I was in Samoa asking my cab driver about the new airport and new school building I saw there. He said the Chinese came in an volunteered to build them. I asked why? He said he didn't know, and that's what worried him.
The Great Belt Road. There are some good articles on it in reddit.com/r/geopolitics. But basically, China is willing to put up loans to build trade infrastructure, in the sorts of places where it would be too risky for private capital to do so (dictatorships, failing states, etc). They then make two (but only 2) demands: We want to be the ones to build it, and 2) If you default on payment for it, we'll lease it from you from that point on.
Unstable countries see those two demands as far simpler than WTO / UN type development, which also tends to come with things like human rights requirements.
And if they can't repay the loan, China will pay THEM to lease it out? Seems like a win-win.
Fast forward a few years, and China has helped prop up their internal construction companies, by giving them state sponsored projects on foreign soil.
And when the countries ultimately fail to repay the loan, China acquires territory over important infrastructure in foreign countries, not unlike how the US has military bases worldwide.
Having infrastructure in foreign countries isn't too helpful if the infrastructure isn't actually useful. How would the Chinese government use the airport differently than the Sri Lankan government that would make it all of the sudden worthwhile?
China has ambitions of regional hegemony, and a large air force that would find forward-deployed concrete airstrips very useful if called upon to support those ambitions. Sri Lanka has neither.
Look up China's 'String of Pearls' strategy. They want military infrastructure (civilian airports and ports fill that role) in the Indian Ocean, in part to contain India.
China already docked a submarine in Sri Lankan port that they were building in 2014 and later took the lease off. Sri Lanka later rejected the Chinese request of docking a nuclear submarine. So, I think it is on case-by-case basis and if local government has curried favours with Chinese Government.
They are building military infrastructure (listening posts already exist) in Myanmar's Coco Islands, and Maldives too, in their strategy to surround India which is called, "String of Pearls".
Great powers have a way of persuading small countries. If China wanted it, there is little SL could do - China can 'make an offer they can't refuse'. Look at the South China Sea.
For example, if SL resisted and China ignored them then the SL leader would be humiliated and might fall from power and/or China might replace them with someone more agreeable. I think SL's only protection would be if another power, India in particular, decided it was in their interest to push out China. I'm surprised India has allowed China to get a foothold there.
Compare SL to Cuba: Castro survived, AFAICT, because the USSR supported him and used Cuba as a geostrategic base.
> China acquires territory over important infrastructure in foreign countries, not unlike how the US has military bases worldwide.
Well, China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while the U.S. supports democracy and human rights of the locals. In fact, the U.S. has done more for freedom and democracy in China than the Chinese government: 23 million Chinese people in Taiwan have those things because the U.S. protects them from China's own government. (Yes, the U.S. also does some bad things.)
There is a big difference between a foreign government controlling a military base with the support of the local government, and a foreign government controlling the major ports and railroads due to a debt trap that the local government can't legally escape. Again, the U.S. is imperfect, but the world has seen enough expansionist dictatorships to know what they do.
One could argue that the form of democracy being spread by the US is in fact creating more instability and terrorism due to violent methods in which it is being spread.
The dictators like to associate democracy with disorder, but it's the opposite: We take for granted that the most stable, prosperous, and free countries in the history of the world are all democracies. Democracy has been an incredible success for humanity, beyond the wildest dreams of millennia (but still not good enough!).
> violent methods in which it is being spread
That is attempted sometimes (and usually with poor results), but democracy almost always spreads peacefully: India, Brazil, South Korea, most of Europe, South Africa (albeit still a one-party democracy), Mexico, etc. etc.
It's the dictatorships that try to spread their form of government through violence. We can say that if there were no dictatorships - i.e., if all countries were democracies - there probably would be no wars. Even Trump and the GOP aren't threatening war with any democracies.
Historically, that [Edit: at least sometimes] worked - see West Germany and Japan. The problem with places like Iraq was that we weren't willing to occupy in overwhelming force for a decade in order to create a stable democracy. We tried to do it "on the cheap", and it failed.
while the US is dealing with border walls, military patrols at the border and trade wars, China is busy building it's trade infrastructure abroad and establishing itself as a super-power. Considering China's attitude towards human rights this should worry everyone..
check out China's track record wrt to human rights, free speech, censorship, government control, you name it. Imagine if they become the 'world police'
Check out the USA's track record if you are not a citizen. I'm sure the second amendment is a great consolation after your children died in a drone strike.
