Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Win-Win vs Zero-Sum Game: How China Managed to Overcome Global Economic Slowdown
Source:
Sputnik News
URL Source: https://sputniknews.com/politics/20 ... a-new-silk-road-marshall-plan/
Published: May 10, 2017
Author: Sputnik News
Post Date: 2017-05-10 10:21:21 by A Pole
Keywords: China, economy, Eurasia
Views: 9079
Comments: 32
While Beijing is preparing to hold the One Belt, One Road Forum for International Cooperation on May 14-15, Xinhua has stepped forward to bust the myth that China's New Silk Road project is essentially a Marshall Plan 2.0. China's New Silk Road Project has nothing to do with America's post-WWII Marshall Plan, China's state-run media outlet Xinhua argues. "Why do Western commentators stuck with a Cold War mindset consider the Chinese Belt and Road initiative —the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road — a modern version of the American Marshall Plan aimed at restoring Europe after Second World War?" the media outlet asked. "Some do not believe in China's strategic motivation, arguing that this initiative is a geopolitical tool aimed at ensuring its domination in the region and creating a new sphere of influence. Others oppose the initiative because they are afraid of losing their leading positions in the world financial system," the article said. The "Western skeptics" have yet to realize that China is not a proponent of a "zero-sum game"; quite the contrary, Beijing is seeking a win-win solution, the media outlet insisted. The modern Belt and Road is aimed at creating a transnational network connecting Asia with Europe and Africa and promoting the development of countries which have embraced the initiative. "Unlike the Marshall Plan, [China] doesn't lay down any political conditions for the participants of the Belt and Road [project]," the media outlet emphasized, "China has repeatedly said that all countries should respect each other's right to choose their own social system and development paths independently." Xinhua highlighted that since 2013 more than 100 countries and international organization have endorsed the initiative, while almost 50 intergovernmental agreements on cooperation have been signed. Furthermore, Chinese companies have already invested over $50 billion and established 56 zones of trade and economic cooperation in 20 countries along the Belt and Road; in addition, they have created a total of 180,000 jobs for the residents of these states, according to the media outlet. In his op-ed for Sputnik, Tom McGregor, Commentator and Editor at China Network Television (CNTV), shares a similar stance. "The [Belt and Road] initiative would benefit participating member states since China would aid sovereign governments to build logistics hubs — roads, railways, ports, bridges, and airports; manufacturing parks; energy zones with power plants and new financial centers," McGregor underscored. The CNTV commentator admitted that China is expected to benefit the most from the project, "but deservedly so," he insisted. "Beijing is the biggest investor in the Belt and Road, they deserve the right to determine the over-all rules, so long as other countries agree to their terms… It makes pragmatic sense for China to invest so heavily in global infrastructure projects and expect some sort of a return on investment," he wrote. McGregor called attention to the fact that Beijing is due to host the One Belt, One Road Forum for International Cooperation on May 14-15. "The anti-China conspiracy theorists will never change their negative views on the B&R, but other governments with more neutral positions can attend the forum and discover for themselves if the Belt and Road are the right deal for them," McGregor stressed. It is expected that the forum will bring together more than 1,200 people including officials, scholars, representatives of financial institutions and media organizations from 110 nations. The question then arises how China has managed to overcome the global economic slowdown, the weakening of international trade, and a certain setback in the process of globalization. According to Xinhua, the answer lay just beneath the surface: instead of pursuing global dominance and adopting the policy of "zero-sum game," Beijing has embraced partnership and global cooperation. "The Belt and Road initiative is focused on responsibility, mutually beneficial cooperation and sincere desire for joint development, it provided the world with China's response to the challenges of modernity — a balanced, fair and comprehensive model of development," the media outlet stressed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin, Deckard, Vicomte13, ConservingFreedom, Willie Green, hondo68, calcon, Deckard, TooConservative (#0)
Forum sliding again?
It is an ambitious project, bigger than the Marshall Plan. Naturally, China will use it to serve its own interests economically and in foreign policy.
Yes, and they claim that it will be win-win for everyone.
There will be a price: if any portion of the highway system is disrupted, no doubt the Chinese military will come in to ensure the flow of traffic. IOW, it's an entry way into all the host countries for Chinese military to "protect" its road investment. Among other things.
I think you are making a psychological projection, coming from an Anglosaxon nation. Anglosaxons, who derive from the Vikings (through Normans), are predatory pirate peoples. Chinese are a very old culture focused on stability, striving toward harmony and commercial preeminence.
You mean, how they like to threaten Taiwan with nuclear weapons and build strategic island bases out in the South China Sea in the middle of major trade routes?
