I was discussing it today with someone, who insisted it was neo colonialism.
I know, they're saying that mainly out of brainworms rather than actually researching it, but there are parts of the deal that seem off to me.
China invested a fuck ton. An absolute fuckload. 0% interest loans, and even grants where they'd build massive infrastructure like airports and bridges for free. I can see how that sets them apart from colonial projects.
However, authority over the port was 'awarded' by Pakistan to a Chinese state run company, and terms were agreed upon by which China takes 90 percent of the profits, and Pakistan takes 10.
On the one hand, Pakistan wouldn't be making any of that money if left to their own means, on the other, that profit balance seems harsh? I guess China have to make their money back after all that great investment somehow.
My defence of it is sure, the port ended up like that, but the rest of the investment didn't. The whole Gwadar region has been transformed at an efficient cost (not bloated by profiteering capitalist contractors, as Iraq was), with non exploitative loans agreed upon by Pakistani leaders not placed in power by violence (as is usually the case with IMF loans - a coup happens first). Only the port has been taken over in such a way, and in time I predict that Pakistan's relationship with China will be much to their own benefit.
IMF loans would see 100% of profits go to western firms. and the western-run foreign enterprises are extremely exploitative and center on expropriating natural resources (see labor conditions in cobalt mines in Africa, the people there are forced into poverty by the design of western presence). neocolonialism necessitates unequal exchange. such unequal exchange has been studied and can be demonstrated with scientific investigation. ask ur friend to show evidence of unequal exchange leveraged by China against their debtors.
and that’s not even mentioning the fact that these loans are forgiven all the time. if they don’t believe that here’s a reuters source
My read is that these deals are basically fair, or close to it. Not a giveaway, but not a rip-off. Debatable who is getting the better deal, but at the end of they day everyone involved is benefitting so there's not much point in debating every cent.
Anyone who thinks that's "neo colonialism" just has no concept of what colonialism or imperialism was/is; it's not sub-optimal contract terms, it's being looted and murdered and exploited and invaded and couped for hundreds of years. An ok-ish investment agreement is just not in the same universe.
Obligatory Yanis Varoufakis: https://youtu.be/Wl3wQTVTPVo?t=31
It is the wrong video, this is about China in Africa, while I wanted to link the video in which he talks about negotiating with China himself and getting a good deal which included workers rights in it.
Neocolonialism requires military muscle for one. Even though the neocolony has de jure independence, the neocolony still has a gun pointed to its head by its neocolonial master. In many ways, they're still a colony with a colonial governor, the only different being they have a seat in the UN.
Using Niger as an example, the French constantly has troops rampaging throughout the country. The French has used fighter jets to drop tear gas at protestors. Part of the reason why the coup has so much popular support is because French soldiers had opened fired on unarmed Nigerien protestors. Yes, the CFA franc is part of French neocolonialism. France assassinating African leaders who try to move away from the CFA franc is also part of French neocolonialism. Because at the end of the day, why would African leaders even take these IMF loans? It's because the ones who don't are killed and replaced by white-worshiping boot-licking compradors who will do what massa tells them to do. This is why compradors roll out the red carpet for their neocolonial masters' troops while leaders who aren't complete comprador sellouts like what's going on in Mali and Burkina Faso tell those same troops to pack up their shit and gtfo. And this is not getting into shit like how the US secretly funds separatist and jihadist groups to justify AFRICOM bases throughout Africa.
African leaders accepting shit deals offered by the Chinese isn't neocolonialism even if they completely benefit China at the expense of those African countries. It becomes neocolonialism if the Chinese rig an election to get someone who rubberstamps everything the Chinese hand in front of them, and the entire country is stripped bare while multiple Chinese military bases that offer "security" to the newly elected president are build.
For your case of Pakistan, the accusation of neocolonialism makes even less sense especially with Imran Khan being forced out of power. Khan got couped by the military because he didn't want to be so close to the US, and as soon as he got couped, here comes the IMF loans. This shows that if the case could be made for Pakistan being a neocolony, the neocolonial master isn't China, but the other nuclear power. Once again, China lacks the military muscle to actually do neocolonialism.
The first response should always be to ask them to define the line between neo-colonialism and equitable exchange, and what would have to change about the exchange between China and Pakistan for it to not be neo-colonialism. Gotta nail those goal posts down before you take a punt or the posts will move.
You can pretty much guarantee that if China's deal with Pakistan doesn't count as a fair exchange, nothing does.
Only the port has been taken over in such a way
Yeah, as you suspect this is liberal media coverage distorting perspective with a very narrow scope. The port is a tiny part of the area that's going to benefit as a result of the development. The trouble with opposing the neo-colon argument is that we have to do as much research as people who do it as a full-time job to fill in the data and scope that was deliberately omitted.
