r/technology • u/lurker_bee • 23h ago

Biotechnology Burkina Faso says no to Bill Gates’ plan of creating modified species of mosquitoes

https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/lifestyle/burkina-faso-says-no-to-bill-gates-plan-of-creating-modified-species-of-mosquitoes/xyk7xm8
9.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

89

u/Popular_Brief335 22h ago

So he is stupid?

200

u/Nachooolo 20h ago edited 20h ago

He's a military dictator that expelled the French forces and hired the Wagner Group to fight jihadists. The jihadist control around 40% of Burkina Faso's territory and their attacks are intensifying.

So. Yes.

Edit: Yes. France is neo-colonial power.

But. Because life isn't binary. Traore can also be a military dictator whose is doing a horrible job at fighting the jihadists while also selling his country to the Russians (who are also doing a horrible job at fighting the jihadists).

82

u/mulligan 20h ago
  1. Military dictator is bad
  2. Hiring the Wagner group, also bad

But you make it seem like expelling French forces is also bad, why?

47

u/LiechWaffle 20h ago

Because they asked help from France to get rid of the jihadists. But they couldn’t do it so Russian propaganda made people starting to believe the French were on the side of the terrorists and that’s how Wagner took their place. So yes bad

34

u/jofra6 16h ago edited 16h ago

There is evidence* that Russia was clandestinely aiding said jihadist groups, in multiple West African countries that have had coups d'état, aiding governmental opposition that then conveniently took power and hired Wagner to "help" secure their countries.

  • See Popular Front episode "Investigating PMC Wagner's Mission in Africa".

67

u/Nachooolo 20h ago edited 20h ago

More mixed. The French there were not as an occupation force, but to help the Burkina Faso goverment with the insurgency.

Of course, they were also there to impose French neo-colonial interest. But they were far better at fighting the jihadists than the Russians.

And the Russians aren't there pro bono either. So they replaced a neo-colonial power that was good at fighting the insurgency with another neo-colonial power that is bad at fighting the insurgency.

And, alongside this. This change happened because a coup changed a semi-democratic, corrupt government to a corrupt military dictatorship.*

*Edit: The coup that dissolved the goverment was done by Damiba. Traore did another coup months afterwards and replaced Damiba as the dictator.

13

u/Moifaso 17h ago

Of course, they were also there to impose French neo-colonial interest.

In this case, the "neocolonial interest" was "we would like to not have ex colonies fall to jihadists and flood us with refugees"

18

u/EconomicRegret 12h ago

No. France and its corporations have tons of economic/business interests and investments in Burkina Faso, in the Sahel, and West Africa in general, e.g. mining (gold, uranium, etc.), banking, agriculture,, industry, etc. And these terrorists are threatening their interests.

12

u/Moifaso 11h ago edited 11h ago

Trade between BK and France is in the few hundreds of millions. That's a drop in the bucket. Like all the Sahel countries it's a desperately poor place with very few productive sectors. France doesn't even have that big a stake in the big industries - almost all foreign owned mining is British, Canadian, Australian, or Chinese owned.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/burkina-faso-completes-nationalisation-five-gold-mining-assets-2025-06-12/

Bottom line is that economic links do exist, but they're minor when compared to the cost of aid and a military intervention. BK and the other Sahel states are landlocked, very poor, and mostly trade with neighbors. Their value to France (and the value of their security) comes from cultural/diaspora connections, and from the significant number of French citizens live or have family there.

We're talking about countries with already very significant migrant/refugee flows to France. If a 2013 ISIS situation were to unfold in the Sahel, France would really feel it. That's the big concern, not the .3% of France's trade that passes through the region.

2

u/Chucknastical 1h ago

is in the few hundreds of millions

I don't know squat about the area but just want to point out trade between France and its former colonies is not the point. It's who owns the capital.

Burkina Faso may trade with countries other than France but it's possible French nationals and interests ultimately control the capital behind those industries.

It all winds up in offshore accounts anyway so it's not like it would show up in France's GDP numbers. Doesn't mean a French billionaire isn't living off the countries resources.

Case in point, what Wagner and Putin are doing there now.

-3

u/EconomicRegret 11h ago

No. France and its corporations have tons of economic/business interests and investments in Burkina Faso, in the Sahel, and West Africa in general

If Burkina Faso fell in the hands of terrorists, also France's interest would be threatened, all over west Africa and in the Sahel.

7

u/Moifaso 10h ago

If Burkina Faso fell in the hands of terrorists, also France's interest would be threatened, all over west Africa and in the Sahel.

You're just repeating yourself. I'm saying the region isn't particularly relevant to France in terms of trade volume or capital flows.

Certainly not enough to justify billions a year in military assistance and aid on purely economic grounds.

Again, these are some of the poorest countries in the world. They are resource rich but even those existing resource operations are small in scope - and again, mostly owned by other countries.

