6 ms·

And Africa, the pacific and everywhere else. No doubt the long term goal is to colonize the world. And they’re clever enough to do it slowly, lots of small tra

And Africa, the pacific and everywhere else. No doubt the long term goal is to colonize the world. And they’re clever enough to do it slowly, lots of small transgressions, giving each time to be accepted before moving on to the next quiet domination. Perfect example is taking control of the South China Sea. And they’re smart enough to colonize in the most modern of ways...... buy the politicians and thereby remove all possibility of government resistance.

thefounder 8y ago
I think China is worth a shot on Africa and perhaps also on Afganistan. US/EU didnt't fix the major issues(i.e poverty& education). Even more U.S is sending a clear message that it's no longer interested in supporting other countries unless they pay so I don't see why the world would not wellcome China's initiative.
- Arnt 8y ago
  What's your reaction to http://archive.is/0bLXL http://archive.is/0bLXL ? It was posted here on HN three days ago.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    I'm not the one you are answering to, but if you check the data, the poverty reduction is, mainly, due to China and some to India. They did it by not following the recommendations for development of the IMF and the World Bank (that are, basically, American institutions).
    - Arnt 8y ago
      Sure, I've seen that. No disagreement in that are. However, you can see both poverty reduction and improved education almost everywhere, even in countries where that's made mode difficult by steep population growth. Look at this, for example (GP mentioned both poverty and education so I was curious and went to look at the second of the two): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-enrollment-selected-countries?country=SLV+HUN+IND+NER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-enrollment-select... Niger is far behind Hungary and the UK, but Niger's curve doesn't look like failure to me, it looks like a success starting later than the others on the graph, and all the more impressive considering Niger's population growth. Faster growth than Hungary despite despite population growth. I'm perplex. There's a general argument, GP's is an example, that goes a little like this: "(something) may be the best ever, but it's (a failure/not good enough/...) and it's clear that (someone else/another approach/...) will achieve much better results". I don't see that it's clear not at all. But I don't see that GP is stupid either. So... I'm perplex. What is it I'm missing about GP's comment?
      - RobertoG 8y ago
        Obviously I can't tell what GP means, but I can try to explain my position. you say: 'will achieve much better results". I don't see that it's clear not at all.' If you check the policies promoted from the international institutions (and those are, in essence, a product of the USA) they are the opposite of what the developed countries did to be developed. Check Ha-Joon Chang(1) work for a study of this. Of course, the issue is very complex, but a case could be made, that the small development we see in those countries is despite the American order, instead of because of it. That's before even talking about all the invasions and coups in countries that didn't follow the interest of USA capital. A country is not developed by opening its markets, don't protecting its industry and "specializing" in exporting their natural resources, but by stability and investment. So, from the point of view of small countries, what is the problem with changing masters? And China is, for now, really investing. For instance, check your example, Niger: https://www.businessinsider.com/niger-oil-and-chinese-investment-in-africa-2015-9/?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/niger-oil-and-chinese-invest... Of course China is just following their interest, but so do the Americans. (1)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang
Arn_Thor 8y ago
Why do you use the word 'colonize'? That's most definitely not the aim. China wants access to resources on competitive and secure (for them) terms, without having to worry about governing foreign territories. (notably except the territories China considers historically hers, such as HK, Xinjiang, Taiwan and Tibet). China only cares about foreign governments to the extent they may block China's ability to buy resources. But as long as China can buy the resources it needs unencumbered it's shown no interest in domestic issues overseas.
- dgudkov 8y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with the term 'colonize' here, but if you buy resources and depend on them, you would definitely want to control as much as possible the territories the resources are coming from. Especially if they are currently governed by weak and unstable governments. It's state-level risk management 101.
  - Arn_Thor 8y ago
    A weak government is easy to buy. The less "skin in the game" China has, the more easily it can buy the favor of whoever is in power. The only way China could screw up that dynamic is by overplaying its hand through excessively unfavorable credit terms or starting projects in said country (such as outsourcing production) that draws the ire of the local population. Granted, that is happening in some places
xiaq 8y ago
With your definition of "colonize", the US has already colonized the whole world.
- adventured 8y ago
  The US inherited its superpower role by default, due to the destruction that occurred in WW2. It was the last power standing and had the resources to expand into the vacuum left behind. It didn't seek that status out, it was dropped in the US lap. Nobody would have defined the US as a global superpower in 1930. The US had to be pulled out of its shell for WW2 (a shell a sizable percentage of the population would like to return to now). The reason the US positioned its large troop contingent in Europe and formed NATO, was due to WW2 and the cold war that followed, trying to hold off the Soviet Union from further annexation of Europe. The politicians in DC are now interested in preserving that superpower status of course, long after the death of the USSR. China is aggressively seeking that superpower global positioning, at a time of peace between great nations. They're not inheriting a position of power by default, they're strategically trying to acquire it - a very different context. They have a multi-decade plan to build military bases all over the planet, to enable global power projection. They've openly stated that it's their destiny to become the global power - it's a wide-spread cultural belief that has been written about ad nauseam for two decades - supplanting the United States.
  - growlist 8y ago
    What's your point? That China's current behaviour is somehow 'worse' than US Realpolitik? Obviously I'm happy the cold war went the way it did, but let's not pretend the US didn't have to break eggs to make its omelette.
    - adventured 8y ago
      The US broke a lot of eggs post 1950, that's pretty well been written about ad nauseam as well - it's universally understood. The point is, acquiring the power that China wants, at a time of peace, while other great powers exist, requires an entirely different effort than having superpower status dropped into your lap by the default of everyone else having been blown up. China has to take that power away from other existing powerful nations, with economies that are essentially all at or near all-time highs in terms of output. If China is serious about becoming the global power, they have to go through the US and EU to do it in one manner or another. That sets up a very large global clash of cultures, clashes regarding beliefs in governance, notions about individual liberty, democracy, etc. etc. The US and Western Europe were far more aligned in ideology in the post WW2 era than what China & the EU are today. China and the EU are near polar opposites, with the EU being liberal and China being hyper regressive and authoritarian. The point is, that clash isn't going to go well, the US was welcomed into Europe due to its protector status in and after WW2 and because of its ideological and historical kinship with Europe. America in 1945 was a cousin to Europe, consisting of large parts of Europeans and European culture; China is an entirely foreign element, with very little shared in any regard.
ElBarto 8y ago
China has been continuously shafted for the last 200 years. They have just finally put their foot down and are learning from the West how it's done. A case in point is the South China Sea: They know that the best claim is the 'fait accompli', that's how the West did 'colonize the world' and it's telling that the only remaining land available are a few islands and reefs in the South China Sea. These are the crumbs we left over.
- jimmydef 8y ago
  Exactly, I'm a citizen of one of the countries in southeast Asia not involved with the whole south China sea tussle and it's amazing how skewed the reporting has been regarding the issue in the English language media. Going by those reports, you would think that it's only China that has been claiming everybody's else's territories and nothing else. But the truth is everyone in the region is claiming everyone else's territories. Vietnam is claiming Philippine territory, and vice versa. Malaysia snatched Brunei's islands several years ago and so on. And you would think that China is the most aggressive in grabbing islands judging by those reports. But the actual fact is that honour goes to Vietnam. It has grabbed the most contested islands in the South China sea and theyre the earliest to militarise them but I don't hear a single word of this in the English media. As if some narrative is being pushed.
spangry 8y ago
Sounds familiar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics
forkLding 8y ago
In terms of the South China Sea, everyone wants to "colonize" that area from China, Vietnam to the Phillipenes. For Africa, if you're referring to "debt trap diplomacy", you know what's an easy solution? Stop taking Chinese money and loans. Problem solved.

