China’s oil trade with Africa is dominated by an opaque syndicate. Ordinary Africans appear to do badly out of its hugely lucrative deals.

This analysis is not unbiased. Is The Economist, which for all practical purposes, is an organ of The West's economic viewpoint and Western capitalist thinking really expecting those of us who have suffered under The West's capitalist models to buy this analysis ?Give us a break and stop jesting.Whether or not the terms under which China now trades with African states turns out not to be in favour of a majority of Africans, the truth is that we traded with The West for centuries and did not see any perceptible benefits.It might be high time to try something new.In any case what we have had from The West in the past cannot be worse than what the Chineese could possibly give us no matter how bad.One is inclined to believe that this story is motivated by alarm at the growing influence that China now has in Africa and not out of any altruism nor of any wish to help Africa and Africans.
To The West as an African, I would say leave us alone it is none of your business, we have had centuries of contact with you and all we have to show for it is exploitation,sorrow,war,sadness and disease.Leave us alone, thank you very much and mind your own business.

This is a very good article. It shows that Africa is replacing a failed neo-colonial model for a new Chinese colonialism.

Even femi concedes this point in (grossly inaccurately) juxtaposing the costs and benefits of Western imperialism with those of Chinese imperialism.

As a true African patriot, I reject all colonial masters. We do not need small groups of ruling elite negotiating personal profit with foreign patrons behind closed doors and then militarily oppressing the rightful owners of Africa's wealth.

The path to African emancipation is not through Beijing. The Chinese care nothing for Africans, and are as a society grotesquely more racist and discriminatory than the West currently is.

The Chinese are nothing but sponsors of local gangsters who keep our people in check; much like the Africans who delivered their bretheren to slave traders in exchange for personal gain - except this time the ordinary African remains enslaved in situ.

When we obtain our freedom we will demand repirations from those states who sponsored our oppression.

femi

As per many on here. You shoot the messenger. "The Economist, which for all practical purposes, is an organ of The West's economic viewpoint and Western capitalist thinking"

AND?

You may be correct about The Economist, but why do so many people think that they can pick and chose only the parts of the western model and not have problems?

Perhaps the West SHOULD leave Africa alone as it is none of our business. Take our nosey western publications that highlight corruption. Perhaps we should also take a couple of other inventions of the west.... the mobile phone..... the internet..... the motor car?

The West is far from perfect and we at least admit our past history unlike many others do. But destroying your own future to spite the West is just plain stupid.

And lashing out at a free media as some organ of the West is nothing more than admitting that Africa lacks a free and open press that is capable of highlighting these issues themselves. Would you expect the press in China or Hong Kong to do it?

The current western model (with all its faults and current issues) has developed over 300 years - some countries feel they have created a brand new and improved system after ONLY 20 years.

I know which social, economic and politcal model I'd be betting on.... and it's NOT the one that has yet to suffer a major economic shock.

@Femi, 2 wrongs (past Western imperialism and the present now) don't make a right. The Angolan people deserve more from their oil wealth than to have much of it siphoned off by an unaccountable elite and neo-imperialists. Greater transparency would hugely benefit the people of Angola.

As Frelimo said in Mozambique, A Luta Continua!

I'm truly glad to read an accurate, transparent account of the ongoing corruption in mineral-rich African states, but let's not pretend the Western governments, banks, and corporations have had a better track record. Witness French involvement in Chad or American involvement in Equatorial Guinea - all sickening to the stomach. So let's be honest: to do business in these countries, people have to be bribed, which means the average citizen get's screwed. If Exxon doesn't get its hands dirty, CNOOC will gladly dig right in. Sadly, I don't know what the answers to these problems are, nor do I think anyone else does either.

,Colombo007 and other commentators who express the view that Africa does not need to replace one set of colonialist with another etc.The point I was actually trying to make in my previous comment is that The Economist magazine should as an organ of a western world view mind it's own business and leave us Africans to deal with our problems.Where was The Economist when we were being ripped of their fellow compatriots ? The only reason I can adduce for The Economist to publish this article is not altruism but a real concern that The West is gradually loosing influence in a region of the world that Europeans have taken for granted over several centuries belonged to them.
I will conceede the Chinese are probably no better than the Europeans, but that is a diffrent matter.

