Winning the War in Afghanistan

[davidbfpo]

JMA posed an important strategic question, albeit with application beyond Afghanistan:

The Chinese approach has not been tested. When the regimes (who have been bought by the Chinese) fail to protect the Chinese 'investments' (which are being more readily seen as the looting of national resources) or the regime changes and the new one also wants a piece of the action we will see how the Chinese react.

This issue appeared once briefly at an Oxford conference on international terrorism, in the Africa session; remarks were made about the Tan-Zam railway and the social consequences with dual heritage / mixed race children.

We may have a test case in Zambia, where in a democratic election the new President has indicated a different stance on foreign investors:

..he has frequently criticised foreign mining firms - often from China - about labour conditions. While the party has disputed media reports that it is anti-Chinese, his election is likely to shake up the way contracts are awarded, our correspondent says.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15039094 For more on the new President: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15034694

[Steve the Planner]

David:

Good catches.

I just don't believe that the "Chinese" model is, in fact a development model.

It is a completely gratuitous and self-serving "economic" model intended exclusively to meet Chinese resource objectives (Did I say "purely market-based?).

If they, like our US industries in the 19th Century, need a railroad, they will get one built or more elsewhere. The railroad was not built to promote development outside the context it served. It was not built to win any hearts and minds (COIN), and it had no external purpose, objective or intention.

It did, however, have consequences, positive and negative, across the economic landscape.

To the extent that local and domestic "costs" increase in these resource areas, they will simply move on to other places. It is pure self interest.

The question of whether this tried and true economic model creates significant political consequences, induces or sustains local corruption and bribery, disenfranchises some, eradicates others, and, in the end, is sustainable or desirable, is a completely different matter.

Basic self-interest, as with China, is a negotiated and usually pretty transparent process with a host country, region or area. For them, the equation is simple, but that does not mean that it is for the counterparty,nor that there are not substantially different (or even more important) internalized counterparty issues.

Apples and Oranges cannot be interbred, but they can, sometimes, make a good fruit punch (or go stale).

[Steve the Planner]

PS:

In the next month, the planning profession has upcoming three interesting talks at the National Building Museum: One on the Legacy of Jane Jacobs; one on recent economic sustainability issues (against ever-changing dynamics); and one on urban sustainability issues. The focus, as always, is on how to effectively engage communities to attempt (always attempting) to tackle their ongoing (they NEVER go away) problems.

Aren't these, somehow, something that COIN should learn to understand and embrace if it is to accomplish its intended goals?

The World really doesn't change just because the Pentagon creates acronyms (and budgets) for it.

[JMA]

JMA posed an important strategic question, albeit with application beyond Afghanistan:

This issue appeared once briefly at an Oxford conference on international terrorism, in the Africa session; remarks were made about the Tan-Zam railway and the social consequences with dual heritage / mixed race children.

We may have a test case in Zambia, where in a democratic election the new President has indicated a different stance on foreign investors:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15039094 For more on the new President: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15034694

Zambia is a worthy case study to watch in this regard.

This article Thanks China, now go home: buy-up of Zambia revives old colonial fears has some interesting comments:

First the 'Oops' moment (when they realise they jumped from the frying pan into the fire):

"Our textile factories can't compete with cheap Chinese imports subsidised by a foreign government. People are saying: 'We've had bad people before. The whites were bad, the Indians were worse but the Chinese are worst of all.'"

...well as they say in the classics... you make your bed now you must sleep in it.

Then a more cerebral argument:

"The government needs to be very clear about what kind of investment it wants. If it's just shipping out resources and shipping in cheap goods and people that's not to our benefit. We in Zambia need to be very careful of this new scramble for Africa. What's happening is that the Chinese are very aggressive. They have a strategic plan."

For those with a greater interest in this aspect:

China-Africa Economic Relations: The Case of Zambia