You are so humanitarian it takes my breath away. Like Opium Wars when your kindred souls defended human rights of Chinese to buy what they wanted. Or when you exterminated Indians in the name of progress and improvement of human race. Taiwan is part of China. Viking descendants are bloodthirsty pirates, who perfected self-righteous humanitarian pretense.
Well, gosh, I'm a bit more civilized than that. What's your origin anyway, Polish?
And dictatorships ruling over slaves. Which is why communism was such a good fit. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah sure. You really care about Chinese people. I am impressed.
Well, gosh, I'm a bit more civilized than that. Really?
On a good day anyway. What is your ethnic background. I am indeed Viking, Norman, Alsatian and Celt - but also Saami and Basque - and those latter two are the opposite of bloodthirsty pirates.
If you were any more full of shit,your name would be Obama. I don't give a damn about the Chinese one way or the other. I was just commenting that they have always been slaves,and it seems to make most of them happy to be a cog in a big machine. In general,this is true of all non-whites,and why whites ended up running the world despite being a minority for all of history. Like most Poles,they mostly enjoy being slaves with masters. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Weren't you "a cog in a big machine"? Because they are the superior master race?
Have you seen the vikings series. Great show. Ragnar Lothbrock is an interesting character.
LOL! No,in fact I wasn't. I know your simple mind will have trouble understanding this concept,but every member of the US military is told in basic training that they are under no obligation to follow illegal orders. No gulags in the US,comrade. why whites ended up running the world despite being a minority for all of history Because they are the superior master race? Yes.that is generally true. Deal with it,loser. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
He is also an actual historical character. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes.that is generally true. Deal with it,loser. But the leader of your master race with his Herrenvolk got clobbered by the lowly Slavs. Ouch! Soviet and Polish flags on Brandenburg Gate in 1945 Berlin. 130 years earlier, united forces of the West go home:
MY "master race"???? What race am I,pinhead? with his Herrenvolk got clobbered by the lowly Slavs. Ouch! Slavs aren't white? Since when? Do you actually understand anything about anything,or are you some sort of mental midget that has been programmed to mndlessly spout leftist dogma? BTW,the French and the Germans got clobbered by General Winter,not the Slavs. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I've watched some of it. Loved it. Very interesting. Love the opening theme song (in the first season). - 'This will never end 'cause I want more. More, gimme more, gimme more...")
Russians were tougher than Germans. Which wars Americans won? Philipines, Grenada?
Naw,you just say that because both they and the Germans turned the Poles into their personal little bitches. Which wars Americans won? Philipines, Grenada? A couple of minor ones you may have heard of called WW-1 and WW-2. Without the US,all of Europe would be speaking German. Including your Russian masters. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
A couple of minor ones you may have heard of called WW-1 and WW-2. They came at the end, when war was already decided.
You "learned" that in Commie School,didn't you? You and all your comrades would have grown up speaking German if it weren't for America saving your worthless asses again in the 1940's. BTW,America formally entered WW-2 in Dec of 1941,but had been keeping your commie idols alive and fighting by supplying Russia with everything she needed to stay afloat,from beans to bullets to rifles and trucks. All thanks to the communist SOB in the WH then. A sane president would have let Germany and Russia bleed each other out and then stepped in and taken over. BUT....,back to your brain fart about America didn't enter the war until it was almost over,America formally entered the war in Dec of 1941. Did you learn in commie school that the war ended in 1942? If so,how did they explain all the noise and rotting Soviet bodies right up to late 1945? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes Americans and British did send significant help (at great loses from German submarines). Formally, so did Canada.
Formally, so did Canada. Ok. I have no idea what that means in context to our discussion,but ok anyhow. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No. The Americans were in it much earlier. Without the Lend Lease, Britain and Russia would have both fallen to the Third Reich for want of supplies. The US kept the British, and then the Russians, in the war. It's true that US forces didn't land in the European theatre until 1942, and didn't land in Europe proper until 1943. It's also true that the US provided massive amounts of war materiel to the British and the Russians, without which neither would have survived the war.
You mean before 1941? Germany attacked Soviet Russia in 1941, and significant Lend-Lease started there in 1942 when Germans were already stopped from reaching key points.
