China is trying to get a Pacific Ocean base with $$$ & debt

[Blobfish]

Tv Show in Australia "60 Minutes" has been berated by a spokesman from the Australian Chinese Embassy asking them not to screen a
Documentary on how China gave the South Pacific Island of Vanuatu a loan of $$ which will put that country in massive Debt
And then cause Vanuatu to concede to China's whim.. which would probably be the building of a South Pacific Military base.

China gave Vanuatu a loan 360% more expensive than other options.

Part of the “60 Minutes” episode highlighted a Chinese-built wharf in Vanuatu that has gained international attention.

Earlier this year reports emerged that China discussed setting up a military presence in Vanuatu, a claim both countries denied but which Australian defence officials reportedly confirmed. And the country’s newly built Luganville wharf, which was funded by China and seems more suited to navy vessels than cruise ships, would be crucial to this.

The fear is that Vanuatu, like many countries before it, accepted a loan with exorbitant interest rates and may need to hand over the wharf to China if it defaults, a practice called debt-trap diplomacy.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/h...stralia-2018-6


Any way the TV Channel producers that is to screen this episode on 60 Minutes has been getting yelled at by the Chinese.

It was the voice of Saixian Cao, the head of media affairs at China’s embassy in Canberra. According to a report from “60 Minutes” journalist Charles Wooley, she was yelling at the show’s executive producer, Kirsty Thomson, after failing to gain any traction with higher-ups at the network.

“You will listen,” Cao reportedly shouted into the phone. “There must be no more misconduct in the future.”


Thomson and colleagues had been working on a story about China’s growing influence over Pacific nations, by using exorbitant loans for infrastructure projects that leave countries indebted to Beijing, both politically and financially.

The story largely focused on China’s projects in the island nation of Vanuatu – where the show’s team had also recorded footage of the Chinese embassy – and the official was trying everything to kill the story.

“You will not use that footage,” Thomson said Cao demanded.

Seems China wants more than their so called zone in the South China Sea
They want influence in the Pacific. And they are showing Pacific Island Countries the mighty $$ to do so.


As far as I am concerned we want the Mighty USA in our region (South Pacific).. Not a Communist country with a appalling Human rights record.

A Chinese Embassy official yelled and made demands of an Australian producer to try and censor an episode of “60 Minutes” that would be critical of China.
The Chinese Communist Party regularly tries to interfere with foreign Chinese-language media, a former consular diplomat who defected to Australia told Business Insider, but targeting English-language media is rare.
The “60 Minutes” report covered China’s debt-trap diplomacy in the Pacific, including a loan to Vanuatu for a wharf which experts are concerned could be used by the Chinese military.
Vanuatu’s foreign minister also said China, and Australia, expects support at the UN in return for financing.

[The One Percent]

So the US can get involved, spend tons of resources, and still get painted the villain?

[Skroe]

So the US can get involved, spend tons of resources, and still get painted the villain?

What matters more to you:
-Occasionally getting "painted like a villain"

-Short-circuiting Chinese expansionism

For the life of me, I don't get why this is hard. Keeping China contained and not building bases is in America's interests. It is so much in our interests that there are few things actually more important than that.

I got news for you. In the next 15 years you're going to see two things:

- China will try and build a naval base in West Africa so they can operate an Atlantic Ocean fleet out of there. China has established a base in Djibouti in the last year that will enable the Chinese navy to conduct operations along the Western Half of the Indian Ocean. That can't be allowed to happen in the Atlantic.

- China will try and build a naval base in the Western Hemisphere. Probably Nicaragua. Maybe Ecuador. Or less likely, Venezuela. This will allow them to operate close to US shores and in the Caribbean.

So while you worry about America getting a pat on the ass all the time, China is making serious plays and will continue to make them.

[Raptor With a Saber]

So the US can get involved, spend tons of resources, and still get painted the villain?

Thats the u.s role in the world. has been that way since the Korean war when the U.S went in as a police force literally [least as it was deemed according the the U.N and proven by how instead of toppling N.K as it could have instead ended the war and stablized it though it has proven to have been a bad thing then again with a few African countries we go in try to stop major fighting succeed and let the regions powers continue on but that has proven to be a shit show also when the world literally failed a few of those countries u.s included by not staying to finish helping but the u.s cant do it all alone not saying that it does but u.s is the main police force and with current states of countries the u.s would go the way of rome if we kept at it instead of minior stabilzation and hoping it works out]

[Blobfish]

Well I actually agreed with Hillary Clinton the other day, when she visited Australia.

Hillary Clinton warns of Chinese influence on Australian politics


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-1...litics/9754928

"I don't care what side of the political aisle you might be on, in either Australia or the United States. We have an interest in making sure that decisions that are made by our governments are not the result of some kind of influence peddling by a foreign power."

But Ms Clinton, in Australia on a speaking tour, does not think that means the relationship needs to be confrontational.

"Australia has a lot of interests with China, certainly your economy is intertwined with China. But I do think that Australia, along with other liberal democracies around the world, have got to take the threat of foreign interference seriously," she said.

"I know from just reading that there have been instances of exposures concerning political efforts by Chinese interests, through contributions and other influence efforts to really direct certain policy outcomes."



But Skroe… In 20 to 30 years I Think China's Expansionism will be a real Threat to the USA & its Allies.

It is starting to look like Japan's expansionism prior to WW2

[Skroe]

But Skroe… In 20 to 30 years I Think China's Expansionism will be a real Threat to the USA & its Allies.

It is starting to look like Japans expansionism prior to WW2

Yes. A Unipolar international system, as we've had since World War II is never perpetually stable. The costs (economic, in manpower, in national sacrifice, in attention, in resources) of bearing a globe spanning hegemony is far too great for any one country. The United States, technically speaking pulled back in the 1990s. Remember: it was only 20 years ago there were something like 300,000 troops in Europe, as opposed to a sixth of that today. True enough, advanced technology has changed what that means in many ways, but the US withdrew those troops very rapidly between 1992 and 2002. The same is true of actions such as the halving of Troops in Korea and consolidation of bases in North America and the Pacific Ocean.

That the US did not face any consequence in this draw down is a result of the weakness of potential rival powers. The European Union is an ally and has no real military ambitions. Russia has been on a long, sad decline, and possesses a fraction of the global power in 2018 it had in 1998. China, while growing in power (and still growing), still had / has a way to go.

In other words, the US could do that because the vacuum it created had no one really moving into it. Through globalized institutions and a rules based regime - the UN, the WTO, various treaties, bilateral, trilateral and multilateral security arrangements, the US endevoured to largely lock in it's regional influences without putting forward the forces and resources it had during the entirety of the cold war.

China's rise and Russia's decline is rapidly changing that. The Rise of China as a threat to the Western lead liberal, rules based international order since World War II has a side story, in that China is moving into the domains that Russia historically occupied. That has caused China to grow in power significantly in the past few years particularly, as it is still mostly a land power (like Russia) and not a naval and air one. The One Belt-One Road initiative is nothing less than a tributary network stretching across Eurasia, with all tribute headed to China. That undermines nobody as much as Russia, something Russia is keenly aware of. The US has not done what it should have done, which is create security arrangements deep within Asia to contain this, except in India where it (very importingly) has.

But it will be before long that China turns its attention in full to the Indo-Pacific region.

Their ultimate goal will be to utilize diplomacy and military solutions to push the US back from being just off their Coast to Guam by sometime in the 2030s, and then back to Hawaii sometime in the 2040s or 2050s. This will involve a combination of both exclusive basing deals, trade deals and placing advanced weapons in places that it encourages US forces to withdraw further and further away from them.

So yes. It is a serious thread. Early 22nd century historians will probably speak of the coming Cold War between the US and China as the single major historical event. Terrorism? Russian revanchism? The Financial Crisis? Even Climate Change (thus far?). All, at best, side stories to what history has almost always been about: the clash of great powers.

But this one is probably going to be significantly different, as there does not seem to be an ideological rivalry between the US and China. But then again, that isn't exactly unusual either. Political and economic Ideological wars in the way we think of them are largely a 18th and 19th century creation (Wars of Religion are different). Most wars have been fought for either religious purposes or power/domain purposes.

The conflict between the US and China is and will be largely about domain, and political/diplomatic/economic behavior within them. That makes this conflict, in other words, very, very old school. Almost post-ideological. It is not Capitalist versus Commies, and it's barely Free World versus Authoritarians.

So this is going to make the coming conflict very different from the Cold War the West won. Big Blocs - NATO vs Warsaw Pact style - won't be a thing. The US will have a handful of tight allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) that are deeply involved and some allies that are only tangentially involved (NATO, Non-NATO allies). China will have a tight handful of allies that are deeply involved, and some that are only tangentially involved. But for the most part there will be significant neutral to positive cross-side interaction. Australia won't treat China like the devil, for example. Except when things get hot, the rivalry really is going to be mostly, US+Japan vs China and everyone else trying to keep out of their way.

That is also very weird in the context of the last few hundred years, but a lot less weird before that.

So how does this work out in the end? It's impossible for there to make a neat and tidy answer. China clearly believes that it got the short end of the stick in terms of it's role in the global pecking order due to history and Western dominance. It wants to, if you'll pardon the saying, repeal and replace most of the international system since 1945 with one that has everything orbiting China. But that system is enormously beneficial to most countries on Earth, least of all the US, who will fight tooth and nail for it. The US won't cede it. Neither will most country's in the world whose economic and physical security depends on it. China won't yield to the US-led order. Culturally, it's offensive to them. So where does that leave everybody?

