Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
@SHUBHAMSINGH-wj2fg If what you said was true, China would go around acting with impunity, it doesn't. China is much more fragile than you paint it. The main reason the current Chinese government remains in power is the good Chinese economy, if it crashes there is a great risk of either the Chinese government being replaced by civil unrest/unpopularity or even civil strife. It wouldn't be the first time a Chinese empire broke up in several states.
Moreover most things that actually come from China are meant as luxury items, non-essential. Would it hurt if it stops coming? Obviously it would, but almost anything that China has/does export is replaceable by western means overtime or are non-essential. Arguably Russian gas is much more important, it is used for heating and part of Europe's industry and isn't really replaceable withing EU's borders, so to exchange it, they need to get to another third party involved, which takes time and is usually costly, which is why the EU is now likely planning to move away for Russian gas/oil in the next few years, but fell short of sanctioning it to buy time to make and execute the necessary plans for a shift.
Most of the reason why there is so much trade between China and the West comes down to one metric: cost thanks to mostly cheap labour due to lower wages and lower labour standards.
If that trade falls away, it mostly will just hit the prosperity of the west, not cause it to crumble. Likely it would mean something like the great depression. For China, internal instability could be a much greater threat upon economic collapse. A government that leads a prosperous country can get away with much more than a government that caused a great failure. Especially in case such difficult times are caused by the actions of your own government, this could spark huge resentment.
Regarding the energy producers. The countries you mention are first of far from the only ones. More likely they'll have to sell to other friendly nations, like China, freeing up other energy producing nations to increase exports to the west. Furthermore this 'energy production' is "old" energy the west is moving away from anyway. Within 20 years these nations will mean nothing to the west in terms of energy export.
China has far from a free run. The west and China are just too entangled at the moment and it is in neithers interest to shake it up too much, especially since most of China's influence in the world is economic related, not political or militarily.
58
-
15
-
12
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
@Resistor.1 The UK joined the EC because trade with the commonwealth (and thus Canzuk) nations was already going down a lot, it joined out of necessity.
Besides, the UK already has an FTA with Canada (essentially the same it would have as a member of the EU I might add) and is negotiating one with Australia currently, as is the EU. So what exactly would it gain extra if it already gets seperate trade deals? What value would Canzuk add you can't do through seperate trade deals? And why would it have a greater impact, what is the point of Canzuk if it only entails a 4 way FTA, instead of 3 seperate FTA's per country (which can essentially reach the exact same thing, just more specialised on countries interests).
Canzuk only from a trade perspective makes no sense, it has to be more, otherwise why speak of it as if it is something special and not just another multi-nation trade deal, which isn't uncommon, but if you look into it, they are almost always geographically inspired, why? Because trading with close nations make more sense than with nations on the other side of the world.
So no, trade alone doesn't make sense to form something like a Canzuk, it would rather be much more similar to the former EEC.
If you think the canzuk idea is only about trade, I'd suggest looking it up, because you'd be wrong.
which was much cheaper I might add
Could you give a source for this or is it a subjective anecdote? And even if that is the case, meat is far from the only thing. The other things could have been vastly more important than a bit more expensive meat. Don't just focus on one thing.
Only a fool with a grudge would see this negatively.
I don't necessarily see Canzuk negatively (honestly I don't really care), just saying that it doesn't make sense from a purely trade perspective, if Canzuk would be just that, it is a dead horse on arrival, or at best something like a butterfly that was announced as an eagle, nice but not really relevant.
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@user-py9cy1sy9u
Russia can form 100 thousand strong force in a day and another 100 thousand the next day for Baltic invasion.
I very much doubt that. Can they mobilise 100k of troops in a day? Sure. But mobilising them and then having them ready for an invasion/operation is something completely different. Now with Ukraine they used months to prepare 200k soldiers and still their logistics (and as a consequence fighting strength) is a disaster.
The EU together has around 1,4 million active military personnel, that is more than Russia. So if Russia can mobilise 100k in a day, so would European nations if absolutely needed. In practive every large scale operation/war would need at least days, most likely weeks of preparation and thus time to respond to it by preparing your own defense/operations.
in order for Russia to execute a surprise attack on the baltics, they'd need to use troops already closely located to the border, which I'd guess are overall pretty limited, especially since for example the troops in Kaliningrad can't be risked too much in an offensive, they are meant to defend that enclave, since if NATO forces take it, control over the Suwalki gap is meaningless and the Baltics would have all but a guaranteed land and sea supply route for troops and equipment.
1
-
@fredmanly3122
I'm not sure they would over a nuclear attack in a non-nuclear western european country.
I am pretty sure they would, otherwise they'd lose any credibility and ith essentially would be a blankcheck for using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations without the US intervening. The fact that the US currently already goes pretty hard on Russia for a normal attack on a non-allied nations is pretty telling about this. Though it doesn't mean that the US immediately would launch their own nukes, rather they'll at the very least do everything they can except for that, with using a nuclear option open (like a limited nuclear strike on a lesser target as a show of response).
The US will have to think about how important Poland actually is
The thing is, it isn't about the importance of Poland, rather the importance of NATO and Europe as a whole. Not standing by them would not just make them lose their biggest/strongest allies, but also show the world how weak/indecisive the US is, increasing the possibility for a next hit to be on another more important ally (like for example Japan, France, Germany, ...).
while not getting involved has very little impact on the US.
Actually it will hurt it very much globally. It would instantly lose any credibility the US has as an ally and as a threat/strong power vs a potential adversary. Essentially not responding to it would only have little impact if it already decided to become isolated earlier, but then they'd likely already abandoned NATO and their other allies.
I am not sure that UK/France would get mixed up in a nuclear war just because Berlin was destroyed
I am certain they would. First of all are members of NATO, secondly not responding makes them lose any and all credibility they have and thirdly for France, they are in the EU just like Germany. An attack on Germany would be like an attack on France. It is not just the leadership btw, the regular people wouldn't accept non-action from their government. Despite differences there are still feelings of European unity/comradery and even if it isn't for this reason, it would be because otherwise what stops Russia from just taking out all their neighbours? And ofcourse there would be the issue of the fall out, so a strike on Germany certainly would also impact France and the UK.
If we are talking about a nuclear war, restraint isn't going to be much of an option for most. It doesn't necessarily mean that on nuclear strike would immediately demand nuclear retaliation, but at the very least all other options and possibly a limited nuclear counterstrike, though unless there are several nuclear strikes from eg Russia, I think western nations would keep to a total war without nuclear means untill Russia is punished enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinmsft I didn't know of these policies of France and probably neither do most people in France, which is why they get away with it. But this is one country and doesn't reflect the stance/opinion of people in Europe. The only reason this isn't a major issue is because it essentially is something that has existed in the background, silently. If any European nation tries to do something like this now from the ground up, their government would fall almost immediately.
The problem with the CFA is that it is also not all doom and gloom. It has major disadvantages for sure, but also a positive side. The difficulty is keeping the positive, while ending the negative. Just letting the CFA go without good preparation could be more catastrophic for everyone involved. A reform of the CFA to put it in the hands of the African nations involved would be best, but this would be difficult. It seems like the CFA is like the US's middle east, presidents essentially try to mostly ignore it because they have enough problems on their plate already at home and elsewhere and because there is no easy solution (yes, pulling the troops out in the middle east seems an easy solution, but if this causes a power vacuum filled by something like ISIS, you aren't better off, similarly a collapse of the benefits of CFA might be just as bad as the current situation, just look like what happened after colonial powers mostly pulled out, instability chaos, corruption, conflict, ...).
In the end I hope Macron or the next president will fix the CFA situation, so that the remnants of colonialism can truly dissapear.
In fact after looking into it more, it seems such reforms are being executed as we speak, for example the countries will no longer have to deposit half of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury. So lets see how far the reforms will eventually go.
And honestly I wouldn't be surprised if China is hoping they can get influence similar to what France has now (in a different way), but they can't just set this up in a couple of years, they might be playing a long game. I do hope I am wrong about that though.
1
-
@kevinmsft China tried to expanding in the past like everyone else, eventually even having tributary states or something similar all the way to India and I think even for a very short time in Africa. However China has always been busy at home: creating a large nation, trying to keep it together, falling apart, repeat. And besides that facing enemies from their northern steppes and internally (rebels). And for some time they were isolationistic, much like Europe/european nations have been too at times. Furthermore European nations started colonising initially to find more trade (get around Ottoman stranglehold of eastern trade)/get an edge on their neighbours, China never really had this impulse, traders always came to them for trade goods, and due to being either a unified state or having just a few states vying for reuniting the kingdom, there was less need for outwards expansion from a rivalry perspective.