Newsell, with respect, you are deluded.Take your alms away, Africans do not need your alms,which often in any event wind up in your banks and for which we are then enslaved in so many ways.A destitute free man is infinitely better than even the wealthiest slave.Africa/ns do not need anyones aid.Africa does not need anyones paternalism we would resolve our problems on our own terms and in our own way it is nobodys business.The west especially here Britain should learn how to mind it's own business and remind itself that it no longer has an empire, a fact it seems it is finding difficulty adjusting to.
I am not blaming others for pointing out the issue,I am simply reminding western commentators that it is none of their business.In the over five centuries that the west has had contact with Africa, it is quite clear that the only interest its has is to exploit the continent.It has taken us a long time to come round to it but the time has come when we have to say butt out of our business.
It really is amusing, despite the centuries of incontrovertible evidence that the west are a rapacious lot, do you still have the cheek to justify your interest and try to persuade us that your motives a benign ?

@ Femi: While I disagree with your line of reasoning, I sympathize. To support your point, the British were the most important element in delivering Zimbabwe to Mugabe, and they knew full well that he was a corrupt murderous man with severe ego problems on which they could play for their own self-interest. In addition, after their own journalists made the evils of the Gukurahundi massacres known to the world, the British proceeded to award a knighthood to Sir Robert Mugabe. So when you make the point that the West advances a mercenary agenda of self-interest under a guise of moral authority, I basically have to say that in many instances I have to agree with you.

However, there are a few issues of which we need to take cognisance if, as Africans, we ourselves are to remain honest in our analysis of the situation, and to advance our struggle.

The first is that while the colonial process was essentially exploitative, the British did invest in their colonies and Africans were beneficiaries of that investment (acknowledging that the terms of the trade were established by the colonialists).

The second is that the neo-colonial experience was invariably far worse for ordinary Africans than the colonial experience; life expectancies dropped, economic wealth per person dropped and population growth rates slowed or became negative. For this neo-colonial calamity, we need to look inward and apportion blame where it is due. We need to learn from our own mistakes or we are bound to repeat them.

The third is that the Western nations themselves do not practice in their foreign policy the traditions of democratic liberalism that govern their domestic policy. Just because we do not like their foreign policy, it does not mean that we have to throw away the benefits of the thinking that has underpinned the successful aspects of their domestic policy. So when the Economist comments on a Sino-African deal from the governance standards of a liberal democrat, I think we should keep an open mind to the value of that critique. In this instance, I think the critique is valid. We don't need corrupt local elite's selling off Africa's mineral wealth for personal enrichment, regardless that they sell it to the Chinese or to Mark Thatcher.

"China’s oil trade with Africa is dominated by an opaque syndicate. Ordinary Africans appear to do badly out of its hugely lucrative deals."

I wonder how many average Gulf area citizens or for that matter even western ordinary citizens benefit from existing "huge lucrative deals" by the big oil.

It is like the cattle calling the pot black!!!!!!!

China negotiates with the country from which it wants to import oil; Britain and France, on the other hand, bomb and kill the population of the country to force the latter to export oil to them.

u20,you ask why I am reading a Western publication, and the answer is simple.My people evidently have been taken for a ride for too long because we have been naive and ill informed in the past.We now realise that in order to have the information which would enable us deal with others on a more equal footing ,we have to put ourselves in a position where we can negotiate better deals and be in a stronger negotiating position than we have been in in the past.That requires not only that we have all the information that it is possible to acquire to enable this, but also to know what is actually going through the minds of those we are negotiating and engaging with.I read between the lines and it is clear that publications like The Economist no doubt promote a viewpoint that is to the advantage of the Western capitalist economic and political models, for them it works, and I do not begrudge them trying to advance what is in their own interest by whatever means is at their disposal .I agree that some of the research done by The Economist and it's sister publications is first rate and we in Africa certainly do not have the resources to conduct such work at the moment, however that does not mean that I agree or should agree with The Economists conclusions as I clearly cannot endorse a viewpoint which is not in my interest.Again I do have to know what my opponent may be thinking or indeed is thinking if I intend to deal with them successfully.This, in short, is why I read Western publications.I would add though that I read publications from around the world regardless of the ideological or cultural backgrounds which inform their views. This enables me to develop and inform my thinking, but ( again ) I do not necessarily have to agree with the conclusions the publishers present.It is for us Africans to make up our own minds on the basis of the information and evidence we have before us.Have a good evening.

i'm so glad to see your "concern" for the "people" of Angola in the Chinese relationship with it's natural resources! Chevron has had a similar relationship with the formerly communist Presidente Santos for a longer time, and Lev Leviev's diamond company has violated the human rights of garrimpeiros for years using Israeli security guards, as well as worked with a corrupt "democratic" government without a single article from the Economist. Is this a double standard or what?

