China Invades Africa for Oil

This is called projection. It might just show up Western attitudes to Africa. The United States trades with Equitorial Guinea, but that's not called an invasion. But once China does the same thing it's an invasion. Your condescension borders on racism and you just don't get it.

The US and West have done business with corrupt African governments and bolstered them up forever. Yet, there are numerous multinational companies in Africa that have done business there for decades or even centuries, making profits, yet they still routinely reptriate all their profits.

In the same period, Africa has received much much less foreign investment than other regions, despite offering the best returns on Investment in the world. China sees Africa and sees opportunity. It sees huge returns on investment, and a massive, massive investment gap, and opens its cheque book.

The west remains in denial, all at once pretending that its aid keeps Africa going (not AT ALL TRUE), and also not investing as much as it should. Then it demonises China for doing that. It's ridiculous, and it's an argument which doesn't sway Africa which is looking for capital.

So the West can continue moaning or change its policies in Africa. China is building shopping malls, railways, oilfields, assembly plants etc. The West doesn't know what it's doing in Africa.

How does your "Your condescension borders on racism and you just don't get it." help this debate? It is inappropriate and does not address the issues and arguments raised here. Richard Behar addressed the rest of your comments in the seeded article. Above all else, respect others.

His condescension borders on racism. The idea that Africans are stupid. That's condescension and it borders on racist. As someone born in Africa I reject that condescension.

How it helps the debate is that it makes him realise that his views are based on condescension, something that might never have occured to him.

While high stakes games of ROI and investment divest the people of EG of its resources, it is making certain segments of that same population highly suspect in the management of their wealth.

I don't even know where to begin on this one. The article paints EG as a robber state. If that's the case, the primary problem the people of EG have it to get rid of their robbers and at least get some kind of basic government.

The article was about China, who is doing the same thing the west has done only one better. However the results are continuing the same dilemma for West Africa. I don't believe Aid to Africa is the answer either.

I don't know what the dilemma is. Billions of dollars of investment that creates thousands of jobs sounds good to me. Do I wish African governments will just get their freaking acts together and develop their own states with their own intellectual resources? Yes. Sure! But in my opinion, and I have not fancy model to validate this, Africa's economic underperformance in the 1980s to early 1990s period was because it received significantly less FDI than all other world regions, while simultanously facing more capital flight. If Africa is now getting huge amounts of Chinese Investment, that seems like great news, and that's why Africa is doing business with China.

Time to cut out a lot of the stories and instead of demonising Chinese action, pushing for safeguards, for journalists to expose corruption in Chinese dealings, and help the cause of transparency instead of trying to prevent a fundamentally positive development.

It is relevant to point out what Western modus operandi in Africa has been. Journalists and popularisers don't do a good job of it. AID. Why is the Western audience allowed to believe that Western aid is what keeps Africa running when it is much less than 1% of African GDP? SO much so that many argue recolonisation on the premise that Africa is already too dependent. Why is the Western audience allowed to believe that we can even call this thing aid at all? I mean, in most of those programmes, as much as 90% of the economic value of aid given resides in the donor country, the contracts are awarded to domestic supporters of the donor government, and some of the money never leaves the West moving from donor government accounts to the Swiss accounts of various corrupt officials, many in the West and the rest in the donnee country.

Why don't journalists and popularisers point out that Africa just needs investment, and the money supposedly given away as aid could be invested instead?

There's opportunity in Africa and its not just oil and natural resources. South African companies now dominate Africawide in fast food, TV, telecommunications etc. How did MTN take over Africa and become one of the world's largest while British Telecom slept?

It's revealing that you're still missing what's going on between Africa and China. A lot of it has nothing to do with oil or resources. China is in countries like Malawi that have no natural resources to speak of. They're building shopping malls with private money (how's a shopping mall a trinket that buys off governments), they're putting money in African infrastructure, commerce, etc. I simply don't see the invasion here, sorry.

I see a lot of Chinese corruption involved in these deals. Africans have to deal with corruption, that perpetrated by Chinese officials, by African officials and by other Africans and Chinese, and by Westerners.

In the mean time, I hope China keeps the investment -and jobs coming, and I'd advise the West to rethink its policies or it will miss out big time on an African uptick. Luckily the people who make investment decisions are quite sophisticated and do get it.