-3

u/EconomicRegret 10h ago

Sure, that's why France was all over it. Just out of the goodness of its heart. And that's why Russia stole it away. Because it too wants to give aid and military help for free and do good.

Do you also believe colonialism was all about saving indigenous people's souls through Jesus and prayer, and also about the civilizing mission to uplift the indigenous people? And that slavery was actually good for them?

LMAO.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FIuffyAlpaca 56m ago

Lol someone drank the Russian propaganda

-7

u/TransBrandi 18h ago

So it's basically a Far Cry 4 type situation. (Everyone sucks, just some suck a bit less than others)

1

u/dionysus2523 17h ago

No, an imperfect situation was made measurably and demonstrably worse.

1

u/TransBrandi 14h ago

I mean, that sort of is the point of Far Cry 4? The dictator at the beginning is probably the lesser of the other evils.

1

u/Swahhillie 13h ago

Didn't play fc4 but I don't think France is a good match to the dictator in that. France wasn't the lesser evil there. That's the BF government itself.

Troare swapped competent, enlightened self interest for incompetent, myopic greed. Why? Because populism is playing politics on easy mode.

7

u/MrAngryBeards 20h ago

Obviously African countries are too late to claim any form of sovereignty /s

9

u/Schiano_Fingerbanger 17h ago

Replacing French troops with Wagner mercs is not a gain in Burkinabé sovereignty 🤦‍♂️

0

u/Fireproofspider 14h ago

By definition it is. Mercenaries are paid by the burkinabé government. French troops weren't

-1

u/MrAngryBeards 15h ago

I get your point and I'm not gonna go defending some paramilitary entity, but it's obvious to me that getting rid of western influence is of great importance to Traoré. Meaning, while they can't count on their own forces, gambling on a new ally seems reasonable and not at all a defeatist/sellout move. Nothing is black and white, and trying to reclaim a country that has been abused for so long will likely involve some questionable decisions. In this case, the questionable trade-off I'd argue definitely results in a net positive in terms of sovereignty.

4

u/TomDRV 20h ago

I don't know much about it but It's probably because whatever the geopolitical and realpolitik motivations they have to be there (may not be altruistic), they are at the end of the day a professional army attempting to protect locals and kill terrorists.

The wagner group is most definitely not. I think they're more concerned with defending resource mines in return for favourable export deals for russia to due the resources.

2

u/Hour-Anteater9223 20h ago

You should watch the CGP grey YouTube video rules for rulers

I think it will be helpful in understanding how authoritarians who do not have democratic systems must still provide value to their constituents “keys to power”.

TLDR when a dictator is “replaced”, the new dictator has to allocated the state capture to benefit their keys to power (ie wagner, or other military backers) in a manner that justifies those backers leaving the previous dictator.

Unless it’s a scenario where a commodity can be extracted at a more intense level, like RSF and Al-mehti’s gold mines, the size of the wealth dictatorships can siphon off these developing nations rarely grows faster than the need to reallocate state capture to their supports who are more important than random citizens, hence frequent coups and non responsive government to the constituents.

If you throw out the French who are obviously flawed(central currency control etc, but once again we could argue that’s to prevent access to resources like that state capture we previously described, CERTAINLY at minimum paternalistic…)

Yet Burkina Faso will still need for such a role to fight the Islamic rebels trying to overthrow the country. It’s very likely the “cost” of that support presently provided by Wagner has been 1. Less successful 2. More expensive 3. But the French are gone. So to some, worth it if every aspect of their life is measurably worse, which should leave any sane person thinking was it actually worth? But Im not going to speak for the average Burkina Faso person, but neither is a dictator such as Torare

-8

u/blacmagick 20h ago

Because colonialism is good and developing countries shouldn't have national sovereignty, obviously.

21

u/AccomplishedFail2247 20h ago

So they invited the fucking Wagner group in?

6

u/blacmagick 20h ago

Yes, inviting a foreign group or country in by choice = national sovereignty.

A foreign country refusing to leave, maintains control over your currency, influencing your country's policies and politicians =/= national sovereignty.

This isn't hard.

21

u/Single_Quail_4585 20h ago

The french were invited by the previous government though...

6

u/boozewald 20h ago

You should look up Thomas Sankara.

6

u/blacmagick 20h ago edited 19h ago

"Invited" is a strange way to say "invaded", and "previous government" is a funny way to reference people who lived in 1896.

People really need to learn their history before they decide to regurgitate false information online. And the worst part is this is SO FUCKING EASY TO VERIFY. Am I losing my mind, or are people actually this fucking stupid.

-3

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 18h ago

Am I losing my mind, or are people actually this fucking stupid.

Yes

They saw Wagner group and just assume anything related to Russia must be the bad guys. Completely unaware what France has been doing in Africa in the modern day.

It's barely known in America how evil France is in Africa, much less American actions there too. I've yet to meet a single person who knows that we have been at war in 5+African countries since the 00s.

0

u/meneldal2 15h ago

In recent years France hasn't been showing up to Africa uninvited and when asked to leave they do.

I don't think you can trust Russians to leave if you ask them to.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/conquer69 12h ago

nd just assume anything related to Russia must be the bad guys.

That is the correct assumption all the time. Russia is a fascist state and Wagner is composed of literal nazis.

→ More replies (0)

20

u/Nachooolo 20h ago edited 20h ago

Do you think that a military dictatorship backed by Russia has national sovereignty?

This is like saying that Franco's Autarky was Spain having national sovereignty...

The French were (and still are) neo-colonial. BUt it is downright absurd to think that Traore is the defender of Burkina Faso independence.

He's just another dictator selling his country to a foreign power.

It's just that now that power is Russia. And that Russia is doing a horrible job at keeping the jihadists at bay.

This is not a binary conflict. France and Traore can be bad at the same time.

-11

u/blacmagick 20h ago

How is he bad exactly? Can you give some concrete reasons? Poeple seem to see that he's taken help from Russia and think that simply by association, that makes him bad. When the reality is far more that the West has done nothing to help them gain independence from France, so who else are they going to turn to? People would have complained just as much if they'd gotten help from China, which realistically would be the only other option.

He's brought in machinery so that his people can have the means to work, has redistributed previously foreign privately owned land to his people, and nationalized industries, like gold, that were producing massive profits for foreign private companies.

I can't see how anyone would think these things are bad unless you think developing countries should exist only as a means for the West to get rich.

20

u/Nachooolo 19h ago edited 19h ago

Well. For starters. The jihadist insurgency has intensified since the Fernch left and now 40% of the territory is under jihadist control.

That alone paints the man in a horrible light. But, for some reason, you seem to ignore that.

Besides that. Burkina Faso has sold the gold mining rights to Russia this same year. This is a very common neo-colonial tactic by Russia and Wagner, owning other gold mines throughout Africa as a way to fund the Russian state and military since the sacntions caused by their invasion of Ukraine.

This gold mining doens't only lead to the economic explotation of Africa, but also violence itself. Wagner owning gold mines in Sudan is one of the reasons why the Sudanese Civil War erupted, as Wagner and the RSF had some deep links.

I can't see how anyone would think these things are bad unless you think developing countries should exist only as a means for the West to get rich.

You seem to be the one who thinks that Burkina Faso is going to be exploited no matter what. As you yourself think that the only other option besides being exploited by Russia is to either be exploited by France or by China (while also ignoring that China would probably still be a better option than Russia, seeing that Russia also comes alongside the brutalisation of the local population by Wagner/Africa Corps).

You are not anti-colonial. You're doing apologia for the neo-colonial exploitation of Burkina Faso by Russia. All because Russia isn't "the West."

5

u/UrToesRDelicious 19h ago

What's frustrating is that I'm very anti-imperialist, but I have guys like this on my side.

-3

u/blacmagick 18h ago edited 18h ago

If you think Traore is bad, we're not on the same side, and you're not anti-imperialist. His government was literally formed on anti-imperialism and people in this comment section are basically saying "no, not like that".

Anti-imperialist movements are rarely perfect. Concessions need to be made because the West will sanction these countries into the dirt. If you only support actual anti-imperialist movements if they're done the "right way," then you wouldn't support the vast majority of them throughout history.

"I support anti-imperialism, but only if it's done the right way."

"I support women's rights, but they're too aggressive with their advocacy."

I support he civil rights movement, but their protests are too disruptive."

3

u/UrToesRDelicious 16h ago

"I support anti-imperialism, but only if it's done the right way."

Correct, because causing measurably more harm to your people under the banner of anti-imperialism is the very logic that fascists use, just under a different banner.

You can't ignore the material conditions of people today for some idealized version of the future. I will not join hands with harmful dictators, and sum the harm they cause up as anti-imperialist imperfections all because we share part of an ideology.

Fuck your purity test.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/blacmagick 18h ago

Striking a deal with a foreign country to export your national resources is incredibly different from a foreign country essentially owning your resources as a result of a direct invasion and over a century of colonisation. The two aren't even comparable. Unless you're arguing that Russia being voluntarily granted the rights to these mines is as bad as France having taken them by force and refusing to relinquish them.

It's the difference between inviting someone into your house and them breaking in. Your only concern seems to be that someone is in the house, not how they got in.

Striking a deal with a foreign country is not always imperialism. It may turn out that way and it may not. This isn't to say I like the Wagner deal, but let's not pretend like voluntarily selling resources is as bad as being occupied.

3

u/bourton-north 20h ago

That is not the actions of a stupid person. Those might be the actions of a bad person, but not stupid.

3

u/eagleal 18h ago

I’d wage my 2 cents and call this analysis bonkers.

Russia is bad maybe, but it’s there for the same reasons France was there, or why the USA and China too are contending Africa and has nothing to do with helping governments against “jihadists”. It seems Russia offered better terms to the new dictator.

The rise in militia activities you’ve seen it’s not because of France leaving, but an ongoing chain of crisis brought by destabilizations in ME and surrounding regions. And this is mainly the shortsighted policies of the Western hegemony, with USA, UK, France and Israel being the main actors.

In fact you can see the fall to the US hegemony in the Pacific and current local regional powers starting real military attritions

1

u/sbFRESH 10h ago

The leader is actually quite popular in Burkina Fasso. He has quite a lot of support thanks to keeping his promises and being serious about making Burkina Fasso an independent state.

1

u/brain_rays 8h ago

Burkina Fascist

1

u/dimgrits 17h ago

But the jihadists are precisely fighting against French neo-colonial rule...

1

u/Historical-Jump 15h ago

ive seen some videos of the french exploiting african countries to this day

0

u/Black_RL 20h ago

Your post makes me sad.

• ⁠military dictator • ⁠French forces • ⁠Wagner group • ⁠jihadists

Wtf, can it get any worse?

-7

u/Expert-Diver7144 20h ago

Colonial BS

-1

u/LeFricadelle 18h ago

France left when asked to leave, which colonial power would do the same ? Ridiculous wording

35

u/Zeikos 22h ago

Not necessarily, I doubt taking Gate's offer would be a free lunch.
Given Burkina Faso's recent efforts in building infrastructure and investing in local industry I would guess that they have internal plans in place and they don't like the tradeoff of taking aid from the US.

113

u/Whatsapokemon 21h ago

It's literally a free lunch. The Gates foundation has been doing charity programs for decades.

Gates is the rare breed of people who actually wants to leave a positive mark on the world.

It's also not "aid from the US", it's a private charity.

19

u/Loeffellux 20h ago

I'm taking an alternative approach to this issue. My problem is not that Gates is a secret villain but simply that good intentions don't automatically make for the optimal outcome.

I can't recall the specifics but the AstraZeneca corona vaccine was actually invented by Oxford University who pledged to donate the rights. They were then convinced by the Gates foundation to sell the rights to AstraZeneca instead.

I'm not saying there weren't real and understandable reasons for this like ensuring an orderly and safe rollout by a company that's well established in the industry and so on. But at the very least, this decision has had negative consequences for people living in poorer countries that often had to buy the vaccines for higher prices than richer countries. In the end, a lot of them had to wait for China's vaccine.

I'm also not saying that I can be sure that more people would've survived had the rights been granted for free like Oxford originally planned but at the very least it seems likely.

18

u/Nauin 19h ago

Please educate yourself on Bill Gates before making statements like that. He's not as bad as most of the other billionaires but he is still plenty problematic and these charity donations more often than not completely destroy the economies and job markets of the places they're donated to.

Behind the Bastards has a multi-part series on Gates that goes into a lot of his history and what he has done to influence the world. Some good, a lot bad.

5

u/Moifaso 17h ago

but he is still plenty problematic and these charity donations more often than not completely destroy the economies and job markets of the places they're donated to.

Citations needed. Most of the stuff he donates either involves local labor or are things that locals aren't equipped to do - like genetically modifying mosquitos.

4

u/Nauin 14h ago

There's a ton of citation out there, but really use the source I recommended in my original comment; The two part Ballad of Bill Gates by Robert Evans.

1

u/Derbloingles 21m ago

He gave a citation

0

u/Lonyo 13h ago

Fighting malaria isn't a charitable donation

1

u/Fireproofspider 14h ago

Charity programs aren't a free lunch when talking about long term economic and developmental outcomes.

I'm not familiar with this particular program but one of the issues in my industry (pharma) is the lack of actual protection capabilities. This was especially hard during COVID and now with USAID pulling out.

1

u/brunckle 4h ago

"He who gifts gives with strings attached."

1

u/VonBeegs 1h ago

Did the whole COVID vaccine IP thing not open your eyes to Bill Gates being just another asshole billionaire whose "charity" is just a method of regulatory capture?

-10

u/AbhishMuk 20h ago

Just a question, were you familiar with Bill Gates back in the 70s till maybe the 90s?

3

u/B_Roland 20h ago

People change

3

u/AbhishMuk 20h ago

Sure, they do. But you don’t make a billion dollars from being a nice guy, and I am genuinely not sure how you can go from one of the most shrewd, ruthless, and cutthroat people to a “nice guy”. (PIf you or someone else in this thread knows how such a radical transformation is possible, I’ll be happy to have my view changed.

2

u/Etzell 19h ago

I mean, making your life's work the eradication of malaria and spending billions of dollars to do it is probably a good step, yeah?

1

u/B_Roland 19h ago

He was a young(ish) guy obsessed with his own company that he poured his life into that had to deliver numbers to keep his own prestige and more importantly, keep shareholders happy.

Now, decades later, he's a retired guy who has no incentive to think about profits and shareholders, has a different outlook on life since stepping out of his corparate environment and what's left of his ego is now invested in building a philanthropist legacy.

Something along those lines probably covers the gist of it. Those are 2 very different people with very different motives, yet they are the same guy.

Now I'm no expert on Bill Gates and don't feel any need to defend him or whatever, so please don't try to debate me on that cause I don't care. But people can genuinely change a lot. Even if plenty don't.

-11

u/ImAnAlternative 20h ago

The same Bill Gates who's friends with Epstein? That's your rare breed idol?

-22

u/Fluffcake 20h ago edited 20h ago

Free is never free.

There is a reason why half the US is cheering for kicking out people who are crushing them in the job market by working twice as hard for half the pay, charities have the same effect in many areas, because nobody can compete with free on price.

Charity should be limited to disaster relief, otherwise it is just economic terrorism.

10

u/Popular_Brief335 20h ago

lol half the us? You mean like 1-2% maybe cheering the rest don’t give a fuck. 

If the USA and its citizens stopped giving out aid many nations would crumble. 

5

u/Impossible-Topic9558 20h ago

"Free is never free"

r/iamverysmart

-5

u/Fluffcake 20h ago

If charity worked, there wouldn't be any developing countries anymore.

1

u/Whatsapokemon 10h ago

Charity should be limited to disaster relief, otherwise it is just economic terrorism.

How about development charities who build infrastructure?

How about charities that distribute vaccines or who run education programs?

How about charities that promote sexual health?

How about charities that attempt to solve huge-scale environmental problems like dealing with mosquitoes?

135

u/dnyank1 21h ago

I doubt taking Gate's offer would be a free lunch.

Are you confused what a philanthropist is? or...

Gates is retired from business. Over the next 20 years he wants his wealth redistributed to the global poor.

He really is doing it all for free.

21

u/DevilishlyAdvocating 20h ago

Altruism aside, aide can be problematic by giving developing nations a crutch that prevents them from developing the skills, economy or infrastructure to provide for themselves.

No opinion on this particular case but that can be the tradeoff of the "free lunch".

5

u/Lonyo 13h ago

Trying to deal with malaria isn't exactly a crutch.

Polio was almost eradicated by concerned global effort. Smallpox was eradicated

1

u/DevilishlyAdvocating 9h ago

It's a fair point, like I said I'm not commenting on this specific issue, moreso responding to:

Are you confused what a philanthropist is?

Since that is a flawed argument in this space.

5

u/ABHOR_pod 13h ago

I mean, sure. That might be true for many things like donating clothing or building roads or whatever.

I don't think there's a local industry for curing malaria in Burkina Faso. Might be an industry in treating the symptoms, but "Curing an endemic disease that has killed more humans than literally any other cause in history, for millennia." isn't exactly a local industry kind of endeavor. It's also not exactly something the free market is champing at the bit to solve.

I don't think that specific argument applies to the Gates foundation.

14

u/MrAngryBeards 20h ago

Also you really have to fully ignore the history of Africa to not see why one would be resistant to foreign aid, especially from ultra rich people from the US

1

u/DevilishlyAdvocating 20h ago

Exactly. Just because Gates might not get anything out of it doesn't mean it's a total benefit without tradeoffs. Extremely ignorant to suggest otherwise.

1

u/MrAngryBeards 19h ago

Under these circumstances, even some perfectly spotless no-strings attached aid could still be non-ideal in the long run. A lot of African countries have no proprietary solution to some of the issues they face, because foreign aid most often comes in the shape of band-aid solutions. Rarely do they make direct injection of money into government projects. When that occasionally happen, it's not no-strings-attached.

I don't entertain the thought too much because it really ruins my day but it's not hard to see why so many critics see the Gates Foundation as just a tax write-off scheme. Bill Gates is literally worth more money now than he was when he co-founded the giving pledge, even with all the hundreds of aid programs across Africa over however many years.

1

u/ThroawayJimilyJones 19h ago

Maybe because nobody would be stupid enough to put money in a government project, when the said governement has high level of corruption and constant power fight?

4

u/MrAngryBeards 19h ago

You don't have to inject money directly into the government. Ask for a plan, check the service providers involved, pay them directly, follow the development of the project. It's possible to help while being truthfully supportive instead of patronizing

5

u/Moifaso 17h ago

I'm sorry this argument is just insane in context

You know what famously is also a massive hindrance to development? Malaria.

More than half of BK's population are minors and half the country is under jihadist control. They have bigger fish to fry with their very limited resources than trying to homegrow an inferior malaria intervention.

50

u/Happycricket1 21h ago

Apparently, people mistake Bill Gates for China.

29

u/iamthewhatt 20h ago

Are you sure it isn't just people not trusting the global ultra rich after what we see happening right now?

24

u/Ok-Self5588 20h ago

Insane thing to say when the IMF and World Bank exist. Chinas foreign aid comes with unitedly fewer strings attached than western aid but keep lying to yourself that China is the imperialist hellscape in this equation

10

u/Dic3dCarrots 20h ago

Its the paradoxical enemy trope, belt and road is both a tragic economic blunder of the sad poor planned economy, and a hegemonic debt trap that the Chinese will use to steal what they will. Turns out theyre more 1950s American than anything else where they will work with any friendly regional power to develop their economic gosls even if that juices otherwise unsavvory political organizations. As long as the illicit activity doesnt happen on Chinese soil, they'll make any friendly want to be industrialist very wealthy, they just have to be willing to take direction from the ccp on global affairs and keep the local situation friendly, no matter how. China benefits from modernizing Brasils ports as much as Brasil does, the only loser is the US.

4

u/AccomplishedFail2247 20h ago

But then China owns the fucking ports, thats the problem. And 99% if all the serious news coverage is about the hegemonic debt trap side of the operation, no one’s talking about it in a negative sense. China owning most of Africa and South Americas critical infrastructure is not a good thing

4

u/el_muchacho 19h ago edited 19h ago

Once again, the debt trap is a lie. And no, China doesn't own "most Africa and SA's critical infrastructure".

0

u/Dic3dCarrots 19h ago

Lol hegemonic debt trap as if rogue states care about law suits. These include nations with with active human rights violations, CCP having an "ownership stake" means a lot less in the countries they're building ports in. and the ports that matter today are what they are funding in Brasil. Also, again, compare that to anything offered by the west, maybe WE dont like it, but some of these countries have no other options than China, and China has already forgiven some of the loans, but like everything, these are complex issues with people involved. There are 155 countries with BRI projects in them. I think ypu could find plenty examples of fraud waste and abuse in any human system. Some possible third of the countries have more debt due to chinese loans than they would from what analysts predict they would from Paris Club countries, but there might be other benefits for former colonized countries to take assistance from China instead of the West.

-2

u/el_muchacho 19h ago edited 19h ago

This post is so replete with falsehoods I don't even know where to start. I guess $1.6 billion of anti China propaganda has a toll on minds.

1) Claim: "belt and road is a tragic economic blunder of the sad poor planned economy"

Truth: BRI is a widely successful policy, that made China the first trade partner of more than 120 countries. There are 195 countries (including Palestine and Vatican). It's in fact so successful that the US tried to copy it, but it predictably fell flat.

2) Claim: ... and a hegemonic debt trap

Truth: there is simply NO chinese debt trap diplomacy. That's just another lie that has been debunked for years.

3) ... that the Chinese will use to steal what they will

Americans used to say that about their black slaves. And colonizers used this slur all the time.

4) Claim: Turns out theyre more 1950s American than anything else where they will work with any friendly regional power to develop their economic gosls even if that juices otherwise unsavvory political organizations.

Truth: Even on US history, you are wrong, that's not how the 1950s USA operated. The US would use the CIA to depose local leaders (sometimes democratically elected), like in Guatemala in 1954, to impose a pro- american business puppet. China does no such thing, quite the opposite, it doesn't set political conditions, it works with the government in place without interfering in interior politics as a principle. You may disagree with this principle, but the western policy which imposes their conditions is hardly ever better,

3

u/Dic3dCarrots 19h ago edited 19h ago

Your reading comprehension sucks. You're not disagreeing with my comment. My comment was that those false statements propogated in the west to hand wave away BRI are paradoxical. My point about 1950s america is that we built in countries friendly to our interests and used dollar deplomacy to fund unsavvory regimes, just like China is.

Do better ai

-5

u/el_muchacho 19h ago edited 19h ago

Do better ai

Cool, now you are insulting me. I didn't use AI. You realize how much time I spent to write this post ? No you don't. Reddit is an international website, perhaps you could figure out that not everyone's mother tongue is english. And your post is badly written as if that was your point, it doesn't come across clearly.

4

u/Dic3dCarrots 18h ago edited 18h ago

What ever ai translator you used tragically failed you -.-

Maybe next time, dont skip the first phrase of a post when responding. Pro tip, when reading English, the first phrase is generally important :)

-64

u/Qu1ckShake 21h ago

I would love to be as hideously, disgustingly naive as you.

Must be peaceful.

0

u/ArkhielModding 20h ago

We don't buy the OnlyFree

-67

u/tlm94 21h ago

for absolutely no ulterior motive whatsoever, right??

40

u/Popular_Brief335 21h ago

Sure to make his name immortal. Gates does more for the nations of Africa than then the nations of Africa do for each other 

11

u/fred11551 21h ago

I mean the ulterior motive is good publicity to make people forget all the scummy things he’s done to amass that fortune and maybe distract from any news involving him and Epstein. But like, that’s not a problem for Burkina Faso. They get free help with Malaria and Bill Gayes gets to pretend that good he’s doing now outweighs the bad he did in the past

42

u/dnyank1 21h ago

Yes. Genuinely, if you think Bill Gates is part of some global cabal trying to influence power dynamics, you've been force fed propaganda.

I've met the man! Heard him speak. He's genuine and passionate about leaving the world a better place than he found it.

Why is it so hard to believe someone might want to act altruistically, to you fucking ghouls?

Can you not imagine doing something out of kindness for other humans (or maybe even a little guilt? remorse? Who fucking knows, who fucking cares - but it's obvious his motives are not "ulterior", power or profit driven)

-1

u/Cool_Lab_1362 21h ago

Typical cynical person. To the average person they wouldn't have personally met Bill Gates and that public figure is a stranger to them. So no they wouldn't assume Gates not having any ulterior motives, it's a given by default to distrust the utmost elite rich and powerful nowadays regardless of public perception.

-11

u/[deleted] 21h ago edited 21h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/RustyGuns 21h ago

Imagine living life the way you do.

-5

u/[deleted] 21h ago

Happy and retired early? Yeah it’s tits.

5

u/Mammoth-Dot-9002 21h ago

He is an oligarch who gained power through owning a tech monopoly. But there are still kids dying from malaria. There’s nuance here - don’t be a douche. This is why the left has no power.

-12

u/[deleted] 21h ago

I’m talking to bots aren’t I?

1

u/[deleted] 21h ago edited 20h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/FoodLionDrPerky 21h ago

Can you not imagine doing something out of kindness for other humans (or maybe even a little guilt? remorse? Who fucking knows, who fucking cares - but it's obvious his motives are not "ulterior", power or profit driven)

Yes I can. I'm just not naive enough to think that's what's going on here. Bill Gates and others like him "helping" African nations is nothing more than a form of soft power. It's the same as foreign aid. It might genuinely help some people, but that's rarely the actual goal of the person/company/nation/whatever "helping". More often than not it's actually about gaining influence in the region.

9

u/Hotoelectron 20h ago

It's Africa. If he wants 'soft power' or 'influence', he can buy it for cheaper by just paying a bribe. Like, how dumb is this conspiracy theory?

6

u/dnyank1 21h ago

It's the same as foreign aid

You think actually think Bill Gates is doing this for... the bidding of the US Government? To advance some political agenda? lmfao

What "influence" does a guy whose last business endeavor was the failed Microsoft Zune MP3 player, seek? What "soft power" does he want?

Christ almighty this thread is proving I need to invest in aluminum foil manufacturers... hat sales are at all time highs

8

u/Mind_Extract 21h ago

Wow your vague sarcasm in a manic tone has convinced me

2

u/ProgressBartender 20h ago

Warren Buffet convinced Bill Gates to join him in committing to giving away all his wealth before he dies.

3

u/Soft_Walrus_3605 21h ago

What's it like thinking there are no good people in the world? Or at least people who are able to do good?

-4

u/hpayandah 20h ago

isn’t he the guy who was buddy with epstein? only time will tell

23

u/Tha_Sly_Fox 21h ago

It’s charity, he’s saying no bc of politics. BF recently had a military coup to overthrow their government and they new leader uses the west as a boogeyman to blame all their problems on.

They kicked out western anti terrorism units and replaced them with Russian Wagner soldiers, though I believe it’s becoming Russian “African Corps” soldiers since Wagner is being slowly disbanded.

The west is far from perfect and I understand African distrust over former colonizers, however this was part of a larger series of military coups across the Sahel over the past 5 years with military dictators taking control and kicking out western partners then replacing them with Russian troops who reportedly split their time between suppressing the locals populations on behalf of the government and taking control of precious metal mines while local jihadis groups run rampant and unchecked.

Gates is an American whose charity has an association to the US government, BF made the case the entire west is evil and can’t be trusted, ergo no charity from the west even if no string attached.

0

u/Akatosh66 9h ago

Turns out when colonize,steal and rape a entire continent for centuries, their people wont trust you and will in fact favor your geopolitical enemies over you

Who would have thought 🤔 

1

u/james_Gastovski 1h ago

Good luck trusting the new colonial kings

1

u/el_muchacho 20h ago

it's not USAID (which has been gutted by Musk), it's the Bill Gates Foundation. Completely unrelated to the US foreign aid and policy.