You do realize you wouldn’t even be able to make this comment in China if it was against the government right? You would be censored and picked up and killed
It seems like the main difference between China's state apparatus and ours (FBI/CIA/etc) is that political dissidents are actively and openly persecuted. Now with the politicization of our state and the growth of "deep state" terminology (where US institutions are accused of the same things China does in the open), one wonders just how far off we could be. I still believe that we have an incredibly strong cultural abhorrence to open discrimination for specific classes (mostly the first amendment stuff), but history has shown that in secret we have been performing similar acts abroad. China just has no qualms about doing it internally as well. I think thats the biggest difference - visibility and likelihood to act against its own citizens.
The port/airport is gonna be owned and operated by China, giving the PLA/PLAN/PLAAF an forward operating area. I welcome the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere 2.0 -- all hail Great Leader Xi Jinping. Long live Xi Jinping. Long live Xi Jinping thought.
It will happen, as they like to say of democracy: "with Chinese characteristics".
Short term profiteering clothed in vague long-term grandiosities. Xi will be the last emperor of that era, methinks.
The original “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” was a concept of the Japanese empire during WWII. Given the deep and abiding loathing many in China still have for Japan, what you’re saying seems phrased in a way to be maximally upsetting. Note that I don’t think you’re wrong, I’m just impressed at how much needling can be packed into one post!
One possible argument against the notion is that China has always been manically focused on internal unity. Their ambitions abroad, while extensive, will always take a backseat to internal cohesion. China seems to be preparing for a certain amount of internal social upheaval, and if that does happen it would probably curb their external activities to an extent.
This kind of economic “outreach” is possibly a way to get imperial without having to overcommit. It’s a little scary, because as you say it could work. If the Chinese play it right, they could dominate economically without firing a shot, except maybe in Taiwan
True, but there were 40 years between that focus and their attempts at empire in WWII, while China is still very much still in “hold it all together” mode. Even though Japan has an impressively chaotic internal political history, it’s always been a small nation. China has always been huge, with lots of land routes and connections to other potential invaders. While superficially similar, I think that the Chinese commitment to unity Uber Alle is unlikely to change the way Japan’s did.
I wouldn't say always focused -- maybe since the start of the Ming dynasty. Also, I would think that implying the Chinese have taken their old enemy's plans, and used them with far more success than the Japanese ever did, was a roundabout form of compliment.
Why do you choose that date? The following cycle is a well known model of Chinese history and has been true for millennia (I might misremember a detail here or there): 1. civil war -> 2. cohesion and ascendant power -> 3. corruption and declining power -> goto 1
As an interesting tangent: The model above emphasized order as the priority, which means centralized authoritarian power. A recent history published in Hong Kong[0] says that order was really just consolidated power for the Emperor (or Paramount Leader, as they are called now), but for common people the periods of 'disorder' provided more freedom, prosperity, and innovation. As the author says in one interview:
"Since the imposition of imperial absolutism and centralized government in the Qin dynasty, China has not produced the democratic politicians of ancient times, nor the great thinkers like Laozi, Confucius and Mencius. Quite the opposite – totalitarian society has produced many despotic and violent rulers and corrupt officials and brought China into a great dark age." [1]
[0] China History Revisited by Xiao Jiansheng, published by New Century Press of Hong Kong. I read that it was banned in China, but a best-seller in Hong Kong. This first link is the forward, which I recommend:
I say that because the last major overseas voyages by Chinese sailors (cf. Zheng He) happened around the start of the Ming dynasty. Neither the Ming nor Qing saw any need to sponsor expeditions, and the Ming further lost control of the seas to the wokou. You could argue that the late-Qing modernization efforts could have ended up with overseas voyages, if they had had Meiji-style success (and not fallen apart), but ifs and buts.
And I don’t really see the “problem” with that, insomuch as realpolitik is definitely a thing. The US “cheats” other countries in the same way for its own influence and goals, but living here it’s wrapped up in a cultural superiority complex by our principles which while one may agree with them, are only exercised in as much as they keep the idea flowing. Exceptionalism only really works when you’re exceptional, and in many ways we do things worse.
That said, I’d not want to live under a Chinese culture and it’s Confuscianistic rules.
I'm honestly not so sure thats what is being constrasted. Its more of a hard-capitalism (as little state power as possible with exceptions) vs soft-socialism (a lot of state power and planning, with some affordances to private industry) thing in my mind.
Dating? That's the least of his problems. I wonder if his score gets dinged significantly under the assumption his comment was sarcastic. Now that might put him below the minimum level required to buy food!
Coercing developing countries into taking out loans they can't afford to build infrastructure they don't need has been the USA's MO for decades, and is the reason why it is able to exert so much geopolitical influence around the world. And recently China has been playing the same game.