Why don't journalists and popularisers point out that Africa just needs investment, and the money supposedly given away as aid could be invested instead?

Africa has been considered a zoo or a circus for too long, how else would you describe Bob, Bono & Bill shows, they have been helping the world see a continent in need. The question should be. Who is going to administer the funds and manage those investments? China has joined the band wagon as the Fast Company article suggested and EG is a tiny part of Africa that seemed to have joined the dark side of the force. A world view through Hans Rosling's Gapminder has always been freely available for anyone that needed to see where to invest in Africa or where the impact would be best served but net result is still, not a lot.

With hindsight, There is not a single state on the African continent that would not today be better off administered under a colonial regime, as Hong Kong was by Britain by Eric Grover is a self-evident proposition that will bring out the hot heads calling for mine. Africans on average live their freedom-starved lives far fewer years than people of any other continents and the Chinese invasion will only see more people die to get out of their countries. China is in Africa for its self satisfying benefits, only.

Oluseye, this is a place for people to share and discuss topics relating to the news and I accept that every aspect of my comments should be fair game for criticism but you should consider sticking to the points raised in the article. Richard Behar addressed your concerns in the seeded article yet you continue to disrespect others while commenting that there is no rule of law in Africa. How about the rule of law here on Newsvine with your recurring counter productive and negative assertions. Your inappropriate comments continue to border on personal attacks and as such I have fired off a complaint about your assertions to Newsvine because it is better to report it rather than further inflaming the situation.

No comment I've made has failed to adress the issues. The central one is that labelling a fundamentally good phenomenon- good for Africa, as an invasion, is in poor taste, and it's negative. Calling investment invasion is not positive.

And implying that Africans are too stupid to know what favours them, to imply Africans are stupid because they're accepting investment is an extreme position cloaked in concern for Africa. It is outrageous and it outrages me.

I'll debate you anywhere on the merits. In fact, your argument and position has little merit.

To argue for colonial oppression while cloaking as promoting liberty is an extremist position. You want to enslave people who are dear to me in Africa and I strongly reject that.

Emily, she said I'd call for her head. I think she meant she was recognising that she was about to make a very offensive comment.

I feel that someone arguing for the enslaving for 700 million people under colonialism is being very disrespectful.

I have no problem with remaining civil Emily. I have no problem with keeping to issues. But some positions are so extreme and immoral that they elicit strong reactions. Beauty's was one of them.

China is in Africa for its self satisfying benefits, only.

This is different from US foreign policy... how, exactly?

Emily, can you explain why my comment in 6.7 was deleted?

Well it's always been your prerogative. I don't agree with deleting the comment. What I wrote about calling for her head, meant that I was agreeing with her pre-acknowledgement that I'd find her comments offensive. She was posting a comment that she felt would be offensive, and that's what she meant when she wrote that hotheads will call for her head. Since when has it been valid to call for the colonial oppression of 700 million people who have already been so oppressed?

Anyways, it's your prerogative, and I've said my piece amply on this page. I do think there has to be an acknowledgement that the strength of my comments were dictated by the extremeness of comments and characterisations here especially those by beauty.

Why does Emily think Beauty is a S/he? Despite our email communications with my full details, I did not expect to be addressed as his/her. For those still in doubt, he is Paul Disu-Lord.

Oluseye, sharing and discussing topics relating to the news and being mindful of others may not get you the Random Acts of Vineness award but it goes a long way into helping people get smarter.

"With hindsight, There is not a single state on the African continent that would not today be better off administered under a colonial regime, as Hong Kong was by Britain by Eric Grover is a self-evident proposition that will bring out the hot heads calling for mine." were my words that served as an example of what might have been without proof. I do not support colonial oppression of any peoples.

How dishonest. You do have a right to back off from the comment. But any reading of your comment shows us that you are clearly advocating colonial rule over Africa. And you even declare that egregious statement to be self-evident. I find that deeply offensive. And it's certainly a more damaging comment than me agreeing with you that I'd call for your head.

Comments like that help nobody get smarter and might only just cast serious doubts on your own smartness.

Emily, thank you for clearing that up.

