# The Start of Chinese Imperialism?



## warspite (4 Nov 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/061104/w110436.html
And China scores another point. Any thoughts on the implications of this? If resource hungry China has found itself a supermarket we may be in for a major change in the world order. I cite as evidence the British empire. Imperialism may not be right but as history has proven it works. And in this case a form of imperialism could easily come to pass:
-China would be able to import all the resources it needs.
-China would be able to export as many manufactured goods as Africa could handle

Now with this situation, China would easily be able to become the leading world power. At it's peak the British Empire encompassed a quarter of the worlds lands and peoples. It started out as a little island, China is not a little island. What allowed a small island to be come the sole world power for half a century? Among other things it's colonies supplied the wealth to sustain the empire. India litterally was "the jewel" in the British crown, being Brittan's largest source of income.

Now if China has the resources of Africa at it's disposal what's to stop it forming a new world Empire? It would easily be able to unseat, bribe or crush any resistance.  And who would stop them. The United States?... while it's military is powerful now, it's economy really isn't that healthy, who else then. Could this be the start of the Chinese world domintion?

But then again maybe I'm just being paranoid and they really are just trying to be nice...... thoughts anyone?


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2006)

It also begs the question, is Chinese imperialism a bad thing?  Perhaps we are in the dusk of western civilization, and the time has come to move over for the big boys.  "Western" nations make up what, 500 million people?  China's parked on over a billion.  If we were to have a world democratic government, we might not win many seats.  They've also got the benefit of several thousand years of civilization, whereas we're sitting on a few hundred.  With their experience, they might do a better job of it than we are currently.  I'll grant that they have a few human rights issues, but you can't make everyone happy all the time.  

Regardless, the Chinese economic expansion in to Africa is to be expected, as is future, stronger co-operation with Russia.  I wonder if China's economic expansionism isn't a better method of controlling Africa than the more direct and political methods previously used.  Hurry up and wait, I suppose.

T


----------



## rz350 (4 Nov 2006)

Every country (should) looks out for it self. China is expected to do it. and Hell, maybe, just maybe, some devlopment can bring a bit of Order to Africa.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

dang Commies! 

As long as the West realizes that China is an enemy, and can never be trusted to act except in their own interests, I say let 'em go! Let them try to stabilize Africa, while we work on the Middle East. It's gonna take us both centuries, anyway.

Maybe it'll help keep the sneaky sunsabitches too buys to keep engaging in espionage here.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2006)

Predatory "empires" that attempt to exploit foreign or domestic resources for the gain of the ruling class usually come to bad ends. Sparta went into instant and irreversible decline when stripped of her Helots, and neither the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire ever achieved a fraction of their potential despite being continental nations with vast quantities of natural resources. Belgum didn't receive much benefit from controlling the Congo, New France was desperately poor compared to New England, and so on. 

"Empires" and societies which were free relative to their neighbours outperform them in almost every metric. The Delian League (Athens during the Peloponnesian Wars) had the ability to take on "Sparta and her Allies", the Persian Empire, Thebes and member states that attempted to revolt for almost three decades, and rise to prominence again after the fall of Sparta. Elizabethan England, the Republic of Venice and the United Provinces (the Netherlands) certainly didn't look like matches for the Ottoman Empire or the Spanish Empires of the time, but their looser organizational structures, relative freedoms and free market economies enabled them to outperform the resource and manpower giants of their day. In the end, the United States, which shed the "class" structure of their British ancestors, overtook the mother country and has become the dominant power of the world today. (There are no guarantees this will always be the case).

Even in Asia, I will stake a lot on the idea that India will be the real superpower of the 21rst century, since it has a liberal democratic tradition of government, rule of law and free market relative to their Chinese rivals.


----------



## Dare (5 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> It also begs the question, is Chinese imperialism a bad thing?  Perhaps we are in the dusk of western civilization, and the time has come to move over for the big boys.  "Western" nations make up what, 500 million people?  China's parked on over a billion.  If we were to have a world democratic government, we might not win many seats.


That's assuming that their government would let them vote..

..which of course, is the reason Chinese imperialism *is* a bad thing.


----------



## Torlyn (5 Nov 2006)

Dare said:
			
		

> That's assuming that their government would let them vote..
> 
> ..which of course, is the reason Chinese imperialism *is* a bad thing.



I think you missed my hypothetical...  Democracy is the system of government we have now, and it's far from perfect.  Who's to say the Chinese system isn't better?  Just because WE like to vote, doesn't mean it's the best thing for all of us.  I can never remember the quote but it's something along the lines of if you ever want proof democracy doesn't work, discuss the issues with your average voter.  

T


----------



## paracowboy (5 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> I think you missed my hypothetical...  Democracy is the system of government we have now, and it's far from perfect.  Who's to say the Chinese system isn't better?  Just because WE like to vote, doesn't mean it's the best thing for all of us.  I can never remember the quote but it's something along the lines of if you ever want proof democracy doesn't work, discuss the issues with your average voter.


if that is truly your thoughts, perhaps you should give serious thought to changing professions. Democracy is the best system existant today, and has proven itself throughout history as being the best. 
Athens v Sparta
England vs the World
the Allies vs the Axis

Democratic nations have always advanced faster, and had a higher standard of living than any other form of government. Democracy also promotes peaceful interaction between nations, rather than war.


----------



## Torlyn (5 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> if that is truly your thoughts, perhaps you should give serious thought to changing professions.



That's why I said "hypothetical".  It's for argument's sake, para.  I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, else all this thread would be is a bunch of people agreeing with each other, which isn't near as much fun.  

This thread is called the Start of Chinese Imperialism...  I was trying to project a possibility for say, 1-200 years from now.  One can argue a point without believing in it.  As these are not my personal beliefs, I'll thank you not to question my profession.

T


----------



## paracowboy (5 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> That's why I said "hypothetical".  It's for argument's sake, para.  I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, else all this thread would be is a bunch of people agreeing with each other, which isn't near as much fun.


that sets my mind at ease. The idea of being led by someone who didn't believe that Democracy is "the way to go" scared the hell out of me. It's all well and good for the rank and file to be thuggish in mentality, but when the Leadership gets that way...



> As these are not my personal beliefs, I'll thank you not to question my profession.


I didn't question your profession. Or professionalism, or dedication to the military. I questioned your political beliefs. Different animals altogether. One can be dedicated to the CF, and still be a Nazi, or a die-hard communist. They would be just as dedicated, but I still wouldn't want either of them in the CF. 

See where I'm going?


----------



## Jungle (5 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> I can never remember the quote but it's something along the lines of if you ever want proof democracy doesn't work, discuss the issues with your average voter.



The quote goes like this:



> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."



Winston Churchill said this, as well as this:



> "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."




One of my favorite stories, and accompanying quote, by Winston Churchill is this:


> On one occasion during an election campaign Churchill was speaking in a church hall in rural England. The hall was decorated in the well accepted colour scheme of that era – mission brown up to shoulder height, then cream up to and including the ceiling. When he finished his speech Churchill called for questions. The first came from a middle-aged woman dressed in country tweeds. "Mr Churchill, I am a member of the Temperance League," she said, "My local branch has been examining your use of alcohol. Are you aware Prime Minister that, during your lifetime to date you have consumed enough alcohol to fill this hall up to here" stretching her arm dramatically to indicate the mission brown zone on the wall. "We want to know what you intend to do about it?" Churchill looked at the woman, followed her arm to the top of the mission brown zone, and then slowly allowed his gaze to move up through the cream zone to the ceiling. *"So little time, so much to do"* he said.



Sorry about this... you can now return to the subject of the thread.


----------



## Torlyn (5 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> See where I'm going?



Seen, and understood.  

T


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2006)

We have other Chinese discussions in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51706.0.html and in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45216/post-453404.html#msg453404 and, following up on what Echo9 and I discussed there, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is a useful Article from thr November/December 2006 issue of _Foreign Affairs_:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85611/john-l-thornton/china-s-leadership-gap.html 
_If it is too long just read the last bit, after  *CAREERS OPEN TO TALENT*_



> China's Leadership Gap
> 
> John L. Thornton
> 
> ...


