Yeah I saw this in Cambodia when I lived there. Sihanoukville had become a Chinese enclave almost completely.
Different to the way that French colonialism worked, though. Less direct government, more influence of existing power structures and respect for the local government.
There is definitely an argument that this is plain business investment - China has a lot of foreign currency to invest because of its trade surplus, and there isn't the opportunity within China to invest it all, so it is engaging with trade partners to invest in their economies so that they can increase future trade with China.
You can also make the argument that this is not benign and China is trying to create control over foreign governments with this investment.
I'm kinda "both can be true, but either are better than how we did it"
> Reversing last year’s trend, a slim majority of ASEAN respondents selected China (52.0%) over the US (48.0%) if the region were forced to align itself with one of the two strategic rivals.
I’ve only been to Vietnam but the answer there is it’s… complicated.
They’re culturally part of the sinosphere but of course constantly living in the shadow of your much, much bigger neighbour to the north does breed some ill feeling.
The USA on the other hand, well, they’re not particularly popular either for obvious reasons
The irony is much of the China-ASEA acrimony seems to be over China's aggressive territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Which was a dumb move because, given Chinese economic superiority, they could have just quietly negotiated 99 year military base leases and oil/gas extraction with the UN-recognized territorial owners.
Same outcome, less bad blood.
Seems a bit of an own goal to militarily force the issue and antagonize its neighbors, who it's trying to convert to its sphere of influence.
Yes the whole "wolf warrior diplomacy" stuff in the late 2010s was massively counterproductive for China and just pushed everyone else in the pacific back into the arms of the Americans.
The mask (if there ever was one) slipped and they revealed a lot of information they probably should have kept hidden about their intentions for no real reason.
However they did eventually realise this, they've completely changed tack and they're having a lot more success (helped by the US adopting their own failed policy).
You're right though, I'd imagine politicians in SEA countries haven't forgotten
We don’t want anyone to colonize us just like you don’t want your country to be colonized. China offers business opportunities while the USA and Europe seem to always look down on everyone else and impose their own values on others. China does not give a shit about how we run our countries as long as they can trust that deals will be honored. We don’t want to be taught how great your democracy is or whatever, we want our countries to become better by our own efforts, with fair deals when dealing with other nations.
Yes, of course, sorry for the expression. I just mirrored the expression used in the parent comment. What I mean is that the US have caused a lot of pain in Latin America.
They've mostly been concerned with resource extraction rather than colonial exploitation like the West. And in fact, they've ditched most of their infra and tech projects in Africa, because of inherent instability in dealing with tinpot dictatorships.
On the other hand, every one in Asia is wary of too much Chinese presence and influence.
Single counterexample for single counterexample: Belgium's Leopold - not sure if Western colonialism is so much better (and notice I didn't even bring up "western India")
Not so much better but better in general compared to the middle eastern/eastern colonialism.. westerners have good competiton that the atrocities will be self corrected by itself but middle eastern/eastern colonies needed external western support like Korean war, hiroshima/nagasaki.. main example I can think of opposite is china under deng but there too deng had become relatively capitalist to fix the issues.
Yeah for the ones who get colonized, western ones were better than eastern ones. Japanese ones would've made Britishers look like kids when they were occupying eastern India.
I keep hearing this and I fail to see any reason to believe that it will be the case. Any empire, in the history of our species, has always had an initial "inward-looking" period prior to becoming a full-fledged imperialist oppressor. Edo-period Japan into Imperial Japan, for example. Rather, what I think any budding empire needs a period of growth to become a large enough fish and also to delude its leadership and population into the convenient mindset that their flavour of imperialism is good and justified ("Hakkou ichiu", "The white man's burden", etc.).
To me, the PRC is at the very end of that process and I recommend anyone doubting this to go and read conversations and listen to the words of the populace that is turning increasingly nationalistic and you will hear the same old tales of revanchism and exceptionalism that we are used to hearing (during my recent visit, I watched the morning news every day for about a week and without fail a military inspection, new ship, new plane, etc. was presented each day). In addition, I think those outside of Asia are very much shielded from the early signs, but go and read about PRC influence and tensions in South Korea, Japan, RoC, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Pakistan, and Tajikistan and you will see something rather different than "inward-looking". To me, here the PRC is simply testing the waters for the extent of the influence of other powers and how far it can go. Likewise, we are seeing overseas naval bases being constructed which sure is an indication for a desire to project power outwards.
I want to believe that this time it will be different. I really do. Apologists around me say "It will only be Taiwan and the South China Sea, then then it will stop." and I would love to believe them. But can anyone truly internalise the narrative that international utopia will be spearheaded by a deeply authoritarian state that controls information like no other (and gladly exports that technology), disappears its own population at will, spins an increasingly strong nationalistic narrative, etc.? No, sorry, I think the "inward-looking" narrative is simply a convenient way for us to close our eyes and find comfort in ignorance, rather than in facts.
You may well be right, and it's really only that China has been more inward-looking recently, and given the chance it will spread its true colonial wings.
Not sure if "colonial" is the right word though, as we should be careful to think that oppression always takes on the form we have seen in the past (US imperialist oppression for example did not take on the form of the colonialism that preceded it) . Also, be careful with "true" there. I do not think this is some sort of subterfuge, but rather an inherent weakness in us as a species. Vest power in anyone, and before long their morals will give way and an oppressor will be born.
