4 ms·

For anyone like me who was looking for some background on this, on Reddit, someone linked to a Vox video entitled "China is erasing its border with Hong Kong" [

For anyone like me who was looking for some background on this, on Reddit, someone linked to a Vox video entitled "China is erasing its border with Hong Kong" [0]. At 15 minutes, it's a captivating introduction to the conflict. Another video (6 minutes) you might be interested in by Vox is "China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade" [1], which is on China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8 [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvXROXiIpvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvXROXiIpvQ Edit: One great passage from the first video [0] at 11:29 says: "The [umbrella movement] protest didn't change the government's mind and it didn't immediately change anything in Hong Kong. But this spectacle of young people rising up to defend their rights from the central government of China did spark a political awakening among the many in the city who had never before paid attention. 'I think post-umbrella movement was the first time that the middle class came out and voted in droves, and voted for the opposition force.' - HK Resident"

chii 7y ago
The vox video paints the Belt and Road Initiative in a negative light - which i feel is wrong. Why shouldn't China be allowed to invest and gain soft power? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make deals with countries the US deems 'undemocratic'?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. At that point, the deal is probably going to be one that benefits the government, but not the people. Countries do that, when it is in their best interest to do so. But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also right to criticize China for them.
  - Youden 7y ago
    > If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. I think a better way to phrase "a government that is undemocratic" as "a dictatorship". The idea that democracy is the only system of government that can possibly represent the people is a horrendously American view of the world. To show an example that counters the "everything that isn't democracy is oppressive" claims I usually hear, have a look at Lichtenstein (which admittedly is partly democratic but is also a constitutional monarchy), where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18649156 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18649156
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum This is democracy. The people voted for a strong executive and to be represented by the monarchy. Nobody gets that vote in Uzbekistan.
      - Youden 7y ago
        It's a democratic process yes but the country is still a constitutional and largely functional monarchy. Democracy is an indicator of whether the people are represented but it is not the definition. I think a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes. At one end of the spectrum is Switzerland, where the people can choose to directly override any government policy by referendum (or propose an action of their own). At the other end of the spectrum is a government like North Korea, where the people have zero say. Somewhere in the middle you see most Western democracies.
        JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes How do you measure the latter? That’s the essence of democracy. There are many democratic systems. Constitutional republics are democratic because the monarch must answer to the public. Dictatorships featuring leaders for life with limited options for sidelining or recalling are not democratic. The latter describes North Korea, China and certain African and central Asian states.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's been referred to as "debt trap diplomacy". Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-forum-chinas-project-of-the-century-hits-tough-times https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-...
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    Alternative viewpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-initiative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-i...
    - Farradfahren 7y ago
      If it were colonialism, that would be a strange thing, because only western country can produce colonialism, while victim countrys and socialistic countrys can have puppet-states and liberate other countrys but never colonialize them. The HMS Narrative running aground again, threatening to sink once more into the salty waves. Its another round of the greatest game, fun for new and old players.
    - owens99 7y ago
      Thanks for sharing. Key point: > Yes, debt is on the rise in the developing world, and Chinese overseas lending is, for the first time, a part of the story. But a number of us academics who have studied China’s practices in detail have found scant evidence of a pattern indicating that Chinese banks, acting at the government’s behest, are deliberately over-lending or funding loss-making projects to secure strategic advantages for China. > The main example of these purported ploys is the Hambantota Port in southern Sri Lanka: The government handed control over the port to a Chinese company in 2017 after struggling to make its loan payments to China. But that’s a special case, and it is widely misunderstood. > China does not publish details about its overseas lending, but the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University (which I direct) has collected information on more than 1,000 Chinese loans in Africa between 2000 and 2017, totaling more than $143 billion. Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center has identified and tracked more than $140 billion in Chinese loans to Latin America and the Caribbean since 2005. > Based on the findings of both institutes, it seems that the risks of B.R.I. are often overstated or mischaracterized.
Leary 7y ago
World bank analysis of BRI which shows that BRI is a net positive to the world: " BRI will potentially have a large effect on trade and welfare for many countries ▪ All countries in the world experience a decrease in trade costs ▪ Not all sectors/countries will gain but potential aggregate effect is largely positive But many policy barriers still remain in place. Potential gains of BRI would be enlarged by complementary reforms ▪ Need to reduce border delays, trade barriers and FDI restrictions ▪ But also boost investor protection, open public procurement, ensure private sector participation Economic and non-economic risks associated to BRI projects need to be managed ▪ Public debt sustainability, governance, environmental and social concerns ▪ Coordination problems, lack of data, poor transparency magnify these challenges" [1]http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/501961539875310440/Michele-BRI-Oct4-eng.pdf http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/501961539875310440/Michele-B...
y2kenny 7y ago
This should give you a good overview: China’s Trojan horse: Hong Kong’s new extradition arrangement puts foreigners at risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUl-J0oh3k0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUl-J0oh3k0