European nations were just the latest and most succesfull colonizers/conquerers of the last 400-500 years. And people keep blaming them like they are unique, eventhough most states would try to do/did the same in the past, just on a smaller scale out of a lack of power to do it at the same scale as late Europe.
How many billions of people did British, French, Russian, Spanish empires used to enslave vs. China?
Rather difficult to know. You are refering to only past few centuries, slavery in many different forms have existed for a lot longer. Furthermore it were Africans selling other Africans to Europeans untill European nations started abolishing slavery. Europe was far from the only ones involved in the slave trade. And before that you also had Europeans being bound into slavery by arabs, often being caught during naval raids, ... There most definitely was also slavery in China at some points in time, though the scale etc. is difficulty to assess, they didn't exactly kept largescale records on it.
At this moment it is estimated around 3.8 million people in China are essentially subject to modern slavery.
Oh, and Europe never could even come close to a billion slaves, the total amount of slaves shipped to the America's is estimates at around 12 million. As a comparison, Arab slavery (slave held by Arabs), are estimated to have numbered between 12 and 15 million. Throughout history Chinese nations have also kept milllions upon millions of slaves, this is a certainty.
And just to be clear I am not trying to justify slavery or European actions back then, I just want to point out that Europe wasn't the only ones doing it and people these days are acting like they did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn Luxury is everything that is non-essential.
Not if that foreign power caused that economic downturn due to your own governments actions, especially if your own government was well aware of the consequences of their actions. Ofcourse propaganda could change things, but this happens regardless.
China is doing great regarding regarding renewables. But that doesn't mean at all it has a monopoly on it. Everything they do regarding renewables is technology they got from western countries. And like it or not, every important part in renewables (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, ...) is also being produced in the west. At best it would just be a matter of scaling up the existing production. In the west really only the roll out of solar panels would get delayed with 1-2 years at most if China stops renewable exports. However this would also mean that China loses the costumers for these panels and might need to compete more with western production in third party regions afterwards. And don't think that the prices from China's solar panels would change things. Studies already showed it is the scale of production that makes Chinese panels cheaper, not wages or resources. So if a western country produces the same amount, the price would be similar.
Also China currently is able to produce things cheaply, however this won't be the case forever. Even now several asiatic countries already boast lower prices and things like wages will go up in China too with increasing living standards. When China becomes overall as prosperous as the west, there likely won't be much of a price difference to speak off, except maybe due to things like scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ste16kam35 The reason why Europe cares more about Africa is because of Chinese and basically most superpower influences penetrating the continent
This ignores that Europe has been sending aid to Africa since the end of colonisation. Europe cares about Africa because its a neighbour and tradingspartner. China isn't giving money to Africa, they are extending loans that eventually will have to be payed back one way or another. If Europe had done this at the same scale (it would be both in their and Africa's interests to do so imo though), they'd probably be blamed of trying to colonise Africa again. Hell, these claims are often already/still made now.
You look at France, what stability do they bring beside still have colonies there and you say colonisation is the past, this is ignorance im afraid. Go tell that to people in these 14 countries with CFA currency where Macron talks to them like kids.
CFA isn't great, to be sure, but it has some advantages too, it just needs to be reformed/handed over to these nations. Reforms to CFA are already being done, for example the need to keep half of their reserves in the French bank is removed last year. It is shocking it still existed like it did untill this day and I hope its negative side will end soon.
Countries like DRC ate in chaos because Europe and other nations have too much interest in this country.
These countries are in chaos due to corruption and general instability due to internal tension caused by ethnic differences. Maybe multinationals from western countries are to blame for a lot of problems too, but this isn't something Europe should do about, rather the DRC itself by regulating, ofcourse here comes corruption again. The wealth of these nations ends up with their corrupt elite and multinationals, not Europe or its people. I fear only a revolution or large scale 'cleansing' of the elite and corruption can truly help African countries in the long run.
Lybia was part of your stability too? It was just 10 years ago.
Lybia was a disaster, but it was already in a civil war when foreign powers (Europe and the US) started to truly engage in it. They should have worked with the UN and AU to assemble a large international peacekeeping force consisting of European and African troops, either UN blue helmets or a general coalition, that or just stayed out. Now the intervention was completely pointless, it neither provided stability nor safety and is an increased danger to itself, neighbours and Europe.
