I've found some interesting sources on natural resources per country. China seems to have a great amount of natural resources, they do very well on these lists.
Cold War against China?
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
China is lacking in oil resource ... but sinopec is very heavily involved in the caspian which has the potential to solve that problem
First of all, let's be clear - we don't live in a Western hegemony, we live in a United States hegemony, since World War 2 anyway. In that system already developed countries that are prepared to be subordinate to US corporate interests are welcomed into the fold, but I think we should remember this isn't an east vs west thing, it's the dominance of one current unitary power being challenged by another nation.
I found your perspective on Chinese involvement in Pakistan really interesting, especially considering the recent history of that country and region. Do you think that Chinese investment in Pakistan is more nefarious or more of a threat to Pakistan's long-term development than, say, the IMF loans and structural adjustment programmes forced on the country since the 1980s?
Pakistan is a bit of a posterboy for belt and road in that of the billions invested by China, from what we know only a fraction is in the form of debt to be repaid and the interest rates are many times cheaper than the IMF (and obviously it doesn't have the same damaging strings attached that IMF and world bank funding always does).
By no means am I saying what China is doing is altruistic- it's clearly a play for soft power and influence, and for first dibs at the oil and mining rights. However, compared to US interference in the country and the region surely it's incredibly benign?
My history isn't exactly perfect when it comes to Pakistan so I'd genuinely be interested to know what you make of it, but I would have thought that loans alongside massive investment in infrastructure and joint ventures for development rank below either the economic meddling of the IMF and Paris Club, and a long way below the military influence of US military bases, nuclear proliferation, drone strikes and the total destabilisation of the region.
To put it another way, China may have a nefarious and aggressive end goal that we don't know about, but judging empirically from recent history, China's neo-colonialism is mostly benign foreign investment, compared to a brutal hegemonic foreign policy from the US. I know which one I would be more worried about.
HOWEVER! You bring up the Uighurs, and I feel the need to be absolutely explicit on this - China's treatment of huge segments of their own population, including the Uighurs, is an absolute disgrace and we should condemn it in the strongest possible terms and put any pressure on them we can to fight for the plight of victims of human rights abuse. Obviously due to our location and the nature of the Chinese state, their unfortunately isn't much we can do besides condemn it, but I just want to make it absolutely clear that my favourable comparison of China's foreign intervention with the US in no way should be taken as apologisim or shifting blame for their awful human rights record.
I might be wrong but I believe a lot of the Chinese investment is actually loans were takeout on very favourable terms.
I'm all for the CPEC projects (as long as the money is spent and not embezzled) I just worry we as a nation will fail to utilise it and end up paying for stuff we failed to take advantage of. The Chinese can't be faulted for that - that's on us.
The loans from China are better than the imf, but for how long? With great power comes great pride. I worry if that pride turns to arrogance.
Yes just like with uk export finance or their European/ American counterparts
China typically almost always offers a longer tenure period ... (a huge bonus on infra schemes)
Often gives lower ultimate interest
And will allow a higher local spend content
It's a really good offer and they have a pretty good record on the delivery of the projects they work on as well
It's not always the best solution overall but commercially they can normally offer something beyond what will be offered by other countries
This allied to different risk profiling on certain countries and much higher lending limits
I compete against this regularly and whilst of you can develop the right project and deliver value you can still win the work if its public tender type stuff with 70% weighting on price its not worth our time (and cost which can be considerable) to compete in some of the tenders
Which countries is China importing oil from?
EDIT:
I checked, they're mainly Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq.
Once there is more clarity on the nuclear situation they will also be importing much more from Iran, in addition to other Chinese investments there.
I disagree - people expect to have it all these days - we have gotten used to that. There's nothing stopping people buying untold amounts of cheap tat and throwing it away a year later to buy another or better option. Cheap credit isn't helping. It's IKEA syndrome.
And once the caspian pipes are up and running they are pretty much sorted in the medium term
You must be joking. China has annexed Tibet, laid claim to almost the entire South China Sea, taken chunks of territory from Bhutan and India, wants to annexe Taiwan, is in conflict with Japan over the East China Sea ...the list goes on.
Outside of being on minimum wage or close to it.
Indeed there has to be a huge discussion about waste, didnt the EU pass a right to fix bill about having the rights to fix a product like a phone instead of being forced to buy a new one?
Personally I think India will be the rising superpower of the mid to late 21st century not China. It has better demographics and resources, China is a rapidly aging population with the impact of the one child policy really coming through now,.
The workforce peaked somewhere around 2015, by 2040 it'll be 15% off peak.
