Colony gone Rogue. (Greenland Uranium trade)

So, back in 2009 Greenland confusingly managed to wrestle certain 'rights' from their friends and protectors back here in glorious Western EuropeDenmark.

And now they wish to use said rights to sell themself to China, when it comes to all those raw metals and mining rights, we couldn't do much. I mean, its their country.

But Greenland having the largest Concentrated area of average grade Uranium after Canada, without a friendly humanitarian neighbor like the U.S to keep it in check as with Canada, it does present certain issues when it pursues China as its main trading partner.

Certain elements in Copenhagen believes that we should be able to restrict Greenlands Uraniumtrade by force to ensure that it does not trade in weapons grade uranium with countries such as China and Russia that could easily work as a gateway/middleman to Iran. The people of Greenland still rely on Danish support to keep themselves living comfortably in their day to day lives, and without our Danish influence and forceful brainwashing of their children from their pacifist-native culture into modern western capitalist, they wouldn't even have had the capitalist guts to doublecross their longtime western allies like this for profits in the first place!

So, what are your thoughts. Has our colony gone too far this time? Should its monarch and rightful owner Denmark step in to stop them from handing out nuclear weapons to dangerous middle-eastern nations with their military might thereby restricting them to E.U regulations on the area? Or should we let Greenland go about their traiorous business as usual?

"Screw you dad! You can't tell me what to do. I'm gonna sell Uranium and wear expensive Italian clothing like all the cool countries are doing!"

Shadowstar38:
"Screw you dad! You can't tell me what to do. I'm gonna sell Uranium and wear expensive Italian clothing like all the cool countries are doing!"

Greenland is a country new to things like Capitalism and Trade, it's confused and doesn't know what its doing.

'Granted' selling itself to China is a fast way to money, but its not a good plan in the long run!

China and Russia are a bad influence on Greenland. And I honestly think that we as their protectors should step in to stop them from ruining their own future. It's for their own good.

...whether the Government should have a right to step in to control a former colony like this,...

No, I don't think so.

...or whether the international community (The west) as a whole should have a right to restrict the Uranium trade

Yes, absolutely. International pressure regarding the possible spread and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the issues at the heart of the idea of the UN. This isn't something for Denmark alone but for all nations to deliberate and deal with.

Skeleon:

...whether the Government should have a right to step in to control a former colony like this,...

No, I don't think so.

...or whether the international community (The west) as a whole should have a right to restrict the Uranium trade

Yes, absolutely. International pressure regarding the possible spread and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the issues at the heart of the idea of the UN. This isn't something for Denmark alone but for all nations to deliberate and deal with.

Tbh, it's best that way. If Denmark decided to step in they'd depending on Government either...

Left - Try to do their best and fuck it up royally.
Right - Try to profit off of Greenlands Uranium trade.

I mean, it was our Rightwing that started the still on-going war between Denmark and Canada <_<.

Nikolaz72:
Greenland have till now followed European Regulations when it comes to Uranium trade but they have recently taken certain liberties in the interpretation of said regulations, the Danish government wishes to step in and the discussion should mostly be centerred around whether the Government should have a right to step in to control a former colony like this, or whether the international community (The west) as a whole should have a right to restrict the Uranium trade

I would note that China has nukes and has nuclear power. It's a signatory to the NPT. Same with Russia. Both have uranium deposits within their territory or in that of aligned nations.
Kazakhstan is the largest global supplier, and there are multiple others (not necessarily Western aligned) that produce amounts that are significant fraction of global production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves

Essentially, if China or Russia want to give Iran, North Korea, or anyone else nuclear material, they can already do it, and there's very little that the West could do about it except by ranting at the UN. Even if the West were to ban the sale of all uranium products to anyone outside of 'the West' (let's define by the EU, North America, and Oceania for the sake of the argument), then the rest of the world still has access to about 40-50% of the global supply.
There are currently no restrictions on the sale, trade, or transfer of raw uranium except in the case of individual states that are under broad trade sanctions.

I'm also not sure that many Canadians would appreciate the implication that the US 'keeps them in line' - especially when Canada, by and large, has a far better record of not selling weapons to unpleasant regimes, or for that matter putting such regimes in power. You can certainly argue that Canada is more friendly and more humanitarian than the US.