Jack Huang

This is different from US foreign policy... how, exactly?

the FC article answered this specific question.

the FC article answered this specific question.

I'd like you to actually explain it.

As far as the FC article goes, it had this to say, from a Guinean's mouth:

"If you were in our shoes -- a developing country, with not a lot of funds -- and the Chinese come and will do for 3 what it costs 10 from others, what would you do?" he asks. "The Chinese listen better, and they understand that sometimes you need to make sacrifices for a future gain. They'll do a hydroelectric plant at half the price, and, in return, they get future projects. With U.S. companies, we feel more squeezed and squeezed. They just take the oil and do nothing else. Of course they are losing ground to the Chinese. The World Bank and the IMF also come. 'No, we don't need you,' the president says all the time."

So, the Chinese are self-serving, just like the US (with $7B investment in EG), but do it while being less costly and more accommodating to the locals.

Yeah, the Chinese are totally the bad dudes here, because costing more and listening less to locals is the right thing to do.

I'd like you to actually explain it.

I did, Jack, pls see #11 & #12.1 and my questions included; Is China in Africa a defender of rogue states? Or the more aggressive seeker of Africa's natural resources, without regard to transparency, development and stability?

Is China in Africa a defender of rogue states? Or the more aggressive seeker of Africa's natural resources, without regard to transparency, development and stability?

Nice try at a loaded question. You don't think we're all that dense, do you?

Without regard to development? Funny, it was a EG-er who stated that China listened better to local interests than the US did. Go regurgitate your self-referential sophistry somewhere else, kiddo.

Luther,
Read again. I said, the country has educated 10s of 1000000s of people since British rule. FACT. There's unrest because there is reason for unrest and there is corruption (A LOT) because there's no rule of law. Still, the education of those 10s of 1000000s can not be erased. Surely you can understand that the fact that Nigeria or Ghana or Egypt is not yet Beverly Hills does not mean Nigeria would be better off returning to British oppression.

To argue for liberty by arguing colonialism is not just Orwellian, it's transparently bad-intentioned. You want to take my rights for my own good. With enthusiasts of liberty like you, oppression becomes a certainty.

Listen Luther, I am angry at people like you who are undermining a positive thing happening. China's investment in Africa is creating 100s of 1000s of jobs. To call that an invasion is not intellectually vaild, and to cast Africa as stupid for accepting investments that create jobs is in very poor taste, and it is condescending to say the least. And yes, that angers me.

If you hadn't so uncivilly used the word invasion we'd be having a much calmer discussion and I might even show you several examples of how it's exactly the kind of win win solutions the continent needs.

I worked for a while with companies in Africa looking for investment to create jobs, new economic activity etc. I worked with US banks and investment banks. I didn't see you writing about a US invasion.

But it's the same thing China is doing. They're investing their own money, taking risks. And It's poisonous to call that invasion.

Dear Luther,

Development in Africa through Investment is a good thing - only if, in my small opinion such investment is done appropriately and for the Nation to which it is directed for the purposes of serving for good.

Whether China or US or GB (or Spain when it was Gold, or Portugal when it was cocoa) etc.... the investment made only out of self interest is what resonates with me in R Behar's journalism.

Investments are always made in self interest. But they end up helping other people as well.

Investment if it is not made for serving those nations with the resource has produced a model of corrupted exploitation which has often been unwittingly copied by those powers who have been propped up by 'the invaders'.

Depends on what "serving those nations" means? That's something I asked you before that's still unclear to me.

We in the US need look no further than Iraq to illustrate. I don't appreciate our position there now, nor do I wish to see that story (ie the curse of oil you alluded to) being replayed in Africa.

Iraq is an interesting model. You're right. A lot of what's happening in Iraq is happening in Africa now. In fact you can compare the post-invasion situation in Iraq with the situation in Nigeria. A corrupt central government, local hoodlums stealing oil for black market gains, a country that never found the basis of its nationhood because it was artificially constructed. Fortunately, there's no injection of a foreign power in Nigeria driving an explosive situation into uncontrolled explosions. However, you're mixing so many things up, imo. Investment is investment. Corruption is corruption. It is not right to argue against investment because of corruption especially if that will create jobs and economic activity. To me, it's good enough to simply argue against corruption. Which is what I do. I have an anti.corruption campaign but I am also strongly pro-investment. I see nothing mutually exclusive about the two. I see it as extreme to force an exclusivity here.

