wazua Fri, Mar 29, 2024
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In | Register

2 Pages12>
US - China Trade war
2012
#1 Posted : Saturday, October 20, 2018 8:40:29 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 12/9/2009
Posts: 6,592
Location: Nairobi
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.

BBI will solve it
:)
Angelica _ann
#2 Posted : Saturday, October 20, 2018 9:18:11 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 12/7/2012
Posts: 11,901
2012 wrote:
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.


http://www.worldstopexpo...oil-suppliers-to-china/

China’s Top Providers of Imported Crude Oil

Below are the top 15 countries that supplied 89.2% of the crude oil imported into China during 2017:

Russia: US$23.7 billion (14.6% of China’s total crude oil imports)
Saudi Arabia: $20.5 billion (12.6%)
Angola: $19.8 billion (12.2%)
Iraq: $13.8 billion (8.5%)
Oman: $12.2 billion (7.5%)
Iran: $11.9 billion (7.3%)
Brazil: $8.8 billion (5.4%)
Kuwait: $7.1 billion (4.4%)
Venezuela: $6.6 billion (4%)
United Arab Emirates: $4.1 billion (2.5%)
United Kingdom: $3.6 billion (2.2%)
Congo: $3.44 billion (2.1%)
Colombia: $3.37 billion (2.1%)
United States: $3.2 billion (2%)
Malaysia: $2.6 billion (1.6%)

Together, five of China’s leading crude petroleum suppliers (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iraq plus Oman) represent over half (55.5%) of overall Chinese crude oil imports for 2017.

China’s top 10 crude petroleum providers supply about four-fifths (79.2%) of its imported crude oil.
In the business world, everyone is paid in two coins - cash and experience. Take the experience first; the cash will come later - H Geneen
limanika
#3 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:36:22 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
2012 wrote:
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.

Trump main focus is to prevent China from overtaking US GDP wise - (some experts had predicted this would happen in less than 10yrs, when trump could still be in office). So, Trade war is just a means to an end. That's why he will make deals with everyone else..EU, Japan, North America, etc but not China.
obiero
#4 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 4:34:13 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 6/23/2009
Posts: 13,464
Location: nairobi
limanika wrote:
2012 wrote:
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.

Trump main focus is to prevent China from overtaking US GDP wise - (some experts had predicted this would happen in less than 10yrs, when trump could still be in office). So, Trade war is just a means to an end. That's why he will make deals with everyone else..EU, Japan, North America, etc but not China.

Considering the population size and aggressiveness on the Chinese end on all major economic fronts. It's a given that they will overtake USA. That's why we must posture, like how Dr Njoroge this week announced use of the Yuan as reserve

HF 428,000 ABP 3.49; KQ 414,100 ABP 7.92; MTN 15,750 ABP 6.45
Angelica _ann
#5 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 4:43:33 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 12/7/2012
Posts: 11,901
obiero wrote:
limanika wrote:
2012 wrote:
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.

Trump main focus is to prevent China from overtaking US GDP wise - (some experts had predicted this would happen in less than 10yrs, when trump could still be in office). So, Trade war is just a means to an end. That's why he will make deals with everyone else..EU, Japan, North America, etc but not China.

Considering the population size and aggressiveness on the Chinese end on all major economic fronts. It's a given that they will overtake USA. That's why we must posture, like how Dr Njoroge this week announced use of the Yuan as reserve


US will sweat this one out, China has factors of production and global market access on their side. Those Trump bully tactics will not work here.
In the business world, everyone is paid in two coins - cash and experience. Take the experience first; the cash will come later - H Geneen
Ericsson
#6 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 8:22:29 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 10,628
Location: NAIROBI
Angelica _ann wrote:
obiero wrote:
limanika wrote:
2012 wrote:
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.

Trump main focus is to prevent China from overtaking US GDP wise - (some experts had predicted this would happen in less than 10yrs, when trump could still be in office). So, Trade war is just a means to an end. That's why he will make deals with everyone else..EU, Japan, North America, etc but not China.

Considering the population size and aggressiveness on the Chinese end on all major economic fronts. It's a given that they will overtake USA. That's why we must posture, like how Dr Njoroge this week announced use of the Yuan as reserve


US will sweat this one out, China has factors of production and global market access on their side. Those Trump bully tactics will not work here.


China has already feeling the pain.
China is finding it difficult to find an economy that has a huge consumer mkt like USA.
Economic growth was slower in 2018 Q3 compared to Q1 & Q2
Wealth is built through a relatively simple equation
Wealth=Income + Investments - Lifestyle
limanika
#7 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 8:34:37 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
Ericsson wrote:
Angelica _ann wrote:
obiero wrote:
limanika wrote:
2012 wrote:
Now China, the largest exporter of US oil stops importing from there.
We know China is the most hungry country for oil, so I'm sure the US will feel this one.

The war continues... Let's see who will hurt the most.

Trump main focus is to prevent China from overtaking US GDP wise - (some experts had predicted this would happen in less than 10yrs, when trump could still be in office). So, Trade war is just a means to an end. That's why he will make deals with everyone else..EU, Japan, North America, etc but not China.

Considering the population size and aggressiveness on the Chinese end on all major economic fronts. It's a given that they will overtake USA. That's why we must posture, like how Dr Njoroge this week announced use of the Yuan as reserve


US will sweat this one out, China has factors of production and global market access on their side. Those Trump bully tactics will not work here.


China has already feeling the pain.
China is finding it difficult to find an economy that has a huge consumer mkt like USA.
Economic growth was slower in 2018 Q3 compared to Q1 & Q2

It will be no walk in the park for china. It's a matter of when, not if, the American and European companies who invested in china start moving factories elsewhere, to escape the tariffs. And it's time for countries like Kenya to start recalibrating her global outlook once again
Angelica _ann
#8 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 8:40:14 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 12/7/2012
Posts: 11,901
Time US owned the world is over. Trump is daydreaming.
In the business world, everyone is paid in two coins - cash and experience. Take the experience first; the cash will come later - H Geneen
limanika
#9 Posted : Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:13:43 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
Angelica _ann wrote:
Time US owned the world is over. Trump is daydreaming.

The US will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future. China has been surely slowed down, though not stopped altogether
Metaur
#10 Posted : Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:12:59 AM
Rank: New-farer


Joined: 2/12/2019
Posts: 58
US needs to be made great again;))) On a serious note I remember old US catalogs with some prices. Those were the times. Many were made in USA. Even cars still. China still have a lot of opportunities while US reminds 3rd world country = production for many things are not located there.
Milefeyk
#11 Posted : Saturday, April 20, 2019 12:41:49 PM
Rank: New-farer


Joined: 4/12/2019
Posts: 18
I also think that the US will continue to fight for world domination also in the future. If they will be able to fully achieve this goal we shall see as there are several Eastern countries that are not so easy to be dominated
limanika
#12 Posted : Saturday, April 20, 2019 8:02:57 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
Milefeyk wrote:
I also think that the US will continue to fight for world domination also in the future. If they will be able to fully achieve this goal we shall see as there are several Eastern countries that are not so easy to be dominated


Thank God for America over last 100yrs. Were it not for US, Europe would have slaughtered each other to bitter end during 2nd world tribal war. The British would also never have left Africa colonies if it were not for pressure from America. We would have been dominated to near oblivion like the aborigines and the red indians.

Not sure what holds for the chinese century yet to come
Monk
#13 Posted : Saturday, April 20, 2019 8:37:49 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 7/1/2009
Posts: 245
limanika wrote:
Milefeyk wrote:
I also think that the US will continue to fight for world domination also in the future. If they will be able to fully achieve this goal we shall see as there are several Eastern countries that are not so easy to be dominated


Thank God for America over last 100yrs. Were it not for US, Europe would have slaughtered each other to bitter end during 2nd world tribal war. The British would also never have left Africa colonies if it were not for pressure from America. We would have been dominated to near oblivion like the aborigines and the red indians.

Not sure what holds for the chinese century yet to come


Your assertion thet America pressured Britain to give up her African countries; Would you care to share your sources?

limanika
#14 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2019 12:36:50 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
Monk wrote:
limanika wrote:
Milefeyk wrote:
I also think that the US will continue to fight for world domination also in the future. If they will be able to fully achieve this goal we shall see as there are several Eastern countries that are not so easy to be dominated


Thank God for America over last 100yrs. Were it not for US, Europe would have slaughtered each other to bitter end during 2nd world tribal war. The British would also never have left Africa colonies if it were not for pressure from America. We would have been dominated to near oblivion like the aborigines and the red indians.

Not sure what holds for the chinese century yet to come


Your assertion thet America pressured Britain to give up her African countries; Would you care to share your sources?


I'll try look for a link...but even you can dig up the info...Basically during 2nd world Germany was running havoc all over Europe..threatening to overrun every country....remember the Holocaust? Britain pleaded with US to help them fight Germany if they came calling..one of the conditions America gave to enter the war was that Britain and other colonial powers must give up their colonies in Africa. Likewise during formation of UN after end of 2nd world war, US pressured european powers to end colonial rule - refer to the UN charter
limanika
#15 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2019 1:25:54 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
@Monk, dig up a document known as Atlantic Charter negotiated sometimes in 1941 by Churchill and Roosevelt. This was Britain's attempt to solicit American support in the war against the Axis powers ... Roosevelt made sure self determination of all peoples was part of the deal - covered under clause 3 of the deal
Monk
#16 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2019 8:19:41 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 7/1/2009
Posts: 245
limanika wrote:
@Monk, dig up a document known as Atlantic Charter negotiated sometimes in 1941 by Churchill and Roosevelt. This was Britain's attempt to solicit American support in the war against the Axis powers ... Roosevelt made sure self determination of all peoples was part of the deal - covered under clause 3 of the deal


Many historians who've interrogated this issue say that Britain was economically in distress after WW2 and hence decided to let go of its unprofitable possessions, in order to rebuild without this extra burden.

The charter indeed stated that

"... people should have the right to choose their own form of government."


However, actions by both Britain and US towards Africa were contrary to the above principal. Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, South Africa; these are all examples of countries that were profitable for the UK and the US. They did everything they could to keep them from gaining independence. Practically all capital powering industry in SA was from the UK and US. This is well documented. When Angola started their war of independence, America financed and armed Apartheid SA to invade the country and suppress the movement. When the first democratically elected leader in Zaire gunning for economic independence, not just political independence, you saw what they did to him. When the UN voted for Apartheid SA to leave Namibia, SA defied the order and the US stood by and let them.


And this wasn't happening in Africa only. The same contradictory actions to the Charter were witnessed there as well; the most famous example being Vietnam. The freedom fighters beat France fair and square, but the US would have none of that, so when France picked up and left, the US took their place, and fought one of the dirtiest wars ever fought. I'm referring to their massive use of Chemical weapons. Can you imagine you capacity to grow safe food being impaired for generations through chemical weapons?
limanika
#17 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2019 10:17:30 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
@Monk, What you’ve quoted up there as the belief of the historians is Europe’s self-engineered face saving explanation to make historians believe they ended colonialism on their own terms. This cannot be further from the truth. The truth of the matter is that there was not one factor that led to end of colonialism. There were many factors that conspired and worked together to bring colonialism to an end, and the Atlantic Charter was the beginning of the end.
The following just a sample
• By the middle of the 20th Century, America had replaced British Empire as the new superpower. Since America itself was keen to dominate the world, they realized Britain exerted a lot of influence through her colonies in Asia and Africa. One of the Roosevelt’s objectives in the Atlantic charter was to pressurize Britain to allow self-determination for all peoples and hence diminish their weight on global arena. You should read the behind the scenes happenings around the Charter… e.g. When Churchill went to present the Charter to British parliament for adoption, there were jitters coz of the third clause …they didn’t want to give up the colonies in Asia and Africa…he tricked them to believe that the charter only applied to occupied Europe and not the colonies Asia and Africa…he thus and begged them to pass it in its form. But the Charter didn’t specify that Africa and Asia were excluded. When the other Allied powers passed the Charter in its form, Britain’s goose was cooked.
• Rise of nationalism in Africa colonies—The African peoples were more informed towards the middle of the 20th Century and were able to agitate for freedom thus applying pressure on the colonial powers
• Rebellion in African countries – The Europeans had spent a lot of money in the two European tribal wars and their economies were in tatters. They needed to focus more on rebuilding their economies. Fighting rebellions in Africa (against the wish of America) was not a priority any more
• Formation of United Nations – The UN Charter was very clear about self-determination. Following adoption of UN Charter, it was only a matter of when, not if, when all the colonies would get self determination

If you want to know Britain would never have left Africa, look at countries that never resisted – Australia, Canada, the Cayman, etc. To date they still pledge allegiance to the Queen. Other Countries that formed feeble or minimal resistance like Zimbabwe were occupied for the longest time at Britain’s Pleasure.
As for South Africa the case was different. There was huge white population since Mzungu had settled there much earlier and had already entrenched themselves, so it was not a question of Mzungu leaving but how the two could coexist. Hence the problem here was Apartheid. America itself had it’s own racial discrimination practises and had no moral authority to criticize the policy, hence the seeming double standards.
Monk
#18 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2019 12:23:59 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 7/1/2009
Posts: 245
limanika wrote:
@Monk, What you’ve quoted up there as the belief of the historians is Europe’s self-engineered face saving explanation to make historians believe they ended colonialism on their own terms. This cannot be further from the truth. The truth of the matter is that there was not one factor that led to end of colonialism. There were many factors that conspired and worked together to bring colonialism to an end, and the Atlantic Charter was the beginning of the end.
The following just a sample
• By the middle of the 20th Century, America had replaced British Empire as the new superpower. Since America itself was keen to dominate the world, they realized Britain exerted a lot of influence through her colonies in Asia and Africa. One of the Roosevelt’s objectives in the Atlantic charter was to pressurize Britain to allow self-determination for all peoples and hence diminish their weight on global arena. You should read the behind the scenes happenings around the Charter… e.g. When Churchill went to present the Charter to British parliament for adoption, there were jitters coz of the third clause …they didn’t want to give up the colonies in Asia and Africa…he tricked them to believe that the charter only applied to occupied Europe and not the colonies Asia and Africa…he thus and begged them to pass it in its form. But the Charter didn’t specify that Africa and Asia were excluded. When the other Allied powers passed the Charter in its form, Britain’s goose was cooked.
• Rise of nationalism in Africa colonies—The African peoples were more informed towards the middle of the 20th Century and were able to agitate for freedom thus applying pressure on the colonial powers
• Rebellion in African countries – The Europeans had spent a lot of money in the two European tribal wars and their economies were in tatters. They needed to focus more on rebuilding their economies. Fighting rebellions in Africa (against the wish of America) was not a priority any more
• Formation of United Nations – The UN Charter was very clear about self-determination. Following adoption of UN Charter, it was only a matter of when, not if, when all the colonies would get self determination

If you want to know Britain would never have left Africa, look at countries that never resisted – Australia, Canada, the Cayman, etc. To date they still pledge allegiance to the Queen. Other Countries that formed feeble or minimal resistance like Zimbabwe were occupied for the longest time at Britain’s Pleasure.
As for South Africa the case was different. There was huge white population since Mzungu had settled there much earlier and had already entrenched themselves, so it was not a question of Mzungu leaving but how the two could coexist. Hence the problem here was Apartheid. America itself had it’s own racial discrimination practises and had no moral authority to criticize the policy, hence the seeming double standards.


It seems we are in agreement on a number of the reasons for decolonization. The few divergences are on how it was done and why.

My contention is that Britain only relinquished the unprofitable colonies, and retained the profitable ones, whether they were direct colonies, or owned by proxy.

Britain had already successfully "handed over power" in Canada and Australia to friendly elements that would ensure their economic interests were secure. That wasn't true independence since the native people had no place on the table. Britain then tried the same in SA in 1934, and later in Rhodesia. Using their influence in SA, they extended control to Namibia, and Angola in the aftermath of Portuguese withdrawal. In each of these cases, what finally helped these countries gain real independence was military and financial help from the East, not the US.

People tiptoe around the question of why apartheid in SA lasted so long (over 60 years), yet the answer is very clear. Both the UK and US had too much to loose, given the volume of capital they had invested there. They used the UN to forestall any adverse motions as long as they could, until the tide had become too strong. They even supplied arms and military training to the apartheid government.
limanika
#19 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2019 4:05:43 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 9/21/2011
Posts: 2,032
Monk wrote:
limanika wrote:
@Monk, What you’ve quoted up there as the belief of the historians is Europe’s self-engineered face saving explanation to make historians believe they ended colonialism on their own terms. This cannot be further from the truth. The truth of the matter is that there was not one factor that led to end of colonialism. There were many factors that conspired and worked together to bring colonialism to an end, and the Atlantic Charter was the beginning of the end.
The following just a sample
• By the middle of the 20th Century, America had replaced British Empire as the new superpower. Since America itself was keen to dominate the world, they realized Britain exerted a lot of influence through her colonies in Asia and Africa. One of the Roosevelt’s objectives in the Atlantic charter was to pressurize Britain to allow self-determination for all peoples and hence diminish their weight on global arena. You should read the behind the scenes happenings around the Charter… e.g. When Churchill went to present the Charter to British parliament for adoption, there were jitters coz of the third clause …they didn’t want to give up the colonies in Asia and Africa…he tricked them to believe that the charter only applied to occupied Europe and not the colonies Asia and Africa…he thus and begged them to pass it in its form. But the Charter didn’t specify that Africa and Asia were excluded. When the other Allied powers passed the Charter in its form, Britain’s goose was cooked.
• Rise of nationalism in Africa colonies—The African peoples were more informed towards the middle of the 20th Century and were able to agitate for freedom thus applying pressure on the colonial powers
• Rebellion in African countries – The Europeans had spent a lot of money in the two European tribal wars and their economies were in tatters. They needed to focus more on rebuilding their economies. Fighting rebellions in Africa (against the wish of America) was not a priority any more
• Formation of United Nations – The UN Charter was very clear about self-determination. Following adoption of UN Charter, it was only a matter of when, not if, when all the colonies would get self determination

If you want to know Britain would never have left Africa, look at countries that never resisted – Australia, Canada, the Cayman, etc. To date they still pledge allegiance to the Queen. Other Countries that formed feeble or minimal resistance like Zimbabwe were occupied for the longest time at Britain’s Pleasure.
As for South Africa the case was different. There was huge white population since Mzungu had settled there much earlier and had already entrenched themselves, so it was not a question of Mzungu leaving but how the two could coexist. Hence the problem here was Apartheid. America itself had it’s own racial discrimination practises and had no moral authority to criticize the policy, hence the seeming double standards.


It seems we are in agreement on a number of the reasons for decolonization. The few divergences are on how it was done and why.

My contention is that Britain only relinquished the unprofitable colonies, and retained the profitable ones, whether they were direct colonies, or owned by proxy.

Britain had already successfully "handed over power" in Canada and Australia to friendly elements that would ensure their economic interests were secure. That wasn't true independence since the native people had no place on the table. Britain then tried the same in SA in 1934, and later in Rhodesia. Using their influence in SA, they extended control to Namibia, and Angola in the aftermath of Portuguese withdrawal. In each of these cases, what finally helped these countries gain real independence was military and financial help from the East, not the US.

People tiptoe around the question of why apartheid in SA lasted so long (over 60 years), yet the answer is very clear. Both the UK and US had too much to loose, given the volume of capital they had invested there. They used the UN to forestall any adverse motions as long as they could, until the tide had become too strong. They even supplied arms and military training to the apartheid government.

