From www.technologyreview.com

There are now around 600 foreign-owned R&D centers in China, up from about 400 in 2002.

The centers are concentrated primarily in the southern and eastern coastal region, which receives 88 percent of Chinas foreign direct investment. Last year, Roche, Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, and Novo Nordisk all established new Chinese R&D outposts.

One reason for Chinas appeal: its second only to the United States in its number of researchers, and Chinese PhDs work for substantially less than their U.S. counterparts.
www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/04/issue/forward_china.asp

They've got the brains, we're sending them the money and they are a big country with a lot of resources. I sure hope that we can keep peace with them. A war with them would be really nasty.

My real concern is the fact that China is not a free democratic republic. China is still a Communist dictatorship. Dictators do start wars, or force them. I'm not talking about a war like Iraq - that is a "police action" to protect the oil.

If China internally converts to a real democratic political system, then I think the world will be more stable. For example, I am not concerned about India, because India is a democracy.

However, with China, we may be looking at a future struggle on the scale of WWII. But, economic forces could decide the outcome rather than direct military combat.

I found an interesting comment made by a Chinese Engineer:

"As a Chinese, I have reviewed your articles about China. I feel your deep worry about the growth of China. If my understanding is correct, you are writing about China's growth, and how the US can maintain its leadership position.

"I think the growth of China is a normal phenomenon. It should be better for the US to adapt to the growth trend in China, instead of trying to stop it. Because:

1. China is a manufacturing location, trying make more than 1.3 billion people survive on this planet. China is paying a lot, even suffering. It costs China much of its resources, such as coal, petroleum, minerals. More important, China is suffering an irrecoverable loss of its natural environment.

2. While US and other developed countries are enjoying cheap commodities from China, what should they think?
a.) Oh, we buy so many Chinese goods, they should appreciate the US.
b.) The Chinese people help the US people to live better, while they themselves are in a poor position.
Ha, I select b.)

3. It is impossible for one to keep advantages at both ends: high tech stuff, and low end labor. As for the Chinese, to survive they give up many potential possessions, to be a manufacture workshop. There is no choice for them. As for US, they also should give up low end tech, and gradually transfer it to the outside. It is normal I think.

"I also read your linked article, "Solutions for the China Challenge". From your standpoint, I understand them, and I think they will work to some degree. On the other hand, basically, business is driven by profit, and as you said, nations are fighting peacefully, so everyone is trying his best.

"For the US, its weapon is capital, high tech, advanced management, good education. But for China, there are much few advantages to use - only low labor cost, hard work, and, I think most important, STUDY. China has to study hard to catch up with advanced nations. But for the long term, I am confident that China, also India, will gradually catch the US."
www.jimpinto.com/enews/mar11-2005.html#6

This recent law in Beijing regarding Taiwan (Formosa) seems to suggest that they have no intention of going the Democratic route. Taiwan has been an ally of the US for many years. It would be awful to see a war erupt over this issue. Taiwan has little status in the United Nations so the US could expect little help.

China's expansion into Africa poses new challenges for U.S.

By Karby Leggett
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

March 30, 2005

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia – When this East African country went to war against neighboring Eritrea in the late 1990s, the United States responded by evacuating its Peace Corps volunteers, scaling back military aid and issuing a security warning to U.S. citizens and companies.

The Chinese government had a different reaction. Beijing saw the war – and the reduced U.S. presence – as an opportunity to expand its influence. It dispatched even more diplomats, engineers, executives and teachers to Ethiopia. New aid grants soon rolled in, followed by bank credits for Chinese companies operating there.

Today, China's influence in Ethiopia is overwhelming. Its embassy is among the largest in the country and hosts more high-level visits than any Western mission. Chinese companies have become a dominant force, building highways and bridges, power stations, mobile phone networks, schools and pharmaceutical plants. More recently, they have begun exploring for oil and building at least one Ethiopian military installation.

It is all part of Beijing's broad push into Africa. Aiming to secure access to the continent's vast natural resources, China is forging deep economic, political and military ties with most of Africa's 54 countries. However, there is more at stake than just fuel for an economic juggernaut, say senior Chinese officials, executives and Western diplomats.

In Africa, as in many other parts of the developing world, China is redrawing geopolitical alliances in ways that help propel China's rise as a global superpower. China also is thinking long-term, cultivating desperately poor nations to serve as markets for its products decades down the road.

For the United States, China's Africa initiative poses new challenges. Despite a landmark trade pact signed with Africa in 2000, U.S. influence has leveled off in many African countries and in some cases declined. Now, as Washington focuses its attention on the Middle East, it faces a formidable player in a region key to future U.S. economic and security interests.

In oil-rich Nigeria, China is rebuilding the railroad network. In Rwanda, Chinese companies have paved more than 80 percent of the main roads. In more than a dozen African countries, Chinese firms are searching for oil and gas and rebuilding electricity grids and telephone networks. Chinese companies own one of Zambia's largest copper mines and run a major timber operation in Equatorial Guinea.

These interests all share a common thread: Beijing's policy of actively encouraging its companies and citizens to set up shop in Africa at a record pace.

"China has simply exploded into Africa," says Walter Kansteiner, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs. Adds Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton, the vice chairman of a House subcommittee that deals with Africa: "China's increasing engagement in Africa is a concern, and we need to focus on it before Beijing becomes fully established."

Last year, Africa supplied more than 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, and the figure is forecast to rise sharply in the decade ahead. Africa also is becoming a major global supplier for metals, timber and other natural resources.

Yet in some of Africa's most promising commodities markets, China is now challenging U.S. and other Western firms for access to these goods. Since 2000, China's trade with Africa has nearly tripled to nearly $30 billion. Last year, China spent nearly $10 billion on African oil, accounting for nearly one-third of its total crude imports. That is twice as much as it imported from Saudi Arabia, traditionally one of Beijing's biggest suppliers.

These people have the right to sell their oil to whomever they wish.

Will the Chinese influence make things better for the Africans in the long run?



There are those against "development," but it sounds like China's investment in Africa is creating employment and investing in the infrastructure of the country.

China needs resources and Africa needs help getting infrastructure. Sounds like economics the way it is supposed to work.

From the little I've seen, the US has largely ignored Africa. Maybe it is good that another country is providing some economic development.

If they are busy with Africa, maybe they'll forget about Taiwan for a bit.