The Shotgun Blog
« Outward Bound for Islamofascists | Main | Russia's growth industry »
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Zimbabwe-Red China connection
Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe went to Beijing where he was showered with aid, trade and a co-operation agreement. China, which had earlier this year sold military equipment to African nation, also promised Mugabe eight military training jets as gifts. The Daily Telegraph reports that Chinese investment is directly linked to "Zimbabwe's township clearance programme." But China and other Asian despots are supplying not only military hardware but a model of government. The Christian Science Monitor reported earlier this month:
"Take Zimbabwe's ongoing demolition of thousands of urban homes and shops. It has left homeless up to 1.5 million, mostly city dwellers, and forced many to seek rural refuge. It echoes, some observers say, China's government-led 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, when urbanized elites were stripped of status and forced to learn peasant ideals while laboring on farms."
Furthermore, the CSM reports, Chris Maroleng of the Pretoria, South Africa-based Institute for Security Studies, finds that some African countries may "attempt to replicate some models from the east" including "the Tiananmen model or the Pol Pot model." Of course, that model looks even better when it is giving out goodies. But as long as Beijing is funding serial human-rights abuser Zimbabwe shouldn't Canada refrain from funding Beijing as Helena Guergis suggests?
Posted by Paul Tuns on July 26, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8348459a969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Zimbabwe-Red China connection:
Comments
Canada's 'funding of Beijing' is miniscule and withdrawal of funding would have no effect. None.
What China is doing, is a cynical and pragmatically opportunistic tactic of taking advantage of a totally corrupt government that is destroying its own country. China is watching Mugwabwe destroy the capacity of Zimbabwe to be both self-governing and economically self-maintained. Mugwabwe is destroying the people, reducing them to poverty, destroying the agricultural capacity to feed and fund the people, destroying the economy, destroying democracy and any hope of the people to move themselves out of this morass..and ending up requiring external aid to prevent massive famines.
Seeing this, China is moving itself in, economically, as the future major economic (and therefore political) foundation of that country. When the dust has settled, China will effectively control all the economic resources of Zimbabwe.
It is, I think, useless to go to China and say ' - Stop this; you mustn't take over their resources because their gov't is destroying the people'. As China says - 'the internal affairs of the country' are not its business. This is pure colonialism and is hardly unknown in world history. I don't think China is interested in the political system of Zimbabwe - at the moment. It is simply taking over the destroyed economy. I would even bet that some neighbouring African States AND the UN are pleased; it means that they don't have to get financially or morally or politically involved. Let China clean up the mess..they might be saying.
What should be done? The useless UN and the equally useless African Union should indeed be the ones moving in to stop Mugwabwe destroying the country's economic capacity. They should have stopped Mugwabwe from destroying the farms, destroying the homes, destroying democracy...long ago. Both the UN and the African Union have done, and are doing - absolutely nothing.
So- how do you get the UN bureaucracy to do anything, anything at all in this world, other than to hem and haw and pontificate? How do you get the African Union to admit that there are problems?
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 7:36:48 AM
As an aside- and this has nothing to do with China and Zimbabwe, and is instead, an example of our own corrupt Canadian government...what about the rumours that the next G-G, that patronage post, will be a Quebecois woman???
I wonder why Martin would do that - Do you suppose it has anything to do with the next election and Quebec's 75 seats in the House of Commons?????? Hmmm?
We are told that Clarkson herself wants to 'step down' from the position. Nonsense. She loves it, but she's become a political liability, kept under wraps for the last year, refused funding for her planned groupie-trips, after the very public anger at her exhorbitant expenses. Martin can't afford, politically, to keep her on. And remember, the Liberal Party has only ONE agenda -power. Power. So - the boys in the back room have it all planned. Delay the vote until after Gomery..oh..and they'll manage to silence Gomery's report. Watch for that. Bribe and bribe the voters with taxpayer money from Alberta. Pass the SSM bill to get the big city vote and the latte crown NDP vote. As for Quebec - more federal money and ...hey - how about a G-G? Les Quebecois like symbols..and they'll love it.
The corruption in our Canadian system is derived from the fact that an elected government has, within its control, a massive, unaccountable amount of power. The proportion of non-elected patronage appointments in the Canadian government is at least three times that of the elected sector. An elected government can therefore, use all this non-elected power to maintain itself in power..and to hell with the electorate..who has lost, totally lost, control of their own governance.
So- will he do it? Is that the tactic to ensure a Liberal Quebec victory????
