Coup in Niger

[Jacob]

My understanding of what Sheilbh meant when he said "China's development model" was not "follow a path towards development patterned on China's", but rather "the path towards development offered by interacting with or becoming a client of China."

The argument, I think, is that China's offer of infrastructure investment and attendant other benefits in return for returns, raw materials, and compliant votes on UN resolutions may come across as more persuasive than the West's combination of NGOs, aid packages, capitalism, and attempts at implementing governance and values changes.

I don't know enough to say whether that's an accurate summation of the differences, nor if it's correct that it's more attractive, but that's what I took Sheilbh's point to be.

[crazy canuck]

But most fundamentally China is not stable.

It seems pretty stable to me.

There is no danger of a coup anytime soon.  There is no major popular revolt going on, any attempt of doing so will be swiftly dealt with as in the past.

There is not threat to the regime in place.

People may or may not be happy with the regime, but they will not challenge it.

I'd say it's stable compared to Niger or Mali.

You have made a bunch of assertions of characterizations of stability.  But China is at the beginning of a demographic and economic collapse.  I am not sure why you think there is no risk to the present regime.

And why would you set the bar so low, requiring there to be an actual coup, in order to determine the stability of a particular political and economic structure?

Next time you criticize the Liberal government of Canada I will make sure to point out there has been no coup, so why complain - everything seems stable enough.

[crazy canuck]

My understanding of what Sheilbh meant when he said "China's development model" was not "follow a path towards development patterned on China's", but rather "the path towards development offered by interacting with or becoming a client of China."

The argument, I think, is that China's offer of infrastructure investment and attendant other benefits in return for returns, raw materials, and compliant votes on UN resolutions may come across as more persuasive than the West's combination of NGOs, aid packages, capitalism, and attempts at implementing governance and values changes.

I don't know enough to say whether that's an accurate summation of the differences, nor if it's correct that it's more attractive, but that's what I took Sheilbh's point to be.

But taken at its best, the argument is still weak.  Participating countries understand now how one sided and extractive those agreements are.  And its not just a rogue corporation working outside the laws of the West doing it to them - it's the government of China doing it to them directly.

[Iormlund]

But most fundamentally China is not stable.

It seems pretty stable to me.

There is no danger of a coup anytime soon.  There is no major popular revolt going on, any attempt of doing so will be swiftly dealt with as in the past.

There is not threat to the regime in place.

People may or may not be happy with the regime, but they will not challenge it.

I'd say it's stable compared to Niger or Mali.

You have made a bunch of assertions of characterizations of stability.  But China is at the beginning of a demographic and economic collapse.  I am not sure why you think there is no risk to the present regime.

And why would you set the bar so low, requiring there to be an actual coup, in order to determine the stability of a particular political and economic structure?

Next time you criticize the Liberal government of Canada I will make sure to point out there has been no coup, so why complain - everything seems stable enough.

When I said stable I was thinking of foreign investment. Companies seem to think China is stable enough to risk trillions on mid to long term projects. Africa ... not so much.

[Iormlund]

My understanding of what Sheilbh meant when he said "China's development model" was not "follow a path towards development patterned on China's", but rather "the path towards development offered by interacting with or becoming a client of China."

The argument, I think, is that China's offer of infrastructure investment and attendant other benefits in return for returns, raw materials, and compliant votes on UN resolutions may come across as more persuasive than the West's combination of NGOs, aid packages, capitalism, and attempts at implementing governance and values changes.

I don't know enough to say whether that's an accurate summation of the differences, nor if it's correct that it's more attractive, but that's what I took Sheilbh's point to be.

He said "they have an example and a model of lifting people out of poverty and improving material conditions for their citizens".

All I'm saying is that example is useless in Africa.

[viper37]

But most fundamentally China is not stable.

It seems pretty stable to me.

There is no danger of a coup anytime soon.  There is no major popular revolt going on, any attempt of doing so will be swiftly dealt with as in the past.

There is not threat to the regime in place.

People may or may not be happy with the regime, but they will not challenge it.

I'd say it's stable compared to Niger or Mali.

You have made a bunch of assertions of characterizations of stability.  But China is at the beginning of a demographic and economic collapse.  I am not sure why you think there is no risk to the present regime.

And why would you set the bar so low, requiring there to be an actual coup, in order to determine the stability of a particular political and economic structure?

Next time you criticize the Liberal government of Canada I will make sure to point out there has been no coup, so why complain - everything seems stable enough.

My criticism of the Libs is not about stability.  Canada is a stable country.
We have inflation, housing crisis and a multitude of problem, but instability is not one of them. The government is not nearing collapse, we do not have government change every 6 months or coup attempt or martial law.

