Business Daily (Nairobi)
7 Avril 2008
Open any newspaper and you would get the impression that the African continent, and much of the rest of the world, is in the process of being "devoured" by China.
[ See Article ]
The Economist made a number of errors and misleading analogies in the story you reference above. For just one example, it is misleading to compare an announcement of projected investment (which will take place over perhaps a decade and be repaid from the profits, the normal practice) with aid commitments, which are made on an annual basis. This is worse than comparing apples and oranges. It's more like comparing the value of an apple tree, with the value of a single orange. It's more sensational, of course, which is the point, I guess.
Whose interest does the "Economists" serve? Why not challenge lies and propaganda with facts from the ground? What has the Paris Group and all similar efforts delivered? I bet the Economists wholeheartedly supports the upcoming EPA and the maintenance of the status quo (i.e., ca. year 1700 C.E.)
Without a doubt,it is a colonial power as the world has never seen.Read now and remember Zimbabwe is in their sights.
Are you really challenging the Economists' figures. If you type CHINA and AFRICA in The Economist website, you get these figures in a story titled A Ravenous Dragon.
In late 2007 Congo announced $12B infrastructure investment in exchange of right to mine copper ore of equivalent value. The sum is 10 times more than 10 times the aid that the consultative group of Western donors has promised Congo each year until 2010.
Pls see these articles and IF you can counter them with better statistics, your article wil be more effective.
If you do, ple email me a copy as well (if you actually spend that amount of time.)at akash.soni@bbc.co.uk
Regards,
Akash Soni