|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 6, 2023 8:08:29 GMT -5
North Korea is more of a client state. In the Chinese aligned orbit are countries like Iran, Russia, Sudan, Pakistan (due to India) and the Central Asia countries.
It is not at all as unified as the US and its allies, but they're united by the concept of 'national sovereignty' (i.e. the government can do what it wants inside its border and fuck the international response). Yet you can see which way China falls with Ukraine-Russia. For all the sovereignty rethoric, China is obviously supporting Russia and doing the bare minimum for Ukraine to save face.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Jun 6, 2023 9:49:06 GMT -5
China has absolutely massive investment in Africa and a lot of asia as part of their 'belt and road' initiatives. They are investing far, far more than either the US or Europe and a lot of analysts are worried that it could lead to China having more influence over these developing parts of the world.
Money and military power can extend a country's influence much more than soft or ideological power.
Look at what has happened with Australia, who hate China on multiple levels and constantly oppose them, while grimacing and holding open hands to the apparently one billion dollars per day that China is paying them in natural resources being mined from central Australia. Their politicians have got this constant battle of attempting to oppose China politically, while keeping those payments coming in.
The same is happening to a lesser extent in the UK. Oppose China politically, but not too much so that they stop investment in the UK's new nuclear programme, which would not exist without Chinese investment.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 6, 2023 10:14:48 GMT -5
The problem for the African and Asian countries is that these loans were no questions asked (and no pesky human rights demands). China wants its money back, but it is turning into a slow moving financial disaster for the government. Turns out you can temporarily appear generous, untill you come to collect. foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/21/china-debt-diplomacy-belt-and-road-initiative-economy-infrastructure-development/Their approach in Western countries was very different, here they outright bought up companies, instead of engaging in loan shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jun 6, 2023 10:44:00 GMT -5
They are making big efforts in Central Asia (The 'Stans), Africa, and recently the Middle East. Despite some high profile results in the Middle East, there is an ongoing debate about the success of their diplomatic efforts elsewhere such as Belt and Roads and the New Silk Road. A lot of investment, but it is unclear if much else has come from it.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Jun 7, 2023 3:43:42 GMT -5
I have read about empty towns and industrial areas, roads which go no-where or are completely un-used. I have no doubt that there is a need for investment and development in some poorer countries, but it sounds like it needs to be done more conscientiously.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jul 26, 2023 12:24:54 GMT -5
Foreign Minister sacked after 6 months and replaced with their predecessor.
Does this mean anything? Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 26, 2023 12:33:47 GMT -5
Generally when these kinds of people go missing in China like this, they have been too critical of the party or Xi. We don't know what Qin did, there are rumors of health issues or an affair, but given that the CCP is scrubbing him online, it does look like he offended someone a size too big.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Jul 27, 2023 11:09:45 GMT -5
This is when the water level in Shenzen harbour rises consistently with a 57kg object being placed in it.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Aug 7, 2023 9:56:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2023 15:22:33 GMT -5
Chinese state affiliated actors have been doing this for years, it's newsworthy but not noteworthy at this point, a bit like the news about another North Korean missile test.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Aug 10, 2023 10:18:53 GMT -5
I think some "historian" of the future could write an interesting analysis of comparing the rise of China to the Rise of the German Empire in Europe. There are some parallels:
1. Both had a rise in industrialization that challenged the previously dominant power 2. Ambitious and "aggressive" foreign policy and execution of said policy 3. Naval arms race 4. Race for Africa 5. Alignment with declining powers (China/Russia and Germany/Austro-Hungary)
I am not qualified to cover it in depth, but these are some surface comparisons I can make between China now and Germany prior to WWI. I do not like what I am seeing, and perhaps there is a "Model" that could be made from these two examples?
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Aug 10, 2023 11:14:08 GMT -5
Definitely looks like some parallels there, but lets hope that it doesn't end in the same way! Perhaps there is the same potential for the conflict to escalate via treaty and into a 'global superpower' conflict, as per WW1, should China decide to invade Taiwan.
What might be interesting is whether their increasing assertiveness on the world stage extends to Imperialism and attempts at military conquest, or is limited to economic or political influence. I think we will see increasing attempts on military domination of their immediate neighbours, or in the South-China sea, but not necessarily any military colonialism of the sort exercised by Europe, the US or Russia in the past.