Whose the reason of first Lybia being in chaos
Well, initially the Arab spring, whether this was caused by western intervention is up for debate, but even then there were a lot of underlying tensions in Libya that would eventually boil over. Lybia could still have ended in chaos without intervention, that or Mubarak stayed in power, neither are desirable outcomes (though Mubarak might have been more desirable shortterm for Europe, if it weren't for 'anti-dictatorstance' we've adopted there would never have been an intervention). The problem is the follow up, there was none due to fear of a new middle eastern mess with troops stuck there for a seemingly endless time and the PR nightmare it would have caused.
And now the surge of djihadists in Africa? Europe
Oh please, sure some foreign policies didn't help (Especially those of the US/UK in the middle east), but these are hardliners that would have come out somehow, they are religious fanatics, these have existed forever and still exist now unfortunately. Europe is just an easy target for them (compared to for example the US), why? Because the EU doesn't just send away African and Middle Eastern refugees and is located closely to these regions (as well as historical relations that are regrettable).
1
-
@ste16kam35
You don't help a country to develop with aid.
I disagree, a lot of the aid is precisely meant for development of, for example, infrastructure, not all, but a significant part. However unfortunately a large part of this aid often ends up in the pockets of the leaders in those African countries. And to be clear, I do think it would be good if the EU offered largescale cheap loans to African countries, kind of like an African Marshall plan.
A country that doesn't possess its currency is not a sovereign country.
Like the eurozone countries? I don't think the CFA countries have a problem with having a united currency, rather it would be better if they had full control over it as a group.
The only reason they changing is because of pressure of civil movement and because more and more population realize that France in this case still want domination and still acts like its their colonies.
This is ofcourse a possibility, though dismissing the views of new leaders who didn't had anything to do with its creation is not a great thing either, it takes away from them if they did something about it, not because of the pressure, but because their own conscience. I don't know what to think of Macron's stance in this, it feels like he just doesn't know what to do with it, or sees it as just a small headache compared to problems at home. Or maybe he just doesn't care, difficult to say.
Talking about reforms, it was agreeed in the Senate of France that the CFA currency will be changed to Eco few days ago ? IS that normal ? In the senate of France. THis is plain colonization.
It seems the ECO is meant as a step to slowly give the CFA countries complete fiscal and monetary independence from France. Since the CFA still was guaranteed and managed by France, I guess it is logical this also had to be passed by the French senate. This is what good reforms will involve, both parties working it out, not just cutting it suddenly.
ECO btw is an idea of the West African nations, to create something similar to the Eurozone in West-Africa, it would include even non-CFA countries. The French senate essentially just agreed to let CFA flow over into ECO, which I guess was necessary because up untill it becomes ECO France was essentially guaranteeing CFA's stability/monetary policy.
In fact it seems ECO includes the reforms I think are needed to end the CFA's colonial history background.
Gadaffi had a big project to unite Africa adopting a common currency backed by gold.
It was a goal of him, whether it was to just get more power for himself or to improve Africa as a whole, I don't know, I guess no one will. But he wasn't even close to succeeding in this. This wasn't a concern for Europe at all. Ofcourse there will be many that will have turned it into an issue to paint a different picture, as is done so often.
African leaders were not even informed of this attack as they would have been against it.
The Western operations in Libya weren't somekind of stealth/secret operations, every African leader knew about it before it started. It was the UN who called out a no-fly zone above Libya, and NATO decided to enforce it. The UN security had reached an unanimous decision, with 10 in favor and 5 abstaining. The reactions in Africa were mixed, from supporting to neutral to condemning it.
And the problem is that African nations who were in favor of it, at the same time didn't want ot get involved militarily themselves, for example Egypt. They let NATO essentially do the dirty work so they could take the blame.
You need to remember that there was no djihadist issue in Africa
There have been jihadist issues in Africa for decades, these just don't get the attention of those in for example the middle east.
