China's Dreams of World Leadership are Fading

[Selva + 252]

Unfortunately we are again far away from topic. 
This so-called administrator is not trying to single-out anyone here. You can only single-out yourself with your posts which contain different opinions or personal attacks. Different opinions are appreciated here. Personal attacks not really.  

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

My bad for off topic!

[frankfurter + 562]

Finally had the time to read Wagner’s article.  Complete waste of time: nothing I did not already know. Written by someone who has never even come close to the venues for the meetings he mentions, let alone to interview anybody directly 1to1. Yet he spouts opinion: way more opinion than fact, and in condescending tone. Am surprised this generated so many responses here, some rather learned responses too.
 
OBOR is dynamic.  The only salient factor from Wagner is China has paused to take stock of the situation.  Much like a farmer who plants a field with an entirely new crop, waters it, and then waits to see what grows.  If anybody thinks the OBOR is a trick pony in a circus show, they are in for a rude awakening. The OBOR is a very long term game changer. Wagner ignores the infrastructure projects completed and in progress that will transform the Eurasian economies; or maybe he doesn’t know?  

The American century is closing [century, not the country]. We are now seeing the start of the Eurasian century.  The USA will do everything possible to stop this and try the age-old divide and conquer approach. That approach is a relic of the cold war, now useless, and will serve to drain the USA of capital and resources. If you think $2 trillion for tiny Afghanistan et al is much, what would you expect for an entire continent?

China may be the catalyst for the OBOR, and may assume a leadership role, but she cannot control or dominate Eurasia. Nor does China wish to: the Chinese know better than any other peoples what the costs and headaches of an empire mean. 

The details of the OBOR history, concept, goals, dynamics, projections, etc, would require me to write untold volumes. So I end here.

[BigJets + 87]

5 hours ago, Dmitry Bedin said:

Brilliant! Ppl of the usa mostly god damn “not smart” at all. The sharpest ppl sure those who never travaled out of usa.

Make sure to thank an American today for your internet, or for the plane you use to travel.  Smarty pants ;)

[frankfurter + 562]

3 minutes ago, BigJets said:

Make sure to thank an American today for your internet, or for the plane you use to travel.  Smarty pants ;)

and here I thought the Germans were first to design, construct, and fly the jet engines that preceded the ones used today.  and don't the Brits lay claim to creating the internet?  seems my public education has it limitations. 

[BigJets + 87]

4 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

and here I thought the Germans were first to design, construct, and fly the jet engines that preceded the ones used today.  and don't the Brits lay claim to creating the internet?  seems my public education has it limitations. 

No idea.  I’m American, dumber than a box of rocks.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

52 minutes ago, Selva said:

Unfortunately we are again far away from topic. 
This so-called administrator is not trying to single-out anyone here. You can only single-out yourself with your posts which contain different opinions or personal attacks. Different opinions are appreciated here. Personal attacks not really.  

^  Bingo.

I will address this shortly, been mostly offline this morning.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, frankfurter said:

I hope the so-called administrator takes note of this point and how I am being singled-out on this site. 

Red herring.  I have noted and commented just yesterday that you are not a troll.  You can be, however, abrasive toward others.  Don't be surprised if you dish out vinegar, that you get some vinegar in return.

Everyone, name calling is pointless, and my patience is growing a bit thin at certain people for resorting to name calling rather that debating points.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

31 minutes ago, BigJets said:

No idea.  I’m American, dumber than a box of rocks.  

Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn are mainly credited with "inventing" the internet by developing the protocols that enables it to function.

Tim Berners Lee is largely credited with inventing the world wide web

This link explains in more detail with additional contributors through the years.

https://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/internet/11-people-who-made-the-internet-possible-11363996346738

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Part 1 of 2.  Both related.  China and France inducing self-censorship in people.

OK, time to address this button about criticism of the CCP and the CCP's loathing of criticism.  A suggested reading for all and sundry who have lobbed name calling in lieu of debating issues.  Time to pay attention to the underlying game of the CCP bribing its way into getting other countries to not criticize the Chinese government. 

Note this is NOT about the Chinese PEOPLE, this is about the Chinese GOVERNMENT.  If you are unable to make the distinction between governments and a country's citizens, then you are probably unable to debate on this forum.