China is making a push now because it knows time is not on it's side.
The workforce peaked somewhere around 2015, by 2040 it'll be 15% off peak.
China is making a push now because it knows time is not on it's side.
China wants to compete with Boeing and Airbus?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/build...rplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/build...rplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/
Fair points, and I'm in favour of self-determination for every territory you mentioned, so I'm not excusing Chinese nationalist territorial expansion.
However, there's a world of difference between territorial disputes with neighbouring countries, and a US imperial grand strategy including most of the Western hemisphere.
Considering the power of China I really don't think you can argue that they've been anything other than militarily benign when compared to literally any other superpower in the history of the world.
China’s strength has been land based throughout their history. They’ve not had the capability in the seas to do anything against opposition. So how could they have been anything but ‘military benign’ in the grand scheme of world politics?
On land and on their borders China have a long history of throwing weight around. Just as much as any other superpower.
Aye, it is a fallacy. Every great power has shed as much blood as required to stay in power. It also ignores how many souls of their own within what is now, but not always, their borders they have extinguished.
In terms of fighting endless pandemics, one after another, when democratic governments are seemingly running out of "will you please follow the rules" messages, or those messages are being ignore albeit by only a minority, then that is when moves to autocratic governments happen, who knows people might even vote for it!
It certainly is, the "cometh the hour cometh the man/women" notion can work for progress or recession, or for good or evil, if you prefer!
Last edited:
I must have missed these endless pandemics, and as for how China dealt with it I don't think they should be held up as a beacon of light.
I agree, although our scientist's are now telling us a 'third wave' or is it third variant of the Covid pandemic is on the horizon... good for you if you missed it!
It really isn't the same as any other superpower.
We're talking about territorial disputes in a region which has seen a fairly unique level of invasion and changing borders plus western interference and colonialism over the last century. China's mostly diplomatic disputes with it's neighbours about borders and islands really isn't comparable to the military expansionism of just about any other superpower you can think of throughout history.
Agreed, the South China sea is one of those areas where multiple countries have held claims over the centuries and still believe they hold rights to at least some parts of the islands there. Some western powers such as France have been involved in the disputes and previously laid claim to areas.
The Spratly islands has ongoing disputes / claims from China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei with Japan also having opinions on territory there. The disputes are currently going through the UN but are really complex due to the sheer number of times the the area has changed hands in the past. Territory disputes will always happen due to legacy ownership unfortunately and aren't the same as expansion.
I'm still intrigued to what military expansionism from which superpower are you comparing China with and at what stage in history? Also sorry but 'diplomatic disputes', please. If the US/Western forces weren't a presence, there would not be a "diplomatic dispute". Those islands + borders would be claimed/taken by military force in no time.
Last edited:
This pandemic just reminds us how dangerous China is and the threat it poses to the world.
Which will likely still be countered by our current vaccines. It's also the same pandemic, not exactly I reason to change the Western world into an autocracy due to a once in a century event is it?I agree, although our scientist's are now telling us a 'third wave' or is it third variant of the Covid pandemic is on the horizon... good for you if you missed it!
Not just compete. But by doing so, dominating the civil aerospace market.
Remember, both Airbus and Boeing have manufacturing sites in China. So they already understand the manufacturing processes.
But, modern reliability and highly efficient requirements pose a number of challenges.
You need ever more efficient engines. Something China has some way to go on in order to complete with General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and of course Rolls-Royce. And fortunately, these companies are innovating and advancing at least as quick as China is trying to catch up.
And just as important, highly advanced maintenance and systems integration.
But given enough resources and spying on Intellectual Property, they will no doubt close the enormous gap.
I think one of the things of about China is that of the main historical struggles has being keeping China united under one rule or just one country. It's the largest country on earth in terms of population and the 3rd largest in terms of space. It's only more recently in modern times that they are beginning to become both a military and economic superpower. I think times of have changed and apart from wanting to annex Taiwan, I can't quite atm see what land they want to conquer. 30-50 years from who knows. I think in the mean time they will remain quite effective in investing in China friendly regimes through finanical muscle.
Take your pick. The United States is the most recent and most obvious since it's been the sole superpower since WW2 and honestly the list of US foreign involvement is too long to do justice to in a single post. Some of the greatest hits include a fascist coup d'etat in Greece, the support for murderous regimes in Central and South America, the murder of Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the military overthrow of democratically elected leaders all over the world, indiscriminate extrajudicial killing and the terror campaign of drone strikes, and militarily intervention and war in the Middle East which has created an incredibly destabilised region.