The collapse of LYbia increased rebels and djihadist powers/influence
I agree with that, which is why I believe they should have send in UN peacekeeping forces consisting of many nations, including African ones. By imposing the no fly-zone, which essentially made sure the rebels wouldn't immediately get squatched, but not looking further, they let Libya slip into chaos, which no one wanted. But Europe obviously didn't want to be the one advocating for groundtroops/peacekeeping troops in Libya, because it would be very negative image wise, African nations didn't want to do it, because they didn't want to spend troops/effort on it and nations on other continents just didn't care.
Now France intervened but situation just got worse and worse.
You mean in libya? I don't remember any recent foreign intervention in Libya.
as they financed rebels in Mali at the beginning
Please cite a source, since I haven't heard of this before.
1
-
@ste16kam35 An exemple is all these French multinationals ( Total, Bolore, etc.)
You think there are no Chinese companies/resources active to develop the infrastructure China lends them the money for? This is exactly something China does: lending them money, 'letting' them use (cheaper) Chinese companies so the money flows back to China and helps keep infrastructure costs low for construction in China due to economies of scale for these companies and in the long run China even gets the money they loaned back. This a great money maker system, so they'd even lend money for infrastructure projects that will not pay off, and if the countries then can't pay back the loan, China just offers to take over some infrastructure for around a century or so as payment. China is definitely not in this for the good of other countries, it is all about how they can benefit from it.
No, as you mention, we cannot compare Euro with Cfa. It is an outsider country that has control over Cfa.
I am not comparing CFA with the Euro, I am saying why a common currency isn't a bad thing, even if you lose some sovereignty due to it, like which happens in the eurozone, the members can't just set out their own policy either.
I believe that is totally wrong, this is just neo colonalism. This is also implying the countries can't think for themselves and do something about themselves. No Other ex colonist countries still do something like this, why France should still has its say?
Eco is literally thought up by these African nations. Why is France still involved? Because it is currently involved with CFA and the African coalition wants to try and introduce eco as smooth as possible, by essentially just changing CFA into eco, but during this change also transfer the monetary policy power from France to these countries. The same happened with colonialism, countries leaders didn't just cut ties with the colonies, they had to go through voting in their parliaments and work together with the new governments to hand over power. This really isn't unusual, even outside a colonial context.
Second, with countries like Ghana and Nigeria in it, France is defo not needed, both these countries have their currency , same as the rest of Africa except these ex French colonies.
France will not play a part in eco (except for ensuring a stable exchange rate between it and the euro, which the CFA nations asked for to keep inflation limited), they just play a part in the transfer of CFA into eco.
and its also why they actually rejected the plan
They rejected the plan because of turmoil with some other West African nations, the fear essentially is that one or two nations would be too strong in this monetary union. It seems the problem more is with the two monetary blocs (Uemoa, the bloc currently using the CFA and WAMZ, those not currently using CFA) not agreeing with eachother, for example Uemoa unilaterally decided to rename/reform the CFA franc in the eco (and then reform it into the single curreny envisioned, contrary to the original plan to create the eco and then merge the eco and CFA france), without consulting WAMZ, even after both groups already came together in a common group ECOWAS with the goal of creating a unified currency. There also seems to be a struggle for the leadership, Ivory coast is now the defacto leader in Uemoa due to being the largest economy, however if they combine with WAMZ, Nigeria would take this place easily. Nigeria would make up around 2/3rd of the groups total GDP, possibly giving it way too much power, something Uemoa countries might want to try and curb, else they'd just be exchanging France for Nigeria.
How would you know he would no t suceed?
Why would you assume he would succeed? He'd have to get dozens of countries agreeing to get a single currency, countries in many different situations. And that is just the start/easy part.
Why did Sarkozy suddenly decide to kill him?
Did France kill him? Why do you think France suddenly decided to kill him?
Without that, Europe, UN would have not done it and find another way.
So you're saying that France convinced 9 other security council members to vote in favor of a no fly zone and weapons embargo to get rid of Gaddafi and also the other 5 countries to abstain instead of voting against, please, this isn't realistic. France doesn't have such a large cloud.
Maybe there was no intention because it was insignificant
Or maybe there just was no attention because people didn't really care about what happened in Africa, seeing the chaos and conflicts that happened in Africa since decolonisation. Jihadism was just hidden by everything else, it was just one tree in a forest.
These was definitely not something to worry population before 2010 in most of countries concerned now. It was defo not a thing in the 1990s.
Because jihadist in Africa limited themselves to Africa, now with the destabilisation of Libya they became a threat for Europe too.
