Connect with us

Opinion

Between China And Its Neighbours

Published

on

Thinking of opening a textile mill in Kampuchea? A shrimp farm in Vietnam? Or anything at all in Laos or Myanmar? Then think fast and act, as China is increasingly dominating is Southeast Asian neighbours’ economies.

Doubting Thomases should have a look at the document released last month by China’s National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Blandly entitled, “Country Report on China’ s Participation in Greater Mekong Subregion Cooperation I,” the study delineates in detail Beijing’s interest in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) nations of Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, lying along the Mekong River, the world’s tenth longest river, which originates from the Tanggula Mountain Range on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in China and runs 3,050 miles southwards through six nations before debouching into the South China Sea.

Beneath the leaden prose, however, is information that all potential southeast Asian investors should take cognizance of.

The report’s Section Two begins, “Since the third GMS summit in 2008, and especially since the establishment of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area, bilateral trade between China and the other GMS countries has demonstrated a momentum of greater development with a further improved trade structure and fast increase in bilateral investment. China has also participated, in the form of joint ventures or wholly Chinese-invested enterprises, in the development and construction of economic and trade cooperation zones in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, and has thus boosted local economic development.”

The report then delineates China’s bilateral trade with other GMS nations.

In 2010, bilateral trade between China and Kampuchea totalled $1.44 billion, up by 27.4 per cent over 2008.

In 2010, bilateral trade between China and Myanmar reached $4.44 billion, up by 68.8 per cent over 2008, hardly surprising, given China’s interest in the country’s hydrocarbon resources.

Bilateral trade between China and Thailand in 2010 was $52.95 billion, a 28.4 per cent increase over 2008 figures.

As for Vietnam, bilateral Sino-Vietnamese trade in 2010 was worth $30.09 billion, up by 54.6 per cent over 2008 statistics, again, like Myanmar, because of China’s interest in Vietnam’s oil exports.

Bottoming out the GMS league is the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, whose 2010 bilateral with China was a paltry $1.05 billion, but up by 150 per cent over 2008.

It is the fine print of the report’s bilateral trade figures that is most fascinating. In 2010, China’s exports to and imports from Kampuchea were worth $1.35 billion and $90 million respectively, a massive imbalance more than 13 to one in favour of China. China’s main imports from the Kampuchea included natural rubber, sawn timber, logs and agricultural products.

In other words, raw materials, while Chinese exports to Kampuchea were textiles, electromechanical products, hi-tech products, garments and steel-value added finished products.

In 2010, Chinese exports to and imports from Myanmar were worth $3.48 billion and $9.6 million respectively, a grotesque trade imbalance more than 300 times in China’s favour. Myanmar’s exports included agricultural products, natural gas and logs, while China exported textiles, hi-tech products, rolled steel, motorcycles and automobiles.

As for Thailand, given its relatively well developed manufacturing base, in fact ran a significant trade surplus with China, whose exports in 2010 were worth $19.75 billion. Chinese exports included electromechanical products, hi-tech products, textiles and farm produce, while Thai exports, worth $33.2 billion, consisted of electromechanical products, hi-tech products, natural rubber and farm produce.

China’s exports to Vietnam in 2010 were worth $23.11 billion, consisting primarily of electromechanical products, textiles, hi-tech products, rolled steel and agricultural products while Vietnam exports to China totalled $6.98 billion, a trade imbalance more than 300 per cent in China’s favour. Vietnamese exports to China included electromechanical products, coal, hi-tech products, agricultural products, textiles, crude oil and natural rubber.

As for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Chinese exports there in 2010 were worth $480 million, consisting of electromechanical products, textiles, garments, hi-tech products, automobiles and motorcycles. Surprisingly, like Thailand, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic ran a slight trade surplus in its exports to China, which was worth $570 million, but the trade imbalance is in fact hardly surprising, as Laotian exports consisted of copper ore, rolled copper, farm produce, sawn timber and natural rubber, all to feed China’s omnivorous factories.

The long and short of all this is that China, through the GMS, has a massive head start on regional investment, while it proclaims, “since the third GMS summit in 2008, the Chinese government has continued to provide financial support to GMS cooperation as its capability permits,” it has no qualms about running up massive, lopsided trade surplus with its GMS neighbours, despite its stated policy of “realizing common prosperity and affluence with its neighbours.”

In the West, any country facing a 3,000 per cent trade imbalance would have its politicians screaming for protectionist tariffs, but given China’s increasing economic and political clout in Southeast Asia, the legislatures there are mute.

But therein lays the potential advantage for investors from outside the region. Astute foreign companies, if they can refrain from relentlessly pursuing buccaneering capitalist business practices to maximize profits at all costs and instead deal with GMS countries on the basis of respect and relative equality, then they are certain of finding a warm welcome for promoting more equitable trade practices than their giant “neighbour to the north.”

Just don’t expect an invitation to tea from the Chinese ambassador in Phnom Penh, Naypyidaw or Hanoi.

London-based Dr. John C.K. Daly wrote this piece for Oilprice.com

 

John Daly

Continue Reading

Opinion

Trans-Kalabari  Road:  Work In Progress 

Published

on

Quote:”This Dream project  is one of  the best things that have happened  to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas in recent times.”
This is the concluding part of this story featured in our last edition.
Good road network helps farmers to convey their agro-allied products to  commercial hubs where buyers and sellers meet periodically to transact business. Road network engineers and motivates people resident in unfriendly geographical terrains, like riverine areas,  to own property and shuttle home with ease. Some people will prefer living in their own houses in a more serene and nature-blessed communities to living in the city that is fraught with  pollution, and other environmental, social and economic hazards. Prior to the cult epidemic that ravaged parts of Rivers State, the Emohuas, Elemes, Ogonis, and Etches were known for rural dwelling. Most public servants from these areas do their official and private transactions from  their villages. For them it was comparatively easier to live in the village and engage in a diversified economic endeavours through farming, fishing or other lucrative business without outrageous charges and embarrassment associated with doing business in Port Harcourt, where land is as scarce as the traditional needle.
That is why the decision to construct the Trans-Kalabari Road by the administration of Dr. Peter Odili was one of the best decisions that administration took. When Dr. Odili vacated office as the Rivers State Governor, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi took over and awarded contracts for continuation of the road project which in my considered view is the felt need of  the people of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. Unfortunately, Rt. Hon. Amaechi’s efforts to drive the project was sabotaged by some contractors some of whom are Kalabari people. The main  Trans-Kalabari Road is one project that is dear to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas of Rivers State. This is because through the road commuters can easily access several communities in the three local government areas. For instance, the road when completed will enable access to eight of the ten communities in Degema Local Government Area,  namely: Bukuma, Tombia,  Bakana, Oguruama, Obuama, Usokun, Degema town  and the Degema Consulate. It will also link 15 of the 16 communities in Asari Toru Local Government Area. The communities are: Buguma, the local government headquarters, Ido, Abalama, Tema, Sama, Okpo, Ilelema, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama, Krakrama, Omekwe-Ama, Angulama. The road will also connect  14  of 17 wards in Akuku Toru Local Government Area, and other settlements. It is interesting to note that It is faster,  and far more convenient and economical for the catchment Communities on the Trans-Kalabari Road network to go to the State Capital than the East West Road.  The people of the three local government areas will prefer  to work or do their transactions in Port Harcourt from their respective communities to staying in Port Harcourt where the house rent and the general cost of living is astronomically high.
 Consequently, development will seamlessly spread to the 28 out of 34 communities of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. The only Communities that are not linked by the road project are Oporoama in Asari Toru,  the Ke and  Bille Communities in Degema Local Government Area and the “Oceania” communities of Abissa, Kula, Soku, Idama, Elem Sangama of Akuku Toru Local Government Area. But because of the economic value of the unlinked Communities to Nigeria, (they produce substantial oil and gas in the area), the Federal, State Governments and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), can extend the road network to those areas just as Bonny is linked to Port Harcourt and the Lagos Mainland Bridge is connecting several towns in Lagos and neighbouring States.Kudos to previous administrations who  had constructed the Central Group axis.
 However, what is said to be the First Phase of the Trans-Kalabari Road project is actually a linkage of the “Central Group” Communities which consists of Krakrama, Angulama, Omekwe. Ama, Omekwe Tari Ama, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama. It is the peripheral of the Trans-Kalabari Road. The completion of the  Main Trans Kalabari project will free Port Harcourt and Obio/Akpor areas from congestion. It will motivate residents and people of the three local areas to contribute to the development of their Communities. If the Ogonis, Etches, Emohuas, Oyigbos, Okrikas, Elemes can feel comfortable doing business in Port Harcourt from home, residents and people whose communities are linked to Port Harcourt through the Trans-Kalabari Road will no doubt, do likewise. The vast arable virgin land of the Bukuma people can be open for development and sustainable agricultural ventures by Local, State and Federal Government.
It is necessary to recall that the Bukuma community was host to the Federal Government’s Graduate Farmers’ Scheme and the Rivers State Government moribund School-to-Land Scheme under Governor Fidelis Oyakhilome. Bukuma was the only community in Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas that has the capacity to carry those agricultural programmes. However the lack of road to transport farm produce to Port Harcourt and facilitate the movement of the beneficiaries of the scheme who lived in the community which is several miles away from the farms, hampered the sustainability of the programme. The main Trans-Kalabari Road remains the best gift to the people of Degema, Asari Toru, and Akuku-Toru Local Government Areas. Kudos to Sir Siminilayi Fubara.
By: Igbiki Benibo
Continue Reading