The United States isn't unique by any means, though. Britain's crimes when it was a superpower were fairly unparalleled and have left an awful legacy on the modern world, so did Belgium in the Congo, Spain and Portugal in South America, Russia and the USSR, France in Algeria and Haiti, Mongolia in Eurasia, the list goes on.
This isn't meant as some exercise in assignment of blame to various countries, the point is that China's lack of military expansionism and foreign aggression since their dramatic rise to power is the exception - indeed I'd be interested if you could think of another nation throughout history with comparable power that has been so militarily benign.
You may think that aggressive US military posturing against China is what is stopping China from invading it's neighbours. I happen to think that the presence of an unconnected world superpower with a military many magnitudes beyond anything seen in the history of the world increases the likelihood of war and the US display of force in the South China sea is an impediment to the diplomatic resolution of age-old territorial disputes.
An interesting thought experiment would be to reverse the position and see if that changes your perspective. What if China spent more on it's military than the rest of the world combined and had active military bases in Canada, Mexico and Cuba, and warships patrolling the Gulf of Mexico. If the United States was involved in diplomatic negotiations with Mexico regarding the parts of California and Texas that it took from Mexico during the Spanish American war, would you still think that the presence of Chinese aircraft carriers were an important peacekeeping factor or would they increase the chances of armed conflict?
Anyway, we can differ on the merits of gunboat diplomacy and whether it actually acts as a deterrent, but let's stick to what we actually have evidence for rather than counterfactuals that are impossible to prove.
The point is that since becoming a superpower, China HASN'T invaded foreign territory and has thus far at least, shown a willingness to engage with diplomacy and international negotiations rather than just annexing the territories. And that is remarkably rare for a superpower.
As likely as United winning the PL!
If it stays that way; I am not advocating autocracy, I am simply pointing out situations which may lead to it.
When people feel threatened by events, or that their Government cannot control things/does not know what its doing etc. (plenty of that exhibited on this media outlet regarding Boris /Tories) then 'assured' voices especially those with quick or definite solutions begin to be heard.
The past shows us that if a situation of nervousness or uncertainty in Government last long enough, and the fears grow then anything can happen.
The US weren't the sole superpower since WW2. They were competing against the Soviet Union untill the end of the cold war. It's one of the reasons they got involved as many foreign conflicts as they did.
China has never been expansionist in the same way as other superpowers, a big part of that is the geography meaning battles were always closer to home. Modern day China is arguably irredentist in aim but that doesn't stretch to taking the likes of Taiwan. People project the US desire for foreign intervention onto China but they'll be well aware what a mess it makes observing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. China can't complete it's economic project whilst waging wars, yet no superpower likes threats on it's border so you'll always have these disputes and strategic sabre rattling between powers.
This whole thread is a little bit boys playing war games, an imagined threat because they find it interesting.
This whole thread is a little bit boys playing war games, an imagined threat because they find it interesting.
Thats your excuse for overthrowing for example elected governments in South america? "I don't like this lefty, lets feck them up"
No that's words you put in my mouth.
Ok, forget the " "
Competing with the USSR justify overthrowing elected governments in other countries all over the planet? (I don't recall China doing that by the way)
I guess what I was trying to say was China has shed just as much blood as any other power out there, if not more. The only difference is the areas they've done it are close to home, as opposed to across the ocean.
I think I'll just have to agree to disagree on a fair few of your points.
He's not involving moral judgment in his posts. He simply stated why the US did it (competing with Soviets). He didn't say whether that was right or wrong, I think.
Not really. Aside from a nuclear arsenal the USSR had no real claim to being a superpower during the Cold War, certainly not one that could be compared to the United States.
Remember that the US emerged from the second world war in a position of strength unparalleled in world history with around half of the world's production, two thirds of the world's gold and three quarters of the world's invested capital. Meanwhile the USSR was in ruins from Nazi occupation.
'Containing the Soviet threat' was a pretext used by the USA in every foreign intervention, just as 'containing the American threat' was used in every Russian intervention, but it shouldn't be taken seriously.
The main risk I see is how does the CCP hold onto power if China enters the middle income trap. At that stage, the underlying compact with its citizens of political repression in exchange for economic growth, breaks down. And in that situation, autocrats often ramp up the nationalism and even take military gambles.
Good point and one that I'm really interested in. How tight is the CCP's grip on Chinese society? How likely is a coup to succeed?
I am curious as to your definition of a “superpower”. Because I would argue the USSR was definitely one whilst China is not quite one yet.