We seem to agree on some points...and not agree in others. My contention is that European powers were forced to abandon colonialism by a confluence of factors against their wish....And that the rise of America had a major role to play in the process. However America was driven more by self interest not necessarily good heartedness
Monk
#20 Posted : Monday, April 22, 2019 8:31:58 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 7/1/2009
Posts: 245
limanika wrote:
Monk wrote:
limanika wrote:
@Monk, What you’ve quoted up there as the belief of the historians is Europe’s self-engineered face saving explanation to make historians believe they ended colonialism on their own terms. This cannot be further from the truth. The truth of the matter is that there was not one factor that led to end of colonialism. There were many factors that conspired and worked together to bring colonialism to an end, and the Atlantic Charter was the beginning of the end.
The following just a sample
• By the middle of the 20th Century, America had replaced British Empire as the new superpower. Since America itself was keen to dominate the world, they realized Britain exerted a lot of influence through her colonies in Asia and Africa. One of the Roosevelt’s objectives in the Atlantic charter was to pressurize Britain to allow self-determination for all peoples and hence diminish their weight on global arena. You should read the behind the scenes happenings around the Charter… e.g. When Churchill went to present the Charter to British parliament for adoption, there were jitters coz of the third clause …they didn’t want to give up the colonies in Asia and Africa…he tricked them to believe that the charter only applied to occupied Europe and not the colonies Asia and Africa…he thus and begged them to pass it in its form. But the Charter didn’t specify that Africa and Asia were excluded. When the other Allied powers passed the Charter in its form, Britain’s goose was cooked.
• Rise of nationalism in Africa colonies—The African peoples were more informed towards the middle of the 20th Century and were able to agitate for freedom thus applying pressure on the colonial powers
• Rebellion in African countries – The Europeans had spent a lot of money in the two European tribal wars and their economies were in tatters. They needed to focus more on rebuilding their economies. Fighting rebellions in Africa (against the wish of America) was not a priority any more
• Formation of United Nations – The UN Charter was very clear about self-determination. Following adoption of UN Charter, it was only a matter of when, not if, when all the colonies would get self determination

If you want to know Britain would never have left Africa, look at countries that never resisted – Australia, Canada, the Cayman, etc. To date they still pledge allegiance to the Queen. Other Countries that formed feeble or minimal resistance like Zimbabwe were occupied for the longest time at Britain’s Pleasure.
As for South Africa the case was different. There was huge white population since Mzungu had settled there much earlier and had already entrenched themselves, so it was not a question of Mzungu leaving but how the two could coexist. Hence the problem here was Apartheid. America itself had it’s own racial discrimination practises and had no moral authority to criticize the policy, hence the seeming double standards.


It seems we are in agreement on a number of the reasons for decolonization. The few divergences are on how it was done and why.

My contention is that Britain only relinquished the unprofitable colonies, and retained the profitable ones, whether they were direct colonies, or owned by proxy.

Britain had already successfully "handed over power" in Canada and Australia to friendly elements that would ensure their economic interests were secure. That wasn't true independence since the native people had no place on the table. Britain then tried the same in SA in 1934, and later in Rhodesia. Using their influence in SA, they extended control to Namibia, and Angola in the aftermath of Portuguese withdrawal. In each of these cases, what finally helped these countries gain real independence was military and financial help from the East, not the US.

People tiptoe around the question of why apartheid in SA lasted so long (over 60 years), yet the answer is very clear. Both the UK and US had too much to loose, given the volume of capital they had invested there. They used the UN to forestall any adverse motions as long as they could, until the tide had become too strong. They even supplied arms and military training to the apartheid government.

We seem to agree on some points...and not agree in others. My contention is that European powers were forced to abandon colonialism by a confluence of factors against their wish....And that the rise of America had a major role to play in the process. However America was driven more by self interest not necessarily good heartedness


Exactly my point. America looks after its own economic interests, and the same goes for the UK. Incidentally, the trade arrangements the UK, France and the US made with many of their former colonies may have proved to be more profitable than when they ruled directly. They only had to make sure those countries "elected" rulers who were friendly to them.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2024 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.