Would you have preferred that the Russians get nothing. Britain was fighting Hitler from September 1939. The Soviets were ALLIED with Hitler in 1939, invading Poland together, from East and West. And then the Soviets went and invaded Finland, little Finland. The Soviets got their asses handed to them by the Finns. During the Winter War, there was a moment where Britain and France were ready to go to war with the USSR for invading Finland. Had they done so, it might have been possible to avoid World War II, because Germany, France and Britain would have all been on the same side - Finland's - which was the right side (the Soviet invasion of Finland was even more unjustified than the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. There, there was at least the pretext that Polish nationalists were occasionally crossing into Germany and causing problems, and there was the issue of Danzig, but Finland did nothing, literally and absolutely nothing, but BE THERE, next to Stalin's Russia, so he attacked. At that moment, it would have been justified for the UK, France and Germany to ally and destroy the Soviet Union - the Soviets were purely evil, 100% in the wrong, when they invaded Finland. And the nearly 1 million Russians who died in that failed and calamitous effort paid the price that evil invaders paid. They deserved the deaths they got every bit as much as the Germans who died in Russia deserved it. They were men carrying out a purely evil mission, with no justification whatever, against a peaceful country. The USSR, by contrast, was not a peaceful country when the Germans invaded it. They were less bad than the Nazis, that's all. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in an act of pure aggression, it was every bit as evil as Nazi Germany, and it deserved to be wiped from the face of the earth for that act. Fortunately for the Soviets, the Germans invaded them and the West needed them to fight. But the Soviets fought the Germans for the same reason that the Finns fought the Soviets: Evil aggressive barbaric sons of bitches (that would be Germans in the case of the Russians, and Russians in the case of the Finns) attacked by surprise, seeking to conquer out of simple desire to do so - avarice. In both cases the invaders - Germans and Soviets - were supremely arrogant, believing that the nation they were invading was too small, or too weak, to fight them. In both cases, the armies were unprepared for what they faced. In both cases, God intervened with terrible winters that froze the invaders. In both cases, the defenders were more suited to fighting in the cold than their invaders. And in both cases, the invaders suffered devastating casualties, and deserved it. The USSR before 1941 did not DESERVE American Lend Lease. If anything, Finland did. But the only people who helped the Finns were the Germans and the Swedes and Norwegians...and not very much. The UK, by contrast, fought Hitler from the beginning. And while Stalin was (stupidly) considering Hitler to have been neutralized for the time being by treaty), the United Kingdom was facing Nazi Germany all alone for a year and a half. The USSR fought Nazi Germany for 4 1/2 years, and before that were allies of Hitler and enemies of free people. (After the war they were STILL the enemies of free people all around the world - they fought the war to save their own skins, not to set people free of anything. Germans under Hitler were freer than Russians under Stalin - not that that's saying much.). Britain fought Nazi Germany continuously for 6 years. The nature of warfare was also different. The British were fighting an air and naval war. Ships are far more expensive than jeeps and planes.
You are drifting. I responded to your "Without the Lend Lease, Britain and Russia would have both fallen to the Third Reich for want of supplies."
Not drifting. What I wrote was true: the economic power of the United States kept the Russians and British in the war even during the period that the US was not formally in the war. Some of that was by transfer: the US provided materiel and jeeps to Britain, and the British provided it to Russia. By bringing up the Finns I am certainly not wandering. I am pointing out the bloody hands of the Soviet Union, and pointing out that the USSR was not a nation to be pitied. Yes, the USSR had to be kept in the war, because having the fight the Germans alone with the British would have been a very bloody task for us. But the Soviets were not fighting out of the goodness of the heart. There was no goodness in their hearts. They were brutal, murderous, bloody conquerors. They were fighting because they had to. The alternative was to be rounded up and butchered by Nazis. Yes, the Soviets suffered greatly, and that was a shame for millions of White Russians, Little Russians, Great Russians and other peoples in the USSR, who did not deserve what happened to them. But when high moral dudgeon begins to be displayed regarding the United States and its participation in World War II, I feel the need to set the record straight. The Soviets were bastards - they attacked Finland unprovoked. The Germans were bastards. The British and French had worldwide empires they maintained by force. They were less bad than the Soviets or Germans or Italians, but they did not have clean hands by any means. The Finns, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Danes, the Luxemburgeios, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Greeks, the Poles, the Yugoslavs, the Hungarians - these people were not bastards. They did not have worldwide empires built and maintained by brute force. They were people living their lives in small ethnic countries that were overrun by tyrannical neighbors. The big boys disturbed the peace and started the war, at the expense of the little countries. The United States stayed out of it because it was not initially our fight. The Nazis grabbed Czechoslovakia and the Soviets tried to grab Finland. The Soviets and the Nazis ganged up on Poland. The British and French, who ran their worldwide empires as zones largely closed to American economic competition, fought