The way I look at it, until Deng the PRC's economic policies and internal instability kept it from growing at the pace of many of its neighbours. Then we had an era of intense growth (which is still to some degree ongoing). However, as a reaction to this era Xi and others needed a narrative to counter the increased corruption and a new unifying myth to replace the cult of growth as the economy would stagnate at some point and could then call into question the authority of CCP to rule. Their choice of nationalism is what scares me and I know PRC citizens (even CCP members) that share this perspective and would rather have seen the Shanghai clique to have remained. It is possible that in this alternative reality we would still end up with "Imperialism with Chinese characteristics" ("中国特色帝国主义"?), but I chose to believe that at the very least the chances of this would have been smaller.
So let’s just guess what China will do once it becomes dominant and act like it already did whatever we conjured up they will do. That’s how you get preventive wars that destroy civilizations without any actual basis on reality.
No, I do not think that is a fair portrayal of my position. Just like I will not say that your position is simply appeasement and hoping for the best. One must always be charitable in a discussion with strangers whose positions you do not fully understand.
Rather, I think we should look hard into ourselves and what is good and bad about the current world order. For example, the people of the RoC have the right to determine which direction they want to go. Regardless of the chauvinistic rhetoric coming out of Beijing. We should all stand up for this, because it is a universal right that we want everyone to enjoy. Similarly, we should push against the Eleven-dash line and support the 2013 ruling. The list goes on and I am sure these issues can be resolved without an outright war if we are careful, yet firm, in our beliefs and also diplomatically preemptive and thoughtful.
Being concerned about PRC imperialism should not be mistaken for the position that their people should "know their place" and be suppressed back to the stone age. They have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labour and pursue happiness, just like everyone else. We simply must be there to remind them (just like we must remind ourselves) that the course of humanity is a collective project if we are to stay clear of the darker sides of our nature as we venture together into the future.
Do you believe the UK has the right to rule over the Maldives?
And the USA has the right to have a military presence in Guam (and nearly all of the Pacific Ocean for that matter)?
The Chinese claims on the South Pacific Islands seem really similar to me.
Taiwan seems like a wholy different matter. It was united with China for hundreds of years until the Japanese colonialists took over. It united again with China after WWII but split up after a few years because of the Chinese civil war (notice it was an internal war). I think it's just fair that China wants to re-unite with Taiwan, though I definitely don't support a military takeover. Hopefully a solution similar to what was done in Hong Kong can be found. The Tibet region had a similar history and it's definitely unfortunate that China had to use military force to bring it under its own control (arguably completely unnecessarily - China would be just as strong today without it), but it's kind of understandable in the context of the time (China was trying to recover from centuries of being preyed on by other nations).
I am saying this because I can't agree that China is acting imperialistic - it's basically claiming sovereignty over its own historical lands - which were taken away from them by force by foreign colonial powers. But I admit that, if you go back far enough, nearly all land was once taken over by aggressors - the USA being just a more recent example of that.
Anyway, thanks for not being an absolutist and trying to understand the "other" side (I must acknowledge I have no relation to China whatsoever, in fact I am from South America and live in Europe).
> Hopefully a solution similar to what was done in Hong Kong can be found.
Citizens of Hong Kong lost their right to free speech and their ability to select their own leaders. If you publicly criticize Xi Jinping in Hong Kong you will go to jail. If you advocate democratic rights in Hong Kong you will go to jail.
China's claims on Taiwan are ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalism should be rejected in all forms because it is a rejection of fundamental human rights. Taiwan deserves the world's support because it is functioning democracy. That makes all the difference.
I do not have a stance on the Maldives, Guam, etc. as I lack enough historical and current context. What I always do is try to derive positions based on the human right to self-determination.
About Taiwan. I find the claim that since an absolute monarchy controlled the island 150 years ago, that then a government which was the result of two (is my count correct?) revolutions overthrowing that monarchy and then another government, a government which failed to conquer the land by military means by 1950, and now after people have lived independently for over 75 years (over 25 of which as a democracy) that said government has any right to dictate how said people should live to be simply absurd. If the people of the RoC wants to join with the PRC, that is for them to decide through their own decision processes. Historical claims like this may make sense for unpopulated tracts of land, but here we are talking about the rights to self-determination of more than twenty million people of which the vast majority were born well after 1950. This would set a terrible precedence and, frankly, it feels akin to how emperors and kings of old asserted their "rights" and not how we move towards a more just world.
Also, Hong Kong? If anything, Hong Kong shows that the PRC is a poor custodian for a pluralistic country with multiple parallel systems. I once thought it reasonable for Hong Kong to be "returned" after the historical travesty that were the Opium Wars, but I have heard enough first-hand accounts of the suffering and tragedy that unfolded over the last ten years to reconsider whether I prioritise history over the people that are alive here and now. It was not that Mao and Xi "unfortunately had to use force" against Tibet and Hong Kong. These were calculated choices on their part and history shall judge them the same way we judge any other oppressor for their moral failures.
Africans are more indebted to Western multilateral organizations and private Western bondholders than to the Chinese.
The idea that Africans are being finessed by the Chinese is racist and stems from a "we know what's good for you" imperialistic lens.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106866