Initially, at the end of the cold war in 1989, China found itself without the capacity to compete with the international Western aid and donor programmes.

However, China is back as a major economic player in the twenty-first century. Today, China is in direct competition with international Western interests on the west coast of Africa, in Sudan, in southern and eastern Africa. The war in southern Sudan, for example, had forced Western interest to be put on hold for a while.

Africa's West Coast has been developed into a world-competitor for oil-production. Within the next 10 years that region would eventually produce 25 percent of US oil imports. China recently won the rights to explore an oil bloc in Angola. Beijing had offered Angola a soft loan of US$2 billion as part of a long-term aid project.

Three major competitors emerged on the African scene since 1989: the new cowboy-imperialist in the form of the United States of America (US) ably assisted by Africa's historic colonial occupier Britain (UK); South Africa (RSA) and Israel as one, rather hostile and greedy economic bloc; the European Union (EU), particularly with France having entered into a territorial war against the US, specifically in Central and West Africa as another; and China (Beijing).

The European Union (EU) shares same alien "neo-liberal democratic" and "free market economy" principles with the US/UK/SA/Israeli bloc and assists where common interests are at stake. They are also part of the "World Bank-IMF", "World Trade Organisation" (WTO) and the "G-8". Their structures have a common history of inhumane conditions for exploitation of Africa's resources. In fact, Britain plays a double role. It is a very close ally of the US, South Africa and Israel. At the same time, London is a leading member of the EU. The British crown also heads the British Colonial Commonwealth (BCC). All of those organisations have two things in common - they are exclusive and certainly have not Africa's interests at heart.

Britain's Blair initiated the "Commission for Africa". He supports that vague "New Partnership for Africa's Development" (NEPAD) in its desperate search for substance. NEPAD was launched in 2001 and has been endorsed by the G-8. It was taken in by the "G-8 Africa Action Plan". South Africa's white-owned economy now took up the G-8 battle cry, as the foreign owned, but "proudly South African" media announces. Over 350 South African "business leaders" endorsed that programme at the last "World Economic Forum's" (WEF) summit in Cape Town.

The internationally well-established South African business elite declared above to be "music in their ears", because "it acknowledges that better governance is critical to stimulating investment", as their South African based Financial Mail reports.

SA's monopoly brewery giant, SABMiller's Chief Executive, Graham MacKay, who also served as conference chairman, insists: "The most important thing that business needs for it to make a positive contribution is improved governance."

Echoing the international Western principles, MacKay tells conference goers, "What business looks for most is a safe, secure climate for investment and that depends largely on government."

Simon Taylor, director of Global Witness comments in his drive for economic reform in Africa, "(International) Western companies and banks have colluded in stripping Africa's resources." It has also been forcefully argued that "(international) Western banks, acting as monopolists, have cornered credit markets and callously extracted exorbitant interest charges from destitute, problem-plagued African countries that could ill afford to pay them".

South Africa's bank rates remain the highest in world by far. Their profits are equally high. Hence, they do not depend on their initial role as lenders-to-the-public to make exorbitant profits. Thus, SA's banks do not have to lend monies to those who really need it and the black African majority has therefore, no access to the so-called "formal" banking sector.

The African Insider quoted former US assistant secretary for African Affairs, Herman Cohen, who as far back as 1991 explained, "an estimated US$20 billion more than what Africa receives in foreign aid flees Africa annually".

This is obviously criminal. It is intentionally and clandestinely supported, if not co-arranged by American and Western governments. And, Africa's leadership is well aware of it.

The West African "public analyst", Okyere Bonna, observed in his article to the Accra Mail, "while sub-Saharan Africa is the object of the (international) West's charitable concern, billions of (US) dollars worth of natural resources are being removed from it by (international) Western banks".

The new competitor for Africa's resources seems to have a different and competing foreign policy for Africa. China's deputy minister of foreign affairs, Zhou Wenzhong, explained: "We separate politics from business. The (international) West has tried to impose a 'multi-party democracy and a (free) market economy on countries that are not ready for it. We are against embargoes, that the (international) West has tried to use against us."

China and India, Malaysia and Korea are fast becoming global economic players. They have a need for economic resources and the cash to pay for it, without imposing those aggressively punitive measures, as the international Western investment programmes mete out to poorer countries. African economists and historians rightfully interpret such punitive rules and regulations as keeping poorer countries dependent on the international West.

Those foreign interests have also introduced intentionally and covertly the immoral practice of "bribery and corruption", then fouled in their media and their "civil society". This is another form of creating dependency on international Western rules and regulations.

China protects its clients in Africa and elsewhere from excessive punitive measures from the international West. Those cruel conditions of "good governance" and "fiscal controls" from international Western governments and investors, are also absent. This obviously endears China to its new partners, particularly in Africa.

In fact, China sticks to its promises. It protects its new clients in the UN Security Council from punitive international sanctions, as it has done in the case of Sudan. The Chinese investor arrived in Africa with an attractive package - easy and well-structured finances, technical expertise and programmes of international exchanges. Beijing demonstrates throughout Africa that it is prepared to lose in the short term in order to gain in the long term. It invests, for example, in long-neglected infrastructure projects and hardly viable industries.

Chinese investment comes mainly through parastatals, which do not seem to be hell-bent on soaring profits, as long as they serve Chinese objectives. In other words, China delivers to those who remain economically disadvantaged. In return, this gives the under-developed nations the chance to develop and participate they long desired.

As the old saying goes, "a friend in need, is a friend indeed". China couldn't care a dime if Zimbabwe is besieged by international Western sanctions because of Harare's land reform programme. The international Western manipulative wrath merely means new opportunities for China and India. As the Western community steps out, China, India, Iran, Korea and Malaysia jump in.

The international West cannot control "its" continent-of-storage (Africa) as it does, for much longer. It is also not successful in trying to control the Chinese expansion into Africa. From the onset, the international West has had less moral and ethical credibility than African countries had financial debt in institutions such as the World Bank-IMF.

This is cache, read story here