----------



## rz350 (5 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> dang Commies!
> 
> As long as the West realizes that China is an enemy,



I must of missed it, but where is the official status of China as an enemy of Canada or hostile nation written?(I found no mention of it on Foreign affairs website...in fact, the website appeared to show that Canada and China have good relations)


----------



## warspite (5 Nov 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> I must of missed it, but where is the official status of China as an enemy of Canada or hostile nation written?(I found no mention of it on Foreign affairs website...in fact, the website appeared to show that Canada and China have good relations)


It's not written anywhere. It's just that China is a powerful nation, has the potential to become a very powerful nation, or empire if you will. Now just because China isn't a threat now, it doesn't mean they won't be a threat 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now. When you get down to it, *CHINA IS NOT OUR FRIEND*. They may be a trading partner but I really doubt they give a hoot about Canada. They are only looking out for themselves, and if having Canada around is not in their best interests, I don't think they would hesitate to wipe Canada off the map and replace us with administrative district's 1072A-2097C.

Personally I would much prefer if China were not a superpower/imperialist empire. But then again it's all a point of view.


----------



## rz350 (5 Nov 2006)

To be honest, I think most every nation is like that. If your a world power, and someone is a thorn in your side, you tend to have a very hard time.

Our own empire did it (British Empire) The Americans do it (sanctions on various nations, and the occasional war...esp ones like Urgent Fury and Just Cause, which where really just political...I.e. the current regime was an inconvenience) Every single empire or power does it.

Ultimately, to me, what matters is how it ends up for Canada. (that means Canada...and $%#$ anyone else, including Europe and the US.) SO as long as Chinese empire/super status kept us in a good standard of living...I wouldn't care. Much like I dont care what the US does, since with them in power, we are comfy.

I dont think anyone is our friend. I'm sure if we ended up becoming a thorn for anyone, they would deal with it. (If we started say, supporting terrorism against the USA, state sanctioned, I am sure there would be F-15E's in our skies in no time...of course we would never do that, but it was just a hypothetical)


----------



## warspite (5 Nov 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> Ultimately, to me, what matters is how it ends up for Canada. (*that means Canada...and $%#$ anyone else, including Europe and the US*.) SO as long as Chinese empire/super status kept us in a good standard of living...I wouldn't care. Much like I dont care what the US does, since with them in power, we are comfy.


I agree with this completely.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> ... When you get down to it, *CHINA IS NOT OUR FRIEND*. They may be a trading partner but I really doubt they give a hoot about Canada ...



Spot on, except that they do give a _hoot_, but it is a very Chinese _hoot_ in that they _see_ Canada through the lens of their own interests.

I am repeating myself, I know, but:

•	While China is not our friend it is far from being an enemy and we want to keep it that way.  China is a competitor in the free market of trade in goods, services, ideas and political influence.

•	Canada is, right now, amongst the world’s _top ten_ nations by any fair measure of _power_ and influence.  Even after China and India and perhaps a few others might nudge us out of the _top ten_* we will remain, for longer than most anyone here will live, one of the world’s _top ten percent_.  Thus we _matter_ (to China and the others) and our policies, especially our foreign policy matter, too.

•	China has problems and potential.  It has most of the attributes of a _great power_ and I believe it will achieve global superpower status by 2050.  I also believe that China’s most likely _conflict_ (which need not, should not, in my view, be military) is with Russia and the issue will be resources in Eastern Siberia – Asia East of the Yenisey (Енисе́й) River.

•	China’s greatest _natural resource_ is a large, well educated, hard working, _conservative_ (strong _family_ and _community_ values, and respect for tradition and traditional authority) population.  They are _naturally_, by which I mean culturally, entrepreneurial, even capitalistic.

•	Maintaining peaceful, albeit _competitive_ relations with China while, simultaneously, trying to _contain_ the expansion of its military/political power is a challenge.  India might be a key to that _containment_.

China’s interests, much like ours, can be summed up in two words: Peace and Prosperity.

The Chinese need and want both – they have had too little of each for the past 150 years.

I believe that the Chinese leadership – established and emerging – is happy to do whatever it can, without too much risk, to discomfit America and the West in general.  But it wants our money more.

  
----------
* In 2050 that list is likely to comprise: America, China, Japan, Germany, India, Britain, Italy, Brazil, France and another which _could_ still be Canada but could, just as easily, be Argentina, Indonesia or Spain. 


Edit: format and typo


----------



## chanman (5 Nov 2006)

The writer of The Economist's Charlemagne column is arguing that Spain is already catching up to Italy, and already matches Canada in terms of GDP (I checked - it was within a few billion USD as of 2005)

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8103771


----------



## Cliff (10 Nov 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> It also begs the question, is Chinese imperialism a bad thing?


I realize it's a hypothetical and a lot has changed since the cold war era, but I can't say I would fancy the idea.


----------