You know, I am writing a book right now that's looking at the causes and structure of African dependence. And I am trying to empirically prove that exploitation of Africa is real. In fact I think the Marxian and even Marxist African intellectuals who argued exploitation were right. However, that does not mean that every single engagement with Africa is exploitative. In my mind the solution to African development is two things, 1) Remove dependence- BRIC helps by giving Africa choice. 2) Promote interdependence- again China helps because China, having to compete with the West is more mindful of selling win-win packages.

There's nothing to apologise for. Even if the tone of our discussion became sharp, I think neither of us meant any harm. I also appreciate the exchange. I never knew the situation in EG was this bad. I have many friends who go there to work in the oil industry, and they never painted such a dire situation. That's understandable though since even in despotic countries, you're usually ok if you're no threat and you don't challenge the regime. Apart from that you have a lot of freedom since they're usually also incompetent regimes.

Is Chinese invasion good for Africa? That is another question I have been unable to put across in order to get smarter on this conversation. Rederuby perhaps put it better.

If this small cyber-community in time with it's scores of intelligent, articulate and passionate minds can't get along with a modicum of respect, what hope is there for this country? This world? Does hate and venom trump discourse and diversity? Are we just going to destroy ourselves? Can we not learn to tolerate differences? Can we not respect every individual by virtue of them being on this planet with lessons to learn, karma to live out?

In 25 years, Africa will be empty of brains was a warning, from Dr Lalla Ben Barka of the UN Economic Commission for Africa on the growing alarm over Africa's increasing exodus of human capital. Why has immigration in the EU become a conflict point with the Europeans that borders Africa? Why are Africans fleeing is my point? Could the answers include institutionalised failures as imported from the west and described by Richard Behar's article?

Development begins at home—China is another illusion. If Africa does not set its house in order first, there is no way it will achieve anything with its $50Bn? investment in Africa according to a civil debate here. African leaders find China attractive for its complete package solutions and non interference but when a different breed of articulate Africans emerge to ask questions about these deals, the invasion may well turn into a win-win after all.

Well Chinese investment is much better than a Beauty-supported colonial oppression of 700 million people.

Some people want to pretend decency by alluding to civility while saying the most indecent and immoral things.

In 25 years, Africa will be empty of brains was a warning, from Dr Lalla Ben Barka of the UN Economic Commission for Africa on the growing alarm over Africa's increasing exodus of human capital. Why has immigration in the EU become a conflict point with the Europeans that borders Africa? Why are Africans fleeing is my point? Could the answers include institutionalised failures as imported from the west and described by Richard Behar's article?

Africans are immigrating, even fleeing if that word makes you feel better. And that's a problem. What's the solution? Take foreign investment, create new jobs so they don't immigrate, or yell invasion, shut your ears, and go seek asylum in Europe? It's amazing how your arguments always never address solutions to problems but always reflexive regurgitations of some orthodoxy you've picked up somewhere and not thought through. The answer, to the problem you outline is economic expansion and economic opportunity. Create more jobs and fewer people leave. It's simple really.

Development begins at home—China is another illusion. If Africa does not set its house in order first, there is no way it will achieve anything with its $50Bn? investment in Africa according to a civil debate here.

To start with, your numbers are outdated. That figure's from 2006.In 2008 China signed an MOU that'd see $50 Billion of investments go into Nigeria alone. Anyway, to answer your question. The answer is an unequivocal YES. It has already happened. 100s of 1000s of jobs created already. If you consider that your $50 B figure would represent the yearly income of 59 million Africans since 2006 African percapita income was $840. Of course this does not translate in a straight line to jobs but it's clear that's a lot of jobs there.

What Africa needs is sustained growth. Extremely critical to achieving that is sustaining investment, especially in infrastructure and strategic industries. The World Bank says Africa needs $20 billion each year in infrastructure.

We're talking about people's lives and jobs here. Every new bridge, every new power station is an improvement in living standards. It's not something that one can be flippant about and dismiss. If there are problems that could prevent investments yielding positive results, it would be great to point them out rather than dismiss the very solution because you're too attached to the problem.