I can't read you link. It is a blank page.
Maybe I am too optimistic, and maybe you are too pessimistic, I guess the next decade or so will show us who was right.
1
-
@ste16kam35
For instance, China is so far involved economically in Africa
If you think China isn't involved in Africa politically behind the screen you'll probably be in for a rude awakening in the future. And it is logical Europe is more politically involved in Africa, Africa is its neighbour, what happens in Africa can have a huge impact on Europe. And ofcourse ties created during the colonial era still exist, not necessarily as neo-colonism (though possible in some nations), but also as partners. China is so far from Africa, what happens in Africa they'll only feel indirectly ie. economically.
in general they never needed Africa to develop and they seem less dependent
What does this mean? Do they need a developed Africa, no, they just help Africa develop because it is in their own economic interests, which is imo worse than if they needed Africa to develop inorder for attaining future stability.
I believe countries like China in Asia are in the future the ones with who Arfica should trade most as it used to be.
I don't really see why this would be the case. Africa should just trade with everyone it wants/can trade with. And African-Asian trade in the past often was just as part of the Asian-European trade routes.
Asian countries and African countries were trading long time ago.
And European and African regions with eachother even longer, don't see your point.
Europe, we know what happened
So again only refering to the last 200-400 years. In which Europe essentially did what others have done in the past, just as a much larger scale due to the growing globalisation. Before Europe entered in Africa, African nations/tribes were also often at war, creating their own empires, sacking eachother, and bounding eachother in slavery (Europe essentially could set up the Atlantic slave trade, because African slavery has existed for centuries before, always Africans sellling other Africans into slavery). If you think Europe were somekind of unusual evil boogyman, you are just doing a reverse whitewashing of history.
After, it's true, perhaps as Europe has pretty much destroyed Africa and it benefited them before
While Europeans commited attrocities for sure, they didn't destroy Africa, in fact they helped build it up, even if just for personal gain. Africa got 'destroyed' because after colonisation ended the administrative colonial borders remained how they were, which was stupid seeing it didn't account for the many different ethnicities/tribes, which started conflicts, be they militarily of politically. This wasn't a problem before due to colonial troops. And while they did benefit from Africa, the true wealth of Europe came from industrialisation, much of the African wealth ended up with the elites, not western countries in general.
Decolonisation essentially went too fast, a slower one over a span of 1-2 decades might have seen a much stronger and more stable Africa now.
I believe they will never change anything.
So essentially you are judging people by the actions of some of their ancestors, I guess Europe should never trust Germany ever again due to the nazi, and the low countries shouldn't trust Spain, China shouldn't trust mongolia, etc.
Yes but in Europe, you don't have for instance China deciding for European countries.
Which I was talking about a common currency, like eco, and not the CFA. While what you said can easily be interpreted as if common currencies aren't a good thing, because they reduce sovereignty. BTW there are countries that use the currency of other blocs/nations without having a say in the monetary policy by choice.
No, Nigeria and Ghana are the ones that initially rejected months ago
I know, because the CFA countries wanted to play a greater part in eco, which is why they decided to change the CFA into eco, so they can set the rules and ensure that when Ghana and Nigeria join it, there are rules/structures preventing the large nations (like Nigeria) from having too much power.
Also, there is no need to keep your exchange rate fixed to Euro, many countries have floating exchange rate.
Yes, however a fixed exchange rate allows for lower interests rates, which can help development and economic growth. It is essentially a trade off. Once the eco countries can guarantee low inflation levels and a stable currency for themselves, they can just cut these ties. It isn't something France can hold over them, if it tries, the ecowas countries would just cut the ties between the eco and the euro.
At this moment the WAMZ countries (ecowas countries not using the CFA), have 3 to even 6 times the inflation rate compared to countries using the CFA franc.
Look at Mali as one exemple where a month ago theere was a protest telling french to leave the country.
A protest of around a 1000 people says nothing. I couldn't find opinion polling of how Malians see the french, maybe you can find one?
1
-
@ste16kam35
But it is known, even many people in France knows.
So I guess you can point to proof then, seeing so many people know it was France that killed Gaddafi?
Rebels existed, it is totally different.
Religiously inspired rebels, or rebels that attack people based on faith are jihadist.
They were a threat to Europe before Africa.
Then you can point to terrorist attacks in Europe perpertrated by African jidahist
But the fact that you defend a country like France
I am not defending them, I am just saying I think you see it too much as black and white, to me it is grey. There are good and bad things that France does in Africa. And I dislike that you are condemning people by things that happened in the past and just dismiss any possibility that things can change, that policies can change, for the better and not just due to outsided pressure.
Other regions of Africa are already much more developed and advanced than these countries.
Only North Africa, South Africa and parts of western central Africa are doing much better (several of these countries were French colonies), most of the rest of Africa isn't doing much better then most former French colonies when looking at GDP per capita.
but i honestly do not believe in a great future for Africa with Europe has close partners.
And I believe being close partners with Europe is Africa's best bet, while at the same time ofcourse keeping just as good relations with nations like China.
Also, i believe anw Africa doesn't need Europe as much as Europe needs Africa.
I completely disagree on this. I believe both will need eachother equally, for different reasons.
Africa needs foreign investment
And Europe is by far the greatest foreign investor in Africa.
They have got the people, the demographic dividend will play if they manage to tick the two bowes highlited above, young population, they have got most of resources in the world, so basically they barely need anyone.
The problem is that you see Africa as a united bloc, it is far from that. Different regions from Africa will have different needs and different best paths forward. North and West africa for example will have a much greater need for Europe, than for example East Africa, for whom China/Asia might be more interesting.
and as i said they use to trade long time ago
Like I said, Africa traded just as much with Europe in the past. And a lot also depends on what part of Africa you talk about. It is only east Africa that traded with Asia/China in the past, North Africa traded with Europe (as it is was part of the European/mediterranean theater) and West Africa didn't really trade with neither untill Portugal started building trade outposts there, the only trade they had was with north Africa through the desert, and with East/central Africa. And Central and South Africa were cut of from the world in regards to trade even more, untill European nations came around.
Now Europe. Its a falling continent with Asia rising
This laughable, yes, Europe isn't the behemoth it was in the past, this however doesn't mean it is falling. Rather other parts are rising (again). The question really is how high will they rise. A lot can happen in a few decades. 100 years ago Europe was master of the world, and China rather weak, now the normal distribution is just coming back. However there are many things that can change predictions a lot. For example if a nation/region is able to really mine asteroids, they could become the most wealthiest region ever, one certain asteroid is estimated to hold 30 000 times the wealth of the entire earth's economy currently. Now am I saying that Europe will take this? Ofcourse not, it is just to show that while people couldn't have predicted the situation of today 100 years ago, we can't say how the world will look like a 100 years from now.
For all we know Europe turns around its aging population into a young one again. Also it is possible that Africa too will see a similar trend (again population) once it reaches developed status.
No Uranium for France at discount price
France gets more Uranium from Canada and there are also other countries with overall cheap uranium.
no oil at discount price
Oil is going to play a much lower importance anyway. And currently only a fifth of Europe's oil comes from Africa.
no cacao at discount price
Cacoa is already facing possible problems in terms of future production anyway. And who knows, maybe we'll just have to find a way to grow cacao in Europe inside recreated climates (or by genetic modicification). And Africa isn't the only part of the world that can grow cacao, it just happens its production was historically placed there.
And who says cacao is being sold at a discount price? Can you point me to a source?
not coltan and cobalt for phones
Africa actually isn't that rich in Coltan reserves, they just have some rich veines (easy to mine), it is because of this cheap manual labour can be used ot mine it. As for cobalt this is mostly used for oil refinement currently, which will decrease with electrification and battery manufacturers are already slowly moving away from it, exactly due to the pr of the bad labour conditions. And ofcourse there is something like recycling.
In the end I personally think this discussion is pointless. The future of humanity is in space. Eventually we'll built large space habitats and start mining space. The possiblities in space are nearly endless, massive amounts of resources, space habitats will be able to allow a population of trillions, cheap energy from the sun, ... It ofcourse won't be easy, but eventually Earth might become a (very) small part in a much bigger human civilization.
As for your article, it is a few years out of date to be usefull. The MNLA has signed a treaty with the Malinese government not long after this article came out and nothing points in this article to France helping the MNLA, rather not taking a military stance against them, since the jihadists were France's objective, not the MNLA.
It is rather clear we'll not be able to agree with eachother, so lets end it here.
1
-
1
-
1