Do accept my apologies for all the typographical errors and mistakes in the comments I posted in the middle of the night when I was half asleep.I simply could not help posting them at the time as I was and remain so infuriated by the inference of the article which seems to suggest that western commentators know the interests of Africans better than Africans do themselves.In any case despite the typographical errors, my position still, in full daylight and now wide awake,remains the same;there are enough crises in Europe to occupy your time with,leave us Africans alone to resolve our problems,we are capable of doing that and in indeed managed to resolved our problems on our own until you guys came along -we did not die before you came!.In short again mind your own business.I have no doubt that if you ask the Arabs or other people they would say the same.Have a good day.

@Femi

Your posts have one common theme, ie the West should mind it's own business, even when the poor continue to get fleeced by your corrupt leaders. Given Africa's vast number of tribes and interest groups, that you pretend to speak for all of them, let alone just one of them, sounds arrogant to say the very least. Your posts are more consistent with one who might be complicit in the shenanigans going on, rather than one who wants it to end.

A lurid article,in fact,most of Afirca oil and gas exports to Europe,not China,even not US.For example,largest oil exporting country in Africa is Syria,97% of Syria's oil exports to Europe, especially for France,Italy,Britian.In Nigeria,you will find out more about so-called opaque syndicate or corruptions made by Britian oil company.

Many people overlook that China also is big oil producer,product 200 millon ton, a little more than Iran.more than any oil producers in Africa.If oil price continues to rise for a some degree,China should learn from US,strengthen the exploration in native land and sea.maybe,China also will be the second Saudi.certainly,China has many other choices,it's Central Asian neighbours and Burma,Russia also own a huge oil and gas reserves,need some big buyers such as China,after all,oil is not gold,if you don't sell them to customers,oil still is oil,not money.China import oil from neighbours is more economic and less risk than Africa in the future.

In my opinion,although the oil price will fall and surplus
if the world economic recession comes in near future.But the best choise is green energy.China has huge potential in solar energy,geothermy,wind energy source etc,enough for future energy need.

Augustus1, although I have read The Economist for about fourty years every week without fail I am beginning to get rather peeved by the palpable bias in their reportage.There is no doubt that in the last few years The Economist has grown increasingly partisan.Some of it is so blatantly obvious and so thinly disguised one has to question their motives and wonder if they have decided to exchange their previously rigorously intelligent analysis combined with an objective editorial policy for one which might be more populist and acceptable to conservative types in The West.
I do not have to read The Economist, although that would be a shame,but I wish them luck as I no longer hold them in the esteem I once did following the increasingly crass publication of plainly biased articles of this sort.

@Femi,
If you want to be left alone, what are you doing reading a western newspaper?