Have read a couple of books on this topic: 1421 by Gavin Menzies, which is absolutely fascinating, and Why the West Rules for Now, by Ian Morris, and the impression I got from those books is that we aren't going to see an imperialistic, expansionist China, as it's not in their culture and history to do so, or even the Gunboat diplomacy enacted by the British Empire. In the book 1421, they describe the absolute military and technological advantage that China had when compared to the rest of the known world. And yet conquest was internecine, the large fleets of ships travelled overseas to trade and collect tribute, they were not full of soldiers intent on conquest.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 10, 2023 14:14:47 GMT -5
I think some "historian" of the future could write an interesting analysis of comparing the rise of China to the Rise of the German Empire in Europe. There are some parallels: 1. Both had a rise in industrialization that challenged the previously dominant power 2. Ambitious and "aggressive" foreign policy and execution of said policy 3. Naval arms race 4. Race for Africa 5. Alignment with declining powers (China/Russia and Germany/Austro-Hungary) I am not qualified to cover it in depth, but these are some surface comparisons I can make between China now and Germany prior to WWI. I do not like what I am seeing, and perhaps there is a "Model" that could be made from these two examples? I don't know you can call it a model, but it is a very similar template throughout history because naval power ensures access to the sea and resources. Japan in the late 19th-early 20th century fits too. Rapid industrialization and fighting the previous dominant powers in the region such as Russia and China. Point 2, 3, 4 and 5 need little explaining, just replace Africa with Asia. But if you take out the industrialization aspect, it just follows the footsteps of the rise and fall of most early modern empires. The Dutch, the British, the Spanish, the French. You can find parallels with a lot of historical states that fit to an extent. For example, instead of pre-WW 1 Germany, compare China to pre-WW 2 Germany: 1. A devastating past war and foreign occupation, causing distrust of other powers. 2. A loss of parts of 'their' country due to past events, slowly conquering or otherwise regaining lost parts until a breaking point is reached internationally. 3. An incredibly difficult economic period and a sense that they need to have autarky by acquiring resources. Economic recovery thanks to THE party. 4. The marginalized state alignment. It just depends on which angle you look at, you can find something anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 10, 2023 14:26:45 GMT -5
What might be interesting is whether their increasing assertiveness on the world stage extends to Imperialism and attempts at military conquest, or is limited to economic or political influence. I think we will see increasing attempts on military domination of their immediate neighbours, or in the South-China sea, but not necessarily any military colonialism of the sort exercised by Europe, the US or Russia in the past. Have read a couple of books on this topic: 1421 by Gavin Menzies, which is absolutely fascinating, and Why the West Rules for Now, by Ian Morris, and the impression I got from those books is that we aren't going to see an imperialistic, expansionist China, as it's not in their culture and history to do so, or even the Gunboat diplomacy enacted by the British Empire. In the book 1421, they describe the absolute military and technological advantage that China had when compared to the rest of the known world. And yet conquest was internecine, the large fleets of ships travelled overseas to trade and collect tribute, they were not full of soldiers intent on conquest. We shouldn't forget CCP China has already extended to military conquest and imperialism, having conquered Xinjiang and Tibet after the civil war to restore old imperial borders. They have also engaged in military colonialism at the moment, as one big reason they have for controlling the South China Sea is the natural resources, the nine dash line is just the vaguest of attempts at a historical claim. Further overseas it is not necessary, as they can just buy up resources. The major reasons that China did not conquer the world were twofold: 1. The geographical borders and imperial overstretch limited further growth. Chinese dynasties over the centuries attempted to expand into for example what is now Vietnam, but couldn't hold on long term (as Russia has towards the east and south). 2. Similar to other empires, further expansion wasn't profitable enough. Japan was difficult to conquer (but the Yuan Dynasty tried), Central Asia and Mongolia/Siberia were large and sparsely populated areas where the Chinese military tradition did not excel (several dynasties were founded and fell to people from these areas) and to the south mountains shielded them from most of South-East Asia/China. Successive Chinese Dynasties tried to conquer as far as possible, but at some point you just can't extend any further due to a host of reasons that don't just depend on military or technological strength. What is/was China culturally is already vastly inflated to what is China today exactly due to the Chinese imperial history. China now likely won't go full on Scramble for Africa for the same reason the US didn't post WW-2, because there are better alternatives to fighting.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Aug 11, 2023 4:46:41 GMT -5
That last sentence is definitely a very good point. While you are making a lot of money and exerting influence without needing to use military power, then it makes sense to continue to do so. Perhaps the point we have to worry is when China starts to plateau economically, or at least there is a stalling of economic growth and an increased level of hardship for the new middle and working classes, and Xinping needs a 'distraction' - as has happened in Russia with Putin and Ukraine, suddenly a quick military action has everyone forgetting poverty for a moment. At this point we worry more for Tibet, and global stock markets start to tumble.
As for Xinjang and Tibet, yes absolutely, but these pale in significance when compared to the extension of military power exerted by Europe, the US, Russia during the 20th century. And in the modern era, China has not yet had 'its Afghanistan'.
I also wonder how much the military-industrial complex will start to dictate Chinese policy, as it has in the US and Russia. China now spends a vast amount of money on its military, but again it pales in comparison to the US (upon checking, $225 billion, vs. $877 billion for 2022) At what point does that start to exert significant political force to help push the use and further growth of those industries? I think it's fair to argue about Eisenhower's warning, of how the military-industrial complex helped generate 'hawks' in congress and conflicts such as Vietnam or the first and second Gulf wars become more likely. One must assume that a similar thing will start to happen within Chinese politics, if it is not already doing so.
|
|