African leaders find China attractive for its complete package solutions and non interference but when a different breed of articulate Africans emerge to ask questions about these deals, the invasion may well turn into a win-win after all.

The activist mindset. It's this guy ranting on the BBC that it'd all turn on. Get real. Start being positive about Africa. That's step 1. Start touting the myriad of opportunities on the continent and giving kudos to the millions who work so hard for very little. Stop spreading negativity about Africa. Getting investment into Africa depends on that. Drop silly red herring arguments and realise that Africa needs every dollar of investment it can get, even while people like me (I don't know about you-you're an anti-Africa colonialist afterall) and so many others continue to agitate for social reforms, and political reforms and the defence of human rights.

It has to be a multi-track approach. The fact that we are concerned about the complete dysfunctionality of African states does not mean we should then reject investments that would make people better off and more able to engage politically to fight for change.

Oluseye, you created the argument that I advocated colonial oppression of Africans in the first place on 6.7 that is now removed. You developed your assertions in 7.1 & 11.1. "Talking about hypocrisy by the way, how hypocritical that under the guise of liberation you have the gall to advocate the colonial oppression of your own people" is putting words into my mouth and does not help Africa nor this conversation. I have used Nigeria to highlight the case, where a major oil producer is unable to generate electricity until 2015 due to bad administration and not for the lack of the funds.

Your "Well Chinese investment is much better than a Beauty-supported colonial oppression of 700 million people" is also misleading as I do not support any form of colonial oppression, my campaign has always been for proper accounting and transparency. In order to show measurable benefits to our citizens in terms of basic infrastructures like schools, universities, roads, hospitals, water, public transport, security, life and power generation, we must begin with a little bit of ethics, morality and deep concern about order and relationships in a more productive and constructive way of life. Below is a comment from the original article.

I live in Nigeria and the Chinese are moving in here at an alarming rate, there are more Chinese living here than any other minority group and they are coming in at every level. Large, Medium and Small sized Chinese companies. As well as sole Chinese traders. They have factories in almost every corner of the country.

Afam Edozie, CEO
FiCres Capital
Nigeria

I keep asserting that you argued in favour of colonial control of Africa. That's a clear fact. You can renounce the statement if you want.

That's the problem with you. If that were your opinion, I have never seen you express it. What I see is endless red herrings. The best example is that comment from Afam Edozie with which you finish your comment. What's the darn point of it?

If you campaign for

a little bit of ethics, morality and deep concern about order and relationships in a more productive and constructive way of life.

then I'm solidly with you. But the fact that you campaign for that does not mean you must simultaneously attack Chinese investment as an invasion which it is not. It is emotive language. It is aggressive language and it's factually incorrect, and can hurt the legitimate debate about China and Africa.

This statement perhaps summed it up for me in trying to understand the on-going invasion in Africa. James, thank you for seeding the article and I am hopeful to see more of this type of journalism.

That China pretends to be the savior of Africa is another falsehood. What is the most important in Africa is the emergence of visionary, dedicated, democratic leaders who put their countries, not their pockets, first.

I don't agree. If the headline had been; "Chinese invade Africa for oil", there'd have been a point. China is but one force and the entrance of one does not fit your definition of invasion.

If we agree that self interest is the driver, and if we can see that the unique problems of African self sufficiency are dominated by this drive, how can we argue that this type of investment/invasion is good in the long run for Africa when clearly in the short run of today Africa in general is in a state of chaos?

Are you saying that investment in Africa is a cause of chaos? Are you saying that the short run irritrievably dooms the long run? Might I point out to you, that all investments including your 401k or pension funds are based on self interest. Are you, by engaging in such, generating chaos in the world, dooming the long run irritrievably? There's basic coherence missing in your argument since the exact way this kind of chaos or bad thing happens from a simple investment.

In 'serving' Africa I mean an investment that is for the purpose of walking besides Africans in a manner which allows them the freedom of self governance, built upon equality with justice for all it's people.

That's exactly what Chinese investments are doing. Giving 100s of 1000s jobs, opening Africa up in many ways, improving quality of life. Until you show me otherwise, then I'd take that as given.