That's not to say that it's necessarily a good idea for Greenland to be trading with China or Russia. I don't know about the trade deal you mention (and a googlesearch of relevant terms simply finds this thread), but it should be decided upon the merit of the deal itself, taking into account things like domestic law, trade law, environmental law, potential monopoly, and the potential of benefit to Greenland itself.
If it's suitable under those criteria then they should go for it, if it isn't, they shouldn't. It is worth noting that the subsidy that Denmark pays to Greenland is decreasing as Greenland begins to monetise it's natural resources, so increasing the rate of that might be of benefit to Denmark anyway.

Nikolaz72:
Certain elements in Copenhagen believes that we should be able to restrict Greenlands Uraniumtrade by force to ensure that it does not trade in weapons grade uranium with countries such as China and Russia that could easily work as a gateway/middleman to Iran.

So some people want to restrict the ability of a country to sell weapons grade Uranium to countries that already have Uranium, nuclear reactors, and plentiful supplies of nuclear weapons because those countries might sell some to a country like Iran.

You didn't state your opinion, so if you happen to agree with that idea then I apologize for my being blunt and don't intend to offend, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Vivi22:

Nikolaz72:
Certain elements in Copenhagen believes that we should be able to restrict Greenlands Uraniumtrade by force to ensure that it does not trade in weapons grade uranium with countries such as China and Russia that could easily work as a gateway/middleman to Iran.

So some people want to restrict the ability of a country to sell weapons grade Uranium to countries that already have Uranium, nuclear reactors, and plentiful supplies of nuclear weapons because those countries might sell some to a country like Iran.

You didn't state your opinion, so if you happen to agree with that idea then I apologize for my being blunt and don't intend to offend, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Unlike the list that is posted on Wikipedia, Iran doesn't needs to buy Uranium from anyone, all of it's Uranium production from mining, trough "Yellowcake" production to enrichment is completely self sufficient. Currently it operates 2 Mines at Saghand and Gchine that can produce between 75-100 Tonnes of Uranium per year.

As for the OP:

"Should its monarch and rightful owner Denmark"?! ROFL?! Aren't you the one spewing Colonialism remarks every time the US or Israel do something you don't like? Joke or not the fact that you even get involved in their internal manners is kinda off mind boggling.

Greenland isn't handing nuclear weapons to any one, with the amount of Nukes the US lost over the years, not to mentions the ones that went missing with the fall of the USSR I'm still surprised that no one detonated one at Times Square or at Westminster yet.
No matter how high quality the raw Uranium ore is it cannot be used for nuclear weapons, heck it cannot be even used for dirty bombs. And the biggest challenge in making nuclear weapons is actually getting the enriched Uranium as well as the nuclear triggers which requires the development of an extensive network of production and research facilities.

Weapons grade Uranium is already being sold on the black market, much of it coming trough Georgia and the Balkan States, there are multiple cases each year stopped by Interpol and Europol and as those are the only ones we actually hear about i don't want to even estimate how many are stopped by organizations that play much less nicely than a couple of European cops with a fancy titles.

It's a bit silly that Denmark wants to enforce trade restriction just because they will lose income since i can't find any other reason to do that.

Verbatim:
with the amount of Nukes the US lost over the years

Er...how many nuclear devices has the US lost? Other than the ones on the Thresher and Scorpion (or maybe just one of them), I can't think of any. And those aren't really lost.

thaluikhain:

Verbatim:
with the amount of Nukes the US lost over the years

Er...how many nuclear devices has the US lost? Other than the ones on the Thresher and Scorpion (or maybe just one of them), I can't think of any. And those aren't really lost.

March 10, 1956 - Over the Mediterranean Sea - Nuclear weapons lost
July 28, 1957 - Atlantic Ocean - Two weapons jettisoned and not recovered
February 5, 1958 - Savannah, Georgia, USA - Nuclear bomb lost
January 24, 1961 - Goldsboro B-52 crash - Physical destruction of a nuclear bomb, loss of nuclear materials
December 5, 1965 - coast of Japan - Loss of a nuclear bomb
January 21, 1968 - 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash, Greenland - Loss and partial recovery of nuclear bombs
May 22, 1968 - 740 km (400 nmi) southwest of the Azores - Loss of nuclear reactor and two W34 nuclear warheads

And there were some others iirc, Wiki gets kinda lazy after the 60's....
For clarification "Lost" in the above mentions doesn't mean damaged, destroyed, or otherwise put out of commission it means that the bomb, the core, or other nuclear material depending on the case were never recovered either due to them being at the bottom of the sea, under ice, or just were never found.

