4 ms·

https://archive.ph/QIH6D https://archive.ph/QIH6D Missing from this article: "China" and "belt and road"

by jdougan 5y ago

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Why should they be mentioned? Is the threat of Chinese economic ties worth tacit support of military intervention?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pindab0ter 5y ago
  It's not about whether it's worth it or not, but whether it's a part of the conversation. Arguably it is.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Why? I don't see the connection between the US training troops in African countries and China's infrastructure plan unless you're saying the infrastructure plan should be opposed militarily if necessary.
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense. Ie, you can't describe why the US and others are making certain choices without referencing it. Of course, "related to" and "justifies" are not synonyms.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - nkozyra 5y ago
        The connection is "influence in China" and "contemporary colonialism" which is a broad enough topic for a large series of articles. But I agree that this stands on its own as a topic and Belt and Road would feel shoehorned in within an article this short.
      - mushbino 5y ago
        By that rational, it would be more relevant to mention the history of western colonialism and regime change both past and present to paint a more comprehensive picture. Including China doesn't really add much.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense What connection? That both are trying to gain more influence in Africa? Is the journalistic connection also obvious with something like the Gates Foundation, which is also trying to gain more influence in Africa?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Litost 5y ago
      Is there an argument, if you zoom far enough out, they are both strategic powerplays one military, one economic, but both with the same aim to increase influence? Especially relevant if you follow the arguments in here about the US being on the decline and China on the ascendency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 It's hard to see how the US's more divisive approach can beat China's more inclusive one. I assume the reasons for this, as mentioned above, tie into the different setups, America with a huge military/industrial complex and China with a much better infrastructure track record (e.g. compare the high speed rail networks in both countries). Gross simplifications obviously, but maybe the argument still holds? Disclaimer, not read the WSJ article due to paywall.
- bannedbybros 5y ago
CyanBird 5y ago
Correct, not an accident Witter/editors/editorial line just don't want the reader to associate them with the coups The Intercept piece covering this is slightly better https://theintercept.com/2022/01/26/burkina-faso-coup-us-military/ https://theintercept.com/2022/01/26/burkina-faso-coup-us-mil... > Damiba is just the latest in a carousel of coup leaders in West Africa trained by the U.S. military as the U.S. has pumped in more than $1 billion in security assistance to promote “stability” in the region. Since 2008, U.S.-trained officers have attempted at least nine coups (and succeeded in at least eight) across five West African countries, including Burkina Faso (three times), Guinea, Mali (three times), Mauritania, and the Gambia >... > “I can’t shake the feeling that his education in the United States somehow influenced his actions,” wrote Sanneh’s former NDU mentor Jeffrey Meiser. “I can’t help but wonder if simply imprinting our foreign students with the ‘American program’ is counterproductive and unethical.” It still misteriously ignores belt and road, despite the importance that Chinese infrastructure has had on the country from another piece > In Ghana, the scale of Chinese-funded projects has been rapidly rising over the last two decades. China’s most significant investment in the region was the construction of the 400 megawatt Bui Dam in 2013. Now, Beijing is the primary source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country. In 2018 Ghana negotiated a $2 billion deal to allow China’s Sinohydro Corporation to invest in infrastructure in exchange for access to precious elements, namely bauxite. Apart from financing ports, roads and railways, China is also making its way in building telecom infrastructure in the continent. A recent example is the opening of a national data centre in the Western African nation of Senegal on 22 June. The Export-Import Bank of China financed the centre with technical backing from Huawei, responsible for about 50% of Africa’s 3G networks and 70% of its 4G networks. https://www.firstpost.com/world/as-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-steams-ahead-in-africa-west-plays-catch-up-10016101.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/as-chinas-belt-and-road-init... Why would the editorial line if these publications not want the reader to associate US friendly coups with Belt And Road is left as a task to the reader
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  A general issue is that stable civilian control of the military forces is a somewhat difficult thing to achieve, so if that control is not stable, training the military can substantially increase the risk of military coup. This is why in many countries (e.g. Soviet Union, Russia, China etc.) state security is embedded into the military on all levels. This of course creates new problems.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mardifoufs 5y ago
Pure whataboutism

https://archive.ph/QIH6D https://archive.ph/QIH6D Missing from this article: "China" and "belt and road"

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Why should they be mentioned? Is the threat of Chinese economic ties worth tacit support of military intervention?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pindab0ter 5y ago
It's not about whether it's worth it or not, but whether it's a part of the conversation. Arguably it is.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Why? I don't see the connection between the US training troops in African countries and China's infrastructure plan unless you're saying the infrastructure plan should be opposed militarily if necessary.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense. Ie, you can't describe why the US and others are making certain choices without referencing it. Of course, "related to" and "justifies" are not synonyms.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nkozyra 5y ago
      The connection is "influence in China" and "contemporary colonialism" which is a broad enough topic for a large series of articles. But I agree that this stands on its own as a topic and Belt and Road would feel shoehorned in within an article this short.
    - mushbino 5y ago
      By that rational, it would be more relevant to mention the history of western colonialism and regime change both past and present to paint a more comprehensive picture. Including China doesn't really add much.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense What connection? That both are trying to gain more influence in Africa? Is the journalistic connection also obvious with something like the Gates Foundation, which is also trying to gain more influence in Africa?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Litost 5y ago
    Is there an argument, if you zoom far enough out, they are both strategic powerplays one military, one economic, but both with the same aim to increase influence? Especially relevant if you follow the arguments in here about the US being on the decline and China on the ascendency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 It's hard to see how the US's more divisive approach can beat China's more inclusive one. I assume the reasons for this, as mentioned above, tie into the different setups, America with a huge military/industrial complex and China with a much better infrastructure track record (e.g. compare the high speed rail networks in both countries). Gross simplifications obviously, but maybe the argument still holds? Disclaimer, not read the WSJ article due to paywall.
bannedbybros 5y ago

CyanBird 5y ago

Correct, not an accident Witter/editors/editorial line just don't want the reader to associate them with the coups The Intercept piece covering this is slightly better https://theintercept.com/2022/01/26/burkina-faso-coup-us-military/ https://theintercept.com/2022/01/26/burkina-faso-coup-us-mil... > Damiba is just the latest in a carousel of coup leaders in West Africa trained by the U.S. military as the U.S. has pumped in more than $1 billion in security assistance to promote “stability” in the region. Since 2008, U.S.-trained officers have attempted at least nine coups (and succeeded in at least eight) across five West African countries, including Burkina Faso (three times), Guinea, Mali (three times), Mauritania, and the Gambia >... > “I can’t shake the feeling that his education in the United States somehow influenced his actions,” wrote Sanneh’s former NDU mentor Jeffrey Meiser. “I can’t help but wonder if simply imprinting our foreign students with the ‘American program’ is counterproductive and unethical.” It still misteriously ignores belt and road, despite the importance that Chinese infrastructure has had on the country from another piece > In Ghana, the scale of Chinese-funded projects has been rapidly rising over the last two decades. China’s most significant investment in the region was the construction of the 400 megawatt Bui Dam in 2013. Now, Beijing is the primary source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country. In 2018 Ghana negotiated a $2 billion deal to allow China’s Sinohydro Corporation to invest in infrastructure in exchange for access to precious elements, namely bauxite. Apart from financing ports, roads and railways, China is also making its way in building telecom infrastructure in the continent. A recent example is the opening of a national data centre in the Western African nation of Senegal on 22 June. The Export-Import Bank of China financed the centre with technical backing from Huawei, responsible for about 50% of Africa’s 3G networks and 70% of its 4G networks. https://www.firstpost.com/world/as-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-steams-ahead-in-africa-west-plays-catch-up-10016101.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/as-chinas-belt-and-road-init... Why would the editorial line if these publications not want the reader to associate US friendly coups with Belt And Road is left as a task to the reader

formerly_proven 5y ago
A general issue is that stable civilian control of the military forces is a somewhat difficult thing to achieve, so if that control is not stable, training the military can substantially increase the risk of military coup. This is why in many countries (e.g. Soviet Union, Russia, China etc.) state security is embedded into the military on all levels. This of course creates new problems.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mardifoufs 5y ago

Pure whataboutism