Failed implies they tried which we all know did not happen. The goal was not to improve the material conditions of the population
They did try their darndest on Africa actually..... but they haplessly tripped and accidentally hit their head into IMF debt trapping them, their left hand landed straight onto the detonation button for launching NATO bombs directed at certain places, their right hand somehow found itself overthrowing leaders and vassalizing states and destabilizing them, causing perpetual wars to continue to be perpetual, all in the midst of their fall.
Poor them :((((.... sure hope that their successor won't "accidentally" do the same to them.
Well China does have the benefit of just ordering the work to be done and funded by the government, rather than a random contractor dropping the ball over cost overruns or not quoting the next stage because they fear losing money. For example Rogers committed to building cell towers through the coastal mountains or rockies to ensure service on those transit routes, BC agreed to contribute a large amount to help. Rogers starts then cancels it all saying land acquisition or development is going to cost to much for the towers. Whereas if it were a government project it would just get done regardless of extra costs, and profit isn't a factor.
Well Europe had the benefit of full sovereignty over the entire continent, instead of investing in infrastructure it was all just plundered in the name of profits for the honeland
I mean, don't get me wrong I know that China is not doing anything of pure benevolency, still having China as a partner is better than being a colony I guess
I believe that a better counterargument would be: "well when Europe was relevant to the african continent electricity wasn't even deployed in all of Europe"
Thank God! Because we all know those backward Africans never could have done it on their own ๐