Add to that the 2-3 sunk soviet subs that had nuclear missiles and torpedoes and you get a very unpleasant picture :(

Verbatim:

It's a bit silly that Denmark wants to enforce trade restriction just because they will lose income since i can't find any other reason to do that.

If it was our Rightwing in power I'd say they would want to restrict it for the money. But since its our Leftwing I'd say that this is one of many steps to try and prevent Greenland turning from a Proper West-European Danish Protectorate into a Chinese Workers-Colony. Which it is well on its way to. (Recently they agreed to China being allowed, not only to buy minerals in Greenland but to also import their own workers from China so that they can be paid Chinese Wages)

This policy is gonna be pretty profitable for the ones whom have sat signed said policy, but for the majority of the 50.000 or so Greenlandish natives (And 6000 Danes), all it's gonna do is remove the potential jobs from a growing population as a local Inuit (Dane) would never be able to live on a Chinese wage.

My opinion is that they should be allowed to do what they want to within the confines of the International/E.U legislation that they have agreed to follow (Agreed on as part of them getting their own Government in the first place). Such legislation includes restrictions on Uranium-trade.. Not really much we can do about the rest. Other than suggesting that they don't subject themselves to Chinese rule by selling their longterm resources for a very temporary stimulus.

Edit: What you wrote on Partial recovery Verbatim, was the Danes discovering the wreck in the 90's and informing the U.S, the U.S traveling out there. And saying 'eh'

Kind of wierd what they think Partial Recovery is just going out to confirm 'yea, its still there' It was on the surface... And it just kinda sat there. Some pretty funny pictures. The guy must have landed it there, taken a look at the surroundings and decided this wasn't gonna be a problem... Then left it. Anyway, that article was pretty old by todays standard. Maybe they went out there a third time and dismantled it.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:

It's a bit silly that Denmark wants to enforce trade restriction just because they will lose income since i can't find any other reason to do that.

If it was our Rightwing in power I'd say they would want to restrict it for the money. But since its our Leftwing I'd say that this is one of many steps to try and prevent Greenland turning from a Proper West-European Danish Protectorate into a Chinese Workers-Colony. Which it is well on its way to. (Recently they agreed to China being allowed, not only to buy minerals in Greenland but to also import their own workers from China so that they can be paid Chinese Wages)

This policy is gonna be pretty profitable for the ones whom have sat signed said policy, but for the majority of the 50.000 or so Greenlandish natives (And 6000 Danes), all it's gonna do is remove the potential jobs from a growing population as a local Inuit (Dane) would never be able to live on a Chinese wage.

My opinion is that they should be allowed to do what they want to within the confines of the International/E.U legislation that they have agreed to follow (Agreed on as part of them getting their own Government in the first place). Such legislation includes restrictions on Uranium-trade.. Not really much we can do about the rest. Other than suggesting that they don't subject themselves to Chinese rule by selling their longterm resources for a very temporary stimulus.

Edit: What you wrote on Partial recovery Verbatim, was the Danes discovering the wreck in the 90's and informing the U.S, the U.S traveling out there. And saying 'eh'

Kind of wierd what they think Partial Recovery is just going out to confirm 'yea, its still there' It was on the surface... And it just kinda sat there. Some pretty funny pictures. The guy must have landed it there, taken a look at the surroundings and decided this wasn't gonna be a problem... Then left it. Anyway, that article was pretty old by todays standard. Maybe they went out there a third time and dismantled it.

image

Was a marketing campaign by the Economist, but seems like a familiar tune...

P.S.
The only "restrictions" in Uranium trade seems to come from Danish legislation, and your own policies regarding radioactive material which are quite retarded in all honesty, Denmark can survive on wind and north sea gas alone because of it's small population, lack of significant industrial capacity, and it's geographical location. But the same isn't true for many other countries that need an alternative energy source to fossil fuel which currently makes nuclear the best option all around.