A report from 2018.  PDF attached at the bottom of this comment, the Executive Summary and Introduction excerpted below, from the United States - China Economic and Security Review Commission:

 

 

China’s Overseas United Front Work Background and Implications for the United States

Executive Summary

China uses what it calls “United Front” work to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD) - the agency responsible for coordinating these kinds of influence operations - mostly focuses on the management of potential opposition groups inside China, but it also has an important foreign influence mission. To carry out its influence activities abroad, the UFWD directs “overseas Chinese work,” which seeks to co-opt ethnic Chinese individuals and communities living outside China, while a number of other key affiliated organizations guided by China’s broader United Front strategy conduct influence operations targeting foreign actors and states. Some of these entities have clear connections to the CCP’s United Front strategy, while others’ linkage is less explicit. Organizations such as Chinese Students and Scholars Associations are less directly tied to the main United Front related organizational structure, but many of their activities and acceptance of oversight from the CCP shows some level of guidance from the United Front strategy.

Today, United Front-related organizations are playing an increasingly important role in China’s broader foreign policy under Chinese President and General Secretary of the CCP Xi Jinping. It is precisely the nature of United Front work to seek influence through connections that are difficult to publically prove and to gain influence that is interwoven with sensitive issues such as ethnic, political, and national identity, making those who seek to identify the negative effects of such influence vulnerable to accusations of prejudice. Because of the complexities of this
issue, it is crucial for the U.S. government to better understand Beijing’s United Front strategy, its goals, and the actors responsible for achieving them if it is to formulate an effective and comprehensive response. This staff report provides an overview of the United Front, its history and ideology, the structure and operations of the UFWD and other organizations carrying out United Front work, and the implications of this activity for the United States.

Introduction

The CCP advocates for its political interests through the use of what it calls “United Front” work, a strategy borrowed from the former Soviet Union.  President Xi has placed a greater emphasis on United Front work since assuming office in 2012, describing it as important for the “whole [Chinese Communist] Party” and elevating its role within China’s broader foreign policy.  At the national level, China’s United Front strategy is “given concrete institutional form”—according to June Teufel Dreyer, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute—by
the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a critical coordinating body that brings together representatives of China’s other interest groups and is led by a member of China’s highest-level decision-making authority, the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee.  At the operational level, United Front activities are coordinated by the CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), although a number of other organizations also play important roles carrying out United Front work abroad. 

The United Front strategy uses a range of methods to influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies.  A number of official and quasi-official entities conduct overseas activities guided or funded by the United Front including Chinese government and military organizations, cultural and “friendship” associations, and overseas academic groups such as Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs) and Confucius Institutes.  

The UFWD also oversees influence operations targeting Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau that aim to suppress independence movements, undermine local identity, and promote support for Beijing’s political system.  In all of these cases, United Front work serves to promote Beijing’s preferred global narrative, pressure individuals living in free and open societies to self-censor and avoid discussing issues unfavorable to the CCP, and harass or undermine groups critical of Beijing’s policies. 

The CCP continues to lay the groundwork in the United States for United Front operations that could be similar to those that have achieved success in some U.S.-allied countries (e.g., Australia and New Zealand, where the CCP has effectively monopolized Chinese-language media outlets and taken over Chinese community organizations). The CCP has sought to influence academic discourse on China and in certain instances has infringed upon—and potentially criminally violated—rights to freedoms of speech and association that are guaranteed to Americans and those protected by U.S. laws.  Despite the CCP’s candid discussion of its United Front strategy, the breadth and depth of this issue remain relatively unknown to U.S. policymakers.  ...

=============================================================

Full PDF attached below.  If you like the intro above, you may wish the also read the conclusion, stating on page 19, "Implication for the United States" :

China's Overseas United Front Work - Background and Implications for US_final_0.pdf

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Part 2 of 2.  Both related.  China and France inducing self-censorship in people.

 

Excerpts below.  Same insidious push toward getting others to self-censor.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15526/france-blasphemy-censorship

France Quietly Reintroducing the Crime of Blasphemy

• Today, in France, using freedom of expression to criticize Islam is clearly an extremely dangerous act, even if you, like Mila, are a child.

• France is rapidly going from laïcité (secularism) to lâcheté (cowardice); from freedom of expression to unconditional surrender. France keeps trying to procrastinate while Islamism thrives on the elites' rapidly abandoning their Judeo-Christian values.

• Feminist organizations, so quick to denounce "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchal structures of domination", were also silent.

• Today, in France, the country of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which always sanctified freedom of expression and the right to criticize religion and ideologies, some within the justice system.... are quietly and de facto reintroducing the crime of blasphemy.

... "Are we in France or Pakistan?", asked French intellectual Jacques Julliard. Welcome to the France of 2020, where magazines run headlines such as: "Mila, 16 years old, threatened with death for criticizing Islam". Islamism is becoming pervasive among French Muslims. Since France has not fought it, its hold over France can only increase.

"Let's get to the point: the progressive intelligentsia wants to believe in multicultural living together, even when reality denies it and reveals a society where diversity is translated into social and identity fragmentation", wrote the Canadian philosopher, Mathieu Bock-Côté. When multiculturalism turns into threats to free speech, multiculturalists dangerously take the side of the Islamists. The case of Mila represents all the cracks in the disintegration of French society. According to the French journalist, Dominique Nora:

"A few weeks after the commemoration of the massacre at Charlie [Hebdo], the 'Mila affair' shows the disturbing asymmetry that reigns in France regarding freedom of expression, or more precisely, blasphemy."  ...

 

... Today, in France, using freedom of expression to criticize Islam is clearly an extremely dangerous act, even if you, like Mila, are a child. Those who disassociate themselves from Mila wear masks of submission.

Franz-Olivier Giesbert, an influential commentator and former editor of Le Figaro, accused Justice Minister Belloubet of appeasing Islamists, and compared her actions to those of the Vichy regime that collaborated with Hitler. "Is France still France?", Giesbert asked in an editorial for the news magazine Le Point.

"Some days you wonder. In Islamic republics such as Pakistan or Iran [Belloubet's comments] would be normal. But they are not normal in France, the country of the Enlightenment where there is a right to blasphemy".

If you count all the French journalists, cartoonists and writers currently under police protection for criticizing Islam, then, yes, France is turning into the new Pakistan. Éric Zemmour, the author of Le Suicide Français, is followed by two police guards wherever he goes; Charlie Hebdo's director, "Riss", and the remaining cartoonists live under police protection as does Philippe Val, the former director of Charlie Hebdo, who decided to publish the Mohammed cartoons in 2006. The journalist Zineb Rhazaoui is surrounded by six policemen. Already in 2002, two noted authors were forced to stand trial in France for their ideas on Islam, Oriana Fallaci and Michel Houellebecq.

Five major French intellectuals -- Elisabeth Badinter, Elisabeth de Fontenay, Marcel Gauchet, Jacques Julliard and Jean-Pierre Le Goff -- published a pro-Mila appeal in L'Express, calling out "the cowardice of justice and politics now obsessed with the acrobatics on the subjects of freedom of expression when it comes to Islam. We will pay dearly for this cowardice".

After the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, Pope Francis said, "Curse my mother, expect a punch", and blamed the cartoonists for their own murder. Islamists are winning the ideological battle and we are behaving like cowards. Will 16-year-old Mila have to be murdered to unify people enough so that the cowards can say "Je suis Mila" for 24 hours?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Anyway, as a moderator, what I see repeatedly of late is an effort to shout down dissent, and impose self-censorship about (very much justified, in my opinion) criticism against the Chinese government.  That is just one example.

Name calling against those who criticize the CCP (Chinese government) or any other group is not something I will tolerate much longer as a moderator.

Dissent, freedom of ideas, freedom of opinions, and critical thinking in general are ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED here.

You want to criticize Trump?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize the USA?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize China?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize the EU?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize religion?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize atheism?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize oil & gas?  Go right ahead.

You want to criticize renewable energy?  Go right ahead.

Just don't be a jerk about it. 

And don't resort to name-calling when your intellectual capacity is apparently incapable of withstanding any opinions that differ from your own opinions.

A bit of humor tends to work better than screeds and name-calling and sour grapes vinegar.

 

/ end of moderator opinion

 

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

Trying to get back on topic a little (unusual for me I know)

It appears the coronavirus is set to deal a heavy blow to China's $43tn property market, and this could slash China's growth for this year from an expected 6% to 3.9%.

This has major ramifications for global markets and specific industries in particular

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/feb/10/will-the-coronavirus-outbreak-derail-the-global-economy

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/feb/10/will-the-coronavirus-outbreak-derail-the-global-economy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 2/11/2020 at 5:17 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

For info, this forum keeps getting spammed by spammers in China.  Moderators flag and ban the spammers as soon as we see it.  They are persistent spammers.  IP addresses are all from China, and the text is primarily Mandarin.  Latest spammer name is unspeakw4, and I am expecting unspeakw5 soon.  Already had 1, 2. and 3.  An earlier one went to 12 I believe.