Rootless,we should all be back at work tomorrow and most people would have forgotten about this article as they pursue their daily bread in their various occupations,including many of the commentators on these pages and possibly including yourself.Unfortunately for many Africans,including myself as a result of the wholesale exploitation and expropriation of Africa's wealth - human and material,over several centuries which persits to this day, we would not be able to enjoy any such luxury.Believe me this issue comes close to my heart, and I feel it everyday, it is not an issue which I would want to dwell on given a chance,not an issue which I merely use to pass the time in idle debate or discussion.I profit nothing, neither do my people, by entering into dialogue with you in this matter since almost certainly for you it is merely entertainment or perhaps distraction,never-the-less I will indulge you, and try to address some of the points you have raised, even though it serves little purpose in real terms in resolving any of the myriad problems which befall us in Africa today including the one highlighted in this article.
When I refer to Africa as one group I do so in the knowledge and experience that for most non-Africans,Africa and Africans are seen as one monolithic group.Only this year on a billboard which was widely displayed in the U.K. a well known rock-star for example was quoted as referring to 'the president of Africa', in the belief that Africa was one homogeneous place.The fact is that despite several centuries of contact with Africa a large number of people in the West still remain totally ignorant of Africa,what it represents,it's peoples,culture etc.For most in The West, the fact remains that the only information they receive about Africa,usually through a media which chooses to distort the information it presents to the ignorant public is one of wars,famine and the endless plea for alms.Listen,I am a Nigerian where there are over three hundred distinct ethnic groups,it does not lie in you mouth to tell me that Africas are a diverse people,I know that by being an African, and I wonder what point you are trying to make by bringing this up.But I would add that diffrent as we are as a people in our languages,ethnic groups,cultures etc,we still recognise that we are treated as one people by The West and it is in our overall interest to present a united front if we are to successfully tackle the problems we have in dealing with those who would like to continue to oppress us.
For the avoidance of doubt,I am not defending the status quo in much of Africa as you suggest,my point if I am to repeat it for the umpteenth time is that it is clear and irrefuteable that The West does not have the interest of Africa's development and never has.Their agenda - I am putting it simplistically here,is to exploit and dominate a people who they have managed to cow by military force and subterfuge over a long period of time.What I have said, if you have taken the time to read through the comments I have made on this article,is that we ( Africans ) would deal with our problems.LEAVE US ALONE !
You went on to run a list of African dictators who in every instance have had the collusion of Western governments and Western corporations in defrauding,murdering and oppressing their own people.To that extent I think you will agree that these are the very people Africa does not need along with their Western collaborators.It is not my ambition to rule over anybody or to lead anyone,all I want as a humble African, is some peace and the economic where-with-all to have a decent roof over my head,a decent education for my children, good health care,enough good food and the freedom to pursue my own business.
Having read The Economist for almost fourty years every week,I am quite familiar with their agenda and their world view,there is no doubt that they pursue an agenda which is centered on an ideology which might well work for the west,however the fact is that I know from my experience that solutions which might well be satisfactory in one region of the world are not necessarily suitable for other regions of the world.To that extent I think that The Economist should limit itself to reporting facts and where it seeks to offer advice or make commentry limit these to what directly concerns The West.Newspapers like The Economist really have no business commenting on the politics of say China,Brazil,Nigeria,Ghana or indeed any other country not within the E.U.or OECD As I said before Britain no longer has an empire and it is annoying to have comments from a British newspaper about matters that do not concern them especially given the legacy of Britain around the world.Do read through the comments I have made carefully, and you would see the position I take.It might hurt to feel that one is no longer in charge or in control,it might make you feel emasculated,however the truth has to be told again,mind your own business.

@ femi wrote: Aug 12th 2011 8:20 GMT

“ ….. there are enough crises in Europe to occupy your time with,leave us Africans alone to resolve our problems,we are capable of doing that and in indeed managed to resolved our problems on our own until you guys came along -we did not die before you came!.In short again mind your own business.I have no doubt that if you ask the Arabs or other people they would say the same.Have a good day.”

Unfortunately, certain things have not changed very much since the Middle Ages. The difference is that the New Crusaders are seeking to impose, by deception, bribery or force, “universal values” on other people whereas the Medieval Crusaders the “eternal truths”.

Nevertheless, it is laughable to say that Chinese capitalists are more exploiting and greedier than western capitalists. All capitalists generally are as exploiting and greedy as they can be.

Therefore, Africans like all other peoples must look after themselves and can only rely on African solutions to African problems.

Currently, there are two paths for people all over the world to follow; one leads to commerce, development and prosperity and the other to tensions, conflicts and destruction. There are plenty clues for either path on all continents.

@ femi, it is clear that you are quite biased and dare one say fixated in your perspective of the African dilemma. The reality is that certain regions within Africa have negotiated terrible deals based on both ignorance and greed. The examples provided are truth to this reality. The fact that you would choose to blame others for even raising the issue as a matter of concern does a disservice to you and your fellow Africans. What used to be the potential bread basket of the world has withered and died over the past 40+ years due to corruption and inherent racism. And if you want to be left alone, stop putting your hands out for relief and charity (and which is not begrudged) from the west that you appear to despise. The colonialists may have taken but they also gave...where are your buses today? Still enroute?