You could say, China will have to break from the inside and relent, like the Soviets did (as the soviet union tried to set up a parallel "replacement" order that died in 1992). But there is no reason to believe a democratic post-Communist China will be any more amiable to a Western - Designed global order. After all, the objection is nationalist in nature.

You could say that the US will have to break from the inside and relent. But the US has shown on countless occasions it is willing to throw unmatched resources to defend its turf. I mean, it cannot be stated enough, that the US Navy Budget in 2018 is of a scale that was considered fanciful just a few years ago, and when we're talking about the military side of the response to the rise of China, that's a very significant data point. It is a congressionally directed way of saying "we're going to be prepared for 10 years from now", when that extra money will actually start delivering ships.

And furthermore both China and the US have another weird historic thing going on. There is no third rival power on the horizon. The EU is the most likely to be that, but it will either stay out of it largely (owing to it being on the other side of the world) or US aligned due to security relations and historic connections. Russia as we know it probably won't exist in 30 years. And India's "great power moment" is so far in the future still that it's entire too far to make any kind of serious guess as to its nature, even for a speculative post like this one.

Which means that, so long as their economic output and political situation remains reasonable stable over the long term (decades, not years, so forget about Trump or various population curves, as the great destroyer, like you do the 1960s), the world coudl be settling to a perpetual conflict between two, nearly evenly matched great powers by mid century. And again, that would not be terribly odd either, because if you go back before the start of the Modern Era, rivalries between the "great powers" of the day sometimes dragged on for 200, 300 years with indecisve results and significant reversals in both directions.

I think there is an important lesson to be observed about the 1950s. I've said this a few times but it's very important. The US exited World War II by far the most powerful country of Earth. By the mid 1950s it was easily the World's second most powerful - a combination of an overly huge post-war military demobilization and significant Soviet advances into that power vacuum. The 1950s, defined as 1947-1961, is easily the most destructive "decade" when it comes to US security in it's history. The US was nearly pushed out of Asia and Europe. It lost its technological edge. It faced communism growing everywhere around it. It lost allies and access it took for granted. It lost its nuclear monopoly. It was not until the resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis, then Vietnam consuming vast resources and attention, and then the detente of the 1970s, that "the bleeding" that started in 1947 was stopped. And winning the Cold war, more than half of it luck and impeccible timing (but also important decisions), really didn't happen until the late 1970s and 1980s. Or to sumarize it all, the reverses the US suffered started in 1947 and ending in 1961 were not themselves, really reversed, until let's say 1982-ish.

I say this because for all the shit the US has endured since 2001, a lot of whats happened is very transient, and there is a "1950s" decade lurking out there for the liberal international order, led by the US. We could be at the start of it now. It could be a decade away. There is a decade coming where it all collapses by half, let's say. The reason I believe that is because China's ability openly challenge the post-World War II world order is entirely contingent upon such a catastrophe for Western interests. Absent that, they would be forced to compete and attack only along the fringes as they are now - Vanuatu and some artificial islands in the South China sea are not Okinawa, Guam, Japan and Australia; what china has gained still is not remotely comparable to what the US has.

Although the US and its Asia-Pacific allies have taken important strides to prepare for the coming Chinese push since 2012/2013, it'll probably take "the collapse" to really motivate an orchestrated, national level mobilized response. But once that happens, under an realist bi-polar global order model, the US and China should settle into a very long term stable rivalry.

In short, expect the US to get a lot weaker, probably very quickly, relative to China, in the next decade or two when our "bad day" comes. And China, which today is still significantly weaker than the US , will come much closer to parity. But the power of bowth will substantially increase today over everybody not named China/US, which in itself could easily be something that encourages the formation of more EU-like blocs so that the mighty don't crush the meek while they tussle, so to speak.

It is important to note at the end of this... this is not apocalyptic. This is history. "All Empires Fall" is a thing idiots say because they stopped taking history classes in the 11th grade. The more accurate thing to say is "All Empires Fight", which is brutally true for everone caught between them. Is the "Long Peace" since World War II coming to a close? Probably. Unless this is somehow some kind of fluke, then it'll be gone before long and the Great Powers will fight again as the US and China rise relative to everyone else. Is that the end of the world? World War III? The end of the American Era? Was it the end of the Roman Era when Carthage rose? Was it the end of the Byzantine era when the Sassanids (Persian) Empire arose? No not at all.

But then again, the 400 year long series of cold and hot wars between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanids depleted both of so much of their power, it left them both vulnerable to the rise of the Rashidun Islamic Caliphate (lead by Mohammed's immediate successor, Abu Bakr) to their south. The Caliphate conquered all of Persia in less than a decade, as well as all of the Levant, Egypt and North Africa, which Rome/Byzantium had ruled since the conquest of Carthage.


Point being, the history never ends, and the only reward for a great power to triumph over it's rival is to be beset by new, unforeseen challenges. History is only ever followed by more history and will never end.