Uranium or not, it seems like the EU is just trying to tamper China's monopoly of the rare-earth's market which they already control over 90% off.
China is a NPT signatory state which means that it can import and export nuclear materials freely as long as it complies with the IAEA regulations, and as far as i can tell labor costs and minimum wage do not fall under the IAEA's domain.

Verbatim:

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:

It's a bit silly that Denmark wants to enforce trade restriction just because they will lose income since i can't find any other reason to do that.

If it was our Rightwing in power I'd say they would want to restrict it for the money. But since its our Leftwing I'd say that this is one of many steps to try and prevent Greenland turning from a Proper West-European Danish Protectorate into a Chinese Workers-Colony. Which it is well on its way to. (Recently they agreed to China being allowed, not only to buy minerals in Greenland but to also import their own workers from China so that they can be paid Chinese Wages)

This policy is gonna be pretty profitable for the ones whom have sat signed said policy, but for the majority of the 50.000 or so Greenlandish natives (And 6000 Danes), all it's gonna do is remove the potential jobs from a growing population as a local Inuit (Dane) would never be able to live on a Chinese wage.

My opinion is that they should be allowed to do what they want to within the confines of the International/E.U legislation that they have agreed to follow (Agreed on as part of them getting their own Government in the first place). Such legislation includes restrictions on Uranium-trade.. Not really much we can do about the rest. Other than suggesting that they don't subject themselves to Chinese rule by selling their longterm resources for a very temporary stimulus.

Edit: What you wrote on Partial recovery Verbatim, was the Danes discovering the wreck in the 90's and informing the U.S, the U.S traveling out there. And saying 'eh'

Kind of wierd what they think Partial Recovery is just going out to confirm 'yea, its still there' It was on the surface... And it just kinda sat there. Some pretty funny pictures. The guy must have landed it there, taken a look at the surroundings and decided this wasn't gonna be a problem... Then left it. Anyway, that article was pretty old by todays standard. Maybe they went out there a third time and dismantled it.

image

Was a marketing campaign by the Economist, but seems like a familiar tune...

P.S.
The only "restrictions" in Uranium trade seems to come from Danish legislation, and your own policies regarding radioactive material which are quite retarded in all honesty, Denmark can survive on wind and north sea gas alone because of it's small population, lack of significant industrial capacity, and it's geographical location. But the same isn't true for many other countries that need an alternative energy source to fossil fuel which currently makes nuclear the best option all around.

Uranium or not, it seems like the EU is just trying to tamper China's monopoly of the rare-earth's market which they already control over 90% off.
China is a NPT signatory state which means that it can import and export nuclear materials freely as long as it complies with the IAEA regulations, and as far as i can tell labor costs and minimum wage do not fall under the IAEA's domain.

Nah.. It probably doesn't. But somehow I think it's somewhat fair that we get to have a say in something that could potentially decrease the need for Welfare in Greenland (More jobs = Less unemployed) considering we are the ones paying for their welfare...

I believe that's basically what the Government is gonna do when it comes to the Uranium. 'Sell Uranium unregulated to the Chinese and we will stop giving you food and healthcare'

A pretty solid, persuasive, if less choicey than I'd have liked it.

Chinas deal with Greenland causes 'very' temporary wealth, and very little of it considering what they get out of the deal themselves. In the EU we prefer to develope nations so that they can get healthy economies in the long run, what China is doing in Africa is pay them insultingly small sums to mine raw materials which they then pay a pittance for, send it back to China where they work it into other things and sell it for big profit.

What they should do is build their own mines and their own factories and import... Polish Labor.

Its closer, they care about their own well being. And it doesn't make Greenland look like Capitalistic assholes.

As for the Ad-campaign you linked.. Man.. That's a stupid campaign poster. I've studied this issue as a hobby and know more about the people that do this for a living? Where do I sign up for this? What are they paid?

