Belt and Road: China spending its sweat equity + money for a mutually beneficial outcome with other countries.
I watched a lot of western media that has a very negative twist to this road - projecting some evil intent towards this move. Another one of those Brit-type projection.
It's no coincidence East_Coast is trying to discredit it either - cause he's another one of those Brits.
The fact is, along the road will touch upon several countries where poverty will be alleviated - meanwhile, transportation to bring goods to Europe will become more efficient (despite what Brit media tells you). Along the way, economic zones will be established where development will take place. China's first step towards development was the establishment of economic zones in shenzhen. They're simply duplicating their first step with countries along the road.
I don't think China want another THAAD in Central Asia either - so they're going to get that economic leverage with those countries over the US.
I see the road as securing China's economic future by reducing the cost of transportation - so it'll remain competitive in the long term.
The US' current competitive advantage over China is in its military power. If China ever infringes on US' "interest", US can easily use its military power to cut off the strait of Malacca. Which would freeze an important economic trading route for China. The road will bypass their weakness.
Last edited by Creative83; 10-05-2017 at 06:39 AM.
Witness the Brit's style:
First - they introduce a topic they're adversarial to
Second - they smear the topic by using scary music, deep tone, cynicism of the authority involved
Third - when confronted, they want you to point to specific in black and white.
Fourth - when the argument doesn't go their way, they start insinuating something negative about the person they're speaking with.
Garbage culture.
Last edited by Creative83; 10-05-2017 at 07:20 AM.
Totally agree it can be mutually beneficial but disagree on the primary objective. This is clearly to increase influence. Whether that is "sinister" or not depends on your viewpoint. It is exactly what the US has been doing for decades (in a very clumsy and ineffective way in my opinion). It is just geopolitics for me rather than sinister. Sinister is attempting or achieving regime change.
Regarding the sphere of influence, I don't disagree that it's involved. I think the objective goes in parallel with one another and not so much primary secondary etc... The result in the end is they will get all their objectives across.
If there's anything I find somewhat distasteful, it's the economic leverage China often uses.
At least they don't point a gun at others.
The thing that really gets me is how bad the Americans are at this game in comparison to the Chinese. My view is from a 'client state' of the one belt strategy. The Americans are 'hampered' by democracy and a free press (and no I am not saying these are bad things) so they end up with conflicting messages. But their approach seems to be mostly based on (ineffective) threats.
The Chinese are much more comfortable with the tactical dance required. Both sides push the limits for their domestic audience, then back off and stress friendship, then push again, then stress friendship. No direct threats used.