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 8:00:57 AM
ET
I find I always agree with you except when it comes to China.
But dissenting opinion keeps us sharp and keeps us from becoming Librano$.
You say:
“The corruption in our Canadian system is derived from the fact that an elected government has, within its control, a massive, unaccountable amount of power. The proportion of non-elected patronage appointments in the Canadian government is at least three times that of the elected sector.”
Ergo: the proportion on non-elected thugs in China makes them unpredictable and likely to play havoc at least 30 times that of even a democratically deficient country like Canada.
As the per capita income in China grows geometrically and the military takes a bigger and bigger skim, it’s analogous to Ottawa/Adscam skimming except the Chinese have nukes.
Agreed, the amounts we pay China are irrelevant. But they are symbolic. Our Symbolism hopefully counts for something because we have no power.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-07-27 9:33:35 AM
nomdenet - No, my point about China is that it is colonizing Zimbabwe. For us to refuse contracts with China would be irrelevant and would not stop the colonization of Zimbabwe.
If it's not China, some other country will do it. Zimbabwe has moved itself into a position where, because it refuses to stop its own self-destruction, it must be colonized. After all - neither the UN nor the African Union will stop the political and economic self-destruction nor assist the people.
I've always said that ALL societies colonize, move in, invade or attach, other societies. It's not a Western phenomenon. I'm saying that this act, of moving into an economically and politically imploding country, Zimbabwe, is to be expected. If China didn't do it, some other nation would.
The reason, is because...well..think of an ecological domain. For example, think of 1000 sq acres of good land, with water, food etc. Think of this ecological domain as populated by many species, each networked with the other in this biological domain. One species, dominant in one niche of this domain..for some reason..becomes dysfunctional. It no longer uses that territory, its population dies out, becomes unable to protect the territory, unable to protect its population. Result? Other populations will move in. There's no such thing as a 'vacuum'.
I'm saying the same thing with Zimbabwe. Due to the reprehensible actions of its government, its domain and population are collapsing; they are no longer able to support themselves or, importantly, change themselves, since Mugwabwe retains his corrupt power. Some other population will move in - and I maintain that if weren't China..it would be some other country. I'm surprised France or Germany aren't there.
What should have been done to prevent China or any other country from this colonization - and I maintain that if it weren't China, it would be some other nation? The UN and the African Union should have moved in and stopped Mugwabwe from destroying his own population's capacity to be economically and politically viable. They didn't do this.
My post about the Canadian political infrastructure, which is primarily UNELECTED and provides the small elected portion of the gov't with an almost unlimited capacity for manipulation of power - has NOTHING to do with China. I was just trying to sound off about the Canadian system..and the Liberal's use of it to maintain their power..via..appointing a Quebecois G-G to ensure the vote in Quebec.
I don't think the fact that the Chinese communist gov't is unelected, like the major portion of our Canadian gov't, can be considered as a factor in this act of colonization. It has nothing to do with it.
I don't think that China's colonization of Zimbabwe has anything to do with their unelected/elected infrastructure. I think that China saw an opportunity, and is, cynically and pragmatically, making use of this. And I don't believe for a second that some other nation wouldn't have also done this. It would have to be a non-African nation, and be primarily, at first, an economic take-over. The African countries aren't wealthy enough to achieve this; so- it's either a European, North American (and that includes Canada) or Asian country that would, economically, be fiscally able to move in. China. India. France. ..
What should Canada have done? If Canada wanted to do something, then, it should have, daily...mounted a huge 'in-your-face' public campaign to the UN and the African Union - insisting that those two agencies step in and stop Mugwabwe. Canada didn't. So- the result - is colonization.
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 10:14:35 AM
Chinese colonialism is the best thing for Rhodesia. With a national mean IQ of 66, the only hope for this cesspool is foreign intervention. And since feminazi bleeding heart liberals like Ms. T will scream and wail against racist, sexist EuroCaucasian neo-colonialism, it is left to the Chinese, who do not suffer the weakness of Western democracy and its univeral suffrage, to intervene.
A US State Department Agency report indicated that in the decade 1965-1975, Rhodesian economic growth outstripped that of almost all its neighbours producing record levels of growth; it's Gross National Product rose by almost 80 per cent and the per capita income by 26 per cent. Now the nation cannot feed itself.
Posted by: DJ | 2005-07-27 10:16:24 AM
Ahh, DJ, our favourite fascist, racist, woman-hater and let's see; what else does he rage against.
Well, he rejects reason and rejects empirical evidence; so, he rejects science. That leaves him safely couched in the comforts of mysticism, superstition, and an enslaved reliance on a metaphysical essentiality authority. Well, if it makes him comfortable...
But -remember, he rejects reason and any reliance on logic and empirical proof. The inability to reason is indicative, you know, of someone with a VERY LOW IQ. Strange, and yet, DJ rejects reason, and therefore, rejects people with reasoning capacities. He prefers the low IQ people. Each to his own, I say.
But - Gosh- how could he be using a computer - which is the result of the scientific analysis of informational encodement and processing!! Turing was quite the logician and mathematician. Same with Von Neumann. But - DJ rejects reason. So- isn't it hypocritical to use the results of reason???
He's against empirical reality - I love it - his statement that the people of Zimbabwe have a 'national IQ of 66'! Hah! That's impossible, DJ, old gal, because you can't have a national IQ average of 66. The average has to be 100..and then, individuals - get that, DJ, my dear, individuals would vary from that average. But, since you reject reasoning, and the IQ measures the capacity-to-reason...then...????
Let's see - what else is he against. He's also against democracy (he prefers fascism); he's against universal suffrage, and he loathes women.. (here, his view of women is similar to that of Islamic fundamentalism)...
Oh, by the way, DJ, my dear old gal, I'm not a feminist. Can't stand them. But, don't worry, you can continue to rant and rave against me. I love it.
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 10:38:20 AM
ET
Sorry if I’m mixing up the macro with the topic posted. I was admittedly wandering off the Zimbabwe specific to the more general debate about your being more optimistic then I am about capitalistic/individualism keeping China in line. I just don’t trust that much power and money in the hands of fascist thugs. I’ve walked through Tianemann Square and without going into detail I’ve seen the paranoia close up over there. They’re nuts.
I do think China has 30x’s more “unlimited capacity for manipulation of power” then our little oligopoly of power which we agree is plenty scary but at least the Librano$ don’t have nukes. No matter. I’ll try to stick to the colonization argument at hand.
Agreed, if Bono doesn’t want Zimbabwe then China can have it. But this is a slippery slope. We’d better start thinking about Taiwan. The whole Bush Doctrine, which I pray is on the money, assumes democracies don’t invade democracies. So China moving into Zimbabwe is a wash. But China moving into Taiwan eliminates a democracy. Do we (the USA) let that happen? Probably we’re going to have to let it go. It’s not worth a war. But we can’t let a big strategically important democracy like India go. So that’s why Bush is helping India gear up militarily. Right?
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-07-27 11:36:21 AM
In reply to nomdenet - we'll have to disagree about China. I don't think they are 'nuts'. And I don't call China 'fascist'; they don't have the fascist ideology of an essentialist Will of the Nation. To me, they are 'two-tiered'; first - there's the gov't, still communist, but a communism that is increasingly alienated from; second.. the population, the majority of whom don't give a damn about politics and are primarily interested in consumer goods. Maybe it's even 'three-tiered'..for the overseas Chinese population in Canada, USA, Australia, Europe, etc..are an important contributor to China, in that they are extremely active in the industrial world, in science and technological dev't, in finance, commerce..and democracy. That has an effect, a strong effect, on the homeland Chinese.
So- I'll still maintain that the Old Guard Chinese gov't..even when flexing its muscles..is losing control over this new economy in China.
I think it's important to realize that they don't have a 'metaphysical' authority; there is no religion. So, they can't move into a text-based fundamentalist ideology of, for example, Islamic fundamentalism.
I think that China moved out of a peasant agricultural system into industrialism, as did the Soviet Union, within one generation - an almost impossible task made possible only by a violent revolution, for it has to destroy the old ideology and forcibly impose the new one. It took the West over 400, also violent, years to move out of its peasant agricultural feudal system..into a mechanical agriculturalism and then, industrialism.
China, however, still operates within a 'collectivism' rather than individualism, for the basic reason that it has never, ever, functioned by privileging the individual. This is changing - and I'm suggesting that the movement to democracy, which is a system focused on the individual, will be in China, a 'grounds-up' rather than 'top-down' movement. That's how it was in Europe..a movement from the bottom-up, from the people. The Old Guard is trying to hang on...but, it can't last. So, I have a different perspective of China than you do.
As for your statement of the Bush doctrine that 'democracies don't invade democracies' - I think it's more that democracies empower people, and a free people don't move into fundamentalist utopian ideologies and become terrorists.