If this is possible, how can investment without any consideration for its motive or impact be good, regardless of it's source, American, Chinese or European or MNC...?

I don't understand this bit.

Investments are amoral. I don't want to have a long philosophical argument on that point. Here's what I can actually do. I can point out to you that every single country on earth runs on investments. Foreign investments are particularly good since it's an inflow of capital into a country. France gets investment from Mauritius in much the same way. Would Mauritius have invaded France? Citizens of Guam invest in the United States, and this creates economic activity and jobs. You might take all this for granted since the US gets so much investment. But Togo can not take this for granted. Togo needs investment from abroad. You sure need to have a very compelling reason to tell Togo not to accept investments.

What exactly is the motive of investment? Simple: To get returns, and to enable future investments and future returns. That's the motive of every single investment everywhere. I now need to know what merits the cries of invasion here apart from pure China-bashing, and stoking racial tension with your comment about "Chinese the newest 'tribe' in Africa" and Beauty's quote about how there are so many Chinese in Africa and the largest minority group?

The source of an investment is important. Surely you don't want investments from illegal sources. Chinese sources might well be illegal but I think they're legitimate. I also think that jobs are very important, and quality of life is very important. I think that's an important impact, and a positive one.

The bottomline is that after like 50 comments I am still yet to actually see you define how or why Chinese investment is an invasion. Why is investment bad? What is different about increasing Chinese footprint in Africa that must rouse us into hysteria?

Agreed. China invested $300 mil in an EG factory project, brought in employees to build the factory, manage and run the factory. How does this scenario meet our agreed upon importance of jobs, quality of life and positive impact.

You think this factory is 100% staffed by Chinese? Get real pal. By the way, it's not mentioned in the story. Do you have a link to further info about this factory?

How does an MNC oil corporation, building it's own village, airport and wells with it's own MNC employees serve the nation of people? They don't.

You're really mixing up a lot of issues here. One minute you're talking about China, the next about a generic fictional MNC. So what are you really arguing?

In your fictional case, if an investment entails a new village built, a private airport built, and wells for its own employees, then where is the gain you ask. EASY. Does the company pay taxes perhaps? Does it provide goods for locals to buy? Are there any local companies that service this MNC? Is it really possible for an MNC in Africa to completely source outside?

Now, the question of how much benefit local economies gain from economic activity is a legitimate one. It's one I'm very passionate about. As you've pointed out, oil companies are famous for delivering very little value-added to the local economy. But delivering little value added is not an argument against investment. If you voted to close the oil wells in EG for example, which of the 1000s who'll lose their jobs will agree with you? it's an argument for better government, or more organised local private sectors. It would be stupid to reject a $300 M investment because it only delivers just $10 of local value to the economy, instead of $100. Common sense reveals that even that $10 is new economic activity that leaves someone better off. Your approach is extremist, black and white thinking on an issue like this.

I see a lot of ignorance about how economies really work in your views. Benefits of investments can be direct (jobs, taxes) or indirect (local sourcing, knowledge transfer, even the spending of expats in the local economy). The real question is how much new economic activity is generated. If that's generated, the investment is still helping a lot. It is very unusual to find investments that add nothing to economies like Africa. It's more likely that an investment in Ohio delivers no net economic value to the local economy. The reason is that in Africa you have a low level of economic activity. To simply ramp up economic activity is massive and touches so many aspects of life.

And all what you paint here still stops short of an invasion. Where is the invasion? Who is being forced to give up his resources? That's what an invasion would be.

They don't. The agreed upon objectives are not met. A few political leaders get rich, the MNC records record profits, while the general populace drinks non-pottable water, walk dirt roads, contract malaria, slaved to all forms of prostitution and live on subsistence of aid, remaining at the bottom of the poverty chain.

Listen. The first thing you have to get is that development is incremental. Not everyone in the states is living a perfect life. The question facing policy is whether policy choices make at least someone better off without making others worse off. It's a question of progress. In deed it is patently daft to say that because some people are not living well, then investments are bad. That goes against any notion of common sense, much less economics. The misery you paint above, could be an argument for massive investment in African roads, provision of cheap mosquito nets and anti-malarial drugs, and jobs, and education. All of which investment can help cure. What do you have against that?

