7 ms·

Generosity and securing natural resources and international influence don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you interview Africans, then they say that while c

Generosity and securing natural resources and international influence don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you interview Africans, then they say that while cooperation with China has problems, they sure are glad they at least have more choices now, and on the whole China's existence is beneficial. The alternative — only western choices and no China — sure hasn't served them well in the past half century. No matter what you believe is their "true" intentions, offering 5000 training and tech transfer positions to the global south is a very concrete and unambiguous move. As are forgiving African loans and unilaterally offering zero trade tariffs.

yfontana 1mo ago
If what China has been doing is considered generous, then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. I'm not saying that China's investment in the South hasn't had positive effects. But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
- FooBarWidget 1mo ago
  > then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or? > But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations. Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens. And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea. In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.

yfontana 1mo ago

If what China has been doing is considered generous, then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. I'm not saying that China's investment in the South hasn't had positive effects. But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.

FooBarWidget 1mo ago
> then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or? > But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations. Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens. And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea. In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.