|
|
|
|
|
by bingbong70
1851 days ago
|
|
There are multiple ways to characterize every point you are making. China has a long history of being the victim of foreign attacks using these routes, everything you mention is a defensive strategy to protect trade, borders, and the population from international attacks. The sabre rattling in the west doesn't help but only accelerates the push in this direction. Han global supremacy sounds like a projection of western history rather than a reality. Reconnecting trade routes and rebuilding infrastructure in the destroyed empires of Asian history has many positive outcomes for the whole region. I don't we can wave away the feelings of billions of people pulled out of poverty by Chinese economic action. >'something something aboriginals in USA' I don't think we should compare the genocide/robbery of ~100 million natives in the Americas to the Uyghur/Turkic extremism/terrorism/separatism issue in Western China being solved without a military conflict. The brand of Islam (Saudi Wahabism) they now practice and the military training they received from ISIS/AlQ in US controlled parts of Syria/Iraq was/is part of a US strategy to destabilize China for the purpose of regime change. To now call it 'Xinjiang/Uyghur genocide' as many do, rather than a US intelligence led operation to disrupt trade/infrastructure expansion into western Asia is a dishonest characterization. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-chin... |
|
This kind of bad moral relativism is at the heart of Chinese logic and it just doesn't hold up.
Thankfully the US holds the 5th Fleet in the Gulf and ensure trade, mostly Oil is free for everyone including China who are by far the greatest recipients of Oil. The same thing for Suez, Panama Canal, Red sea and other parts of the world. The peace between Egypt and Isreal is pinned down by the US otherwise.
Given a choice between having China take your land/sea, or, having the US patrol it so that either sovereignty is protected - or international waters are kept open - which deal do you think nations will take? Even with having to put up with an ugly US diplomatic corps now and again, everyone will take Option B, it's perennially going to be better than Option A.
There's no excuse for doing what's going on in Xinjiang, and arguably Tibet as well, not in 21st century.