International Politics

[Legacy]

Yes. The import of my post on China's geopolitical goals is not that China attempts to convert countries to communism. China's funding for these is by various entities controlled by the government on countries with assets that would further China's interests. If construction is involved, the Chinese insist on providing Chines labor - often prisoners - and materials like steel made in China. Their leverage increases in deals with countries who cannot pay China back for their loans resulting in the debt-to-equity deals previously posted.

In most of these countries, the U.S. presence is in providing some security assistance on request in defense and in humanitarian aid via USAID and non-profits. Trump repeatedly has proposed eliminating foreign aid through USAID.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yes. The import of my post on China's geopolitical goals is not that China attempts to convert countries to communism. China's funding for these is by various entities controlled by the government on countries with assets that would further China's interests. If construction is involved, the Chinese insist on providing Chines labor - often prisoners - and materials like steel made in China. Their leverage increases in deals with countries who cannot pay China back for their loans resulting in the debt-to-equity deals previously posted.

In most of these countries, the U.S. presence is in providing some security assistance on request in defense and in humanitarian aid via USAID and non-profits. Trump repeatedly has proposed eliminating foreign aid through USAID.

China is winning. And they'll continue to win until the status quo is changed. We need to change the way we do things, and we need to start looking after our own interests. Until then, China's dominance in both trade and influence will continue to outpace the US.

 

[Legacy]

Yes. They may not be communistic countries in the purest sense, but they are doing this for control. Your own post stated that China wanted Zimbabwe's leader removed. This isn't rocket science.

I'm pleased that you worked through that one point in my post.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'm pleased that you worked through that one point in my post.

Do you not agree that they are furthering communist interests? Do you not agree that they are puppet-ing these countries more or less if they can dictate leadership? However you look at it, it's strengthening communism on a global level. Many of the African countries are socialist in the first place. Not to far away that a couple infrastructure loan defaults could lead to "changes"...

 

[Irish#1]

China and Russia both want to turn Africa to communism for their own benefit. They realize they cannot sustain themselves without resources outside of their countries.

No. And partly. For the second, look up the history of control of Z's diamond mining as one example of mineral-rich Africa. The Chinese never invest unless they can make a profit.

Yes. They may not be communistic countries in the purest sense, but they are doing this for control. Your own post stated that China wanted Zimbabwe's leader removed. This isn't rocket science.

Yes. The import of my post on China's geopolitical goals is not that China attempts to convert countries to communism. China's funding for these is by various entities controlled by the government on countries with assets that would further China's interests. If construction is involved, the Chinese insist on providing Chines labor - often prisoners - and materials like steel made in China. Their leverage increases in deals with countries who cannot pay China back for their loans resulting in the debt-to-equity deals previously posted.

In most of these countries, the U.S. presence is in providing some security assistance on request in defense and in humanitarian aid via USAID and non-profits. Trump repeatedly has proposed eliminating foreign aid through USAID.

I'm pleased that you worked through that one point in my post.

I'm sorry I had to be specific to get the point across to you. However you want to spin it, China is doing this for the own benefit and to increase their influence in the world. They know they cannot sustain themselves so they target the impoverished countries who are so happy to get assistance of one form or another that they forget to read the fine print.

A guy finds a magic lamp. He rubs the lamp and a genie appears. The genie says to the man, "What is your wish?" After giving it some thought, the man tells the genie, "I want my dick to touch the ground." "As you wish." says the genie and with the blink of an eye, the genie took away the man's legs.

"Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it."

 

[Legacy]

From: When Coal Comes to Paradise
As China pushes clean energy policies at home, it is exporting its high-pollution coal industry to pristine places like Kenya’s Lamu Island—with Nairobi’s seal of approval. Local residents fear it will destroy the environment they depend on. (Foreign Policy, June 9, 2019)

Excerpt:

Kenya’s debt is $7.3 billion and China is its biggest lender—accounting for 72 percent of bilateral debt. While it’s still too early to see the effects of China’s investments in Kenya, public fear is festering. In December 2018, Kenyan media reported a leaked government audit alleging that the port of Mombasa, 80 percent of which is financed by China, is losing money and that defaulting on loans would result in the port’s transfer to Chinese hands. President Uhuru Kenyatta responded that the issue was “pure propaganda.”

Examples of what is being coined as China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” can be found in countries across the globe, such as in Sri Lanka, where China took control of the Hambantota port after the country failed to pay back a loan. Similar projects in Djibouti and Pakistan prompted Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to warn of a “new version of colonialism.” Chinese President Xi Jinping rejected the accusation when he pledged $60 billion towards African development last fall.

According to data collected by Global Coal Plant Tracker, China has more than 200 coal projects in 34 countries.According to data collected by Global Coal Plant Tracker, China has more than 200 coal projects in 34 countries. Edward Cunningham, a specialist in China’s energy markets at Harvard University, told NPR in April that China is developing or planning over 300 coal plants worldwide. Many of these projects are part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is expanding infrastructure projects across coastal regions worldwide.

The BRI has a choir of critics—mainly Western governments—who worry that the initiative is a strategic attempt to gain regional political and economic influence through attractive, though opaque, transactional loans rather than the orthodox development loans from lenders such as the International Monetary Fund that come with strings attached. Chinese financing commonly comes with big contracts for Chinese construction companies and labor but few policy conditions like those attached to IMF and World Bank loans.

See the graphic - "Debt Trap? Percentage of total external debt owed to China, in order of each country’s amount of debt." Kenya - 72%, Indonesia - 70%, Zambia - 68.2% are the top three.

Map of Chinese coal investments in the world:

6 of the Biggest Chinese Mining Companies

The Chinese scramble to mine Africa (almost four years old now, but informative, too) (Mining.com)

 

[Irish YJ]

From: When Coal Comes to Paradise
As China pushes clean energy policies at home, it is exporting its high-pollution coal industry to pristine places like Kenya’s Lamu Island—with Nairobi’s seal of approval. Local residents fear it will destroy the environment they depend on. (Foreign Policy, June 9, 2019)

Excerpt:

See the graphic - "Debt Trap? Percentage of total external debt owed to China, in order of each country’s amount of debt." Kenya - 72%, Indonesia - 70%, Zambia - 68.2% are the top three.

6 of the Biggest Chinese Mining Companies

The Chinese scramble to mine Africa (almost four years old now, but informative, too) (Mining.com)

Great article Legacy.

Goes to show:

1) China is winning, and we shouldn't clutch pearls when trying to fight them on economics and trade. We don't need to change, the world needs to join us.
2) Their promises in the Paris agreement have been a joke domestically, and absolutely counter internationally
3) Quite simply, the Paris Agreement has zero teeth, and is a joke that countries use to make themselves feel better. We need a new one with teeth and clear repercussions.
4) People pearl clutching over all things Russia need to whack themselves on the head and refocus on the true global economic, military, human rights, and environmental threat.

 

[Legacy]

Great article Legacy.

Goes to show:

1) China is winning, and we shouldn't clutch pearls when trying to fight them on economics and trade. We don't need to change, the world needs to join us.
2) Their promises in the Paris agreement have been a joke domestically, and absolutely counter internationally
3) Quite simply, the Paris Agreement has zero teeth, and is a joke that countries use to make themselves feel better. We need a new one with teeth and clear repercussions.
4) People pearl clutching over all things Russia need to whack themselves on the head and refocus on the true global economic, military, human rights, and environmental threat.

Despite tariffs, China is not going to need the U.S. anymore. This is a bipartisan issue including the tariffs. The funding for these investments into debt-ridden, less developed countries has been fueled not only by their double-digit growth but by Treasury Bonds. While tariffs are necessary, withdrawl from trade pacts that involve other nations is a mistake, allowing China to become the major player there in markets we may be ignoring. The dollar is the world's basis for financial markets and make China, Russia, the EU susceptible to tariffs and the impact of sanctions. Escaping that with the petro-yuan is their goal. The entire coal deposits in the African countries all are exported to China who build the rail transport and the ports to ship it and other commodities. That's where the debt-to-equity loans with subsequent ownership or control becomes an instrument of their policies. All of the utilizations of state-owned investment entities and sovereign wealth funds has been termed "super-capitalism".

 

[Irish YJ]

Despite tariffs, China is not going to need the U.S. anymore. This is a bipartisan issue including the tariffs. The funding for these investments into debt-ridden, less developed countries has been fueled not only by their double-digit growth but by Treasury Bonds. While tariffs are necessary, withdrawl from trade pacts that involve other nations is a mistake, allowing China to become the major player there in markets we may be ignoring. The dollar is the world's basis for financial markets and make China, Russia, the EU susceptible to tariffs and the impact of sanctions. Escaping that with the petro-yuan is their goal. The entire coal deposits in the African countries all are exported to China who build the rail transport and the ports to ship it and other commodities. That's where the debt-to-equity loans with subsequent ownership or control becomes an instrument of their policies. All of the utilizations of state-owned investment entities and sovereign wealth funds has been termed "super-capitalism".

Like I said previously, China is using capitalism globally to fund it's communist efforts and making cash doing it. The US uses socialism globally to create influence, and isn't nearly as successful. We're clearly losing this battle of "influence". We need to start doing the same. Less gifting of aid, and more loans/buying. We're getting crushed giving free shit away, while China is getting interest payments, foreclosing, and strong arming governments.

I disagree on China "not needing the US". The US has the biggest market of buyers, and the Chinese don't want to lose access. The Chinese gains have been such because for a very long time, buying countries have turned a blind eye while embracing the fake notions of free trade and globalism.

IMO, we're almost to the point of no return (trade). We need to keep being heavy handed with China, and we need to encourage our allies to join us. We should also leverage bilateral agreements everywhere possible to eek out every possible economic advantage for the US, as well as attempting to lessen China's holds on other countries.

 

[Irish YJ]

for all the Iranian apologists....

Won't pretend SA and Israel are pillars of the community or deserve anything from US, but Iran is sure making it easy on us (to side with SA and Israel)

Special Report:‘Time to take out our swords': Inside Iran’s plot to attack Saudi Arabia
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ans-plot-to-attack-saudi-arabia-idUSKBN1XZ16H

 

[Legacy]

Like I said previously, China is using capitalism globally to fund it's communist efforts and making cash doing it. The US uses socialism globally to create influence, and isn't nearly as successful. We're clearly losing this battle of "influence". We need to start doing the same. Less gifting of aid, and more loans/buying. We're getting crushed giving free shit away, while China is getting interest payments, foreclosing, and strong arming governments.

I disagree on China "not needing the US". The US has the biggest market of buyers, and the Chinese don't want to lose access. The Chinese gains have been such because for a very long time, buying countries have turned a blind eye while embracing the fake notions of free trade and globalism.

IMO, we're almost to the point of no return (trade). We need to keep being heavy handed with China, and we need to encourage our allies to join us. We should also leverage bilateral agreements everywhere possible to eek out every possible economic advantage for the US, as well as attempting to lessen China's holds on other countries.

Are you familiar with China's String of Pearls and Belt and Road Initiatives? The withdrawl from the TPP without renegotiation and the subsequent CPTPP without the U.S. and including China is also worth examining for the markets and influence that it opened up for China.

 

[Irish YJ]

Are you familiar with China's String of Pearls and Belt and Road Initiatives? The withdrawl from the TPP without renegotiation and the subsequent CPTPP without the U.S. and including China is also worth examining for the markets and influence that it opened up for China.

I'm very familiar with both SoP and BRI.

Funny how China can embark on such a large infrastructure program, profits from the debt and influence, while we can't even maintain US state infrastructure in high tax states... Off topic, but ironic and sad... Back to topic.... Goes to earlier comment to their winning strategy vs US strategy of giving free shit / "aid".

SoP shouldn't shock anyone. It still pales to US military presence globally (if that's your angle) and commercial access. It will however continue to grow, and would assume the string will extend outside the IO region over time.

