Sunday, August 01, 2021

US bashing of China

Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org


I posted his 'China bashing' on 23 April 2008. His words are still relevant today, 13 years after he wrote his piece.


Following was his essay for your perusal:

********

While the simplistic thesis put forward by Samuel Huntington in his work ‘The Clash of Civilisations’ reads like a paltry script from a bad movie, it has to be said that bad scripts are often the most believable and effective. It was Huntington who predicted that in the wake of the Cold War a new sort of conflict would arise, namely one configured along cultural-civilisational differences between the developed Western world and the mysterious, exotic and threatening East.

The two cultural blocs that were said to be the future adversaries to the West were the Muslim world and China , respectively.


In the case of the former, it was opined by Huntington that with the demise of Communism the potential threat of Islam would be realised sooner or later for the simple reason that Islam and the West shared ‘bloody frontiers’ that were marked by centuries of conflict. This thesis, however, is patently false to anyone who has even the slightest idea of the history of Islam and the non-Muslim world, for the fact is that the frontiers of the Muslim world are not marked by violence nor stained by blood, but rather remain porous horizons marked by the eclectic culture of Islamic mysticism or Sufism: From Southeast Asia to China, from Africa to Europe, the furthest frontiers of the Muslim world are precisely where mysticism and the Muslim practice of inter-cultural dialogue and cultural cross-fertilisation flourished the most.

Related to Huntington’s fear of Islam was his fear of China, dubbed the ‘sleeping giant’ by Napoleon more than a century ago and which till today has yet to truly realise and demonstrate its full economic potential. Huntington ’s crude thesis argued that in time the West would have to realise that non-negotiable cultural differences exist between the Western world and the Orient, and that these cultural differences would ultimately serve as the catalyst for an all-out confrontation between the West and China .

As the world stands on the brink of a global recession and as we witness what may soon become a global food and resource crisis, the lens of Western policy-makers and media analysts are already looking eastwards to locate the new ‘threat’ to the global order, namely China.



It is with this thought in mind that we reflect on the rather curious assortment of media tit-bits that have been served to us lately. In a space of a month, the international media have focused on the internal and external developments in China of late. Needless to say, the human rights record of China – not only in its dealings with Tibet but also internally in terms of its treatment of local dissidents – leaves much to be desired. China was and remains an authoritarian state with a brutal policing apparatus that works to ensure that the regime remains in power at all costs, regardless of the loss of basic freedoms and civil liberties to its people.

But having said that, it should also be remembered that the Chinese government is not the only despotic regime on the planet at the moment. Nor should we forget that the Western governments have been willing and able to work with many equally brutal regimes the world over, from the despots of the Arab states to the dictatorships in Latin America and Africa. So why single out China for now? And if China ’s record is something to be looked at closely, we might as well take some time out to look at America’s own human rights record in dealing with the detainees in Guantanamo Bay as well.



The latest craze seems to be the focus on China ’s economic dealings with Africa and how Chinese companies have been investing in the development of natural resources and infrastructure in the African continent. Several reports in the international media – including the BBC and CNN – have painted the picture of an aggressive China moving into the African continent to suck its resources dry and to secure monopolies in areas such as oil and gas.

Yet it has to be remembered that in the wake of the Second Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, it was America that took the lead in the race to re-establish its presence in the African continent. Fearful of the prospect that the oil and gas reserves in the Arab-Muslim world were being depleted too fast, and that Arab oil and gas will run out for good in less than two decades, American and other Western oil and gas companies have begun to turn to Africa as another source of vital resources for their industrialised economies. Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan the Washington-based African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) was set up to promote American oil and gas company interests in Africa . Already many of these companies have secured for themselves lasting monopolies in African countries like Nigeria .


So is all this talk of an ‘aggressive China’ moving into Africa simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that American oil and gas companies are already there, exploiting the natural resources of Africa to serve their own domestic industrial needs? And if China is to expand and develop its economy, then surely it also needs to secure a steady supply of vital resources such as oil, gas and steel?

This, then, appears to be the real reason and agenda behind the spate of China-bashing that we are seeing in the international media today. For if the governments of the West are really concerned about the standard of human rights in China at present, they would do just as well to apply the same standards to themselves and to their strategic allies in the Arab world, Africa and Asia.

For now however, this hypocrisy of the highest level will continue as long as the international community remains blissfully ignorant of the real geo-political manoeuvrings that are taking place in this latest media skirmish between the West and China . A global economic crisis is in the making, as well as a global race for rapidly depleting resources. The media campaign to demonise China today is just the opening round to what will surely be a long-term conflict whose human costs will be borne by the rest of humanity as well.



Australia’s China-bashing is self-hurting


Published: 28-09-2020

Australian Ambassador to Washington Arthur Sinodinos made an outrageous intimidation to Beijing in a recent webinar with Harvard University's Kennedy School. Sinodinos said that Australia was ready to stand up to China, noting that Canberra has "demonstrated a preparedness - at least to date - to wear" economic costs to contest and confront Beijing.

This entirely unprovoked latest threat was made against the background of the bilateral relationship between Australia and China being ceaselessly poisoned and exacerbated by the anti-China crusade - something that Canberra is doing to support Washington's global efforts to contain, suppress and crush China's peaceful development.


13 comments:

  1. Very misleading.

    Foreign O&G companies investing in Africa are subject to local (& international) laws. All of them (ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, BP etc) are public listed companies and are subject to investor and NGO scrutiny. Without foreign investments by foreign majors the African countries had no means to extract their local resources. But Foreign investors have no control over corruption by local politicians.

    FYI China's CNPC invested in Sudan before 2000, CNOOC's major investment in Nigeria in 2006. Sinopac has long been there too. However Chinese ONG companies are all state owned or controlled, unlike the other majors.

    Our very own Petronas started investment in Africa in the 1990s, same as ONGC from India.

    So why bash only US companies when most are not American?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So why bash only US companies when most are not American?"

      I think you are trying to misdirect the fact again! The world is only seeing and doing bashing of China in 99% of the world media. The bashing here in KTemoc Konsiders is probably less than 0.001% Wakakakaka

      Delete
    2. Therefore the proper question should be why the China bashing only when not all are from China?

      Delete
    3. Blurred mfer, before going into why only bashing the US companies operating in Africa, asks yrself how long have those O&G companies (ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, BP etc) being investing in Africa.

      ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, BP etc all have operations right from the colonial period of their respective countries just after the WWII.

      And the most abhorrence parts r these western multinationals have contributed next to nothing about the sopo-economic developments of those African countries they operated in!

      Many have had a series of horror stories of environmental disasters, ethnic conflicts/exploitations & intra governmental corruptions!

      Check yr favourite wiki for yr c&p pastime.

      China's O&G & other investments into Africa only happened after joining the WTO in 2001.

      The most notable effects of the Chinese investments r the increasing prosperity happened in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya.

      China is willing to risk billions in infrastructure building revolutions in Africa with very long term perspective. No other developed countries have answered such Africa’s call - unlike anything the world has seen before!

      Even before the Belt and Road was formally announced in 2013, China was making major strides into Africa’s urban development sphere.

      According to McKinsey, over 10,000 Chinese-owned firms are currently operating throughout the African continent, and the value of Chinese business there since 2005 amounts to more than $2 trillion, with $300 billion in investment currently on the table.

      The IMF recently declared Africa the world’s second-fastest growing region, and many are predicting that it is well on its way to becoming a $5 trillion economy, as household consumption is expected to increase at a 3.8% yearly clip to $2.1 trillion by 2025.

      Many of these achievements r been contributed by huge investments from China just with the relative short period of 20+yrs!

      Delete
    4. Shell, Total, BP are not American.

      Delete
    5. All western OnG companies are bashed all the time. Don't be so sensitive.

      Delete
    6. When 99% of world media "bashes" one country one must question why is this the case.

      99% is wrong and 1% is right?

      Delete
    7. Bcoz u only read those "99% of the world media" bashing China!

      There r other "99% of the world media" praising China that u conscientiously ignored!

      Comprehendi?

      Delete
    8. Wakakakakaka…

      Shell, Total, BP r not American!

      Wow!!!

      They might not be majority owned by American but there r substantial Yankee shareholdings within the convoluted ownerships!

      Keep parading yr know-nothingness. With yr c&p past-time helps too.

      Delete
    9. "99% is wrong and 1% is right?"

      This you have to salute US of A for their mafia status. Waving a pack washing powder in the air and alleged that Iraq had WMD, whole world have to bow and sing in unison yes Sir.

      As of today, it is recognized that the 99% has been wrong! THERE WAS NO WMD!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  2. QUOTE
    China’s environmental footprint in Africa

    China's environmental concerns at home have driven Beijing's quest for resources overseas, argues Ian Taylor. The country must consider the ecological impact of its logging and oil extraction in Africa.
    Ian Taylor

    February 2, 2007

    China’s exponential expansion into Africa is well known and has been the subject of numerous reports. But China’s environmental footprint on the continent has not yet been fully addressed. And this is becoming an increasingly hot topic within Africa.

    Examples abound where Chinese companies have been caught flouting conservation laws and collaborating with criminals in the exploitation of Africa’s natural assets. While western agents also do the same, the lack of a powerful environmental lobby within China that can effectively critique Beijing’s actions in Africa ­is a real worry.

