075 LHD thread

[broadsword]

Also this little tibit, China did actually conducted some evacuation efforts during the Vietnam riots, but they never increased the tempo due to the riots quelling down in relatively short order.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This rebuts the contention that China will not react to a crisis that involves its interests and concerns. And that the only thing that holds China back atm is its capability to do so.

I appreciate.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

But that is the point. The examples you gave never escalated to the need for 075.

Again refer to the luck that China had gotten in all 3 of these incidents. Just because these 3 examples were fortunately resolved in a peaceful matter does not meant it would never had been otherwise, that is a very unwise contention.
P.S: Also the Vietnam example did necessitate a response, and that response would have only escalated in proportion if the riots persisted.

Your wrote :


That was the reason for my beef.

Just because I use the word "two groups" in my sentence does not mean that the said 2 groups must be present at once to justify a running afoul of local politics and tensions. One group can trigger it without the presence of the other and vice versa, though these 2 two often interlinked. Chinese citizens would never be in another country in significant numbers were not for Chinese investment and companies requiring their presence. That beef of yours is way off the mark in this case.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Yes, but it was not the fault of the Chinese companies.

It actually is, anti Chinese perception was driven by the economic clout hold by the local Chinese via companies that are Chinese of origin.

 

[broadsword]

Again refer to the luck that China had gotten in all 3 of these incidents. Just because these 3 examples were fortunately resolved in a peaceful matter does not meant it would never had been otherwise, that is a very unwise contention.


Just because I use the word "two groups" in my sentence does not mean that the said 2 groups must be present at once to justify a running afoul of local politics and tensions. One group can trigger it without the presence of the other and vice versa, though these 2 two often interlinked. Chinese had citizens would never be in another country in significant numbers were not for Chinese investment and companies requiring their presence. That beef of yours is way off the mark in this case.

My point is that those incidents were not the fault of the Chinese workers and companies. I have not heard of any industrial strife anywhere in the world concerning any foreign company that required the evacuation of foreign personnel en masse. Of course, I am talking about modern times, not colonial. Even the riot that ensued from the Bhopal disaster did not trigger the mass evacuation of Americans by chartered flights.

 

[broadsword]

It actually is, anti Chinese perception was driven by the economic clout hold by the local Chinese via companies that are Chinese of origin.

Not China-based companies. We are talking about Chinese companies from China. Don't confuse.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

My point is that those incidents were not the fault of the Chinese workers and companies. I have not heard of any industrial strife anywhere in the world concerning any foreign company that required the evacuation of foreign personnel en masse. Of course, I am talking about modern times, not colonial. Even the riot that ensued from the Bhopal disaster did not trigger the mass evacuation of Americans by chartered flights.

If the fault was intentionally cause by Chinese workers and companies you would be right. But that was never my main contention in any of my posts, the same goes with industrial strife.
My post if you will recall uses the word "afoul" (in a very neutral sense) which means that Chinese entities would even face backlash by the simple fact of being there. Again refer to the evacuation of Libya and Yemen, was the incident the fault of Chinese workers or companies ? No, but did it required the evacuation of Chinese entities in the region ? The answer is an resounding "yes" on all accounts.
The Bhopal incident is a poor comparison due to several reasons

1) US investments and expats in India never reached a level that draws great amounts of attention, while China's certainly is in the countries that are on the receiving end.
2) The Bhopal incident was a one off case that involves just 1 country, now compare it with China's investments in Sri Lanka's port, the development of Gwadar, the take over of Kenya's port and similar investments in Malaysia that follows a similar trend. These are good reasons why some people would be leery.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Not China-based companies. We are talking about Chinese companies from China. Don't confuse.

Never confused here, I am just highlighting how a significant group of people of a foreign culture and background that holds great economic clout can very easily draw ire and ill will from the locals.

 

[broadsword]

If the fault was intentionally cause by Chinese workers and companies you would be right. But that was never my main contention in any of my posts, the same goes with industrial strife.
My wording if you will recall uses the word "afoul" (in a very neutral sense) which means that Chinese entities would even face backlash by the simple fact of being there. Again refer to the evacuation of Libya and Yemen, was the incident the fault of Chinese workers or companies ? No, but did it required the evacuation of Chinese entities in the region ? The answer is an resounding "yes" on all accounts.

Then you are changing the meaning of 'afoul', in a way that is not usual.

The Bhopal incident is a poor comparison due to several reasons

1) US investments and expats in India never reached a level that draws great amounts of attention, while China's certainly is in the countries that are on the receiving end.
2) The Bhopal incident was a one off case that involves just 1 country, now compare it with China's investments in Sri Lanka's port, the development of Gwadar, the take over of Kenya's port and similar investments in Malaysia that follows a similar trend. These are good reasons why some people would be leery.

Leery has been the West and its media. As far as I know, the leaders in power of those nations support Chinese investment. And Chinese treatment of local personnel, at least in Africa, is not worse than Western companies, according to a report.

 

[broadsword]

Never confused here, I am just highlighting how a significant group of people of a foreign culture and background that holds great economic clout can very easily draw ire and ill will from the locals.

You are confused if you think China will send 075s to evacuate them from racial riots.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Then you are changing the meaning of 'afoul', in a way that is not usual.

From the online dictionary which is easily accessibly by anyone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"afoul"
. (usually foll by of)
in or into a state of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(with)
2. (often foll by of)
in or into an

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(with) (often in the phrase run afoul of)

I have never changed the wording in any way.

Leery has been the West and its media. As far as I know, the leaders in power of those nations support Chinese investment. And Chinese treatment of local personnel, at least in Africa, is not worse than Western companies, according to a report.

Refer to post number 978 and 999 for my answer. Just because the figure heads express support does not mean the locals do. And the Malaysian election shows how easily it can be for such leaders to be replaced.