Global Chinese diplomatic presence and intervention?

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Interesting. Do you believe China has long-term hegemonic ambitions?

Are its current actions setting the stage for a China-led hegemonic world order, or perhaps a global communist/socialist revolution?

Or is China's long-term end goal the attainment and maintenance of a true multipolar world where China is the "first among equals" with a clearly delineated sphere of influence? (The current official stance driven to its logical conclusion).
Based on the political platform of the communist party, they seek the same end goals as other communists.

It is just not something China could work on before, because if Chinese people have a lower living standard than those in the capitalist West, how can the revolution that claims to create a better solution actually persist?

If you're selling a product, the product must be better in some way vs the competitors. And that is where the Soviet union failed. They created armed uprisings that temporarily made "socialism" but were a joke in living standards vs the west. The socialism of Khrushchev was in truth extremely weak, the people wanted a Western tv, Western clothes, even western beverages. Whereas Chinese people broadly embrace local brands above all.

What is driving this confidence is the fact that for lower and middle class, living standards in China have already surpassed their equivalent in America and eastern Europe. Life expectancy is greater, the income of blue collar workers is comparable, Chinese middle class have better home ownership and work prospects. However, Chinese living standards still pale compared to western Europe. Yet, China is very close to creating the "exportable model".

China will not create forceful revolution, but it will be first among equals once US aggression has been hammered down, and that will create a de facto hegemony from lack of alternatives, where socialist ideology grows freely.

Difference between US and China is that China has everything it needs to be no1 within it's own borders. It doesn't need aggressive occupations and can let others slowly grow at their their own pace, as long as they provide a stable market and a flow of resources.
 

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
The US, France and UK should send thousands of troops to the Sahel to stabilize the regional situation. France created regional instability in 2011 by rallying Europe to go to war against Libya. It resulted in spillover of weapons and chaos into the Sahel. If the Sahel and West Africa both become destabilized then I believe 100 million immigrants from Africa (first and second generation later born in Europe) will be in Europe by 2050. That is too much for Europe to take so the Chinese government should find some way to help the immigrants get to the US and Canada.

China does care about stability in Africa because of investments in natural resources and financing for infrastructure. CNPC has a major investment in the Sahel and West Africa. There is an oil export pipeline under construction from Niger to Benin. Chinese companies have a lot of other investments and projects but smaller in scale.
a rational and thought-provoking appeal to Europeans by Kishore Mahbubani:

Europe’s Dilemma: Head or Heart?​

Apr 5, 2021
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A major geopolitical contest has broken out between US and China. This is not surprising. Whenever the world’s number one emerging power (today, China), is about to overtake the world’s number one power (today, USA), a geopolitical struggle breaks out between the two, as I document in Has China Won? The election of Biden in November 2020 could, in theory, have stopped this contest. Certainly, Biden will be more civil and polite when speaking about China. No more policymaking with tweets and temper tantrums. Yet Biden cannot stop this major US-China geopolitical contest since there is a rock-solid consensus among the Washington DC establishment that the US must, in one way or another, stop China’s rise. If anyone had doubts that a major new contest had broken out, they would have been removed by the sight of the angry public exchanges between the two sides in Anchorage, Alaska in March 2021.
This major geopolitical contest is also going to create strategic dilemmas for other countries and regions. Europe, for example, will be torn between its head and its heart. Its heart is clearly with the US. In the first Cold War with the Soviet Union, there was a convergence of head and heart in Europe. Europe happily signed up as a willing and loyal ally of America in the Cold War because Europe was immediately and directly threatened by Soviet tanks and missiles stationed at its borders. There was a high degree of trust and strategic cooperation between American and European policymakers, underpinned by close cultural links. It helped a lot that America, Australia, and Europe traced their roots to a common Judeo-Christian heritage and Greco-Roman cultural underpinnings. Cultural affinity matters.
There will be no convergence of head and heart when Europe has to make a choice between US and China. Its heart will remain with the US. However, when it applies its head to major geopolitical challenges, it will discover that geopolitics comes from two words: geography and politics. Geography is key here.
Europe is cursed with an unlucky geography. In the twenty-first century, Europe will not be threatened by Russian tanks and missiles. The prospect of a direct war with Russia is practically zero, although proxy wars may take place in territories like the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. However, the prospect of Europe being overwhelmed by mil- lions of migrants coming in from Africa in little boats is very real. There is one demographic statistic that spells out clearly the number one geo- political threat the European Union will face. In 1950, the EU’s combined population (379 million) was nearly double that of Africa’s (229 million). Today, Africa’s population (1.2 billion in 2015) is double that of the EU countries (513 million in 2018). By 2100, Africa’s population is projected to be almost ten times larger, 4.5 billion versus 493 million.
In the years 2015 to 2017, there was a surge in migrants from both Africa and the Middle East arriving in Europe. The impact on European politics was tumultuous. After politics dominated by moderate centrist parties (from both the left and right) for decades, Europe saw a surge of support for extreme populist parties, with some of them even joining governments in countries like Austria, Hungary, Poland, Italy, and Estonia.
If economic and political conditions in the African continent don’t improve in the twenty-first century, Europe can expect tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Africans to knock on its doors seeking a better life in Europe. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this surge of migrants will drastically change the social and political texture of European societies and provoke resentment in the European body politic unaccustomed to such massive demographic change.
top-5-trading-partners-with-sub-saharan-africa-2018-1024x580.png