As for Taiwan, I think that as the global world becomes more networked, it will remain, as it is now, an ambivalent part of that network. That is - I don't think there'll be any invasion or fight over it. The whole point of it, and the Chinese are very pragmatic rather than idealistic, is its economic functionality. If that remains - the rest is not relevant.
I'm rather indifferent to 'nukes'; they couldn't be used as they would trigger an impossible reaction.
As for India, I see it as far more of a problem than China. It, and Pakistan, of course. But India is not moving into an industrial economy with the ease and rapidity of China. It's very much a multi-tiered, class based society, and the economic opportunities for the massive population are far lower than they are for the Chinese. And - I'm not sure that India knows how, or is will to, change this multi-tiered class based system. Then, with Pakistani Islamic fundamentalism frothing at its borders - that's a serious issue. That's why Bush is arming it..
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 12:02:58 PM
ET your views on China are more based on logic than my visceral and admittedly emotional reaction to totalitarians, which you argue can’t hold in this case. I sure hope your logic wins.
It would be ironic if Canada's "old guard" natural governing party outlasted China's.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-07-27 1:03:07 PM
To nomdenet - You know, I think that Canada's Old Guard, namely the Liberano$, will outlast China's Old Guard.
The reason is, that in China, you have the majority of the population who have no interest at all in the governance of the country; they want that gov't to simply leave them alone, for their main interest is in empowering and enabling themselves to: make money and more money and more money. They are not interested in a gov't that would hinder that goal. Equally, they are not interested in the ethics of this agenda; if it takes bribes to do it, ..so be it; if you achieve it via enlisting dozens of friends and family members into your little business...so be it.
But, in Canada, the majority of the population are primarily interested in the government's looking after them. They are not interested in, themselves, working seven days a week - as they do in China; and all hours of the day - as they do in China. They are interested in a welfare statist system of complete, without reservation, total gov't care.
So - in Canada, there's no 'bottom-up' popular rejection of the activities of the Old Guard, because, the population want the State to be fully involved in their lives. The majority of the population want everything to be state-funded, state-ruled, state-delivered to them.
They want the gov't to give huge tax breaks to foreign businesses to come in, and that includes Chinese investment..so that Canadians will get jobs. (Rather than encouraging Canadians to set up these big corporations). Why won't the gov't encourage ordinary Canadians to set up big corporations? Because our govt is intimately connected with the PowerCorp, Desmarais, Magma Cartel- which alone has the 'gov't right' to set up big business in Canada.
Freedom of expression? In Canada? When the CBC forbids the use of the word 'terrorist' (although Global TV uses always uses it)..when the CRTC regulates who and whom..No, we don't have freedom of speech..
So- I think that the Librano$, our one-party rule, will outlast the Chinese one-party rule.
Soft power is more insidious and corrupting of the population than hard power.
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 2:03:51 PM
Even if we accept the putred pre-masticated pusillanimous puke served up by our favourite feminazi, she still is unable to refute the facts, asserted by Lynn & Vanhanen. Blacks were much better off under the limited franchise of the Christian Eurocaucasian dominated Rhodesia.
And if she is so anxious to spread her liberal mantra around the globe, why not join our fighting forces. Women are frightfully under represented in th CF.
Posted by: DJ | 2005-07-27 2:09:03 PM
DJ- "Watch your tongue, my dear, or I'll wash your mouth out with soap". That's how one deals with children who yell insults. Very childish, DJ. Grow up.
My goodness, you really do hate women, don't you? It's almost as much an obsession as your hatred of Non-European peoples. Maybe it's even more. Tsk, tsk.
Now, DJ- you reject reason, logic, and empirical evidence. Wow - that's quite a feat! That means that you are what I tell my students they should NEVER, ever be - a Sponge. Someone who just, without criticial analysis, sponges up texts and opinions without examining them. So, what have you sponged up recently??
You offer us Lynn and Vanhanen's attempt to correlate IQ with the GDP of a country. But, DJ, this is complete and utter garbage. It's unscientific. First - how on earth can you equate the IQ of a population, which must always be at an average of 100, with their GDP, which will vary???? Does it mean that if a country's GDP lessens in one year, that the IQ of the entire population has equally zipped down? Wow. I love it; that's a great correlation! Sad, sad, it's an invalid correlation, but, it's fun.
Do you remember the connection criteria between variables that I previously mentioned? Is the correlation link: accidental???? Is it just possible? Is it actually actual??? Is it necessary? Well, gosh and golly, DJ - I'd have to say that there can't be any correlation between these two variables. The one is genetic, the other is ecological and social. Above all, apart from your swallowing of this spurious (and therefore false) correlation...because you are acting as a sponge, you're ignoring several things:
(1)Proof that IQ is not gene-based (and therefore, common to our ONE species) but is nation-based. I'd really like to see some proof of that. Heck, DJ..what if you change your nation..I mean..what if one nation links up with another nation..does that mean that the people in the old nation get smarter, or dumber???
(2)You are ignoring the reality that the GDP is related to the resources of the country, its governance, its state of industrialization..and has NOTHING to do with the intelligence of its people. You know, DJ, a country with no water, no minerals, thin soil, extreme temperatures, might, just might, have a low GDP..because..there's nothing to produce. I'd really like to see a GDP of a country lower, and blame it on the IQ getting lower, or vice versa! Heck, that would be a lot of fun.
You see, what you need to do, DJ, is stop acting like a sponge and swallowing all sorts of authoritarian nonsense, and act like a FILTER, a critical filter. For that, however, you will have to accept the use of reason and logic and science. And you reject all three. Sigh...that means that you'll always be falling for these types of fallacies and junk. Oh well.
(3) You are ignoring something else, DJ. They didn't test most of the 'nations'!!! Hmmm. I love it when you don't test something and still come up with a value! Do you know how they got their fallacious scores of IQ??? They estimated them! I love it, I love it!!!! Isn't that the greatest science??? They have no evidence, so, they just guessed! In some cases, they took the scores from a neighbouring group (group..did you hear?)..and then, adjusted it up or down, for 'this other nation'. Who knows why. And you, a sponge, swallowed this nonsense. Sigh...
(4) Did you know, DJ, that their book wasn't peer reviewed? It is therefore, unacceptable as science, for there is no proof of their conclusions, since there is no evidence that their guesses have any validity. Did you know that? Indeed, their book was strongly criticized as 'junk'. That's because their scores were not based on tests but on guesses. And because there is no correlation between IQ and GDP. And because they totally and completely ignored the ecological realities of these nations - which are the REAL causes of low or high GDP. However, if you enjoy this non-science nonsense, then, by all means...enjoy, enjoy.
I know, you, DJ, as a racist, feel that peoples in different countries are different races; and are essentially different species and therefore, have different gene-based capacities to think.
That's a fallacy, but if it makes you feel warm and safe and comfortable...because then, you feel soooooo superior to them - well, go for it!!!. That's a great feeling,isn't it??? And sponges prefer feelings, because acting as a critical filter requires reason (which you reject) and empirical data (which you reject).
The problem is, DJ, you can't divide up the human population into different sections. The species has, over the hundred thousand years of its emergence, intermixed too much. Then, there's your attempt to link a genetic variable with a social variable. That's essentially impossible - but - heck, you like it, so..as I said..enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. It doesn't take any brains or intelligence to make such a link! It doesn't need any empirical proof, and that book doesn't offer any empirical proof!
So, DJ, you prefer your faith-based sponge-acceptance of authoritarian unscientific texts, because it makes you feel good. So? What's your point?
You suggest, DJ, that I join the military. I do indeed appreciate your suggestion, I admire your suggestion. It's seems rather juvenile, but, still, I appreciate it.
I think, unfortunately and alas and with deep regret, that it won't save the world. But again, DJ, thanks for the great, awesome suggestion.
But, DJ, ahhh, DJ, the real problem is that I'm an old gal, and therefore, the military won't accept me.
I guess I'll have to stick to academics and science. Cheers and all that, DJ, my best old gal friend. And do, watch that mouth of yours. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: ET | 2005-07-27 3:15:17 PM
Umm, ET:
I ran over a thousand statistical tests to see if the link between a nation's average IQ and its economic performance was just a coincidence....and it's almost surely not. The IQ-Economic Performance link holds up even after you control for government quality, religion, education, geography, you name it. Anything that economists considered "strongly related to growth".....Well, I controlled for that. And national average IQ still stands up.....
Actually, of course, my coauthor, psychologist Joel Scheider and I controlled for that....He's an awesome coauthor! And it turns out that there are lots of ways to measure IQ these days--you can even get a rough measure by putting people in a PET scan or by measuring how quickly signals are transmitted between the eye and the back of the brain. So it's no longer a mere matter of "how well you do on standardized tests"....There's something real going on there.....
Our first IQ-Economic Performance paper is online at the link below (www.siue.edu/~garjone), and it's forthcoming in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Economic Growth. I recommend checking that out.....
Posted by: Garett | 2006-01-28 4:05:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.