Opinion

That  U.S. Capture of Maduro

Published

on

Quote:”Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction.”
The first part of this story was published in our last edition.
 
In Africa and the Middle East, regime change—whether by invasion, proxy warfare, or sanctions—has often left behind fractured states, weakened institutions, and prolonged instability. Washington’s motivations in Venezuela are widely understood: vast oil reserves, alliances with U.S. rivals, and symbolic defiance of American influence in the Western Hemisphere. But none of these reasons confer legal or moral legitimacy. Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction. If every powerful nation acted on its grievances in this manner, global chaos would inevitably follow. International law provides mechanisms for accountability. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), individuals accused of crimes against humanity or other grave offences are subject to investigation and prosecution through judicial processes.
Likewise, extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements, and Interpol mechanisms exist to ensure accountability while respecting due process. These frameworks were designed precisely to prevent unilateral enforcement of “justice” by military force. The most profound consequence of America’s action may not be in Caracas, but in the precedent it sets. If the world accepts that a superpower can unilaterally depose another country’s president, then the foundation of the international system is weakened. Sovereignty becomes conditional—no longer a right, but a privilege tolerated at the discretion of the powerful. Going forward, if another country invades its neighbour, will the United States retain the moral authority to impose sanctions or demand restraint? Some analysts already warn that parallels between Russia’s actions in Ukraine and America’s conduct in Venezuela risk further eroding global norms. Selective adherence to international law breeds cynicism and accelerates the drift toward a world governed by force rather than rules.
Power—military, economic, or political—should serve human progress and collective well-being, not domination and destruction. For African nations, many of which emerged from colonial rule through bitter struggle, this precedent is especially alarming. Sovereignty is not an abstract legal concept; it is a hard-won shield against external domination. Any erosion of that principle anywhere weakens it everywhere. Africa’s painful history of foreign interference makes this lesson especially urgent.  For me, the real issue is not whether Nicolás Maduro is a good or bad leader. That judgment belongs, first and foremost, to the Venezuelan people. The larger issue is whether the international system still operates on law—or has quietly reverted to hierarchy. If America insists it is defending global order, it must ask itself a difficult question: can an order survive when its most powerful guardian feels entitled to violate it? Until that question is answered honestly, the capture of a foreign president will remain not a triumph of justice, but a troubling symbol of a world drifting from law toward force.
If the United States felt so strongly about the allegations of terrorism, drug trafficking  against Maduro, were there no other lawful options? Judicial accountability, diplomacy, regional mediation, and multilateral pressure may be slow and imperfect, but they reflect respect for international law and sovereign equality. Military seizure is a blunt instrument. It humiliates institutions, radicalizes populations, and hardens resistance. It may remove a leader, but it rarely resolves the underlying crisis. History teaches that military interventions seldom result in stable democratic outcomes. More often, they breed resentment, resistance, and long-term instability. For the sake of global order and the rule of law, the United States should reconsider this path and recommit to diplomacy, legal cooperation, and respect for the sovereign equality of states. Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly described the invasion of Venezuela as “unlawful and unwise,” warning that such actions “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.” Her words reflect a growing recognition, even within the United States, that force without legitimacy undermines both moral authority and global stability.