within Europe to maintain their relative power. What reason was there for the United States to pick sides against bloody-handed empires and send troops over there to die again in 1939, 1940 or 1941? We DID send war material, and we sent air units, to China to help them fend off their Japanese invaders. And when the Atlantic trade routes were being torn apart by the Germans, we patrolled our waters and gave the British Lend Lease. The British were a conduit to the Russians. Again, where is the moral culpability to the United States? Were Americans to go and die for the British Empire, for the Soviet Union, for the French Empire - governments of vast lands where American trade was not permitted? Why? There is no question that the European countries needed our help. And there is no question that whomever we helped was going to win the war. But we had already had the experience in World War I of sending a lot of soldiers to bleed and die to determine the outcome of that war, but then to be shoved aside, our beliefs on the matter disregarded, in the peace treaty that followed. The Versailles Treaty was so bad that the US Senate would not ratify it. Europe decided to pound down on Germany and extract revenge, but the United States, so crucial to French victory in World War I, were shoved aside aside and ignored. Why then, exactly, did the United States have an obligation to come and bleed for any of these arrogant European empires in 1939, or 1940, or 1941? We did not. We did recognize that Germany was a more dangerous nation than Britain. We felt sympathy for the little nations overrun by their neighbors. We felt sympathy for Finland too. In the end, this time, we waited until WE were attacked. And then we came in, on our terms this time. In World War I, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces was a Frenchman, Marshall Foch. President Clemenceau was the leader of the Alliance. In 1952 there was no such deference on the part of the Americans: Americans would be in supreme command, and FDR was the leader of the Alliance. Stalin, for his part, was relieved by this. Churchill always considered the USSR as the next enemy. FDR did not, and was determined, above all, to get the war done, and to do so on terms that did not repeat the errors of 1918. In this he was very successful. It is a pity that he died too soon. Had FDR been the postwar President, working with Stalin, there probably would not have been a Cold War to the degree and the depth and the nastiness that it assumed.
To side with the victors ;)
#2. To: A Pole (#1)
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Naturally, China will use it to serve its own interests economically and in foreign policy.
#4. To: A Pole (#3)
#5. To: TooConservative, sneakypete, ConservingFreedom, Willie Green, Vicomte13 (#4)
(Edited)
IOW, it's an entry way into all the host countries for Chinese military to "protect" its road investment. Among other things.
#6. To: A Pole (#5)
Chinese are a very old culture focused on stability, striving toward harmony and commercial preeminence.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
You mean, how they like to threaten Taiwan with nuclear weapons and build strategic island bases out in the South China Sea in the middle of major trade routes?
#8. To: A Pole (#7)
(Edited)
Viking descendants are bloodthirsty pirates, who perfected self-righteous humanitarian pretense.
#9. To: A Pole (#5)
Chinese are a very old culture focused on stability, striving toward harmony and commercial preeminence.
#10. To: sneakypete (#9)
And dictatorships ruling over slaves.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
Viking descendants are bloodthirsty pirates, who perfected self-righteous humanitarian pretense.
#12. To: A Pole (#11)
Really?
#13. To: A Pole (#10)
Yeah sure. You really care about Chinese people. I am impressed.
#14. To: sneakypete (#13)
I don't give a damn about the Chinese one way or the other. I was just commenting that they have always been slaves,and it seems to make most of them happy to be a cog in a big machine.
why whites ended up running the world despite being a minority for all of history
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
#16. To: A Pole (#14)
Weren't you "a cog in a big machine"?
#17. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Ragnar Lothbrock is an interesting character.
#18. To: sneakypete (#16)
(Edited)
"Because they are the superior master race?"
#19. To: A Pole (#18)
(Edited)
But the leader of your master race .....
#20. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#21. To: sneakypete (#19)
(Edited)
BTW,the French and the Germans got clobbered by General Winter,not the Slavs.
#22. To: A Pole (#21)
Russians were tougher than Germans.
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
Which wars Americans won? Philipines, Grenada?
#24. To: A Pole (#23)
(Edited)
They came at the end, when war was already decided.
#25. To: sneakypete (#24)
(Edited)
BTW,America formally entered WW-2 in Dec of 1941,but had been keeping your commie idols alive and fighting by supplying Russia with everything she needed to stay afloat,from beans to bullets to rifles and trucks. All thanks to the communist SOB in the WH then.
America formally entered the war in Dec of 1941.
#26. To: A Pole (#25)
America formally entered the war in Dec of 1941.
#27. To: A Pole (#23)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
(Edited)
The Americans were in it much earlier. Without the Lend Lease, Britain and Russia would have both fallen to the Third Reich for want of supplies.
year tons percent
1941 360,778 2.1 ("pre Lend-Lease" - paid in gold)
1942 2,453,097 14
1943 4,794,545 27.4
1944 6,217,622 35.5
1945 3,673,819 21
Russians in total got ($11B) three times less than Brits ($31B), despite engaging most of German Army.
#29. To: A Pole (#28)
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
Would you have preferred that the Russians get nothing.
#31. To: A Pole (#30)
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
(Edited)
And then we came in, on our terms this time.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]