Might I recommend a "quarantine" area for all new accounts? Other sites have that and it seems reasonable. Conversely, once someone moves up the participation chain, they should have better rights than Joe Newcomer. Just my 2 cents. I have noticed some tools are missing from the comments box when I post. I'm assuming the attacks from < name calling deleted by moderator >  are the reason? 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Tom Kirkman
moderator edit to delete name calling insinuations against another forum member

[0R0 + 6,251]

20 hours ago, GeneralLevy said:

There’s a likelihood that China will reach a development akin to South Korea, except a South Korea with a 1.435 billion population.

In an alternative scenario, a collapse of the CCP and replacement with a democratic model makes the above more likely - a case of “be careful what you wish for”.

Whether it wants to take a leadership role, who knows.

It would be great to get the ideas and organization models that a "free" Chinese people, 1.4 billion strong would come up with, and I don't expect it would be a problem for them to join in a NATO successor with a more shared command structure. But China's working age population in 20 years will be 1/2 of what it is today. And current trends among Chinese women will bring that down further more rapidly than the 1 child policy had. By 2050 they would have out Japan'ed Japan and fallen under 1 billion people. 

If Immigration resumes to its traditional role, then US will continue to have a stable population with an ample supply of new workers from the children of Millennials, who are apparently not believing in the "eat the babies to save the world" narrative that they espouse so loudly from their flatshare rooms and mom's basement. The first wave of Millennial parents is getting a driver's license, buying a house in suburbia and a truck. Apparently 2 kids is not the ceiling of their personal plans.  

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 hours ago, frankfurter said:

well, this is far far off topic, but since you raise it, here goes...

Considered, fair, open disagreement to discuss facts to reach truths is always respected: whether to criticise the CCP, me, or anybody else.  But this is not the case on this site: virtually all comments about China and me are slurs, smears, defamation, and condemnation. When received, I respond in kind.  People here are definitely biased to view me and China as their enemy, and simply cannot accept an opposing view.  People are entitled to their bias, but they should realise the dangers thereof.  People should also realise they will be held to account for their comments and slurs.

If you think I cannot accept criticism of the CCP, you should think again please. At no time have I condoned the CCP policies blindly. Be those policies right or wrong in the eyes of people here, I have simply tried to put such policies into a perspective of reason. You accept your government, so you should expect the Chinese to accept their government. For this I am labelled an 'operand' of the CCP.  This is entirely untrue and thus a slur.  If you think I cannot tolerate criticism of my points, think again please.  Factual points are debated; slurs are not.

 

They don't have a chance to discuss their government let alone choose it. So that is a straw man argument.

There is nothing to accept from this side.

The CCP is the enemy of China, the Chinese people, and of Western democratic systems and free market economies. 

The CCP is a nihilist organization out for power for the sake of its narrow leadership. The world as a whole should stand against them.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,130]

6 hours ago, BigJets said:

No idea.  I’m American, dumber than a box of rocks.  

I don't know.  Dick wagging about my daddy is better than your daddy is always a favorite of the school playground. 

Me, I just say I am ignorant and leave it at that...

[Marcin2 + 724]

6 hours ago, @frankfurter said:

"Finally had the time to read 1. Wagner’s article.  Complete waste of time: nothing I did not already know. Written by someone who has never even come close to the venues for the meetings he mentions, let alone to interview anybody directly 1to1. 2.Yet he spouts opinion: way more opinion than fact, and in condescending tone. Am surprised this generated so many responses here, some rather learned responses too.
 
3.OBOR is dynamic.  The only salient factor from Wagner is China has paused to take stock of the situation.  Much like a farmer who plants a field with an entirely new crop, waters it, and then waits to see what grows.  If anybody thinks the OBOR is a trick pony in a circus show, they are in for a rude awakening. The OBOR is a very long term game changer. Wagner ignores the infrastructure projects completed and in progress that will transform the Eurasian economies; or maybe he doesn’t know?  

