Answer: China's noble yet quixotic pursuit of NON-INTERVENTIONIST POLICY. Ideally it's a pursuit worth attaining absence a power like the west lead by the U.S. hellbent on denying and destroying your reputation and everything that carries the name China. Unless there's an overt change on this policy or at least make a private warning to any would be meddlesome elements that there will be hell to pay then expect the west to keep making inroads in all of the countries where western influence is very strong.
Yep!
Sorry, but what a naive thought.
Latin American countries are poor and defenseless. Manipulating and managing them is the easiest thing in the world and the US does it cheaply and without any competition.
If China wants to protect itself from the US threat to its business in the region, it will need to help its allies to prosper, competing with the US for the power. Otherwise, Latin America will always be poor, cheap and the backyard of the USA that will remain safe and without any threat in sight. While the USA will grow increasingly aggressive and expands its vassals in Asia threatening China's security with impunity.
Indeed!
China’s “Central Kingdom” myopia, while, wholely, understandable as a developing nation, will not serve it well as a developed nation. In order to complete, effectively, China must compete in all domains in which there is competition. As the BRI extends across the continent, and even across the seas, China must provide security, not only to its investments and investors, but also to its nationals that service these investments, and to political and business classes/cliques that make these investments possible.
Even the way that China has outsourced the security of its contractors in Pakistan demonstrates, to me, a level of “sensitivity“ that’s unwarranted. Sensitive, or significant projects and investments should be coupled with security arrangements and agreements that privilege Chinese prerogatives as to their constitution. Put most simply, China will need its embassies to function more like U. S. embassies, and to insist on routine extended naval port visits in countries in which significant Chinese investments are in place. Negotiating for periodic cross-training with the elite military formations of these countries would also allow China to obtain influence within this domain, as well, potentially making military leadership more amenable to the political and business classes‘ pro-Chinese orientation.
Yes, this smacks of Colonialism, but it could also be seen as anti-Colonialism, as long as the security arrangements follow-upon mutually-agreed upon, mutually-beneficial, non-coercive, non-externally-imposed, economic/business agreements.
For those unfamiliar with Qadaffi’s Libyan revolution, look and see where the Russian Fleet conveniently had a task-force stationed when the coup was effected.
