Skip to comments.Turns out all that 'aid' from China wasn't quite as free as it looked
Posted on 05/15/2018 9:28:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Remember how China drew praise for extending all that influence throughout Africa, and not just Africa, but in Latin America and Asia, too? Investing in development where wicked private investors just wouldn't? Telling everyone that its gentle message worldwide was "Let's get rich together"? Showing America how it's done?
This propaganda has been in the news pipeline for years and drawn a lot of praise, or at least subtle accolades, from the pundits. But now it turns out that that aid and those "investments" weren't quite as free and altruistic as promoted.
China is now putting the squeeze on the countries it made its "investments" in. Not content with a profitable return on those "investments," the way those wicked and stingy private investors would be, it's demanding a different kind of return: influence. This is what's known as "neo-colonialism" if a Western country is doing it. Paying the piper. Power.
Axios's Erica Pandey describes what's going on here:
China's debt-trap diplomacy is spreading across Africa
China is leveraging debts to gain control of strategic ports and secure primary access to African oil in Angola, Kenya and Djibouti.
Why it matters: The Chinese are offering up attractive infrastructure projects to the countries that need them most and following up with escalating demands for influence. That approach will spread to even more of the globe under Beijing's trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative.
What's interesting is that China has gotten these countries hooked on its debt-trap diplomacy, often by taking advantage of the ingrained anti-Americanism of the third-world elites running these places. The examples cited were Djibouti, Angola, and Kenya. Now those places are stuck, and so long as oil prices remain low and investors are turned off by their non-free-market economic policies, they will increasingly act as Chinese vassal states.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Any relation to Buck Showalter?
Perhaps, the multinational corn/bean/agro-chemical outfits have had an awakening?
I’ve sometimes wondered why the Chinese haven’t taken a more colonial route. It seems like it would solve a lot of ‘problems’ for them.
Find a needy country/content in need of exploitation, send ‘workers’ to help build stuff, ‘vitalize’ the economy, etc. Set aside the ‘one-child’ policy for those who are willing to, ahem, help out overseas ... breed like ... yeah.
And eventually, subjugate/replace the existing population and voila, new Chinese territory. With a billion people on tap, it seems as though it would be easy for them.
For that matter, I’m surprised they haven’t offered to set up a new co-development industrial center somewhere in the Midwest rust belt, build a factory for (consumer electronic goods, presumably), import thousands of workers, build a dynamic neo-industrial utopia on the shores of the ol’ rust belt river. A few years ago they probably could have taken over (or bought) Detroit if they wanted to.
Kind of surprised they haven’t. Go figure.
Now campare that with our debt to the Chinese and the ingrained anti-Americanism of our elites.
Other than the Mongols who ruled China for 70 years ( and had their culture subsumed by the superior Chinese culture anyway ), as I looked at China’s history... I don’t get the impression that the Chinese emperors were very keen on colonizing other countries.
Their main interest is opening trade routes and INFLUENCE. Hence, the worst they will do with their vast power is make a country ( e.g. Korea, Vietnam ) a vassal state.
Pay your yearly tribute and open up your country for trade and natural resource exploitation and we’ll pretty much leave you alone.
You are correct. As a race+culture based country, their thinking very generally was - what would be the point of trying to have "barbarians" adopt Chinese practices? the Chinese Emperors of the past also had no ideology to spread. Getting foreigners tribute, loot, and keeping the borders stable was how foreign relations were viewed. China was also historically naturally defined by geography as well, being bounded by oceans, a vast desert to the West, and the Himalayas.
Also unlike initial western conquest of the Americas, there was no real individual profit-incentive for colonization. Sure, many Chinese left China for themselves to try to become rich, but it had no bearing on the government. Finally, China has always had a massive, collectivist, centralized, top-down government - not so very different from the type they have now. As such, their goal is always focused inwardly, on control and domestic political domination.
Quote: Other than the Mongols who ruled China for 70 years ( and had their culture subsumed by the superior Chinese culture anyway ), as I looked at Chinas history... I dont get the impression that the Chinese emperors were very keen on colonizing other countries.
Yes, but that doesn’t meant that other countries aren’t interested in colonizing them. If it weren’t for Europe suiciding itself twice in the last century, they’d still be a vassal state.
I guess I’d just think that they’d look at world history and decide that when the next go around comes, they don’t want to be the weak, insular power. Especially in today’s world where it’s obvious that there are ‘new’, and very bloodthirsty empires rising on the ashes of the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.