I disagree. After all, Africa in Mandarin is feizhou, literally "wrong continent". (USA in the other hand is meiguo, or "beautiful country")
China is going to Africa for resources because that's the only place they can trade peacefully, without relying on the military, like the US does.
China is shipping a lot of people to Africa, building a lot of infrastructure. The contracts they are signing are not as exploitive as the contracts the western countries signed. They are not doing the same back-hand deals with dictators.
China is playing a much different game, and it's easy to say that they want to exploit, but it's not quite as simple as that.
For example, the chinese are building refineries. The west had little interest in building refineries, they wanted to only extract.
Basically, let's put it this way: The west had more than 40 years of exclusive access to the African mineral industry. It resulted in little development in Africa, and a lot of wars. Whatever china does, it can't be worse.
The Chinese, due to their domestic policies over the last few decades have a huge surplus of young males, in the sense that the male:female balance is badly skewed. Something like 50M young men who can never get married. That's a powderkeg situation. China is shipping these young males to Africa hoping that they'll meet nice local girls, settle down, and effectively found Chinese colonies.
Now I'm not saying there's anything right or wrong about this. But if you want to understand why China is going about resource extraction so differently, you have to look deeper. In other words, minerals aren't the only resources...
I said they were there for resources, and I'm not sure how you can take issue with that given that China is currently scouring the globe for resources to fuel their manufacturing and ensure stability. You'll also notice that China's investments are all geared towards resources.
I actually happen to think that the Chinese model of "buying/investing to get stuff they want" is much better for all involved than the Western model of "political meddling and misplaced aid" and so I'm slightly confused by why you've ignored the fairly reasonable statement I've made and given me a lecture on something I already believe.
They never have in 600 years of trading with Africa, starting with the spice routes and, even before, silk road.
> at some point the west will realise that a huge market does not recognize them as viable business partners anymore.
That was probably the history of slavery, colonization, and then Apartheid that was going on before that precluded the viability.
> Consider Dubai as a pivoting point for India/China and Africa. That's a new center of the world that is developing independently of the west.
Interesting, because I see the center being much further east. Think Hong Kong, Singapore, or Shanghai.
The new center of the 3rd world is in the UAE.
... with one of the highest concentration of major banks and biggest financial management hubs outside of NYC.
I thought the center is where the money is, always has been. From Rome to Florence, then London, then to the New World and NYC, and now switching over to Asia.
> Shanghai is just a playground for young french men.
And, Dubai is a place where celebs can go slumming as the streets rise with unpaid mortgages and backed-up sewage systems.
I'm sure the places we've named are more than just their rumor and stereotype.
The money is in Dubai.
I betya in some strategy meeting in paypal, it was decided to shut down all African countries. Someone clicked some buttons and that's the end of access from Africa.
The Chinese would work differently - they'd still try to squeeze whatever juice can still be got out that. Africa is increasingly becoming Dubai/China focused, and at some point the west will realise that a huge market does not recognize them as viable business partners anymore.
Consider Dubai as a pivoting point for India/China and Africa. That's a new center of the world that is developing independently of the west.