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:

Nikolaz72:

If it was our Rightwing in power I'd say they would want to restrict it for the money. But since its our Leftwing I'd say that this is one of many steps to try and prevent Greenland turning from a Proper West-European Danish Protectorate into a Chinese Workers-Colony. Which it is well on its way to. (Recently they agreed to China being allowed, not only to buy minerals in Greenland but to also import their own workers from China so that they can be paid Chinese Wages)

This policy is gonna be pretty profitable for the ones whom have sat signed said policy, but for the majority of the 50.000 or so Greenlandish natives (And 6000 Danes), all it's gonna do is remove the potential jobs from a growing population as a local Inuit (Dane) would never be able to live on a Chinese wage.

My opinion is that they should be allowed to do what they want to within the confines of the International/E.U legislation that they have agreed to follow (Agreed on as part of them getting their own Government in the first place). Such legislation includes restrictions on Uranium-trade.. Not really much we can do about the rest. Other than suggesting that they don't subject themselves to Chinese rule by selling their longterm resources for a very temporary stimulus.

Edit: What you wrote on Partial recovery Verbatim, was the Danes discovering the wreck in the 90's and informing the U.S, the U.S traveling out there. And saying 'eh'

Kind of wierd what they think Partial Recovery is just going out to confirm 'yea, its still there' It was on the surface... And it just kinda sat there. Some pretty funny pictures. The guy must have landed it there, taken a look at the surroundings and decided this wasn't gonna be a problem... Then left it. Anyway, that article was pretty old by todays standard. Maybe they went out there a third time and dismantled it.

image

Was a marketing campaign by the Economist, but seems like a familiar tune...

P.S.
The only "restrictions" in Uranium trade seems to come from Danish legislation, and your own policies regarding radioactive material which are quite retarded in all honesty, Denmark can survive on wind and north sea gas alone because of it's small population, lack of significant industrial capacity, and it's geographical location. But the same isn't true for many other countries that need an alternative energy source to fossil fuel which currently makes nuclear the best option all around.

Uranium or not, it seems like the EU is just trying to tamper China's monopoly of the rare-earth's market which they already control over 90% off.
China is a NPT signatory state which means that it can import and export nuclear materials freely as long as it complies with the IAEA regulations, and as far as i can tell labor costs and minimum wage do not fall under the IAEA's domain.

Nah.. It probably doesn't. But somehow I think it's somewhat fair that we get to have a say in something that could potentially decrease the need for Welfare in Greenland (More jobs = Less unemployed) considering we are the ones paying for their welfare...

I believe that's basically what the Government is gonna do when it comes to the Uranium. 'Sell Uranium unregulated to the Chinese and we will stop giving you food and healthcare'

A pretty solid, persuasive, if less choicey than I'd have liked it.

Chinas deal with Greenland causes 'very' temporary wealth, and very little of it considering what they get out of the deal themselves. In the EU we prefer to develope nations so that they can get healthy economies in the long run, what China is doing in Africa is pay them insultingly small sums to mine raw materials which they then pay a pittance for, send it back to China where they work it into other things and sell it for big profit.

What they should do is build their own mines and their own factories and import... Polish Labor.

Its closer, they care about their own well being. And it doesn't make Greenland look like Capitalistic assholes.

As for the Ad-campaign you linked.. Man.. That's a stupid campaign poster. I've studied this issue as a hobby and know more about the people that do this for a living? Where do I sign up for this? What are they paid?

Considering the value of the rare earths there are in Greenland, and the fact that even more and more resources will be available as the arctic ice disappears(only a few years to no sea ice at all during the summer) the silly amount of money Denmark spends a year on Greenland(about what 400M Euro's or so) is nothing compared to what China or Russia will be willing to pay for the rare earth option and a steak for the arctic...

P.S.
When the whole idea behind the subsidies was that they will gradually decrease in favor of developing local exports specifically of the rare earths. Now since Denmark has changed it's stance on all type of radioactive materials you are making a 180?

Verbatim:
Snip

Denmark has had a hostile stance against radioactive materials since the 50's. Creating some of the first laws in the world on that area, and being a pretty much permanent figurehead on the anti-nuclear arms front.

I'd like you to find the place it says "Denmark now likes Atomic bombs and Uranium and will start working on their Nuclear Power again and have restarted their Nuclear research projects that were supposed to have ended 30 years ago"

Greenland can live comfortably under Chinese rule... For now. But even the general Greenlandish public knows that won't last forever. And whilst the general public wants to trade minerals freely with China/Russia, they do not agree with the Uraniumtrade, wanting Greenland to stick to E.U regulations. And quite a few of them don't look forward to the dozen thousands of Chinese workers that would be moving in.

