I know US will not be like today if not for numerous imperialism. You picked the wrong country for counter example.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Global South strategic cooperation
- Thread starter Strangelove
- Start date
The fact that the US has succeeded in some cases does not have any bearing on its failures in other cases. I did not say that your idea is guaranteed to fail, I said that it's not guaranteed to succeed. And the consequences of failure are steep.
Just because you win some gambles does not make gambling a good idea.
And I am saying you may lose a gamble, but being passive is gauranteed to fail. Best case you develop a strong country, do not make use of that strength, then the strength wither away at some point. Story of Chinese imperial dynasties. Meanwhile Europeans were expanding outward. Sometimes they fail, other times it succeed. For every success it makes next one eaiser.
I am not saying China should colonize and genocide, but being passive is not a strategy. At best you favor passive over active in unfavorable cases. But that is not what is happening. The Chinese strategy is a blanket passivity, called 'non-interference', which is doomed to fail. 0 chance of success, 0 chance of catastrophic failure. Net result is still a general failure through lack of success.
Resources are finite, and there are frankly much bigger issues than Pakistan to worry about right now. After the US/Japan/Korea/etc are no longer concerns, then you might have a point, but until then you are getting way ahead of reality. Non-interference makes perfect sense for the time being.
Remaining mostly passive towards South/Central Asia is a much better idea than wasting resources on these low priorities.
There is something going on here in Saudi Arabia
while we read a steady diet of articles from intelligence state leaks about Saudi signing up to America to sideline relations with china
we actually have mbs visiting Iran soon
We have saudis cutting it’s U.S. equity holding by 41% in q1
the question is why is xi meeting visiting Arab foreign ministers? This seems pretty important
what is China offering to Iran and Sunni countries behind the scene?
This does have me thinking; what is it that the Saudis crave above all else? Security, and after October 2023 and the Houthis, it's evident the Americans are failing in proving they have the ability to protect the Saudis. What if the SCO were to replace the americans as security guarantors? The SCO is dedicated to fighbting terrorism after all, and i hazard a guess that most of the threat that the americans are supposed to protect against tend to also be CIA cutouts, like a mafia protection racket.
To be honest, China's policy explicitly states a non interference in other country's internal and external affairs and so far the country has always sticked to this and focused solely on its economic development and policies to attract FDI. Look at even North Korea, China has little political influence over the KIM regime today compared to the US in South Korea/Japan. There's basically no country today where China has a major influence politically and which they can easily influence politically as well. So yes policy of non interference has its positives and negatives, depends on what you value more and what you want for your country.
The only times CCP didn't follow this model was during Mao's era of great power politics where China was actively involved in a lot of countries in her neighbourhood and even outside, of course this meant the country developed alot of political influence in other countries as well from North Korea to Vietnam to Cambodia to Laos to Mynmar , Pakistan, Africa etc etc despite China being far poorer and weaker back then. The country had little to nothing to lose since she was already isolated economically as well.However today things are different and the stakes are higher with different political leadership/doctrine. So CCP will always adopt policy of non interference for the foreseeable future. It has its merit as well since it helps the country avoid any misadventures but its true its also has its drawbacks since it means no country is your real ally per se. Depends on how we look at it.
To be honest unlike Russia or even Iran, China couldn't care less if the US/West maintain their dominance over the world, as far as the US/West respect China's internal affairs like Taiwan and SCS issues then China has no issues with them dominating affairs around the world or being the rule makers globally. Even Xi Jinping himself said that just last year, that China has no intention of displacing or challenging the US as the world's pre-eminent power.
So I don't think any country should count on China for anything apart from economic cooperation. Russia by contrast is more of an imperial power for centuries now and they still maintain that mentality to this day despite their decline. So China won't adopt such policies for various reasons. Expecting China to be like Russia or even Iran is wishful thinking. CCP has different considerations.
Last edited:
Frankly China would be in a worse position if not for Mao's intervention. security for sure. Arguably the intervention was also beneficial economically. The whole point of no interference strategy is good will toward rules based order for FDI. It is not an end goal on its own.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Back in the 1960's, Tanzania was a poor recently-independent country that needed assistance with a critical railroad project to connect it with Zambia . Tanzania asked for loans/investment from the Western nations, and it was rejected. Tanzania turned to China, which at the time was almost as poor as Africa (and was itself critically lacking in railroad infrastructure). The Chinese sent engineers and workers to Tanzania and built the railroad at no cost and with no strings attached. Now, the US is attempting to compete with China over influence and access to natural resources in Africa. When Americans go to Tanzania to warn them of the risks of Chinese debt-trap diplomacy and neo-colonialism, how do you think the Tanzanians will respond to them? Who do you think the Tanzanians choose to work with?
The problem with getting involved politically is that your influence is tied to the survival of the regime you back. With non-interference, your goodwill with the people will survive the fall of the regime. The experiences of France and the US both serve as precautionary tales of the drawbacks to meddling in the politics of other sovereign nations.
Last edited: