If Australia criticised a US president or policy, they wouldn't suddenly find that their meat exports get held up at American ports due to "entirely unrelated paperwork issues".
Which was actually something that nearly all western media massively critized Trump for. Anyway, I'm not an American and I have grown up as a citizen in a country with a great human rights record, so I will feel free to critize to whichever goverment I want to. Since my fathers family suffered immensely under Mao's cultural recolution, I have some grievance brownie points against the CCP.
to be honest I work closely with international development - on a government / state level its been an incredible success - there are swathes of the world we dont even bother looking at anymore as the financial package the Chinese government puts together blows away any support we can bring from European governments ... its frankly incredible and whilst you will find instances of negativity I will say I dont know any government that does not look to them as the first port of call for future funding and as such Id say in terms of soft power and strategic alignment in the medium to long term its been an overwhelming success
Its primarily defensive an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which to force Americas very sinkable aircraft carriers practical area of operation back so far as to render the planes mostly useless without intrinsically un-stealthy refueling operations happening well within airspace reachable by Chinese air defenses.
I think ultimately it will fail to have the impact that the Chinese hope it will have. The thing with trading with the US is, that they have a culture to import. Movies, brands, fashions - the Chinese don't have that. There is no soft power. You might have Govt to govt ties and even Business to business but nothing really in terms of people to people.
That's a silly attitude. Everyone has domestic issues that need to be sorted, but that shouldn't stop criticism of foreign issues, especially ones concerning human rights and unelected (and elected tbh) governments. No country has, is or will be perfect and to focus only on cleaning your house and decline to criticise others may reduce the number of hypocrites but will the subsequent lack of accountability actually better the world? Criticism is good, and in general there should be a whole lot more of it in every direction. Feck the West if they do bad things, feck China if they do and I'd expect the governments, media and populace of both to participate. Lack of criticism in the end will only hurt ordinary people and aid governments who are doing or want to do bad things and help in obfuscation of these actions.
Very interesting information and it chimes with my geopolitical reading of the situation.
Depressing read that.
Thanks, that's interesting information. Though, I gotta ask, these regions where they invest in, are they genuine strategic assets? Would it truely increase China's influence?
Agreed, and I think this is a powerful factor for the Americans. Everybody loves entertainment (movies, music etc).
certainly the stuff Im looking at yes they are genuinley strategic and yes it does greatly increase political influence over time (thats why we do it from the UK as well just not currently as effectivley) - a lot of it is to do with natural resource extractions where of course supply is ultimately finite
Yes.
bilateral deal betwen 2 independent countries
I think any 'credit' for that will go elsewhere... We all know who to. Trump's anticts with China have hurt the US just as much.
Russia?! The country with no demographic or economic growth of note? Mate, you're just an authoritarian at heart. You're like so many in history that have made the mistake of thinking that because democracies have internal divergences all the time, that seemingly single-minded authoritarian states have an advantage. But in reality democracies have prevailed time after time.
Why would you want to counter it?
True. And one reason for this is the diversity of creative thinking and ideas that democracy fosters, but which authoritarian regimes tend to suppress.
Pretty much on the money.
do you want to explain that?
Tibet, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang. Their populations were once majority Tibetan, Manchurian, Mongolian, and Uighur. Over time they have now become majority Han population.
As questionable as the 'breed out of existence' part sounds, I don't like throwing accusations of racism around lightly so I'll refrain from using the r word. Suffice it to say this sounds absolutely deranged.
Too few people want to pay the end price though.
Its around 10% in tibet certainly nowhere close to 50%
I don't think long term the rise of China will impact society wider society in a positive way. I don't think western hegemony benefits the rest of us either, but I fear what the Chinese equivalent would look like. These people are ethnically cleansing their own countrymen right now, I don't want to see a China which has both the capability and the designs to impose itself like that beyond it's borders. I think some healthy competition for China would help, it'd also help the rest of us caught in between the two major world powers.
I didn't know the Han population was decreasing in Mongolia, but the Tibet % you gave is what "China say is less than 10%". China have a huge migrant worker population in Tibet which the Chinese don't deem as 'residents' therefore don't add to the population. But apparently Han neighborhoods dominate the urban areas and takes that number way way above 10%. (my source is from a book called Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall, it's a really good read, totally recommend it
) If you would like to google Han population in Tibet, you'll get quite a few articles pop up with claims stating the numbers are much higher.That statement may have been too harsh/powerful of a statement. Apologies if it offended anyone.
This is the problem indeed. People will pay for it if they have the money though, the problem obviously is employers dont want to pay more.
Hope you are right about this, but it looks as if Democracy ( the 'mob rule' definition) might have run its course, for now; especially if there is any more pandemics waiting in the wings.
You could've said that in 1940 (German victory in France), 1941 (Japan catching the US with its pants down), 1957 (Sputnik 1st satellite in space), 1975 (fall of Saigon, US humiliation in Vietnam complete), and probably a few others times in history. And yet here we are, the autocratic states of each day that looked to have outsmarted the leading democracies all just pages in history books now.
Sure, but you could also have said that between World War 1 and World War 2, when the relatively new democracies were falling to authoritarianism one by one. The fact that World War 2 happened and turned many of them (not all) into democracies again doesn't mean that's how it had to happen. It's dangerous to think of history as an endless march towards progress.
I actually agree with you, it just wasn't my point. I'm countering the notion that autocratic countries are at an advantage vs democratic countries in terms of great power competition.
Oh, right you are.
Agree, My main point is that China and the West (the power that rules them) resembles to each other more than we would like but with different styles and denying that the West (the media) criticizes China because is the competition and not because of the human rights violations is being blind
