4 ms·

> I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west. It’s a threa

> I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west. It’s a threat from the US perspective, in the US national interest. Currently, the US is the top dog internationally, both economically and politically. As China increases its influence especially in the Asia and Africa region via economic investment and, potentially, demonstration of military prowess, it necessarily means US influence in said region decreases. This decrease in soft power of US means it is more difficult for the US to push for US-friendly policy in said region/country, which is detrimental to the US national interest.

saiya-jin 7y ago
What is beneficial to US might not be beneficial to anybody else (meaning >90% of the world). If I take things to the extreme, it would probably be beneficial for US security and economy to have rest of the world as slaves. Not so much for us. Previous US governments seemed to have more moral constraints in this regard compared to current one (with great power comes great responsibility and all that). Interesting times we have. I for one root for China despite all its flaws - the world would benefit from counter-balance in power since US is less and less a good moral leader it once used to be. Plus when we compare outward aggressiveness of these 2 states, US very clearly loses. Fearmongering about China is just empty talk when simple historical facts about unjust invasions of sovereign states are compared. You know, the actually important criteria for common folks out there. Compared to that, the debate whether its better if NSA reads my emails compared to Chinese is a bit pointless.
- panda88888 7y ago
  I agree with you on the fact that what’s beneficial to the US is not necessarily beneficial to other nations. And I agree with you that the current US president is less restraint than previous administrations. This is probably going to be controversial, but I personally think the US is relatively restrained in its meddling in other nation’s domestic politics given its power and influence. Every nation has its sphere of influence, and they use it for their national interest as needed. In the case of China, it has been building up its military presence in the South China Sea and establishing military base in contested islands to extend their territory claim. It remains to be seem how China will act when it is at the similar power level as the US.
  - marvin 7y ago
    China will be a tyrant. How can anyone imagine otherwise, seeing how it currently treats its perceived internal threats?
- dmix 7y ago
  The only difference between this administration and the prior ones is less phony talk that masked the same agendas that existed for decades. Not to mention how this is a hyper US centric view of things. EU, Canada, Australia, and various other countries have tried pressuring China and it's a huge global bureaucratic system. The tweets coming out of the executive branch of the US doesn't have much effect on the giant multi national diplomatic machines like the World Bank and UN. People love exaggerating his actual power. Everyone paying attention has known the west does the human rights and democracy dog and pony show every big political event while the reality of actually changing another countries politics and governance is extremely challenging and almost always comes from within or as a result of their wealth being directly tied to acting morally or in the interest of their western partners. It rarely happens due to diplomatic pressure or boxing them out of trade deals and giving out loans. I personally don't see how it helps to say one thing while nothing really changes and looking the other way when cameras are off. Honesty would go farther and these countries aren't dumb, they see through it all too. So what difference does it make? That said, of course being civil and calculated is more valuable than being brash and blundering through diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they have to all be full of shit just to be "nice". You can still be honest and strong and not come off like an asshole while giving the media a perpetual panic attack, because they take every word literally as if they were all well thought out, completely serious, and have multiple hidden dog whistling layers, when it was just some throw away half joking tweet made at 3am because he likes to pump himself and America up. Most people can tell the difference, plenty pretend not to on purpose, but either way it doesn't help the process and gives fuel to the spin masters.
Consultant32452 7y ago
I think it's a threat to everyone. As much as people, myself included, have problems with American imperialism, just wait until we get a taste of Chinese imperialism with their millions in concentration camps, dictator for life, ethno-state, and social credit system creating a permanent under class. The further they spread their power, the worse it will be.
bduerst 7y ago
Precisely. U.S. imperialism is based on smart power, a combination of soft (aid packages, trade, etc.) and hard (military) power. The RCEP creates barriers and increases competition for U.S. imperialism, hindering it's soft power capabilities in APAC to negotiate trade deals. The sheer size of it would help propel both India and China economically - if it moves forward that is.

saiya-jin 7y ago

What is beneficial to US might not be beneficial to anybody else (meaning >90% of the world). If I take things to the extreme, it would probably be beneficial for US security and economy to have rest of the world as slaves. Not so much for us. Previous US governments seemed to have more moral constraints in this regard compared to current one (with great power comes great responsibility and all that). Interesting times we have. I for one root for China despite all its flaws - the world would benefit from counter-balance in power since US is less and less a good moral leader it once used to be. Plus when we compare outward aggressiveness of these 2 states, US very clearly loses. Fearmongering about China is just empty talk when simple historical facts about unjust invasions of sovereign states are compared. You know, the actually important criteria for common folks out there. Compared to that, the debate whether its better if NSA reads my emails compared to Chinese is a bit pointless.

panda88888 7y ago
I agree with you on the fact that what’s beneficial to the US is not necessarily beneficial to other nations. And I agree with you that the current US president is less restraint than previous administrations. This is probably going to be controversial, but I personally think the US is relatively restrained in its meddling in other nation’s domestic politics given its power and influence. Every nation has its sphere of influence, and they use it for their national interest as needed. In the case of China, it has been building up its military presence in the South China Sea and establishing military base in contested islands to extend their territory claim. It remains to be seem how China will act when it is at the similar power level as the US.
- marvin 7y ago
  China will be a tyrant. How can anyone imagine otherwise, seeing how it currently treats its perceived internal threats?
dmix 7y ago
The only difference between this administration and the prior ones is less phony talk that masked the same agendas that existed for decades. Not to mention how this is a hyper US centric view of things. EU, Canada, Australia, and various other countries have tried pressuring China and it's a huge global bureaucratic system. The tweets coming out of the executive branch of the US doesn't have much effect on the giant multi national diplomatic machines like the World Bank and UN. People love exaggerating his actual power. Everyone paying attention has known the west does the human rights and democracy dog and pony show every big political event while the reality of actually changing another countries politics and governance is extremely challenging and almost always comes from within or as a result of their wealth being directly tied to acting morally or in the interest of their western partners. It rarely happens due to diplomatic pressure or boxing them out of trade deals and giving out loans. I personally don't see how it helps to say one thing while nothing really changes and looking the other way when cameras are off. Honesty would go farther and these countries aren't dumb, they see through it all too. So what difference does it make? That said, of course being civil and calculated is more valuable than being brash and blundering through diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they have to all be full of shit just to be "nice". You can still be honest and strong and not come off like an asshole while giving the media a perpetual panic attack, because they take every word literally as if they were all well thought out, completely serious, and have multiple hidden dog whistling layers, when it was just some throw away half joking tweet made at 3am because he likes to pump himself and America up. Most people can tell the difference, plenty pretend not to on purpose, but either way it doesn't help the process and gives fuel to the spin masters.

Consultant32452 7y ago

I think it's a threat to everyone. As much as people, myself included, have problems with American imperialism, just wait until we get a taste of Chinese imperialism with their millions in concentration camps, dictator for life, ethno-state, and social credit system creating a permanent under class. The further they spread their power, the worse it will be.

bduerst 7y ago

Precisely. U.S. imperialism is based on smart power, a combination of soft (aid packages, trade, etc.) and hard (military) power. The RCEP creates barriers and increases competition for U.S. imperialism, hindering it's soft power capabilities in APAC to negotiate trade deals. The sheer size of it would help propel both India and China economically - if it moves forward that is.