So there, their Government is going against the wishes of the people most likely because China is bribing them, with all that money you say they have lying around.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:
Snip

Denmark has had a hostile stance against radioactive materials since the 50's. Creating some of the first laws in the world on that area, and being a pretty much permanent figurehead on the anti-nuclear arms front.

I'd like you to find the place it says "Denmark now likes Atomic bombs and Uranium and will start working on their Nuclear Power again and have restarted their Nuclear research projects that were supposed to have ended 30 years ago"

Greenland can live comfortably under Chinese rule... For now. But even the general Greenlandish public knows that won't last forever. And whilst the general public wants to trade minerals freely with China/Russia, they do not agree with the Uraniumtrade, wanting Greenland to stick to E.U regulations. And quite a few of them don't look forward to the dozen thousands of Chinese workers that would be moving in.

So there, their Government is going against the wishes of the people most likely because China is bribing them, with all that money you say they have lying around.

The EU is the largest importer of uranium in the world. This has nothing to do with environmental policies but has every thing to do with politics. Especially considering that the EU is pressuring Denmark for over a year now to stop all Chinese investment in Greenland even those which are brought in trough European companies.

Verbatim:

image

I'd forgotten that campaign! Utterly hypocritical scaremongering by the Economist.

In brief:

1. Shielded Sudanese government at UN, support of oppressive regimes.

Yes, the Sudanese government is unpleasant. But we in the west cannot get on a high horse.

US foreign interventions, often to depose democratic governments in favour of dictatorships:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
US military aid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Military_Financing#By_country
Not to be left too far behind, here in the UK we provide arms to such lovely governments as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and have conducted unpleasant interventions in Iraq (prior to 2003), Iran, and various ex-colonies.
As members of the big 5, US and UK have used the veto to sink UN sanctions, most notably with regard to Israel.

2. Low factory standards. Probably true, and paying below the minimum wage in South Africa is indeed bad.


And a number of Western corporations that had a supply chain there have since refused to sign up to auditing procedures to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Western corporations aren't always nice.

3. Admittedly this one I agree with because I fucking hate poaching. But a lot of these animals were made endangered in the first place by western poachers who didn't even have the excuse of there being belief in the natural remedy bollocks.

OneCatch :

1. Shielded Sudanese government at UN, support of oppressive regimes.

Eh? No. The US supported South Sudan from the get go, did Israel.

OneCatch :

US foreign interventions, often to depose democratic governments in favour of dictatorships:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

And?
This list includes, Turkey, Poland, Indonesia, Congo, Angola and The Philippines.
All of which were positive actions, this ofc unless you really want to exclude Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan if you really want to argue that these coutnries were better off with the Taliban, Saddam, or Qaddafi ruling them...

OneCatch :

US military aid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Military_Financing#By_country
Not to be left too far behind, here in the UK we provide arms to such lovely governments as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and have conducted unpleasant interventions in Iraq (prior to 2003), Iran, and various ex-colonies.

Because other countries don't provide military aid to allies yes?

Here's another link for ya...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development

OneCatch :

As members of the big 5, US and UK have used the veto to sink UN sanctions, most notably with regard to Israel.

First of all there have never been sanctions presented under article 7 against Israel, 2nd of all the amount of resolutions that Israel receives from the UN compared to the amount of casualties from all of it's wars and the ongoing conflict that has been going on for 60 years is just laughable...
This is what happens when you have 3 geographical groups and the GA controlled by the non-aligned nations.
And it's not like Russia or China are not protecting Syria, Iran, and even worse regimes.

FYI The Economist also had this poster running:
image

The idea of that campaign was not the irrationally bash at China, which there are plenty of reasons to do - if only out of self preservation.

The biggest issue with Chinese involvement in Africa is that for the past decade it's been pretty much buying all the farm land in that continent. China needs food, Africa with the right technology could feed the world, but when China owns the farm land Africa can't even feeds it self as all the crops go outside of the continent back to China, and even worse Europe which needs cheap sources of food as it finds it self struggling with farm subsidies and insanely high labor wages.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked