Alienating allies, especially those in the path of Chinese imperialistic ambitions is certainly not the way to oppose China.I think the die was cast a while ago, and China has had a lot to do with it. We can certainly question the wisdom of MAGA's combative, antagonistic foreign policy, but it's not in a vacuum. Xi made the decision to assert Chinese power in a far more direct manner than any of his predecessors.
When you can tell me something I don't already know.......never mind.Maybe, Maybe not. However, if we're thinking about the threat from China in the context of their efforts in the developing world for the past couple of decades, then there's more than just the Panama Canal to be worried about. We're talking about access to resources in the aforementioned region, as well as business partnerships and investments that have given China a pretty good footing throughout the world.
What will be an interesting needle to thread is determining the kind of threat China poses, since they're using a market based model to establish footholds versus any kind of military set ups that would be clear red flags if they started to assert themselves this way. I have no doubt at all China is looking to compete directly with the US across the world and dominate economically at some point, the question for the incoming administration is whether they're interested in the kind of global expansion required to do so. China's used soft power to expand, which means the US would have to counter accordingly to gain back the traction it once had. The incoming administration seems more intent on punishing rather than competing, which I suspect will be more beneficial to China than the US.
When you can tell me something I don't already know.......never mind.
I lived and worked in the CCP-PRC for ten years and I know a few things about the Chinese and about the world too.
I'm very familiar with the CCP and its grandiose designs over and across the globe. Indeed and over several thousands of years the Chinese are nothing if not grandiose. Yet all they have to show for it is where they are still. Japan and the Japanese are much more like us btw.
So your first task at this point is to find someone who knows less than you do. You'd find a lot of 'em in China I don't mind saying. Because all the Chinese know is the Party line. They just blurb the Party line at you and that's that -- there's no further argument or discussion as far as they are concerned. This is because the Chinese are not taught argument, dissent, critical thinking. So each time a Chinaman walked up to me to spout the Party line I gave a critical retort which left the Chinaman standing there mute. They just blink. Then they fad away each one of 'em because they don't have the slightest notion of an argument, a colloquy or discourse or discussion. Rinse and Repeat is what I did. It comes in handy here too sometimes.
The USD accounts for the predominant currency of nations' forex reserves and remains decidedly dominant as the currency of trade. US T-bills dominate the global bond markets.As I mentioned in my response to @Tangmo, the challenge for the US is how to respond effectively given China's narrative throughout the developing world is one that features them as investors and developers compared to the US being an exploiter and extractor.
It's Greenland that has the strong strategic appeal to the USA given especially the high level of activity occurring in the Arctic militarily and for drilling. Greenland also is important due to the opening of the Northwest Passage as the ice melts due to MAGA Neo-Luddites.At one time *Rump offered to buy Newfoundland, then he suggested Canada should become part of the US, and now he wants to take the Panama Canal. We can add land grabber to the list of his deficiencies.
ffsSomeone needs to put a muzzle on Trump!
The story doesn’t say what set him off, maybe they are eating house pets too?
I don't think Trump has any prayer of abrogating the treaty Carter brokered, but if you can't see the strategic and economic benefits of controlling the only Pacific-Atlantic waterway over the >9500-mile length of North and South America, perhaps you shouldn't be in the business of calling someone else a bloviating idiot.The US signed that treaty under Carter because the work at the time had been done and the US didn't feel the need to continue to govern the area. It was under the Panamanian president that the canal was widened in 2016 to allow for wider, longer ships to pass through. The project wasn't without its challenges, but why would the US again need to take something like this under our wing? Bloviating idiot!
Wait till Trump finds out!China controls Hong Kong.
A big map.........on a Great Wall.Trump has no idea where Panama is on a map.
Someone’s gotta circle it with a sharpie
Your backup lights work better than your headlights I'm afraid.So essentially what China has been doing throughout most of Latin America and Africa.
Don't forget his first term calling Canada's supply of aluminum product to the U.S. a "security risk" and warranting a tariff -why? Because the U.S. was buying too much of it.At one time *Rump offered to buy Newfoundland, then he suggested Canada should become part of the US, and now he wants to take the Panama Canal. We can add land grabber to the list of his deficiencies.
This bozo just likes attention....Someone needs to put a muzzle on Trump!
The story doesn’t say what set him off, maybe they are eating house pets too?
Alienating allies, especially those in the path of Chinese imperialistic ambitions is certainly not the way to oppose China.
And it would be the same dumb people who think trade is a zero sum game. A completely fundamental misunderstanding and rejection of reality.But from the perspective of some in the US, being diplomatic hasn't been particularly effective, either. It resulted in less control over the Canal and the rise of the fiercest global competitor since the USSR
Well, the military will already be on the border?Looks like we'll be invading Mexico and Panama under Trump...
Do you imagine, even for a moment, that if we wanted to move assets through the canal that we'd take no for an answer?But from the perspective of some in the US, being diplomatic hasn't been particularly effective, either. It resulted in less control over the Canal and the rise of the fiercest global competitor since the USSR
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?