We have political stability just as much as China.

That China is facing huge problems is another thing.  But it is not politically unstable.

[crazy canuck]

We will Just have to agree to disagree as to the relative political stability of an authoritarian state that jails/executes it's dissenters and Canada.

[viper37]

We will Just have to agree to disagree as to the relative political stability of an authoritarian state that jails/executes it's dissenters and Canada.

Stability does not necessarily mean it's a nice place to live in. Both can go together
It usually means it's a nice place to invest in.


Like Iormlund said, investors are willing to pour trillion of $ into China's economy.  They are not willing to accept the same risk for most of Africa.

[Sheilbh]

My understanding of what Sheilbh meant when he said "China's development model" was not "follow a path towards development patterned on China's", but rather "the path towards development offered by interacting with or becoming a client of China."

The argument, I think, is that China's offer of infrastructure investment and attendant other benefits in return for returns, raw materials, and compliant votes on UN resolutions may come across as more persuasive than the West's combination of NGOs, aid packages, capitalism, and attempts at implementing governance and values changes.

I don't know enough to say whether that's an accurate summation of the differences, nor if it's correct that it's more attractive, but that's what I took Sheilbh's point to be.

Basically yes - I don't know if it's true or if it will work out. But in summary the friend who was working in East Africa, bordering this coup belt, phrased the perception of people he worked with in the relevant ministries as well as local community leaders as China will treat you with respect and build you the road or the power plant that you asked for, the Western agencies will lecture you and then do the project they want to do.

As I say, don't know how true that is or if it will work out. I think it's a defensible position if we had a great record of countries really developing with our approach (and with the compromises on sovereignty that we want whether through military bases, currencies, UN votes etc). But we don't have a record of success, so I can fully understand why China is attractive as an option (and query if it is basically replacing one compromise on sovereignty with another - for a recipient country).

I think we need to realise that we are in competition. We shouldn't just assume that China will fail an, as Opalo says in his piece, you can't eat abstract values. I think - and I don't think it's a million miles from our issues domestically - that we need to actually deliver material benefits to people. That's the key that underpins buy in to our system and our values. I don't think it's impossible and (as with domestic politics) I can't help but wonder if the last time this really happened was arguably during the Cold War. Perhaps precisely because there was competition, so maybe it will happen again but this time in Africa.

On the other hand the angle I find interesting and most hopeful about the coup in Niger is that, as the Howard French piece in Foreign Policy put it, maybe haltingly but states and leaders in the region are taking charge of the process on this. And I think they are creating their own regional rules, guard-rails as well as working on diplomatic and (potentially) military solutions. I think this looks like a moment that is pushing a meaningful sovereignty and view of mutual interest in regional developments, stability, development rather than - for want of a better phrase - a learned or encouraged dependency on external great powers. Hopefully the West will work out a better development strategy in order to compete with China - even better though would be for African states, leaders and peoples to be able to reject either as they both compromise their sovereignty and primarily want aligned and supportive "partners" in the region.

He said "they have an example and a model of lifting people out of poverty and improving material conditions for their citizens".

All I'm saying is that example is useless in Africa.

It may not be replicable but I think that is part of the pitch to African leaders that is factually true.

As CC says, I think on a continental level there are also similarities. In 1900 the Philippines had the same population as Belgium - it's now about 10 times the size. There was a huge (especially post-war) population boom across Asia in the 20th century and current projections (which are falling) is that Africa is going to have an even larger population boom in the 21st century. I think Jake posted a thread about this and while there may not be a single  state like China, across the continent (especially Nigeria and Ethiopia) are likely to hugely increase. There is already a very young population that is booming. I think integrating Africa and that population into the global economy is up there with climate and achieving net zero in terms of its significance in this century.

Also I think it is a little more than just population with China. I think I've mentioned it before but there was a World Bank report in 1983 on China - so early in the "reform and opening" period. While they discreetly aflag but don't talk about the huge impact of the Great Leap Forward on the data they were looking at, I think there were a few ways China was different than its peers in terms of income levels (like India and Indonesia). In particular China had a far higher level of basic education, they had signficantly more power generation and were also slightly more industrialised. I think that is also part of the story with China, not just a populatio boom. Although I'm also fully aware it plays into my bias that physical infrastructure and education are key to development.

I think those are the areas China is focusing on - officially they describe their priorities (and as I say, this comes with an awful lot of conditions) are building sufficient good and reliable infrastructure, enough training or educating personnel and helping address the funding shortage. I'm not sure that diagnosis or solution is wrong and will help a lot even without a population boom.