In terms of the relation to TPP and similar, both were solidly in place prior to TPP. If your assertion is TPP would have lessened the impact of SoP and BRI, I think that's a very flawed assertion. TPP itself was very flawed, and only the elites and status quo folks lamented it's passing. Even Bernie applauded it's passing. The US needs to go Bilateral and eek out advantages, instead of sacrificing advantage in overly complex multi country pacts. We also need to adopt China's banker approach, and stop acting like the Salvation Army.

US vs SoP

 

[Legacy]

What does Russia really want from Africa? (Brookings)

 

[Irish YJ]

To all those who are Iranian apologists, fans of the Iranian Nuke Agreement, or think staying friends with SA or Israel is a bad idea....


Intelligence agencies have tracked Iranian short-range ballistic missiles into Iraq, US official says
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/politics/iran-threat-us-forces-middle-east/index.html

And

Iran developing nuclear-capable missiles, European powers warn UN
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50671003

And

U.S. seizes suspected Iranian missile parts, considers sending more troops to Mideast
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-sei...ering-14000-more-american-troops-middle-east/

 

[Irish YJ]

The UK conservatives pulled a major smack down on the labour/liberals in historical fashion yesterday.

Big win for the anti-globalists. Hello Brexit...

CNN trying to make it sound like a bad thing for the conservatives..... It's nothing but huge win for the conservatives, and a huge disaster for Labour.

Here's Sky News.

<iframe width="600" height="400" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q2IIjPPzQk8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishLax]

Jeremy Corbyn is just an awful person. It goes beyond his anti-semitism and other gaffes, its about his praise places like Venezuela and his tolerance of human rights abuse as long as its by a commie. Of course, he was endorsed by AOC.

This should be a warning to the Democrats in the United States that if you run someone like Corbyn against someone like Trump (who shares a lot of similarities with Boris Johnson) you are going to lose. People will vote for the boorish person that is a known quantity over the I-know-better-than-you communist every time.

 

[Legacy]

At least in the UK, the candidate with the most votes wins, reflecting popular support for their platform.

 

[GowerND11]

At least in the UK, the candidate with the most votes wins, reflecting popular support for their platform.

It's a totally different government designing a totally different way. Also, we're talking about a country that has 300 million people less than here.

 

[Irish YJ]

At least in the UK, the candidate with the most votes wins, reflecting popular support for their platform.

Last election, the conservatives didn't get the majority, they had to form a minority government with the backing of the DUP party. Very different system. It's all about seats too, not necessarily the candidate.

 

[Legacy]

Scale, third parties, turnout aside, they have a House of Lords too. They have a socialist party, also. The election is about a referendum on policy and direction of the country by leadership. A republican form of government.

I understand that, in comparison, that Nancy Pelosi could be the PM here. A third party's impact may be lessened in forming government. A shorter time to the election does mean that special, moneyed interests' impact is lessened in the elections of the House of Commons and better reflects the will of the people. They have had females as PMs. Then, there's regular appearances by the PM in front of Parliament to explain their positions and policies and the no confidence votes in the House of Commons. Then there's the Scottish and N. Irish parties that may reflect cultural differences. You can't pack the court or undermine legislation.

 

[Irish YJ]

Scale, third parties, turnout aside, they have a House of Lords too. They have a socialist party, also. The election is about a referendum on policy and direction of the country by leadership. A republican form of government.

I understand that, in comparison, that Nancy Pelosi could be the PM here. A third party's impact may be lessened in forming government. A shorter time to the election does mean that special, moneyed interests' impact is lessened in the elections of the House of Commons and better reflects the will of the people. They have had females as PMs. Then, there's regular appearances by the PM in front of Parliament to explain their positions and policies and the no confidence votes in the House of Commons. Then there's the Scottish and N. Irish parties that may reflect cultural differences. You can't pack the court or undermine legislation.

Did you know that the Queen actually appoints the PM.... It is normally the party that won the most seats, but that is a norm, not a law, or something in their constitution....

Let's not canonize the UK system. The US may not have had a female, but we have had an African American, which they have not.

And don't kid yourself. They have lobbyist too. There have been several pay for play attempts and scandals over the last 10 years.

 

[Irish YJ]

Jeremy Corbyn is just an awful person. It goes beyond his anti-semitism and other gaffes, its about his praise places like Venezuela and his tolerance of human rights abuse as long as its by a commie. Of course, he was endorsed by AOC.

This should be a warning to the Democrats in the United States that if you run someone like Corbyn against someone like Trump (who shares a lot of similarities with Boris Johnson) you are going to lose. People will vote for the boorish person that is a known quantity over the I-know-better-than-you communist every time.

Yup, the guy is a total scumbag. He's pals with folks that openly deny the holocaust, and has also made comments doubting Serbian war crimes as well. Pro Iran, pro Venezuela, pro Cuba...

Sounds like he's stepping down I think. AOC will be disappointed.

 

[Legacy]

Sturgeon: Scotland wants different future from rest of UK
SNP leader says election results made clear Scottish voters don’t want a Boris Johnson government or Brexit (Guardian)

Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish National party won 48 of Scotland’s 59 seats in the UK Parliament in Thursday’s national election. She expects Johnson, the UK prime minister, who’s Conservative Party won its own sweeping victory, to acknowledge that the win equals a mandate for a second independent referendum, Reuters reported.

Sturgeon confirmed she will formally request the powers for Holyrood to hold a ballot after the SNP's election victory in Scotland. Ms Sturgeon said the Scottish Government would "publish the detailed democratic case for a transfer of power to enable a referendum to be put beyond legal challenge".

Scotland voted in 2014 to stay a part of the United Kingdom. But two years later, Scots supported remaining in the European Union, as did Northern Ireland, while the majority in England and Wales voted to leave, setting up the long and fractious debate over how to achieve Brexit.

Boris Johnson told Sturgeon in a phone call that he remained opposed to a second independence referendum.

Northern Ireland Offers a Warning That Few Are Hearing
Brexit poses an existential dilemma for the region. (Atlantic)

Excerpt:

To my passenger and every other Protestant unionist I met, in Belfast first and then in rural Fermanagh, near the Irish border, Johnson’s plan was a betrayal. Not just any betrayal, in fact, but a betrayal of the very issue most fundamental to them: the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, whose preservation had been the source of a decades-long civil war before the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement brought it to a close with an explicit recognition from all sides that Northern Ireland would stay in the United Kingdom as long as a majority of its people wanted it to. Again and again in my conversations here, I was told that Johnson’s Brexit deal amounted to a betrayal of this peace settlement—an “appeasement” of Irish Republicanism and its implicit threat of violence should any land-border controls be erected with the Republic of Ireland.

 

[Irish YJ]

Sturgeon: Scotland wants different future from rest of UK
SNP leader says election results made clear Scottish voters don’t want a Boris Johnson government or Brexit (Guardian)

Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish National party won 48 of Scotland’s 59 seats in the UK Parliament in Thursday’s national election. She expects Johnson, the UK prime minister, who’s Conservative Party won its own sweeping victory, to acknowledge that the win equals a mandate for a second independent referendum, Reuters reported.

Sturgeon confirmed she will formally request the powers for Holyrood to hold a ballot after the SNP's election victory in Scotland. Ms Sturgeon said the Scottish Government would "publish the detailed democratic case for a transfer of power to enable a referendum to be put beyond legal challenge".

Scotland voted in 2014 to stay a part of the United Kingdom. But two years later, Scots supported remaining in the European Union, as did Northern Ireland, while the majority in England and Wales voted to leave, setting up the long and fractious debate over how to achieve Brexit.

Boris Johnson told Sturgeon in a phone call that he remained opposed to a second independence referendum.

Northern Ireland Offers a Warning That Few Are Hearing
Brexit poses an existential dilemma for the region. (Atlantic)

Excerpt:

Scotland has taken 3 or 4 runs at independence in the last 40 or so years (the last about 5 years ago), so not shocking. And those previous attempts at independence had nothing to do with Brexit. There's a good 30-40ish % of Scots who have wanted independence in general for a long long time. Brexit is just the latest reason to take another run at it.

 

[IrishLax]

Scotland has taken 3 or 4 runs at independence in the last 40 or so years (the last about 5 years ago), so not shocking. And those previous attempts at independence had nothing to do with Brexit. There's a good 30-40ish % of Scots who have wanted independence in general for a long long time. Brexit is just the latest reason to take another run at it.

Need a second coming of William Wallace. And then Ireland needs to invade northern Ireland and through off the imperialist yoke of the Brits once and for all.

I guess England can keep Wales.

 

[ACamp1900]

I suspect if the English had voted to give the Scots reparations the Scots would have instinctively voted against them.

 

[Legacy]

Scotland has taken 3 or 4 runs at independence in the last 40 or so years (the last about 5 years ago), so not shocking. And those previous attempts at independence had nothing to do with Brexit. There's a good 30-40ish % of Scots who have wanted independence in general for a long long time. Brexit is just the latest reason to take another run at it.

Of course, five years ago had nothing to do with Brexit. I remember the people gathering in Glasgow's square with the Scottish national flag. The Scottish National Party has increased their percent of MPs until, with the recent election, forty-seven of the fifty-nine seats in Parliament (80%) are now held by the SNP with one other always voting with forty-five percent of the vote in this past election. The next highest party (Cons) got twenty-five percent.

Isn't it ironic though that an election that was a referendum effectively on leaving the EU would result in the Johnson's Con party denying Scotland the same referendum? Scotland's wealth goes to the central government and they want to stay in the EU with a vote to determine that. Ironic.

 

[Irish YJ]

Need a second coming of William Wallace. And then Ireland needs to invade northern Ireland and through off the imperialist yoke of the Brits once and for all.

I guess England can keep Wales.

I'd definitely be up for a Braveheart part 2.

On Ireland, after The Troubles period and later Good Friday agreement, I thought at some point there would be a united Ireland... but turned out to be a big nothingburger. Sinn Fein Party however is attempting to revive the movement (they never really stopped) with the whole Brexit issue. IIRC they did have some big gains in 2017. Not sure where it stands now.

Of course, five years ago had nothing to do with Brexit. I remember the people gathering in Glasgow's square with the Scottish national flag. The Scottish National Party has increased their percent of MPs until, with the recent election, forty-seven of the fifty-nine seats in Parliament (80%) are now held by the SNP with one other always voting with forty-five percent of the vote in this past election. The next highest party (Cons) got twenty-five percent.

Isn't it ironic though that an election that was a referendum effectively on leaving the EU would result in the Johnson's Con party denying Scotland the same referendum and vowing to not allow the same for Scotland? Scotland's SNP, reflecting the will of their people, just wants the same and Johnson says no way. Scotland's wealth goes to the central government and they want to stay in the EU with a vote to determine that. Ironic.

The movements come in waves and and almost always top out when an "event" happens. Keep in mind that Scotland still doesn't have a clear SNP majority. They definitely made gains, but they are also the most efficient gotten seats (lowest vote count per seat).

I suspect if the English had voted to give the Scots reparations the Scots would have instinctively voted against them.

LOL...
IIRC, the earlier movements never really caught any steam until they discovered oil of the coast of Scotland. Then folks got $ in their eyes and they united in their "we don't need the UK anymore" rally cry.

 

[Legacy]

The movements come in waves and and almost always top out when an "event" happens. Keep in mind that Scotland still doesn't have a clear SNP majority. They definitely made gains, but they are also the most efficient gotten seats (lowest vote count per seat).

With a 68% turnout of voters in Scotland resulting in the election of 80% of MPs for the Scottish National Party doesn't have a "clear SNP majority"???? It's a landslide.

Build the Wall. It's been done there before but has fallen into disrepair.

Stay tuned.

 

[Irish YJ]

With a 68% turnout of voters in Scotland resulting in the election of 80% of MPs for the Scottish National Party doesn't have a "clear SNP majority"???? It's a landslide.

Build the Wall. It's been done there before but has fallen into disrepair.

Stay tuned.

They took the seats, but only 45% of those that voted, voted SNP. Like I said, they were the most efficient in votes per seat. That's up 8% from 2017.