1

u/CrunchingTackle3000 14h ago

I seriously doubt the credibility of your statement

0

u/Opulent-tortoise 20h ago

LOL you mean burkina fasos recent efforts in becoming seriously indebted to Russian and China and losing half of their country to jihadists?

-37

u/Synth_Sapiens 22h ago

ROFLMAOAAAAAAA

0

u/Wide-Pop6050 20h ago

It's not aid from the US.

This doesn't prevent you from investing in local industry etc. It literally just limits the mosquitos. Which helps with building infrastructure and developing local industry. Much easier when you or your customers don't have malaria.

-35

u/Ieris19 22h ago

Roughly the same plan as Trump had when he implemented his tariffs right? Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks?

-19

u/Popular_Brief335 21h ago

another story of rich and powerful assholes fucking over the poor 

14

u/beaucoup_dinky_dau 21h ago

what do you even mean? They are trying to combat malaria. It's meant to save lives, this is where we are at in the discourse I guess.

9

u/Popular_Brief335 21h ago

In this situation gates is not the rich and powerful asshole 

7

u/johnwilkonsons 21h ago

Yes. Every time he loses a village or town to the jihadists, he comes out with some nutty (and likely untrue) announcements like being entirely debt-free or making education free (while they're one of the poorest countries on the continent). It's like clockwork

8

u/Icy-Consequence7401 21h ago

Are you getting this info from twitter per chance? He has never said Burkina Faso is debt free

3

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 18h ago

Well the West has royally fucked over basically everyone in Africa, with the French the most, then Americans, and finally Chinese still doing it to this day.

But yes he's a ministry dictatorship so he's using a bad situation to help himself not the people. But kicking the West out would likely be better long term simply because most of what they do is extract resources and leave no wealth in the country.

It's why so many countries want to nationalize their industries, and why the United States has been involved in various wars in Africa since the early 00s. We use military force to back up those western companies any time a country there tries to kick us out. It's the biggest reason why places like Africa and South America have been stuck in poverty for so long. All their wealth is taken away.

This doesn't mean he's a good guy, more than he's taking advantage of a bad situation and doing a broadly popular thing in the dumbest way possible. You want to kick out the extractive companies, not everything.

0

u/Popular_Brief335 18h ago

I think you’re very confused. The rich and powerful in Africa did way more damage than French +  China + America could put together. 

7

u/Due_Bluebird3562 16h ago edited 16h ago

The rich and powerful in Africa did way more damage than French +  China + America could put together. 

I'm pretty sure European colonization did more damage than any of these bar the French. The French absolutely took part in that.

0

u/Popular_Brief335 15h ago

Which required who? lol you can blame up to 50% max on the European rich that got together with the rich African slave owners which rounded up and sold them.

But sure magically ignore that fact it’s all the Europeans man’s fault since you need a scapegoat 

1

u/ThroawayJimilyJones 19h ago

If i had to guess, he lived in a place where there are less mosquitoes.

-5

u/LyptusConnoisseur 22h ago

Stupid, paranoid, and indifferent to people's suffering. 

2

u/ProgressBartender 20h ago

Dictators need the suffering to keep the people under their heel.

-1

u/[deleted] 21h ago edited 21h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/CardOk755 21h ago

Traoré is absolutely not stupid.

He is, however, evil.

0

u/MrAngryBeards 20h ago

It's almost like he's seen the real outcome of foreign influence and help in African countries or something

3

u/Popular_Brief335 20h ago

lol stopping defending the rich and powerful. He doesn’t give a shit about his country 

-1

u/MrAngryBeards 20h ago

I'm not going out in his defense necessarily. I'm just addressing the obvious historical reasoning why any African country could be resistant to external aid.

2

u/Popular_Brief335 19h ago

Water is wet 

1

u/MrAngryBeards 19h ago

the fact a lot of this sub will agree with your take doesn't make it any less ignorant. Africa has historically suffered at the hands of "foreign helpers". It's just a matter of time before some dictatorship begins and tries to cut off ties to any external influence. God forbid a broken country seeks to defend its own sovereignty, I guess.

1

u/Popular_Brief335 18h ago

It’s not about nations. It’s about people. We should all be willing to help and accept help from each for a better world.

We can’t let the rich and powerful that are responsible for the suffering of their nations just get people to think nationalism is best 

1

u/MrAngryBeards 15h ago

We should all be willing to help and accept help from each for a better world

I get what you mean. My point is that things are not that simple. Especially when it comes to broken countries in Africa who've been victim of endless abuse from other countries

0

u/halkenburgoito 14h ago

foreign powes have generally played a great part in fucking and graping their nations.. so...

-3

u/Namarot 20h ago

"no foreign influence or help."

He's the opposite of stupid.