Even without the “kuangukia” angle, there are some very lucrative, yet untapped, opportunities that Kenya can leverage from its relationship with China and reap big gains, simply by thinking strategically.
The focus on big infrastructure and basic extraction has created an artificially narrow perception within government regarding the true scope of Sino-Africa opportunities. This is regrettable because government is struggling to meet revenue targets and to offer opportunities to wananchi who are increasingly restless due to increased economic hardship.
I can’t get into too much detail in a public forum but sooner or later other countries will identify these untapped opportunities and leave us in the dust crying foul or playing catch-up.
Too many missed opportunities to create jobs and grow the economy – because the right people are in the wrong jobs (and vise versa) – thanks to runaway corruption, incompetence (nepotism/patronage/cronysm) and negligence / apathy.
Still, I remain stubbornly optimistic that things can change for the better; if not for us, for the coming generation(s).
Brgds,Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst – Indigenous Innovations]
On Friday, May 24, 2019, 1:40:08 PM GMT+3, Barrack Otieno via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Patrick and Kathy,
I like the kuangukia bit. We should amplify this part of the conversation. How exactly can Africa net consumer capitalise on the situation?
Regards
On Fri, 24 May 2019 13:12 Kathy Mwai via kictanet, <[email protected]> wrote:
Patrick,
I am in complete agreement with you here – China is being smart and most probably planning what battles to fight. I can’t wait to see how the fact that China holds America’s biggest debt is going to play out. And as far as manufacturing? Yeah perhaps it wasn’t a smart move to not decentralize but creating redundancy in manufacturing I suppose is not the thing that happens. The way I see it is that this move is going to get companies to move out of China to avoid the tariffs, systematically weaken China – a long shot though – and thereby tame their increasing dominance. What with the road and belt initiative which America is super opposed to? Not forgetting that this is a political move and 2020 is beckoning.
Is a wait and observe from here onwards…
Kathy
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:48 PM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul, could it be the other way round… that China’s power is being underestimated?
Consider the following “cards” that China has yet to play:
1. Apple: a sitting duck that doesn’t seem to have a “plan B” for its factories. Numerous other US manufacturers (e.g. shoe/apparel industry) are in the same boat.
2. US has materially significant reliance on China for supply of rare earth elements (essential for its tech and defense manufacturing industries). Currently, only China can meet US demand.
3. As a net exporter, china can artificially devalue its currency to offset the impact of US trade sanctions/concessions.
4. China also holds a significant amount of US bonds that it can fire-dump to try trigger an economic crisis in the US. Might backfire on China though.
5. It can also dump dollars and switch to barter / other currencies, weakening USD hegemony (e.g. in global commodities markets).
6. European manufacturers / brands / traders might not see this as their fight so could pressure their US allied governments to chart their own paths. Example being UK’s 5G quagmire. Italy and Germany as well..
7. China is a Military power (with nukes) – so the US – and (especially) its European allies – will think twice, or thrice, before leveraging military options.
8. China could come down hard on us national champions, like Boeing.
I think China is exercising tactical restraint and playing for time as US gets into election mode.
If there was ever an incentive for a state actor to hack the US election and put a more “moderate” person in office, China has plenty of it right now. So does Russia – after the sanctions. Interesting times ahead in the cyber realm.
On relocating factories, it’s not that easy (except for low-tech industries). Tech manufacturing relies on supply chain ecosystems, complex tooling and specialized labor that takes time to develop in a sustainable way. By optimizing their supply chain, US manufacturers inadvertently put all their eggs in one basket instead of developing strategic resilience by setting up distributed factories in the global south – especially in Africa.
Hard to blame them though… I don’t think anyone could have imagined the present day scenario as a plausible risk! The business case for geographical redundancy just didn’t exist. But it does now.
You can be sure that governments, investors and corporations are following these events very closely and learning fast.. and so it is likely that there will be major global production/supply chain adaptations as global actors implement smart geopolitical risk management strategies.
Africa stands to gain massively (“kuangukia”) – especially countries that can quickly get their act together (control corruption, reduce nepotism and build the right strategic teams to tap into these new opportunities via win-win models).
Good day,Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst – Indigenous Innovations]
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019, 1:49:43 AM GMT+3, Paul Magacha via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Listers,I can’t stop my self from commenting on this topic. It looks like we are underestimating USA and its allies. US is a net importer while China is a net exporter, economics experts, understand the impact of tariffs on these types of economies.
Also china’s economy is not that open compared to the western economies. Google maps can’t be used in China etc.
Chinese government spends billions of dollars sending students to US to learn technology and sciences but I don’t see US government doing the same. Clearly you should see who are the leaders. Don’t forget most of Chinese technology was derived from stolen intellectual property (IP) from US and the Chinese government encourages this.
The country with the highest number of cyber attacks is the US and most of the attacks come from China, Russia, Iran etc. trying to steel technology and IP.
And finally don’t forget USA made China the way it is now. First by allowing China to join WTO and by doing so China was able to increase trade with US and secondly US and its allies transferring knowledge to China through joint ventures. They stopped using japan and Korea since the cost of labor increased in those countries and if the cost of labor increases in China they will move again.Br,Paul.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2019, at 11:11 AM, Erick Mwangi via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
A bit of context: Huawei is the largest telecom equipment company in the world. It posted more than $107B in revenue last year and operates in more than 170 countries, that is a threat to the US. They are also the first to develop 5G technology, which will ensure AI devices function seamlessly, driverless cars not to crash, machines communicate in real time round the world and that nearly every device in the world will be wired.
They just have not risen to the top by accident, they have a whooping 80k staff dedicated to R&D – Thats half of its staff in R&D..
This is def a trade war and the US has been spooked, Huawei having its own OS will be a game changer.
So are we relying on Global Techs?
I tend to look at it this way, we rely on what works for us. Repercussions – well he who pays the piper…
Best
E Njoroge MwangiTechnology| FINTECH | Big Data
Cell +44 7539372742Skype: Erick.mwangi
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:47 AM Alex Comninos via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for starting the debate.
I think this is a trade war instigated by a madman
Definitely there is a reliance on Global tech, but making trade-war sabre rattling around consumer products is not dealing with the issues involved.
Its weird the focus is on Google and Android while Huawei has got components in telecom networks around the world.
Its possible for anyone to backdoor components.
Its easy to throw these accusations around and there is little scrutiny when pointing at the traditional bad guys. Remember supermicro? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/05/bloomberg-submitted-big-hack-story-award/?utm_term=.4c1c59bb4bb5
There are also western companies doing the same thing.
I think resorting to not importing tech from other countries is not viable. The only solution would be very hard: open hardware, transparent procurement, controls in the supply chain, and much vigilance.
Best, Alex
On 21 May 2019, at 04:28, Kelvin Kariuki via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Listers,
I hope this email finds you well, this is the current trending topic, I’d like to here your views on this topic from a Policy Perspective.
Are we overrelying on Global Techs? What are the possible repercussions if they pull out on us? Should Global Techs be declared Dominant to balance the market and reduce the risks of a failure? Feel free to add more questions.
Looking forward to your views on this.
