''Africa-China Progressing Together: Win-Win Cooperation for Common Development''

How can China influence and aid Africa? What are the reaction of the African people? How does globalization play a role in this partnership between Africa and China? 

China  states that they plan to give $60 billion to help Africa’s development. The $60 billion package includes $5 billion in grants with free interest rates and $35 billion in loans and export credit. China and Africa trading business have risen since 15 years ago, and China replaced the US as Africa’s most important trade partner 6 years ago. There have been accusations that China is benefiting more from this partnership than Africa. China will gain raw materials, oil, and other resources. Mr. Xi, leader of China, states that “China has the strong political political commitment to supporting Africa in achieving development and prosperity”. China expresses that they have the technology and professional/ skilled people to help Africa to achieve sustainability. China is also sending a military oversea to East Africa. Plus, China has been able to gain support by the people, unlike the USA. When President Obama went to Africa July 2015, he spoke on the topic of gay rights, which made him unpopular to the Africans. Mr. Xi, however, states that Africa belongs to the people and that they have the right to do with their country what they please. Mr. Robert Mugabe, the chairman of the African Union, applauded Mr. Xi for doing what the people who colonized them did not do (reference to Europe colonization). Africa is optimistic with these changes. They are hoping for technology to be transferred and build factories and develop agriculture to be able to participate in the exportation world.

Globalization is present in this partnership. Africa and China are expanding global communications and market connections. Additionally, both countries are integrating and interacting socially and politically. China is showing its dominance and power by aiding Africa. How? China is taking away their resources and sending military forces to Africa. The Chinese’s action is showing imperialism characteristics. China is pledging to commit to aiding Africa by loaning money, sending technology, and sending professional/ skill people. China is saying that Africa is for the African people. However, I disagree. I feel like China is using them for the resources and to build themselves again because they have slowed down. China  has slowdown economically and is hoping with the African partnership is will increase again because other nations partnered with China are being affected. What if its all promises and no action? The Africans should take the negotiation as a business transaction and ask for help, but not have the Chinese people move into their countries. Africans should be very careful. In contrast, it benefits the Africans to have the Chinese there because they will help them become more industrialize (factories and etc) and teach them how to sustainability economically and politically. China feels that they have a strong political system. What if China encourages Africa to become communist? This relationship has some good and bad qualities. I just hope that Africa is able to benefit as China is able to benefit. 

Well-wishing; China's foreign policy

What is the importance of Xi Jinping’s travel to the Middle East? How does past leader, Mao Tse-tung, relate to  Xi Jinping’s decision to visit the Middle East? Xi Jinping hopes that Middle East’s tension would disappear; Could Xi Jinping scatter tensions when Xi Jinping has no success in its own border in a province in western China, Xinjiang?

Xi Jinping, China’s leader since 2012, has traveled to 14 countries compared to President Obama, who has just traveled to 11 countries.  What those this mean? China is trying to show its advancement in power to the international and domestic public. Xi Jinping, until this year, has traveled to the Middle East to start relations. Xi Jinping began in Saudi Arabia then it will continue his journey to Egypt, then to Iran. Why wouldn’t China want to create relations with the Middle East? The Middle East is the world’s largest oil importer. Additionally, Xi Jinping wants to be on the good side with the Middle East because of the “new Silk Route”. The “new Silke Routes” will help link China to Europe with “the help of the Chinese-funded infrastructure that will run across the Middle East”. Chinese companies are already creating expressways in the Middle East. However, the Middle East has a lot of tension right now especially with the execution of a Shia cleric and the response by the angry Iranians at the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and Iran have cut relations. China hopes to not have to pick a side.

Mao met with United States President Nixon, which was a huge step in easing tension between China and USA after post-Cold War. Xi Jinping’s action to visit a region with a lot of tensions relates to Mao’s actions. How? Well, both leaders realized that the prosperity of the nation’s economy is more important than tensions and dramas. Additionally, Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” has some industrialized ideas involved even though it was not so successful. Xi Jinping’s realizes the great resource that the Middle East has and how it could benefit China. Both leaders realize industrialization and modernization are important for economic growth and increase in power of China. 

Its shocking to me that no Chinese leaders have put a foot into the Middle East since 2009 until now. However, I understand because maybe China did not want to get involved in the Middle East tensions. China is stating that they will stay neutral from all tensions in the Middle East, however, China has not been able to resolve problems in its own borders. Xinjiang has a large Muslim population and China is having the same problem there. Additionally, China could not stay neutral in the Syrian tension. When China vetoed UN resolutions on intervention, it showed its support for the government and not to the opposition.  China is rising in power, however, I am curious to know if China would be able to stay neutral? I will have to keep a close look at China and the Middle East's affairs. 

NAFTA's Economic Upsides.

NAFTA

Is the NAFTA Agreement beneficial to all three countries involved? Or can expansion, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, bring more wealth to these countries or destroy what NAFTA has created for over 20 years?

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement between Canada, USA, and Mexico that has eliminated tariffs between these nations on agricultural and industrialized goods. All these nations have benefited from NAFTA economically. This cross-border investment has benefited all parties involved with more jobs, a thriving wealth in travel, and, the import and export of goods among these nations. However, critics state that NAFTA is “Mexico’s gain and America’s pain”. Mexico buys more U.S. goods than many other nation, but could it be a cost on American jobs? NAFTA has created an argument over the increase or decrease of jobs in the U.S. Overall, NAFTA seems to bring wealth to these nations. With NAFTA’s economic success, the author, Carla Hills, argues that to build on this success, North America needs to open their markets to other nations. Therefore, the article wealth to each nation for introduces theTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with 28 countries that make up the European Union (EU). This new agreement should bring wealth for North America because its opening up the market to other nations that eliminates tariffs. Sounds like a great idea? Or is it?

The NAFTA Agreement is an excellent agreement each side of the parties involved are benefiting economically. NAFTA is related to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), where capitalist countries came together to lower tariff and to encourage trade. These nations do not have to pay tariffs to trade goods among each other. NAFTA has created immigration, people traveling for business or in look for opportunities among the three nations. I don’t understand why people can be so against immigration when we create agreements like NAFTA that cause immigration. For example, maybe a business in Mexico wants to start an office in the US, this business is going to send people from their business to administer that office. The people that tend to migrate are young people that are looking for opportunities. Jobs are being created and the US tends to pay better than Mexico. The article states, Hispanics are influencing US politics that’s probably a reason why some people are upset, but the US history is created on immigrants.

 I question if Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would be beneficial? What could be wrong with adding more nations to invest among? You can export more, and more jobs right? Maybe not. With more opportunities, it can leave some nations to receive less than others. For example, maybe Mexico could benefit more than the US because they will have better prices for exportation than the US. I believe having more nations involved in an agreement can make it more complicated and create more problems. I am not against Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but if I would regulate the policies and make sure that each parties benefits.