4.The American century is closing [century, not the country]. We are now seeing the start of the Eurasian century.  The USA will do everything possible to stop this and try the age-old divide and conquer approach. That approach is a relic of the cold war, now useless, and will serve to drain the USA of capital and resources. If you think $2 trillion for tiny Afghanistan et al is much, what would you expect for an entire continent?

5. China may be the catalyst for the OBOR, and may assume a leadership role, but she cannot control or dominate Eurasia. Nor does China wish to: the Chinese know better than any other peoples what the costs and headaches of an empire mean. 

The details of the OBOR history, concept, goals, dynamics, projections, etc, would require me to write untold volumes. So I end here."

@frankfurter Very informative and spot on comment about BRI (lets use the official terminology, Wagner also uses BRI not OBOR, OBOR name was perceived as sth exclusive, while it is just the opposite).

1. Wagner's job is to write such articles about BRI. Had he have written sth globally perceived as unbiased, he would loose his US clients and not sell the book, either. I think he his capable of writing unbiased, informative stuff, but he needs to promote the book and his company CRS. Perfectly OK for me. 2. Why he is condescending -> look at point 1.

3. I like very much this part of your comment, You nailed the nature of BRI with this very good new crop great parallel. Wagner knows about stock of the infrastructure but his job is look at point 1. again.

I think it is perfectly normal that people are so ignorant, even here,  about BRI. If you are American and do not specialize in Asian geopolitics, or are just not curious enough, do not have other sources of information than US MSM homogenous information pulp this biased opinion is the only natural conclusion. Remember that it is STRICTLY PROHIBITED for any member of US adminstration ( Obama or Trump the same) to speak about BRI from the positions of global consensus what BRI really is.

You do not parrot Mike Pense, intellectually awful, agressive and factually very weak rants, you loose your job.

The only people in US that can speak about BRI freely, with the presentation of different perspectives are some US think-thanks, listen to Ian Bremmer, Kevin Rudd or Graham T. Allison.  But their message reaches less than 1% of US society.

I do not even try to present their opinions here, it is useless. I will explain in the point 4 why it is the case.

4. US strategy is about keeping unilateral world order, with US preeminence, and preventing any country or region from achieving this status. We are not in kindergarten, you know numbers: US spent 15 trillion dollars on defence in 21st century to uppend this strategy, this is 50,000 dollars per each baby, woman and man in US. 100 million people died in 20th century in a battle about this preeminence, and remember that WW2 warfare were just children toys in comparison with what we have now at our disposal in global arsenals.

So it is unpatriotic, bordering treason to speak without bias about BRI in United States. So far all these has gone. It makes me really scary where this trend takes us all.

5. You again nailed it, as I said very good comment ,that China is just a catalyst. From Chinese point of view it is in their best interest to develop Eurasia (together with EU). Cause the more strong developed nations, the less important US military and economic power is in comparison to the rest of the world.

To summarize:

Largely benign BRI concept of global development through building infrastructure enablers is a grave danger to US preeminence and that is why US authorities fight with it so fiercely. This fight is imprinted into society. Nothing good will come from this for the world, but mainly for the United States. And Wagner is just at his job of promoting new book and selling his expertise to US clients.

US readers please be curious and try to get past msm pulp, listen to what Ian Bremmer, Kevin Rudd or Graham Allison wants to tell you.

Remember: New railway, new expressway, dam, power plant are not members of CCP, they most of all serve people they were built for, not Chinese interests

 

[Marcin2 + 724]

To convene my message in a succinct way:

in terms of0-10:

0 very good global situation no major conflicts,

10 globe at total war,

My opinion:

a) US-Soviet Union 1945-1989 conflict was 4,

b) US hegemony 1989-2000 was 2

c) US hegemony 2000-2019 was 3

d) Globe will pass 4 soon.

e) Future after the balance of power changes from US to Eurasia (dominated by China: 4-5 or not dominated by China: 3-4) will be about 3-5.

f) Period of transition is going to be at least 8, I am afraid, US will not give up easely.

I am concerned about this period of interregnum, change of hegemony.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

"4. US strategy is about keeping unilateral world order, with US preeminence, and preventing any country or region from achieving this status. We are not in kindergarten, you know numbers: US spent 15 trillion dollars on defence in 21st century to uppend this strategy, this is 50,000 dollars per each baby, woman and man in US. 100 million people died in 20th century in a battle about this preeminence, and remember that WW2 warfare were just children toys in comparison with what we have now at our disposal in global arsenals."

 

HORSESHT. You want to lay 100 million deaths on the USA? What an ass. Was it the US who killed 30 million of their own people in the Soviet Union? Was it the US who killed 50 million of their own people in China? I think you're all done lecturing here, your wumaodang is showing. I do hope you're able to cash your check before the CCP utterly collapses. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

6 hours ago, @frankfurter said:

 

"Finally had the time to read 1. Wagner’s article.  Complete waste of time: nothing I did not already know. Written by someone who has never even come close to the venues for the meetings he mentions, let alone to interview anybody directly 1to1. 2.Yet he spouts opinion: way more opinion than fact, and in condescending tone. Am surprised this generated so many responses here, some rather learned responses too.
 
3.OBOR is dynamic.  The only salient factor from Wagner is China has paused to take stock of the situation.  Much like a farmer who plants a field with an entirely new crop, waters it, and then waits to see what grows.  If anybody thinks the OBOR is a trick pony in a circus show, they are in for a rude awakening. The OBOR is a very long term game changer. Wagner ignores the infrastructure projects completed and in progress that will transform the Eurasian economies; or maybe he doesn’t know?  

 

4.The American century is closing [century, not the country]. We are now seeing the start of the Eurasian century.  The USA will do everything possible to stop this and try the age-old divide and conquer approach. That approach is a relic of the cold war, now useless, and will serve to drain the USA of capital and resources. If you think $2 trillion for tiny Afghanistan et al is much, what would you expect for an entire continent?

 

5. China may be the catalyst for the OBOR, and may assume a leadership role, but she cannot control or dominate Eurasia. Nor does China wish to: the Chinese know better than any other peoples what the costs and headaches of an empire mean. 

 

The details of the OBOR history, concept, goals, dynamics, projections, etc, would require me to write untold volumes. So I end here."

 

 

@frankfurter Very informative and spot on comment about BRI (lets use the official terminology, Wagner also uses BRI not OBOR, OBOR name was perceived as sth exclusive, while it is just the opposite).

 

1. Wagner's job is to write such articles about BRI. Had he have written sth globally perceived as unbiased, he would loose his US clients and not sell the book, either. I think he his capable of writing unbiased, informative stuff, but he needs to promote the book and his company CRS. Perfectly OK for me. 2. Why he is condescending -> look at point 1.

 

3. I like very much this part of your comment, You nailed the nature of BRI with this very good new crop great parallel. Wagner knows about stock of the infrastructure but his job is look at point 1. again.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that people are so ignorant, even here,  about BRI. If you are American and do not specialize in Asian geopolitics, or are just not curious enough, do not have other sources of information than US MSM homogenous information pulp this biased opinion is the only natural conclusion. Remember that it is STRICTLY PROHIBITED for any member of US adminstration ( Obama or Trump the same) to speak about BRI from the positions of global consensus what BRI really is.

 

You do not parrot Mike Pense, intellectually awful, agressive and factually very weak rants, you loose your job.

 

The only people in US that can speak about BRI freely, with the presentation of different perspectives are some US think-thanks, listen to Ian Bremmer, Kevin Rudd or Graham T. Allison.  But their message reaches less than 1% of US society.

 

I do not even try to present their opinions here, it is useless. I will explain in the point 4 why it is the case.

 

4. US strategy is about keeping unilateral world order, with US preeminence, and preventing any country or region from achieving this status. We are not in kindergarten, you know numbers: US spent 15 trillion dollars on defence in 21st century to uppend this strategy, this is 50,000 dollars per each baby, woman and man in US. 100 million people died in 20th century in a battle about this preeminence, and remember that WW2 warfare were just children toys in comparison with what we have now at our disposal in global arsenals.

 

So it is unpatriotic, bordering treason to speak without bias about BRI in United States. So far all these has gone. It makes me really scary where this trend takes us all.

 

5. You again nailed it, as I said very good comment ,that China is just a catalyst. From Chinese point of view it is in their best interest to develop Eurasia (together with EU). Cause the more strong developed nations, the less important US military and economic power is in comparison to the rest of the world.

 

To summarize:

 

Largely benign BRI concept of global development through building infrastructure enablers is a grave danger to US preeminence and that is why US authorities fight with it so fiercely. This fight is imprinted into society. Nothing good will come from this for the world, but mainly for the United States. And Wagner is just at his job of promoting new book and selling his expertise to US clients.