Should what happened in Venezuela serve as a wake-up call for corrupt African leaders who undermine the people’s right to choose their leaders? The answer is yes. The capture of Maduro should alarm African leaders who manipulate elections, weaken institutions, suppress opposition, undermine citizens’ rights, or cling to power at all costs. Venezuela faced widespread criticism over disputed elections and repression long before this episode, and that context shaped how the world reacted. This does not justify foreign military intervention, but it highlights an uncomfortable truth: prolonged democratic decay isolates nations and invites external pressure—from sanctions to diplomatic censure. Global opinion matters, and legitimacy at home strengthens sovereignty abroad. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and several African leaders have rightly condemned the events in Venezuela, invoking the principles of sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in international and regional law.
Beyond condemnation, however, African leaders must look inward. The continent’s future cannot be built on repression, constitutional manipulation, and personal greed. Leadership must reflect the will of the people, not desperation for power. Two days ago, a social commentator on a radio station argued that Trump’s action—though condemnable—demonstrates how far a leader can go for his country’s interest. According to this view, he did not intervene in Venezuela for personal enrichment, but to strengthen his nation. In stark contrast, many African leaders plunder their own countries. They siphon public resources, impose crushing taxes and harmful policies, and leave their citizens poorer—all for selfish gain. That contradiction is the deeper lesson Africa must confront.True sovereignty is protected not only by international law, but by accountable leadership at home.
 By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Opinion

Kudos  Gov Fubara

Published

on

Please permit me to use this medium to appreciate our able governor, Siminalayi Fubara for the inauguration of the 14.2-kilometre Obodhi–Ozochi Road in Ahoada-East Local Government Area.  This inauguration marks a significant milestone in the history of our communities and deserves commendation. We, the people of Ozochi, are particularly happy because this project has brought long-awaited relief after years of isolation and hardship.
The expression of our traditional ruler, His Royal Highness, Eze Prince Ike Ehie, JP, during the inauguration captured the joy of our people.  He said, “our isolation is over.”  That reflects the profound impact of this road on daily life, economic activities, and social integration of the people of Ozochi and other neighbouring communities. The road will no doubt ease transportation, improve access to markets and healthcare, and strengthen links between Ahoada, Omoku, and other parts of Rivers State.
The people of Ahoada, Omoku, and indeed Rivers State as a whole are grateful to our dear governor for this laudable achievement and wish him many more successful years in office. We pray that God endows him with more wisdom and strength to continue to pilot the affairs of the state for the benefit of all. As citizens, we should rally behind the governor and support his development agenda. Our politicians and stakeholders should embrace peace and cooperation, as no meaningful progress can be achieved in an atmosphere of conflict. Sustainable development in the state can only thrive where peace prevails.
Samuel Ebiye
Continue Reading

Trending