"The southern Chinese province of Guangdong, the country's (and much of the world's) manufacturing hub, has seen the largest influx of Africans, with most of them doing business in a single neighborhood in the provincial capital city of Guangzhou. An estimated 20,000 Africans now live in Guangzhou, with thousands more regularly streaming through the city as visitors who buy pirated DVDs and Chinese-made clothes, shoes, electronics and other products for resale back home.

That makes Africans the largest foreign population in the city - and their numbers in Guangzhou more than double those in Beijing and Shanghai combined.

African traffic to and from Guangzhou has grown to the point that, in November of 2008, Kenya Airways began the first non-stop flight from Africa to the Chinese mainland with its Nairobi to Guangzhou express. Indeed, Guangzhou has become such a haven for Africans from a variety of different countries that the Canaan Export Clothes and Trading Center in and around which they thrive is referred to by locals as "Chocolate City".

The less good news is that the Chinese, never thrilled with foreigners, are not exactly welcoming. This is exacerbated by lots of Africans who stay on past their visas, and the Africans' treatment has triggered public demonstrations in China. The Chinese are certainly treated better in Africa (so far), and this is the sort of thing that might build up resentment if the game is seen as all one way.

The larger point is how it feeds into an emerging rivalry that will define the Indian Ocean basin in the early 21st century.

The Chinese have the ability to produce goods that can be sold to Africans at an affordable price point. India has less ability to produce them, but does and could, and has a substantial expatriate base in Africa, just as China does. They are also showing some interesting leaps in redesigning and re-conceiving whole product types like stoves, fridges, etc., and their distribution models, so that even 3rd world poor can afford them.

There will be 2 games going on here. One is a business competition, as Chinese and Indian firms compete to design and produce goods for export to Africa, with its expatriate communities as critical middlemen. The second game is all about natural resources (which will eventually include food production as water shortages in China and India bite), and involves African governments - again, however, with local expat communities as critical players.

The thing is, Africa remains a continent where bribery and payoffs are endemic. Despite some bright spots spurred by courageous local leaders, shifts in W's African aid policies, Paul Wolfowitz's World Bank efforts, that isn't going away. Indeed, full relapse remains a strong bet even in some of the bright spots, and any diaspora cold war will both leverage and exacerbate that fatal flaw.

Which means assets on the ground will matter. The relative economic strengths of China and India's expat communities, which will derive from the business competition, are going to affect the resource competition as well. Africa's governments, which do so much to keep their people poor, will be the wild card in both competitions, paid large sums at multiple levels to influence both.

Which does raise the odds of Africa remaining poor, no matter what anyone in America or Europe might want to do about it. But that isn't really a factor for the larger players here - which don't include America, or Europe.

« ok, I'm done now

Apparently, the international maritime community remains "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but American ships have taken a different approach." He adds:

"Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."

Well, bucko, the flaccidity of that same so-called community is the main reason pirates remain a problem - and the way the brahmins have structured the problem, there isn't an affordable or effective naval response. So American firms (and others) can spend "millions for defense, bit not one cent for tribute," and their counterparts can spend millions for tribute, and not one cent for defense. Competitive advantage and natural selection can take care of the rest.

I give you Massachusetts Maritime Academy professor Capt. Joseph Murphy, who is also the father of a sailor who was on the Maersk Alabama during the first pirate attack in April. He says that about 20% of the ships off East Africa are currently armed, adding:

"Somali pirates understand one thing and only one thing, and that's force... They analyze risk very carefully, and when the risk is too high they are going to step back. They are not going to jeopardize themselves."

When perverse international law and irresponsible governance make defense difficult, it goes private. People will protect themselves. That's happening here, and it's a long term trend to watch, because the utter incompetence of international bodies like the UN, and persistent refusal to adapt to the modern age, are not going away any time soon.

« ok, I'm done now