twin towers and today we stand condemning Iraq. Let us say Iraq is totally immoral. But what about the twin towers? What war would we be willing to fight? If no war at all, why speak of foreign policy at all, worrying about China or anybody else? Or are we to depend on diplomacy? But what is that? What exactly is moral and what not? How exactly is the U.S. to act? Clarity please. Robert Rose, you want me to be fearless and serene? Perhaps we should just have a nuclear holocaust and end things now...Is that serene enough for you Robert? I have no problem with it. Just as long as everyone else joins in. The problem with you Robert and Salamon and Bob is that you seem to want the U.S. to go down alone...But never fear, China will do as it will--in fact all the nations will pretty much do as they will. Nobody can do much about anything anymore. We have no choice but to be serene and fearless. Nobody can change anything about man.