I've reposted this a few times, but it's worth repeating: Graeber, the author of "Debt: the first 5000 years", lies extensively about easily verifiable facts. Here, for example, is Graeber on Apple Computers:
> Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages.
Someone who's willing to say something like that has blown their credentials in my book, especially when it comes to economics, which is an ideologically touchy field already. Here's a further, somewhat ranty discussion by Brad Delong, a well-respected left-wing economist: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-april-fo...
> Should be noted, on the subject of easily verifiable facts, that DeLong is not a leftist.
Are you trying to make some subtle distinction between "leftist" and "left-wing", or are you claiming DeLong doesn't even qualify as a "left-wing economist"?
I don't see anything in the page you linked that would qualify him as a "left-wing economist". Neither supporting an openly capitalist political party nor providing theoretical underpinnings for financial deregulation qualify as "leftism".
I noticed that when I was reading and kind of went "huh?". It's simultaneously a strange error and one which would be easy to avoid, so I can see why you say he lies. It also worries me that if the pattern were to repeat on other parts of the book that I don't have any knowledge about, I wouldn't recognize them off hand. It's far from ideal.
On the other hand, I think the book is full of good analysis, the overall narrative is compelling. I don't think it really warrants treatment as a textbook, more as any other mass market non-fiction...subject to factual scrutiny, but worthy of intellectual engagement as well. he cites enough true things and gives enough examples that the point would stand alone if the factual errors named were simply removed.
Now, I don't condone lying, and I certainly am not pleased to see that post you linked. I am also sufficiently interested with the philosophical content of the book that I still recommend it, though with a slightly tempered sense of enthusiasm...sigh.
> Coercing developing countries into taking out loans they can't afford to build infrastructure they don't need has been the USA's MO for decades
I'm not arguing against your point, but do you have any specific examples? The wiki article doesn't really offer up anything, do we just have to read the book?
It's been quite a few years since I read it, but I seem to recall it was mostly things like dams, oil fields, electric grids, and stuff like that.
I don't recall if the author lists very specific information about the examples, such as "The Salvajina Dam, located at such-and-such coordinates", in the book, but I don't think so.
John Perkins does list specific examples in his book. Mostly located in Southeast Asia and South America. Not by name, of course. But by location. He talks about the politics of how these "deals" happened, who benefited and what role the military and state departments played.
> Coercing developing countries into taking out loans they can't afford to build infrastructure they don't need has been the USA's MO for decades
Yes but in China's case they don't expect to be involved in the internal policies or demand specific budgetary restrictions when they default on their loan. As opposed to an IMF loan, China has better and simpler terms (someone below outlined this already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16796087) and they know it.
It explores the fallout of loan conditions given to the government of Jamaica. The main issue surrounded Jamaica's acceptance of a loan in the aftermath of an oil crisis. The loan conditions required the Jamaican government to not impose trade restrictions or tariffs on member countries of the World Bank. This meant America's subsidized grain and vegetables could be sold there at a fraction of the cost of production in Jamaica, and the whole process led to a collapse of Jamaica's agricultural industries.
The first chapter of the book, Debt, the First 5,000 years by David Graeber, articulates how Western, multi-lateral institutions such as the IMF, in effect, set debt traps for developing countries.
72 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadUnstable countries see those two demands as far simpler than WTO / UN type development, which also tends to come with things like human rights requirements.
And if they can't repay the loan, China will pay THEM to lease it out? Seems like a win-win.
Fast forward a few years, and China has helped prop up their internal construction companies, by giving them state sponsored projects on foreign soil.
And when the countries ultimately fail to repay the loan, China acquires territory over important infrastructure in foreign countries, not unlike how the US has military bases worldwide.
C.f. https://qz.com/1192493/china-spied-on-african-union-headquar...
They are building military infrastructure (listening posts already exist) in Myanmar's Coco Islands, and Maldives too, in their strategy to surround India which is called, "String of Pearls".
For example, if SL resisted and China ignored them then the SL leader would be humiliated and might fall from power and/or China might replace them with someone more agreeable. I think SL's only protection would be if another power, India in particular, decided it was in their interest to push out China. I'm surprised India has allowed China to get a foothold there.
Compare SL to Cuba: Castro survived, AFAICT, because the USSR supported him and used Cuba as a geostrategic base.
Well, China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while the U.S. supports democracy and human rights of the locals. In fact, the U.S. has done more for freedom and democracy in China than the Chinese government: 23 million Chinese people in Taiwan have those things because the U.S. protects them from China's own government. (Yes, the U.S. also does some bad things.)
There is a big difference between a foreign government controlling a military base with the support of the local government, and a foreign government controlling the major ports and railroads due to a debt trap that the local government can't legally escape. Again, the U.S. is imperfect, but the world has seen enough expansionist dictatorships to know what they do.
/s
> violent methods in which it is being spread
That is attempted sometimes (and usually with poor results), but democracy almost always spreads peacefully: India, Brazil, South Korea, most of Europe, South Africa (albeit still a one-party democracy), Mexico, etc. etc.
It's the dictatorships that try to spread their form of government through violence. We can say that if there were no dictatorships - i.e., if all countries were democracies - there probably would be no wars. Even Trump and the GOP aren't threatening war with any democracies.
/s
/s
One possible argument against the notion is that China has always been manically focused on internal unity. Their ambitions abroad, while extensive, will always take a backseat to internal cohesion. China seems to be preparing for a certain amount of internal social upheaval, and if that does happen it would probably curb their external activities to an extent.
This kind of economic “outreach” is possibly a way to get imperial without having to overcommit. It’s a little scary, because as you say it could work. If the Chinese play it right, they could dominate economically without firing a shot, except maybe in Taiwan
Why do you choose that date? The following cycle is a well known model of Chinese history and has been true for millennia (I might misremember a detail here or there): 1. civil war -> 2. cohesion and ascendant power -> 3. corruption and declining power -> goto 1
As an interesting tangent: The model above emphasized order as the priority, which means centralized authoritarian power. A recent history published in Hong Kong[0] says that order was really just consolidated power for the Emperor (or Paramount Leader, as they are called now), but for common people the periods of 'disorder' provided more freedom, prosperity, and innovation. As the author says in one interview:
"Since the imposition of imperial absolutism and centralized government in the Qin dynasty, China has not produced the democratic politicians of ancient times, nor the great thinkers like Laozi, Confucius and Mencius. Quite the opposite – totalitarian society has produced many despotic and violent rulers and corrupt officials and brought China into a great dark age." [1]
[0] China History Revisited by Xiao Jiansheng, published by New Century Press of Hong Kong. I read that it was banned in China, but a best-seller in Hong Kong. This first link is the forward, which I recommend:
https://chinahistoryrevisited.blogspot.com/
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2010/01/chat-with-chinese-aut...
[1] https://www.asiasentinel.com/society/revisiting-chinese-hist...
That said, I’d not want to live under a Chinese culture and it’s Confuscianistic rules.
We’re contrasting a democracy and a dictatorship. Each can be cruel. But one is more stable than the other.
Its not like human mods are any better at it
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Coercing developing countries into taking out loans they can't afford to build infrastructure they don't need has been the USA's MO for decades, and is the reason why it is able to exert so much geopolitical influence around the world. And recently China has been playing the same game.
> Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages.
Someone who's willing to say something like that has blown their credentials in my book, especially when it comes to economics, which is an ideologically touchy field already. Here's a further, somewhat ranty discussion by Brad Delong, a well-respected left-wing economist: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-april-fo...
Are you trying to make some subtle distinction between "leftist" and "left-wing", or are you claiming DeLong doesn't even qualify as a "left-wing economist"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bradford_DeLong#Political_v...
On the other hand, I think the book is full of good analysis, the overall narrative is compelling. I don't think it really warrants treatment as a textbook, more as any other mass market non-fiction...subject to factual scrutiny, but worthy of intellectual engagement as well. he cites enough true things and gives enough examples that the point would stand alone if the factual errors named were simply removed.
Now, I don't condone lying, and I certainly am not pleased to see that post you linked. I am also sufficiently interested with the philosophical content of the book that I still recommend it, though with a slightly tempered sense of enthusiasm...sigh.
But just gooogle “China invaded Africa” to get a bunch more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036105/How-Chinas-t...
I'm not arguing against your point, but do you have any specific examples? The wiki article doesn't really offer up anything, do we just have to read the book?
I don't recall if the author lists very specific information about the examples, such as "The Salvajina Dam, located at such-and-such coordinates", in the book, but I don't think so.
His book is a great read.
Yes but in China's case they don't expect to be involved in the internal policies or demand specific budgetary restrictions when they default on their loan. As opposed to an IMF loan, China has better and simpler terms (someone below outlined this already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16796087) and they know it.
It explores the fallout of loan conditions given to the government of Jamaica. The main issue surrounded Jamaica's acceptance of a loan in the aftermath of an oil crisis. The loan conditions required the Jamaican government to not impose trade restrictions or tariffs on member countries of the World Bank. This meant America's subsidized grain and vegetables could be sold there at a fraction of the cost of production in Jamaica, and the whole process led to a collapse of Jamaica's agricultural industries.
https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf (pdf)