Did you even read the article? You know, the part where China is providing aide to and voicing their support for Robert Mugabe, one of the world's worst dictators. How is that good for Africa?
Bad guy, but I think the point here is that dams and roads are useful, and will continue to be useful through many possible future regime changes. The western conception of good goverment mostly seems to be granted to those who are useful to the west.
More than just useful, roads are a huge enabler of local economies. Many rural areas in Africa are so poorly served by roads that it is impossible to build any decent size of business there without access to a lot of starting capital. Even if a lot of the money disappears, having it tied to infrastructure deliverables is a win for the population.
The existence of an arguably worse dictator someplace else with US support does not excuse China from providing support to a terrible dictator in Africa. That logic doesn't work in either direction. For example, if I think the US is doing something bad, I don't feel any better about it if I discover that China is doing the same thing but worse.
Tu quoque is fallacy only if we use it to justify our own actions.
I was not using the argument as a excuse. I was just pointing out that what China does is normal. National interest trumps human rights everywhere. The main difference is that western countries must justify their actions to the public. We use human rights to rationalize wars against enemy dictators while staying inactive towards our own dictators.
Moral arguments from every side in international politics should be seen as propaganda.