Chart 1: Top 5 trading partners with (Sub-Saharan) Africa, 2018.
Source: World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS), World Bank

investments-into-infrastructure-in-africa-2017.png

Figure 1: Investments into Infrastructure in Africa, 2017
Source: The Infrastructure Consortium of Africa (ICAF), “Infrastructure Financing Trends in Africa, 2017”
Given the challenges this presents, if the Europeans want to give priority to their own existential challenges (which result from their geography), they should focus on the economic and social development of Africa. The best partner to work with to develop Africa is China. Indeed, China has already emerged as the largest new economic partner of Africa. Please see Chart 1 and Figure 1.
If Europe wants to preserve its own long-term interests, it should make the development of Africa, in partnership with China, an immediate priority. The country that attracts the largest number of African leaders to summit meetings is China. The most sensible thing for European leaders to do is to join, en masse, the next high-level meeting of Chinese and African leaders in Beijing. A massive turnout of European leaders at such a summit would send a powerful market signal. It could catalyze a powerful wave of new investment in Africa. Over time, with a strong African economy, there will be less incentive for widespread African migration to Europe.
There is only one obstacle to Europe doing this sensible thing: America will object. Just look at American officials’ attempts to dissuade other countries from participating in China’s BRI (a major source of Chinese investment into the African continent). American pressure on its European allies will certainly increase if the European nations decide to work together with China on investing in Africa’s future. However, it is truly unwise for America to ask Europeans to ignore their own long-term existential challenges in their dealings with China. The emergence of China does not pose a threat to Europe. Indeed, it could help to enhance Europe’s long-term security if China promotes Africa’s development. For deep political and historical reasons, Europe cannot ignore the wishes of the US. Hence, when the Biden Administration imposed sanctions on some Chinese officials for their actions in Xinjiang, the EU followed suit in March 2021. China retaliated. Yet these sanctions will not stop China from becoming a much larger trading partner than the US for the EU.
This analysis shows clearly the main strategic dilemma Europe faces in the coming decades: to follow its heart and stick with the US or follow its head and work with China to develop Africa to forestall future waves of migrants from Africa.
Fortunately, there is a best case outcome. America could maintain its traditional close cultural and political links with Europe and yet allow it to engage in economic cooperation with China to develop Africa. Indeed, the possibility of close cooperation with China for “win-win” cooperation was once spelt out by a former senior American Administration official, Robert Zoellick. He said “We now need to encourage China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system… within a larger framework where the parties recognize a shared interest in sustaining political, economic, and security systems that provide common benefits.”
The key phrase here is “common benefits”. Even though the US is separated from Africa by a vast ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the fact remains that we now live in a small interdependent global village. The rapid spread of COVID-19 to every corner of the world, as well as the rising challenge of global warming, demonstrate that all of humanity face common global challenges. Despite having advanced societies, and excellent medical capabilities, many European countries have struggled to deal with a third wave. Under such dire circumstances, Europe can do little to help the poorer African countries. China’s capability to export large doses of vaccines to African countries have helped to stabilize COVID-19 in Europe’s backyard. COVID-19 has therefore reminded us that to deal successfully with common global challenges, all of humanity, including the rapidly growing population of Africa, must come on board. Hence, a Europe-China partnership that develops Africa successfully will mean that Africa can work more effectively with the US to deal with common global challenges. We should abandon the zero-sum mentality of 19th century geopolitical games and come together as common humanity to deal with the pressing and common 21st century global challenges. An EU-China partnership in Africa will be a step in the right direction.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/javascript:void(0)
 

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
What a bright mind and intellect Mr. Kishore possesses, and he predicted this 2 years ago:
"The prospect of a direct war with Russia is practically zero, although proxy wars may take place in territories like the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine." Ukraine, spot on.
 

Aval

New Member
Registered Member
Based on the political platform of the communist party, they seek the same end goals as other communists.

It is just not something China could work on before, because if Chinese people have a lower living standard than those in the capitalist West, how can the revolution that claims to create a better solution actually persist?

If you're selling a product, the product must be better in some way vs the competitors. And that is where the Soviet union failed. They created armed uprisings that temporarily made "socialism" but were a joke in living standards vs the west. The socialism of Khrushchev was in truth extremely weak, the people wanted a Western tv, Western clothes, even western beverages. Whereas Chinese people broadly embrace local brands above all.

What is driving this confidence is the fact that for lower and middle class, living standards in China have already surpassed their equivalent in America and eastern Europe. Life expectancy is greater, the income of blue collar workers is comparable, Chinese middle class have better home ownership and work prospects. However, Chinese living standards still pale compared to western Europe. Yet, China is very close to creating the "exportable model".

China will not create forceful revolution, but it will be first among equals once US aggression has been hammered down, and that will create a de facto hegemony from lack of alternatives, where socialist ideology grows freely.

Difference between US and China is that China has everything it needs to be no1 within it's own borders. It doesn't need aggressive occupations and can let others slowly grow at their their own pace, as long as they provide a stable market and a flow of resources.
So, an endgoal of exporting communist ideology, but only passively (unlike the aggressive posture of the USSR)? More like a "I won't force communism on others, but I don't mind if they see our success and adopt our model"-kind of mentality? That could be feasible, especially since as you've pointed out, China doesn't actually need foreign occupations for anything; it can get by perfectly with its own internal resources and access to a fair global trade system, due it its historical bulk in all things (population, territory, cultural fabric).

The likelihood of this approach is that, should China become a passive "shining city on the hill" (using American imagery here) in the international community, it will foster a world where socialist policies are adopted but communism itself is likely never attained outside of already official and practicing communist governments (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba). I see this as being similar to the situation in the early 20th century, when significant socialist fervour even gripped the core territories of the West, but without the wholesale revolutions. Even if offered utopian living standards, I don't believe many nations in the world would voluntarily and bloodlessly install a ruling Communist Party. At a certain point, the people will reach a "good enough" living standard and the politicoeconomic reforms will stop there, as full communism requires earthshattering changes such as state atheism, end of private property (but not personal property) and finally the eventual dissolution of the state. In all honestly, I'm not even sure if China would want, or is even capable of, the last one.

Should the world reach a state of "stagnated socialism that cannot pass into communism", would China continue with its non-interference policy and let the world be, or actively pursue communist revolution across the globe (as normal communist policy dictates)?
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
So, an endgoal of exporting communist ideology, but only passively (unlike the aggressive posture of the USSR)? More like a "I won't force communism on others, but I don't mind if they see our success and adopt our model"-kind of mentality? That could be feasible, especially since as you've pointed out, China doesn't actually need foreign occupations for anything; it can get by perfectly with its own internal resources and access to a fair global trade system, due it its historical bulk in all things (population, territory, cultural fabric).

The likelihood of this approach is that, should China become a passive "shining city on the hill" (using American imagery here) in the international community, it will foster a world where socialist policies are adopted but communism itself is likely never attained outside of already official and practicing communist governments (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba). I see this as being similar to the situation in the early 20th century, when significant socialist fervour even gripped the core territories of the West, but without the wholesale revolutions. Even if offered utopian living standards, I don't believe many nations in the world would voluntarily and bloodlessly install a ruling Communist Party. At a certain point, the people will reach a "good enough" living standard and the politicoeconomic reforms will stop there, as full communism requires earthshattering changes such as state atheism, end of private property (but not personal property) and finally the eventual dissolution of the state. In all honestly, I'm not even sure if China would want, or is even capable of, the last one.

Should the world reach a state of "stagnated socialism that cannot pass into communism", would China continue with its non-interference policy and let the world be, or actively pursue communist revolution across the globe (as normal communist policy dictates)?
Dissolution of the state would be civilizational suicide. Communism is just an ideal, and anyone who pursues it to completion (beyond simply maintaining policies supportive of the working class) is a fool like Gorbachev (just in the opposite extreme).
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
So, an endgoal of exporting communist ideology, but only passively (unlike the aggressive posture of the USSR)? More like a "I won't force communism on others, but I don't mind if they see our success and adopt our model"-kind of mentality? That could be feasible, especially since as you've pointed out, China doesn't actually need foreign occupations for anything; it can get by perfectly with its own internal resources and access to a fair global trade system, due it its historical bulk in all things (population, territory, cultural fabric).

The likelihood of this approach is that, should China become a passive "shining city on the hill" (using American imagery here) in the international community, it will foster a world where socialist policies are adopted but communism itself is likely never attained outside of already official and practicing communist governments (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba). I see this as being similar to the situation in the early 20th century, when significant socialist fervour even gripped the core territories of the West, but without the wholesale revolutions. Even if offered utopian living standards, I don't believe many nations in the world would voluntarily and bloodlessly install a ruling Communist Party. At a certain point, the people will reach a "good enough" living standard and the politicoeconomic reforms will stop there, as full communism requires earthshattering changes such as state atheism, end of private property (but not personal property) and finally the eventual dissolution of the state. In all honestly, I'm not even sure if China would want, or is even capable of, the last one.

Should the world reach a state of "stagnated socialism that cannot pass into communism", would China continue with its non-interference policy and let the world be, or actively pursue communist revolution across the globe (as normal communist policy dictates)?
I think that's a very difficult question that we just can't really answer today.

With that said, for now, a continued more passive progress that focuses on developing themselves and also fellow socialist countries (Cuba, Laos, DRPK and Vietnam) and as they all grow better, more prosperous etc. It will naturally attract the envy from other countries, and it will also serve as 'proof' of the development of socialist countries.

As for the state of 'stagnated socialism that cannot pass into communism', at this point I don't think we can say that much about communism, since practically we would need a country to be at 'high level' of socialism along with high levels of development (HDI, Wealth, technology etc.) before we really can talk about transistions to 'communism' not to mention there's already theories out there that to actually reach 'communism' we would need every single country on earth to transistion together.

More likely, it will be a long process of even getting all countries to transistion over to become socialist countries, and then from there develop them all together to the stage of 'high level' of socialism.

Not to mention, some might really not want to transition over to becoming socialist (I predict current core 'western countries', also no, the nordic countries are not socialist countries but 'social democratic' which in reality is capitalist country but just with lots of socialism, China is a socialist country, but with lots of capitalism, although they are working towards becoming more socialist).
 

TK3600

Captain
Registered Member
Is it really necessary to make others communist? USSR did that to puppet or obtain sphere of influence. Neither is necessary for China. We may as well let them keep subpar governments to keep them in check. A communist India that has their shit together is pretty scary. A communist USA that stops shooting itself also is scary.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
People tend to forget the size difference between modern China and the USSR.

If China was divided along USSR lines, Guangdong would be near equivalent to the whole RFSR's modern borders in economy size. Taiwan and Fujian would be equivalent to all central Asian SSRs combined + Ukraine and the Baltics. Hainan and HK combined is as big as Poland.

That is just the southern bottom half of China, and it is more or less equivalent in economic output to the modern output of all post-USSR states including Russia.

This puts into perspective why China isn't so eager (or rather doesn't have capacity) to push control "outside" the country compared to USSR. For the USSR, managing the whole output of the Warsaw Pact which would be similar level to southern China would be mostly a job of the foreign ministry, whereas for China, it is the interior ministry.

It takes a very long time for the socialist project in China to finish because of the economy and population sizes involved. Effectively, China is sailing a ship that is similar to if EU and USSR merged into 1 state.
 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is it really necessary to make others communist? USSR did that to puppet or obtain sphere of influence. Neither is necessary for China. We may as well let them keep subpar governments to keep them in check. A communist India that has their shit together is pretty scary. A communist USA that stops shooting itself also is scary.
you need to understand that the whole point of communism was to eliminate states/countries, as it is deemed a capitalist construct. of course debates will arise on how to get there, for example you have trotsky's permanent revolution vs stalin's socialism in one country. taken at face value there will be no communist India or China or USA, as they cease to exist as independent states. it is simply an alliance of proletariat in all of these geographical regions.
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Is it really necessary to make others communist? USSR did that to puppet or obtain sphere of influence. Neither is necessary for China. We may as well let them keep subpar governments to keep them in check. A communist India that has their shit together is pretty scary. A communist USA that stops shooting itself also is scary.
You have to understand that communism really haven't been implemented anywhere, atmost we have some states in different 'stages' of socialism as for when they become 'communist' or achieve it? We don't really know, neither do we really know how that communism they achieve will look like because there's lots of discussions and arguments for how it should look like.

As for India and the US turning 'communist'? Well you might have meant more like current China, which is a marxist leninist state/nation that self identifies as only being at the 'low stages' of socialism.

And well, such development isn't gonna happen in just a few years for either India or US, even if changes were starting today (especially India).

Even if we said both transitioned to such a state in 20 years, there's the big hope that we will actually see good partnership and working together against challenges (like climate change), although ofc, there's always the chance that we will see a fallout, just like the one that occured between China and the USSR.

Although, even if they did reach to become a ML country in 20 years, it's likely it won't be anywhere near a peaceful transistion, and actually having power to 'challenge' or fight China is likely not gonna be there for decades (unless we say a nuclear war happened between China and US, but then I don't think that India or US would turn to become ML states).
 
Top