How will China react to lost investments?

[Dayuhan]

although nearly all Western-owned investment in the Copper Belt has gone, replaced by private PRC companies, will the price of copper - understood to be going up - mean Western investment may return?

Copper prices have been tumbling since June, though of course nobody knows how long that will last. Given the political and security risks involved in African mining, I doubt that there will be much interest from US companies at least. Neither is there any great strategic imperative: Chile, Peru, and US are by far the world's leading producers. If the Chinese want to take the risks in Africa, let 'em. Not like there's a shortage of the stuff.

[Ray]

Maybe this will help

http://carlosqc.blogspot.com/2009/09...-european.html

[Dayuhan]

Maybe this will help

Maybe it will, or maybe not. Take a closer look...

All very emotional, and understandably so: the Congo has had a rough road and has been screwed by a lot of people (notably its own leaders) and a lot of nations. The US had a hand in that back in the cold war, but if you're looking for responsibility to day... well, let's look at some of what's said here.

The U.S. has not only sent AFRICOM troops to Congo, but it also built a huge military base in Rwanda only three years after the Rwandan genocide, and it’s used as an intelligence base built.

Sounds very sinister, except that... well, there isn't any huge US military base in Rwanda. Never was. You'd have thought the guy would have checked on that, it's not difficult.

Ever since the US introduced AFRICOM, a certain wing of the left - you couild call it the Chomsky faction - has been up in arms, declaring it all a naked grab for power and resources. They almost make it sound credible, until you look at the actual force structure of AFRICOM. It's 1200 people in Stuttgart, Germany. That's fewer than 30 for every nation in Africa, and they aren't even in Africa. The only US facility in Africa is in Djibouti, and that's mainly about operations in Yemen.

In fact the structure of AFRICOM and the force assigned to it show clearly that Africa has a very, very low priority for the US. There's a lot of talk here about AFRICOM soldiers doing this and that - no specifics, of course - but in reality US deployments in sub-Saharan Africa are very minimal. The minimal resources assigned to AFRICOM are mainly aimed at places where AQ has or might be able to develop a presence; sub-Saharan Africa gets very, very little attention.

He mentioned a bigger international pressure -its proved it can help- in order to stop the U.S. military aid to Rwanda and Uganda, which in 2007 amounted over $7 million dollars worth in military equipment.

$7 million? In military purchases from the US? What do you figure that buys, a container of spare parts? Not exactly evidence of commitment.

If you believe in R2P etc, you can easily accuse the US of having not done enough in Africa. Accusations that the US is projecting force to serve its interests in Africa don't stand up very well to scrutiny, because when you actually look, there's virtually no force being projected.

The Chinese bring their expertise and locals are trained, their infrastructure is badly built but it can improve and “they are not coming with weapons, proxy rebel groups” they reinvest profits in the land they go, showing willingness to talks with African leaders when there is a problem

Yes, the Chinese are always willing to talk to African leaders. More to the point, they are willing to pay African leaders, without any conditions or demands over Western constructs like human rights, environmental protection, corruption, etc. That of course makes the Chinese popular with the people who get paid. How long those people will stay bribed, or what happens when a new set of guys takes over... well, that's a problem for the Chinese. We'll see where it goes. It may even be refreshing to see someone else mucking around in the swamp, instead of us.