Scrutable

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:29 pm Should we let the Chinese build us some mobile 5G infrastructure? Or should we let someone else? Is it better that the French spy on us or the Chinese?

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:33 pm
As a personal user, I'm not super fussed whether I'm spied on by China or Five Eyes. I feel like it's pretty moot as to which is more likely to harm me.

JQH wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:23 am The population of Tibet might beg to differ with your last point.

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:32 pm

JQH wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:23 am The population of Tibet might beg to differ with your last point.

There are countries in Africa that might beg to differ in a couple of decades too.

Herainestold wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:57 pm

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:32 pm

JQH wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:23 am The population of Tibet might beg to differ with your last point.

There are countries in Africa that might beg to differ in a couple of decades too.

African countries economic resurgence is almost entirely due to Chinese investment.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:09 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:57 pm

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:32 pm

There are countries in Africa that might beg to differ in a couple of decades too.

African countries economic resurgence is almost entirely due to Chinese investment.

That investment has come with a lot of quid pro quo, though. Not directly equivalent to Western imperialism with sanctions and bombs, which China only does within its own borders (and in annexed territories), but there's certainly a non-zero cost to a lot of African people. The important question is whether those costs exceed the benefits, and over what time frame, etcetera.

Herainestold wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:11 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:09 pm

Herainestold wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:57 pm

African countries economic resurgence is almost entirely due to Chinese investment.

That investment has come with a lot of quid pro quo, though. Not directly equivalent to Western imperialism with sanctions and bombs, which China only does within its own borders (and in annexed territories), but there's certainly a non-zero cost to a lot of African people. The important question is whether those costs exceed the benefits, and over what time frame, etcetera.

Ask African peoples which they prefer.

Martin_B wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:31 am

Herainestold wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:11 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:09 pm
That investment has come with a lot of quid pro quo, though. Not directly equivalent to Western imperialism with sanctions and bombs, which China only does within its own borders (and in annexed territories), but there's certainly a non-zero cost to a lot of African people. The important question is whether those costs exceed the benefits, and over what time frame, etcetera.

Ask African peoples which they prefer.

It's not always the Chinese investment.

From conversation with some locals in Zambia (and from them, similar experiences in other sub-Saharan countries) the Chinese methodology is to come in and offer to construct significant infrastructure at very low cost and low interest rates, using Chinese know-how to train locals to help promote local industries.

Once the contracts are signed, there are then variations, and the projects end up costing more than expected, interest rates increase, labour is done mainly by imported Chinese labourers (some of whom are prison labour), local industry gets ignored, locals don't get jobs or training, maintenance requires Chinese expertise (which costs much more than maintenance by locals, but it's all in the contract/variations) and apparently when the construction project is complete the Chinese leave the workers behind (especially if they are prison labour - why bother re-importing them to China?) so the local economy ends up with a sudden influx of unemployed Chinese criminals.

The win-win situation which the Africans thought was the basis of the contract (Africa gets infrastructure and the chance to generate income through exporting resources to China and others) becomes very one-sided (Africa gets much more expensive infrastructure and large debts which have to be serviced through the export of resources to China which take priority over any other exports, regardless of any imbalance in Chinese prices and spot prices).

Of course, YMMV.

Nero wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:46 am Don't forget the very generous funding and building of the African Union HQ by China.

https://medium.com/dukeuniversity/whats ... 454c1f31a2

Not so sure this was much of a win-win.

The UK last reviewed Huawei's role in its telecoms infrastructure in January, when it was decided to let the firm remain a supplier but introduced a cap on its market share.

But in May the US introduced new sanctions designed to disrupt Huawei's ability to get its own chips manufactured.

This led security officials to conclude they could no longer assure the security of its products if the company had to start sourcing chips from third-parties for use in its equipment.

The minister cited a review carried out by GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre as being the motivation for the changes.

However, other political considerations are likely to have also come into play including the UK's desire to strike a trade deal with the US, and growing tensions with China over its handling of the coronavirus outbreak and its treatment of Hong Kong.