But taken at its best, the argument is still weak.  Participating countries understand now how one sided and extractive those agreements are.  And its not just a rogue corporation working outside the laws of the West doing it to them - it's the government of China doing it to them directly.

Yes - shouldn't that make us wonder why so many are still plumping for China, or Wagner? Perhaps because the experience of a victimised population is not of rogue corporations working outside the laws but, at best, hypocrisy of that happening with one hand while the other gives humanitarian aid or at worst complicity between those corporations and states. Western states don't exactly have clean hands - certainly not France, the UK, US or Belgium.

From the West, it may be specific companies in specific industries working with the undermanned, under-resourced, never very important second fiddle Africa desks in respective foreign offices and intelligence agencies. I think if you're on the receiving end it looks different.

[crazy canuck]

We will Just have to agree to disagree as to the relative political stability of an authoritarian state that jails/executes it's dissenters and Canada.

Stability does not necessarily mean it's a nice place to live in. Both can go together
It usually means it's a nice place to invest in.


Like Iormlund said, investors are willing to pour trillion of $ into China's economy.  They are not willing to accept the same risk for most of Africa.

Not for a while now.  But I am happy to be proven wrong.  In the last year or so what investors have poured trillions of investment dollars into China?

It seems the smart money has been departing.

Also note that you originally defined stability by the fact they had no coup's recently.

[viper37]

We will Just have to agree to disagree as to the relative political stability of an authoritarian state that jails/executes it's dissenters and Canada.

Stability does not necessarily mean it's a nice place to live in. Both can go together
It usually means it's a nice place to invest in.


Like Iormlund said, investors are willing to pour trillion of $ into China's economy.  They are not willing to accept the same risk for most of Africa.

Not for a while now.  But I am happy to be proven wrong.  In the last year or so what investors have poured trillions of investment dollars into China?

It seems the smart money has been departing.

Also note that you originally defined stability by the fact they had no coup's recently.

Having no coup recently also means investors are more attracted to your country.  Obviously, not the only factor, but notwithstanding all other Chinese factor, if the Chinese government was experiencing regular instability, if there was civil unrest in the country like in many parts of Africa, there would be much less investments.

[Jacob]

When I said stable I was thinking of foreign investment. Companies seem to think China is stable enough to risk trillions on mid to long term projects. Africa ... not so much.

Two things:

Direct foreign investment in China is down (73% on the year). - though I don't think that's a reaction to perceived stability (or lack thereof), but rather about the capriciousness of the legislative environment.

Secondly, that the West finds Africa too unstable to invest in helps make Chinese investment more impactful.

[Jacob]

But taken at its best, the argument is still weak.  Participating countries understand now how one sided and extractive those agreements are.  And its not just a rogue corporation working outside the laws of the West doing it to them - it's the government of China doing it to them directly.

I guess we'll see how much success China has with their approach. It's not us they have to persuade, but African leaders and their internal rivals.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

But taken at its best, the argument is still weak.  Participating countries understand now how one sided and extractive those agreements are.  And its not just a rogue corporation working outside the laws of the West doing it to them - it's the government of China doing it to them directly.

I guess we'll see how much success China has with their approach. It's not us they have to persuade, but African leaders and their internal rivals.

Fat swiss bank accounts work wonders.

[Sheilbh]

Two things:

Direct foreign investment in China is down (73% on the year). - though I don't think that's a reaction to perceived stability (or lack thereof), but rather about the capriciousness of the legislative environment.

Secondly, that the West finds Africa too unstable to invest in helps make Chinese investment more impactful.

Also interesting in that article is the stuff about Chinese companies de-risking their own supply chains - so a Chinese v a non-Chinese supply chain. Again that feels like a bad sign of how prepared China is going to be for confrontation - and it strikes me it's the one thing Europe hasn't really even considered the risk of China, having got the IP and know-how etc, wanting to de-couple for their own reasons

I guess we'll see how much success China has with their approach. It's not us they have to persuade, but African leaders and their internal rivals.

Exactly - and as with climate, it'll be an objectively good thing if it does succeed, but also bad.

As with climate, but also decoupling in that article, I think the West is maybe a little complacent and still assuming it's the main character (particularly unforgivable from any European country). It's entirely possible that on all of these issues China will fail. I'm not sure it's wise to base the West's response on that assumption though.

Fat swiss bank accounts work wonders.

As with coups, I think there's parts of the world where the West can meaningfully make this distinction between them and China (or Russia for that matter). I'm not sure it's possible in Africa.