    In Gabon, the activities of the Chinese state-run oil company Sinopec have stimulated public outrage. In 2002, Gabon selected a quarter of the country as a nature reserve, protecting 67,000 square kilometres of mostly virgin rainforest. But it has emerged that Sinopec has been prospecting for oil in one of Gabon’s national parks. The company has been charged with mass pollution, dynamiting areas of the park and carving roads through the forest. And all of this was illegal, as the environmental impact study Sinopec was forced to conduct has not yet been approved. A Gabonese government delegation visited the park and corroborated that Sinopec was guilty of a whole variety of environmentally-damaging practices.

    The scandal has sparked disquiet among Gabon’s international donors, while Gabonese activists charge that corrupt local officials have been personally profiting as they look the other way. After considerable pressure, the national parks council finally directed Sinopec to stop its exploration activities. But a massive ore-mining project is soon to get underway in northern Gabon, also run by a Chinese company. There are real fears that further environmental damage may be caused by resource-hungry Chinese companies, facilitated by corrupt government agencies in Gabon.

    There is also growing evidence that China’s strategy is based on protecting the country from further environmental damage, while obtaining resources from other parts of the world. After the Yangtze River floods of 1998 (which caused 2,500 deaths and billions of dollars in damage), the government directed that logging in the country had to be seriously regulated. Tree planting and the protection of forests was the new policy. Illegal logging was also cracked down on.

    However, China still needs wood for construction, pulp mills and furniture manufacturing. And it is now getting huge amounts from overseas –­ particularly from Africa. Much of this is illegally harvested. Imports of industrial wood have more than tripled since 1993 and China now trails only America in wood consumption.
    .....con't

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...con't
    According to GlobalTimber.org.uk, China is sourcing huge amounts of wood from forests in Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Liberia. What is worrying is the illegal nature of this trade, as well as the concomitant environmental damage.

    Half of all wood imported from Cameroon into China is harvested illegally, while only 10% of wood exported from Congo-Brazzaville to Beijing is legal. The figure for Equatorial Guinea is the same. In Gabon, 70% of wood exports to China are illegal and, incredibly, 100% of the wood that China gets from Liberia is illegal, as timber exports are banned. It has been widely acknowledged that China’s imports of Liberian timber helped fuel the bloody civil war there.
    Problematically, the species of wood that China imports is not generally declared. As a consequence, there is no real way to verify the extent of China’s involvement in aiding and abetting illegal logging in Africa. In addition, Beijing does not declare the weight of wooden furniture imported into China and thousands of tonnes of timber from Africa go through Chinese customs undocumented.

    China’s quest for oil
    China’s top 10 trading partners in Africa are, with the exception of South Africa, oil-producing states. It is well known that a “resource curse” stakes out many African oil-rich nations; an embarrassment of riches in oil has tended to undermine many countries’ democracy and accountability. Regimes that benefit from oil receipts are not controlled by a need to generate revenues through taxation, and are thus more easily tempted to sideline calls for accountability or participation in government. The resulting struggle for access to the source of wealth dramatically increases political instability. Of course, in such a situation, the question of the environment is rarely very high on the agenda. Revenue generation becomes confined to small locales where the oil is, with the prime markets for the products being external (the international market). This makes the general economic health of areas outside the enclave quite secondary, if not irrelevant.

    The case of Nigeria and its Niger Delta oilfields is well known as an environmental disaster area. Importantly, there is real concern within Nigeria about Chinese activities in the Nigerian oil industry. In April 2006, a bomb exploded near an oil refinery in the Niger Delta region, which was specifically aimed as a warning against Chinese expansion in the region. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) stated, “We wish to warn the Chinese government and its oil companies to steer well clear of the Niger Delta. The Chinese government by investing in stolen crude places its citizens in our line of fire.”
    It is important not to identify China as the sole exploiter of Africa, or of being unique in its disregard for Africa’s environment. The history of western involvement in the continent is not a proud one on this score. Indeed, Chinese exploitation of Africa’s resources pales into insignificance when compared to western activities both past and present. However, the nature of China’s current involvement in Africa is problematic vis-à-vis the environment.

    While Wang Yingping of the China Institute of International Studies asserts that, “Chinese businesses pay greater attention to protecting the environment,” others disagree.

    Even official Chinese publications quote this assertion by Sierra Leone’s Ambassador to China: “The Chinese just come and do it. They don’t hold meetings about environmental impact assessments, human rights, bad governance and good governance. I’m not saying it’s right, just that Chinese investment is succeeding because they don’t set high benchmarks.”

    It is time that China started setting high benchmarks and made its resource extraction in Africa a model for co-operation and mutual advantage, and not something that calls Beijing’s recent upsurge of interest in Africa into question. After all, the very last thing that the African continent needs is another set of exploiters.
    UNQUOTE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wakakakakaka…

      Remember those "99% of the world media" that praising China that u consciously ignored?

      What happened to those media reports about China's sopo-economical role in africa?

      Not in yr list of c&p, right?

      Delete