 

US readers please be curious and try to get past msm pulp, listen to what Ian Bremmer, Kevin Rudd or Graham Allison wants to tell you.

 

Remember: New railway, new expressway, dam, power plant are not members of CCP, they most of all serve people they were built for, not Chinese interests

 

 

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

There is lots to think of, but the BRI is not as much a big strategic initiative for China as they think it is. Their debt trap financing and bidding and employment system (exclusive Chinese contracting at inflated rates and mostly Chinese labor) for BRI projects result in bankruptcy and possession by China SOE subsidiaries. That will not necessarily stand the test of time. The projects will be nationalized if the local governments see them as a threat to sovereignty. Some have already stopped many projects and others are negotiating new terms. China presumes that they can afford to build this infrastructure without it producing a cash flow for China entities that built it. I don't think their international financing allows for it. Even after their inclusion in MSCI index led investments produces tens of billions of dollars of capital portfolio flows, their dollar liquidity is limited by persistent capital flight. (For this reason I suggest people drop out of MSCI index products, that and the exclusion of energy firms from them in the near future) 

There is an American argument to let China proceed with these projects because the US has tried for decades to pretty much do the same in various ways and had met with very slow progress as commercial follow through was negligible. The scale of the projects is massive and the returns very questionable.  Also, the question of those potential returns being captured by the Chines interests controlling the projects is in question too. 

Peter Zeihan views the BRI as a ditch digging and filling operation to keep Chinese construction workers and the cement and steel workers employed while gaining strategic relationships for however long they may last. They are operating where the culture allows you to rent loyalty, but never gain it. As soon as the cash flow disappears, so does the loyalty and your assets get nationalized if they have any value for the local powers. China is new to this game and is trying to do it with no idea of how it will play out. 

The only major problem for the Chinese is on the financial side as these projects eat lots of forex and hardly ever produce any. Their corrupt bidding and contracting practices are a turnoff sure to earn them ill will and provide legal grounds for expropriation of repossessed projects. It is not as simple as they seem to think it is. 

The inland Eurasian transportation is no threat to the sea lanes as it is capital intensive and remains comparatively expensive to operate even after bankruptcy; when capital costs are off the income statement. Which is why China is now going into building aircraft carriers. It is a huge capital hole with little that would ever justify it economically. Yet everyone has been trying for decades. Fair enough for China to give it a go. It is their head that is going in the noose.

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

"4. US strategy is about keeping unilateral world order, with US preeminence, and preventing any country or region from achieving this status. We are not in kindergarten, you know numbers: US spent 15 trillion dollars on defence in 21st century to uppend this strategy, this is 50,000 dollars per each baby, woman and man in US. 100 million people died in 20th century in a battle about this preeminence, and remember that WW2 warfare were just children toys in comparison with what we have now at our disposal in global arsenals."

 

HORSESHT. You want to lay 100 million deaths on the USA? What an ass. Was it the US who killed 30 million of their own people in the Soviet Union? Was it the US who killed 50 million of their own people in China? I think you're all done lecturing here, your wumaodang is showing. I do hope you're able to cash your check before the CCP utterly collapses. 

Soviets killed 60 million of their own people. 

China did nearly the same to their own people. It is doing it again with the coronavirus and the inept response to it. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“the Chinese know better than any other peoples what the costs and headaches of an empire mean. “

Yet, they vote in (as if they had a choice) a leader for life...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,130]

20 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“the Chinese know better than any other peoples what the costs and headaches of an empire mean. “

Yet, they vote in (as if they had a choice) a leader for life...

I just have to wonder how How the Hell could China "know the headaches of empire"... Marcin, I know he is a Chinese national using a VPN through Poland, but jeepers, this one takes the cake.

Oh right, the conquering of Tibet, Uighyr, Hunan, inner Mongolia, wars with Vietnam looking for more territory(only stole the Percel islands), reconquering Cantonese people, India, almost a war with Russia, and eliminating the last vestiges of the Manchu people whom the Japanese had not eliminated for them.  And a puppet state in N. Korea.  Yes, subjugating all the border peoples around the HAN/Yangtze, Yellow rivers is truly headache worthy.....

[frankfurter + 562]

12 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Part 1 of 2.  Both related.  China and France inducing self-censorship in people.

OK, time to address this button about criticism of the CCP and the CCP's loathing of criticism.  A suggested reading for all and sundry who have lobbed name calling in lieu of debating issues.  Time to pay attention to the underlying game of the CCP bribing its way into getting other countries to not criticize the Chinese government. 