Who in Africa is living on aid? Let's get real here. Aid is less that 0.5% of African GDP. Who is subsisting on aid? As much as 90% of the economic value of that 0.5% never even reaches Africa. Get with the facts. There are people whose lives have been disrupted, by natural disaster. The notion, a popular notion in the west I grant you, that such aid is what people get by on in Africa is a very wrong notion. I have never ever met one single African who depends on aid for his livelihood or even known of one.

I swear Luther, I am still yet to see you make one single good argument, in principle, against Chinese investment in Africa.

To say the investments are not perfect is not saying much. To say MNCs are allowed to get away with not being integrated into local value chains is not saying much. At the most it's just a repetition of what we know already: African governments are constantly disappointing their people and should do more to make investments pay off. But it does not make a strong substantive case against investments being a core part of development.

Agreed. China invested $300 mil in an EG factory project, brought in employees to build the factory, manage and run the factory. How does this scenario meet our agreed upon importance of jobs, quality of life and positive impact.

You think this factory is 100% staffed by Chinese? Get real pal. By the way, it's not mentioned in the story. Do you have a link to further info about this factory?

How does an MNC oil corporation, building it's own village, airport and wells with it's own MNC employees serve the nation of people? They don't.

You're really mixing up a lot of issues here. One minute you're talking about China, the next about a generic fictional MNC. So what are you really arguing?

In your fictional case, if an investment entails a new village built, a private airport built, and wells for its own employees, then where is the gain you ask. EASY. Does the company pay taxes perhaps? Does it provide goods for locals to buy? Are there any local companies that service this MNC? Is it really possible for an MNC in Africa to completely source outside?

Now, the question of how much benefit local economies gain from economic activity is a legitimate one. It's one I'm very passionate about. As you've pointed out, oil companies are famous for delivering very little value-added to the local economy. But delivering little value added is not an argument against investment. it's an argument for better government, or more organised local private sectors. It would be stupid to reject a $300 M investment because it only delivers just $10 of local value to the economy, instead of $100. Common sense reveals that even that $10 is new economic activity that leaves someone better off.

I see a lot of ignorance about how economies really work in your views. Benefits of investments can be direct (jobs, taxes) or indirect (local sourcing, knowledge transfer, even the spending of expats in the local economy). The real question is how much new economic activity is generated.

And all what you paint here still stops short of an invasion. Where is the invasion? Who is being forced to give up his resources? That's what an invasion would be.

They don't. The agreed upon objectives are not met. A few political leaders get rich, the MNC records record profits, while the general populace drinks non-pottable water, walk dirt roads, contract malaria, slaved to all forms of prostitution and live on subsistence of aid, remaining at the bottom of the poverty chain.

Listen. The first thing you have to get is that development is incremental. Not everyone in the states is living a perfect life. The question facing policy is whether policy choices make at least someone better off without making others worse off. It's a question of progress. In deed it is patently daft to say that because some people are not living well, then investments are bad. That goes against any notion of common sense, much less economics. The misery you paint above, could be an argument for massive investment in African roads, provision of cheap mosquito nets and anti-malarial drugs, and jobs, and education. All of which investment can help cure. What do you have against that?

Who in Africa is living on aid? Let's get real here. Aid is less that 0.5% of African GDP. Who is subsisting on aid? As much as 90% of the economic value of that 0.5% never even reaches Africa. Get with the facts. There are people whose lives have been disrupted, by natural disaster. The notion, a popular notion in the west I grant you, that such aid is what people get by on in Africa is a very wrong notion. I have never ever met one single African who depends on aid for his livelihood or even known of one.

I swear Luther, I am still yet to see you make one single good argument, in principle, against Chinese investment in Africa.

To say the investments are not perfect is not saying much. To say MNCs are allowed to get away with not being integrated into local value chains is not saying much. At the most it's just a repetition of what we know already: African governments are constantly disappointing their people and should do more to make investments pay off. But it does not make a strong substantive case against investments being a core part of development.

Said "rantings" are substantive, while you've presented nothing more than fishing and empty declarations to support your invasion points -- nothing more sensible than "Durrr, China's ba-a-a-a-ad, mmkay?"

An aversion to substance, eh? Duly noted.