Why doesn't China get involved more?
Why doesn't China get involved more?
China could easily just declare that they'd be willing to support Niger against the ecowas terrorists and then those dogs wouldn't dare to invade the country. I understand how China delivering arms to Russian forces in Ukraine might be too risky (although even then I seriously doubt the West would be stubborn enough to crash the entire world economy and cripple themselves just for their fascist puppet state) but what does China have to loose in Africa?
The PRC has a strict policy of non-interference, informed by china's long history of live and let live with its neighbors, their own historical experiences and foreign-policy miss-steps, as well as in-depth study of the factors that lead to the downfall of the USSR, of which the arms race sucking tons of labor and vital resources away from other important economic sectors was a main reason.
They rightly view military involvement and weaponry as extremely dangerous traps, that can spiral out of control quickly. And unless you're using your own troops like Cuba did in Angola, you're going to lose control of that weaponry.
Africa has seen so much unecessary bloodshed because the west and Israel armed the Apartheid powers, and various other reactionary parties in the 70s-80s, most of those weapons being used to kill innocent people.
The west wants to keep Africa unstable, ruled by petty warlords and tearing itself apart. The CPC desires a stable Africa focused on economic development and construction.
It's not a strict dogmatism to never get involved ever, but a waryness informed by history.
What would be in it for China? Uranium?
Well yes. Also, we've seen African countries with investments from China grow their economies and I'm sure that's mutually beneficial.
It seems to me they don't want to get embroiled in a proxy war with NATO. They have a longstanding policy of non-intervention which has kept them free of conflict and able to focus on improving the economic life of their citizens. Avoiding conflict allows the CPC more time to develop its economy and global connections in ways that will defeat the American hegemony in the long run. Every year the forces of capital hollow out western economies, particularly in actual industrial production, while China continues planned development.
We cannot place all our hope for the defeat of capitalism and imperialism in the CPC. It is weird to expect China to stand in open opposition to the global order before it makes strategic sense and will benefit their people.
I assume there would be mutual benefits, probably leaning towards Niger, but I think the good will long term would be great for China. I feel like they could reach out and offer BRICS membership or something
A free Africa is one that trades with China, that buys goods from China, that doesn't participate in blockades against China, that sells minerals to China, that has markets open to Chinese goods, etc.
If the west can lock down Africa through a combination of terrorism and sewing instability as they've done in the middle east and installing brutal fascist dictatorships as they did in South America back in the 20th century, well, China is going to have a much tougher time of things because then the west can cut them out of a lot of raw materials as well as most markets and it could be the go-signal for the west to really launch the full embargo and lock-down they're itching to throw on China to create the full new cold war situation where they try and choke them out. Because they have Europe under their thumb, their navy can cut them off from markets in the Americas, Russia while a market isn't big enough to form a healthy, thriving isolated economic bloc with China.
Purely from a tactical standpoint if tomorrow an advanced alien communist civilization showed up, handed China a ton of super advanced weapons and tech knowledge for everything they could possibly need then peaced out, it would be the tactically smart thing to immediately send troops and support Africa. However, as that has not and is not likely to happen, China still wants to benefit from the west and their markets and bringing in capital as long as they can. Also they still have reliance on the west for many things.
For example, Xi has recently been stressing food security and growing more food in China, this is because though the US economy would crash and burn if trade were shut down, people in China would be hungry, not necessarily starving but the age of plenty, of great food whatever you want would be over as they import a ton of food from the US and cutting that off would be disastrous to the quality of life of the Chinese people and would require stringent state-led measures, rationing, etc. So pissing the US off too much in addition to being a trap the USSR fell into and sucked too many of its resources into is simply not one that China can bear without more hardship than the party or most people would find ideal.
I do think though the time is coming where China will have to make choices, not if but when to pull the trigger on confronting the west militarily and standing with oppressed peoples against their exploitation. But there are many things left to be done to fortify China for such a confrontation. China is expected to be potentially able to leap-frog the west in tech within the next 6 years in many areas at which point their blockades and "de-risking" become moot and if the food situation is resolved by then with Chinese growers and deals with Russia and neighboring countries, well then they're in a position of strength.
I wonder what we're learning from the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine. Russia today is potentially a model for the US in 10-20 more years. Both states have lost a lot of the first/bestest/mostest superlatives that made them admired world leaders. Among the major ones remaining for both nations is their military strength.
There are plenty of ways to read the Russian rationale for the Ukraine conflict-- supporting the Russian-language community, de-Nazification, securing territorial and economic needs, red-lining NATO, but there's definitely an subtext of projecting power and relevance, re-establishing a sphere of influence. They have to say to the West that it can't spend 30 years poking the bear and expect to not get swatted at.
I could see America moving similarly if conditions continue to falter; with their economic dominance being lapped, how much of their self-perceived legitimacy revolves around "we have nukes and Marvel movies" (military power and cultural dominance). Would they similarly lean into the military and antagonize over Taiwan to remind the world of their importance? (Given current educational standards, they would likely end up nuking a poor Chinese takeaway because it happened to be called "Beijing Palace")
I wonder if there are ways where China can help get the US to a "soft landing"-- a setup where the they can still consider itself a major power, while having to acknowlege a global order where it can no longer act unilaterally without consequence. Steer their attention to
I also wonder if failure in the Ukraine itself could accelerate the emotional-breakdown process. Is it really a powerful military if it can invoke WWIII on demand, but lacks the finesse to win a proxied regional war? Or is it just an expensive, narrow-use tool that will inevitably demand to be misused?
Do you understand that China jumping to defend Niger would be a casus belli for ww3?
China absolutely shouldn't get involved and they should focus on their national affairs. Solidarity and self-reliance between african nations is the only way forward.
Others have mentioned China's non-interference policy, I'd like to add that I think the only way for China to get more involved is through the UN, that means the Security Council or Peacekeeping or some other UN organization.