Note this is NOT about the Chinese PEOPLE, this is about the Chinese GOVERNMENT.  If you are unable to make the distinction between governments and a country's citizens, then you are probably unable to debate on this forum.

A report from 2018.  PDF attached at the bottom of this comment, the Executive Summary and Introduction excerpted below, from the United States - China Economic and Security Review Commission:

 

 

China’s Overseas United Front Work Background and Implications for the United States

Executive Summary

China uses what it calls “United Front” work to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD) - the agency responsible for coordinating these kinds of influence operations - mostly focuses on the management of potential opposition groups inside China, but it also has an important foreign influence mission. To carry out its influence activities abroad, the UFWD directs “overseas Chinese work,” which seeks to co-opt ethnic Chinese individuals and communities living outside China, while a number of other key affiliated organizations guided by China’s broader United Front strategy conduct influence operations targeting foreign actors and states. Some of these entities have clear connections to the CCP’s United Front strategy, while others’ linkage is less explicit. Organizations such as Chinese Students and Scholars Associations are less directly tied to the main United Front related organizational structure, but many of their activities and acceptance of oversight from the CCP shows some level of guidance from the United Front strategy.

Today, United Front-related organizations are playing an increasingly important role in China’s broader foreign policy under Chinese President and General Secretary of the CCP Xi Jinping. It is precisely the nature of United Front work to seek influence through connections that are difficult to publically prove and to gain influence that is interwoven with sensitive issues such as ethnic, political, and national identity, making those who seek to identify the negative effects of such influence vulnerable to accusations of prejudice. Because of the complexities of this
issue, it is crucial for the U.S. government to better understand Beijing’s United Front strategy, its goals, and the actors responsible for achieving them if it is to formulate an effective and comprehensive response. This staff report provides an overview of the United Front, its history and ideology, the structure and operations of the UFWD and other organizations carrying out United Front work, and the implications of this activity for the United States.

Introduction

The CCP advocates for its political interests through the use of what it calls “United Front” work, a strategy borrowed from the former Soviet Union.  President Xi has placed a greater emphasis on United Front work since assuming office in 2012, describing it as important for the “whole [Chinese Communist] Party” and elevating its role within China’s broader foreign policy.  At the national level, China’s United Front strategy is “given concrete institutional form”—according to June Teufel Dreyer, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute—by
the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a critical coordinating body that brings together representatives of China’s other interest groups and is led by a member of China’s highest-level decision-making authority, the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee.  At the operational level, United Front activities are coordinated by the CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), although a number of other organizations also play important roles carrying out United Front work abroad. 

The United Front strategy uses a range of methods to influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies.  A number of official and quasi-official entities conduct overseas activities guided or funded by the United Front including Chinese government and military organizations, cultural and “friendship” associations, and overseas academic groups such as Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs) and Confucius Institutes.  

The UFWD also oversees influence operations targeting Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau that aim to suppress independence movements, undermine local identity, and promote support for Beijing’s political system.  In all of these cases, United Front work serves to promote Beijing’s preferred global narrative, pressure individuals living in free and open societies to self-censor and avoid discussing issues unfavorable to the CCP, and harass or undermine groups critical of Beijing’s policies. 

The CCP continues to lay the groundwork in the United States for United Front operations that could be similar to those that have achieved success in some U.S.-allied countries (e.g., Australia and New Zealand, where the CCP has effectively monopolized Chinese-language media outlets and taken over Chinese community organizations). The CCP has sought to influence academic discourse on China and in certain instances has infringed upon—and potentially criminally violated—rights to freedoms of speech and association that are guaranteed to Americans and those protected by U.S. laws.  Despite the CCP’s candid discussion of its United Front strategy, the breadth and depth of this issue remain relatively unknown to U.S. policymakers.  ...

=============================================================

Full PDF attached below.  If you like the intro above, you may wish the also read the conclusion, stating on page 19, "Implication for the United States" :

China's Overseas United Front Work - Background and Implications for US_final_0.pdf 1.13 MB · 0 downloads

 

Thank you for posting this.  Always good to see how one side views the other.  Fact; the report is written by Americans for Americans, so I am not surprised by the content. 

I suppose nobody in the USA has heard of the Monroe Doctrine, full spectrum dominance, or such?