chii 7y ago

The vox video paints the Belt and Road Initiative in a negative light - which i feel is wrong. Why shouldn't China be allowed to invest and gain soft power? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make deals with countries the US deems 'undemocratic'?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. At that point, the deal is probably going to be one that benefits the government, but not the people. Countries do that, when it is in their best interest to do so. But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also right to criticize China for them.
- Youden 7y ago
  > If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. I think a better way to phrase "a government that is undemocratic" as "a dictatorship". The idea that democracy is the only system of government that can possibly represent the people is a horrendously American view of the world. To show an example that counters the "everything that isn't democracy is oppressive" claims I usually hear, have a look at Lichtenstein (which admittedly is partly democratic but is also a constitutional monarchy), where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18649156 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18649156
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum This is democracy. The people voted for a strong executive and to be represented by the monarchy. Nobody gets that vote in Uzbekistan.
    - Youden 7y ago
      It's a democratic process yes but the country is still a constitutional and largely functional monarchy. Democracy is an indicator of whether the people are represented but it is not the definition. I think a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes. At one end of the spectrum is Switzerland, where the people can choose to directly override any government policy by referendum (or propose an action of their own). At the other end of the spectrum is a government like North Korea, where the people have zero say. Somewhere in the middle you see most Western democracies.
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes How do you measure the latter? That’s the essence of democracy. There are many democratic systems. Constitutional republics are democratic because the monarch must answer to the public. Dictatorships featuring leaders for life with limited options for sidelining or recalling are not democratic. The latter describes North Korea, China and certain African and central Asian states.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's been referred to as "debt trap diplomacy". Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-forum-chinas-project-of-the-century-hits-tough-times https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-...
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  Alternative viewpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-initiative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-i...
  - Farradfahren 7y ago
    If it were colonialism, that would be a strange thing, because only western country can produce colonialism, while victim countrys and socialistic countrys can have puppet-states and liberate other countrys but never colonialize them. The HMS Narrative running aground again, threatening to sink once more into the salty waves. Its another round of the greatest game, fun for new and old players.
  - owens99 7y ago
    Thanks for sharing. Key point: > Yes, debt is on the rise in the developing world, and Chinese overseas lending is, for the first time, a part of the story. But a number of us academics who have studied China’s practices in detail have found scant evidence of a pattern indicating that Chinese banks, acting at the government’s behest, are deliberately over-lending or funding loss-making projects to secure strategic advantages for China. > The main example of these purported ploys is the Hambantota Port in southern Sri Lanka: The government handed control over the port to a Chinese company in 2017 after struggling to make its loan payments to China. But that’s a special case, and it is widely misunderstood. > China does not publish details about its overseas lending, but the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University (which I direct) has collected information on more than 1,000 Chinese loans in Africa between 2000 and 2017, totaling more than $143 billion. Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center has identified and tracked more than $140 billion in Chinese loans to Latin America and the Caribbean since 2005. > Based on the findings of both institutes, it seems that the risks of B.R.I. are often overstated or mischaracterized.

Leary 7y ago

World bank analysis of BRI which shows that BRI is a net positive to the world: " BRI will potentially have a large effect on trade and welfare for many countries ▪ All countries in the world experience a decrease in trade costs ▪ Not all sectors/countries will gain but potential aggregate effect is largely positive But many policy barriers still remain in place. Potential gains of BRI would be enlarged by complementary reforms ▪ Need to reduce border delays, trade barriers and FDI restrictions ▪ But also boost investor protection, open public procurement, ensure private sector participation Economic and non-economic risks associated to BRI projects need to be managed ▪ Public debt sustainability, governance, environmental and social concerns ▪ Coordination problems, lack of data, poor transparency magnify these challenges" [1]http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/501961539875310440/Michele-BRI-Oct4-eng.pdf http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/501961539875310440/Michele-B...

y2kenny 7y ago

This should give you a good overview: China’s Trojan horse: Hong Kong’s new extradition arrangement puts foreigners at risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUl-J0oh3k0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUl-J0oh3k0