thefounder 8y ago

I think China is worth a shot on Africa and perhaps also on Afganistan. US/EU didnt't fix the major issues(i.e poverty& education). Even more U.S is sending a clear message that it's no longer interested in supporting other countries unless they pay so I don't see why the world would not wellcome China's initiative.

Arnt 8y ago
What's your reaction to http://archive.is/0bLXL http://archive.is/0bLXL ? It was posted here on HN three days ago.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  I'm not the one you are answering to, but if you check the data, the poverty reduction is, mainly, due to China and some to India. They did it by not following the recommendations for development of the IMF and the World Bank (that are, basically, American institutions).
  - Arnt 8y ago
    Sure, I've seen that. No disagreement in that are. However, you can see both poverty reduction and improved education almost everywhere, even in countries where that's made mode difficult by steep population growth. Look at this, for example (GP mentioned both poverty and education so I was curious and went to look at the second of the two): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-enrollment-selected-countries?country=SLV+HUN+IND+NER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-enrollment-select... Niger is far behind Hungary and the UK, but Niger's curve doesn't look like failure to me, it looks like a success starting later than the others on the graph, and all the more impressive considering Niger's population growth. Faster growth than Hungary despite despite population growth. I'm perplex. There's a general argument, GP's is an example, that goes a little like this: "(something) may be the best ever, but it's (a failure/not good enough/...) and it's clear that (someone else/another approach/...) will achieve much better results". I don't see that it's clear not at all. But I don't see that GP is stupid either. So... I'm perplex. What is it I'm missing about GP's comment?
    - RobertoG 8y ago
      Obviously I can't tell what GP means, but I can try to explain my position. you say: 'will achieve much better results". I don't see that it's clear not at all.' If you check the policies promoted from the international institutions (and those are, in essence, a product of the USA) they are the opposite of what the developed countries did to be developed. Check Ha-Joon Chang(1) work for a study of this. Of course, the issue is very complex, but a case could be made, that the small development we see in those countries is despite the American order, instead of because of it. That's before even talking about all the invasions and coups in countries that didn't follow the interest of USA capital. A country is not developed by opening its markets, don't protecting its industry and "specializing" in exporting their natural resources, but by stability and investment. So, from the point of view of small countries, what is the problem with changing masters? And China is, for now, really investing. For instance, check your example, Niger: https://www.businessinsider.com/niger-oil-and-chinese-investment-in-africa-2015-9/?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/niger-oil-and-chinese-invest... Of course China is just following their interest, but so do the Americans. (1)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang

Arn_Thor 8y ago

Why do you use the word 'colonize'? That's most definitely not the aim. China wants access to resources on competitive and secure (for them) terms, without having to worry about governing foreign territories. (notably except the territories China considers historically hers, such as HK, Xinjiang, Taiwan and Tibet). China only cares about foreign governments to the extent they may block China's ability to buy resources. But as long as China can buy the resources it needs unencumbered it's shown no interest in domestic issues overseas.

dgudkov 8y ago
I don't necessarily agree with the term 'colonize' here, but if you buy resources and depend on them, you would definitely want to control as much as possible the territories the resources are coming from. Especially if they are currently governed by weak and unstable governments. It's state-level risk management 101.
- Arn_Thor 8y ago
  A weak government is easy to buy. The less "skin in the game" China has, the more easily it can buy the favor of whoever is in power. The only way China could screw up that dynamic is by overplaying its hand through excessively unfavorable credit terms or starting projects in said country (such as outsourcing production) that draws the ire of the local population. Granted, that is happening in some places

xiaq 8y ago

With your definition of "colonize", the US has already colonized the whole world.

adventured 8y ago
The US inherited its superpower role by default, due to the destruction that occurred in WW2. It was the last power standing and had the resources to expand into the vacuum left behind. It didn't seek that status out, it was dropped in the US lap. Nobody would have defined the US as a global superpower in 1930. The US had to be pulled out of its shell for WW2 (a shell a sizable percentage of the population would like to return to now). The reason the US positioned its large troop contingent in Europe and formed NATO, was due to WW2 and the cold war that followed, trying to hold off the Soviet Union from further annexation of Europe. The politicians in DC are now interested in preserving that superpower status of course, long after the death of the USSR. China is aggressively seeking that superpower global positioning, at a time of peace between great nations. They're not inheriting a position of power by default, they're strategically trying to acquire it - a very different context. They have a multi-decade plan to build military bases all over the planet, to enable global power projection. They've openly stated that it's their destiny to become the global power - it's a wide-spread cultural belief that has been written about ad nauseam for two decades - supplanting the United States.
- growlist 8y ago
  What's your point? That China's current behaviour is somehow 'worse' than US Realpolitik? Obviously I'm happy the cold war went the way it did, but let's not pretend the US didn't have to break eggs to make its omelette.
  - adventured 8y ago
    The US broke a lot of eggs post 1950, that's pretty well been written about ad nauseam as well - it's universally understood. The point is, acquiring the power that China wants, at a time of peace, while other great powers exist, requires an entirely different effort than having superpower status dropped into your lap by the default of everyone else having been blown up. China has to take that power away from other existing powerful nations, with economies that are essentially all at or near all-time highs in terms of output. If China is serious about becoming the global power, they have to go through the US and EU to do it in one manner or another. That sets up a very large global clash of cultures, clashes regarding beliefs in governance, notions about individual liberty, democracy, etc. etc. The US and Western Europe were far more aligned in ideology in the post WW2 era than what China & the EU are today. China and the EU are near polar opposites, with the EU being liberal and China being hyper regressive and authoritarian. The point is, that clash isn't going to go well, the US was welcomed into Europe due to its protector status in and after WW2 and because of its ideological and historical kinship with Europe. America in 1945 was a cousin to Europe, consisting of large parts of Europeans and European culture; China is an entirely foreign element, with very little shared in any regard.

ElBarto 8y ago

China has been continuously shafted for the last 200 years. They have just finally put their foot down and are learning from the West how it's done. A case in point is the South China Sea: They know that the best claim is the 'fait accompli', that's how the West did 'colonize the world' and it's telling that the only remaining land available are a few islands and reefs in the South China Sea. These are the crumbs we left over.

jimmydef 8y ago
Exactly, I'm a citizen of one of the countries in southeast Asia not involved with the whole south China sea tussle and it's amazing how skewed the reporting has been regarding the issue in the English language media. Going by those reports, you would think that it's only China that has been claiming everybody's else's territories and nothing else. But the truth is everyone in the region is claiming everyone else's territories. Vietnam is claiming Philippine territory, and vice versa. Malaysia snatched Brunei's islands several years ago and so on. And you would think that China is the most aggressive in grabbing islands judging by those reports. But the actual fact is that honour goes to Vietnam. It has grabbed the most contested islands in the South China sea and theyre the earliest to militarise them but I don't hear a single word of this in the English media. As if some narrative is being pushed.

spangry 8y ago

Sounds familiar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics

forkLding 8y ago

In terms of the South China Sea, everyone wants to "colonize" that area from China, Vietnam to the Phillipenes. For Africa, if you're referring to "debt trap diplomacy", you know what's an easy solution? Stop taking Chinese money and loans. Problem solved.