Doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me, just Saudis trying to play both sides to get the best deal for themselves.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Global South strategic cooperation
- Thread starter Strangelove
- Start date
Doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me, just Saudis trying to play both sides to get the best deal for themselves.
Agree. Interference HAS BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES as I said before. It depends on what the country priorities are and what they want from their partners.
For France for example, they have always been involved in Africa politically, economically and militarily especially their former colonies. It has had both advantages and disadvantages . For one France still remains the biggest player in most African countries despite all the issues you pointed out. Afterall, its not easy to erase decades of involvement easily. France's interests and involvement in Africa and subsequently the benefits they derive from these countries will carry on for a long time to come irrespective of the resentment some in those countries might have against France(I'm french by origin so i know better about our policies there) France has extracted(and still does) huge benefits from Africa for generations now to be honest. Afterall, it's the leaders and politicians views/policies that count not the people. As far as you have the establishment under your control or can influence them better than your peers then it will still put you in an advantageous position.
For the US, despite the setbacks their policy of interference has been a net benefit for the US overall to be honest. The US won't be the world's pre-eminent power and enjoy the benefits they enjoy globally with their control of global institutions and countries if not for their involvement and control over so many diverse countries and allies they have on all 4 continents. It seems to me like you guys are only looking at their setbacks but never at the advantages and benefits they get from these. Lol US allies haven't been changing much their policies despite constant change of government in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Europe, etc. Even the few that do change their policy vis a vis the US they don't do so radically but more of a neutral/normal stance instead of close ally. This is because the US and her interests/influence are well entrenched in these countries and the US also has strong military support for her allies which makes them more willing to follow that for their own interests. Afterall not many powers are willing/capable of supporting/backing such countries militarily and economically when push comes to shove. Look at Ukraine war who is the one backing Ukraine with tens billions of dollars in financial aid and billions in military equipment. Of course this builds political support and goodwill as well for decades to come.
So the 2 examples you took are actually wrong since it shows these countries have been actually net beneficiaries by far of those policies in this aspect.
For China obviously China has a different policy and history as well. China has never really been an imperial country outside her immediate neighbourhood . So most of China's political thinkers for generations has been limited to her internal policies and immediate neighbourhood AT MOST. So it's not easy to change this mindset and doctrine overnight even if the benefits were huge. However, I will also say there are benefits for China sticking with its non interference policy . Since the country can avoid any risks of failure. As they say if you never try you will never fail unlike others who try and fail. So China's leaders seem to always be very risk adverse which has its own merits plus the leadership is solely focus on its economic performance and rise and less on geo political games of influence etc. For CCP I think its more of a " why change a time and tested Zero risk solution" mindset. Lol
As I said a while ago, I think the US would have been wise to sit down privately and secretly with China and come to a secret understanding with CCP to let China's internal affairs while the US continues its world dominance uncontested. That would have been a win-win situation for both, im 100% sure China's leaders will welcome this with open arms as we can see thats actually what they hope for. They have no eagerness to be involve in global power plays apart from economic cooperations and investment etc. They are more business minded. Which has its own benefits. Unlike countries like Russia or Iran/venezuela etc who are more set on challenging and opposing US power and domination globally.
Last edited:
I'm still not convinced that the current stance of non interference is intended to be continued by China, although it might just be me thinking this.
The current stance as mentioned before was a result of lack of resources and will, given there was more gain in quietly developing.
When China's economic influence (and backed by military) becomes dominant globally, China will naturally have an inroad to interfere with the countries it trades with, plus an obligation to keep transport lanes open and safe.
When that time comes, I think non-interference will naturally evolve into 'benevolent interference', guiding the policies of the countries involved to stay profitable and on side. And I'm sure this is known and planned for.
So what you end up with is a 'nicer' version of the US model, with partner / junior partner states skating on rails set up by the CPC, semi autonomously but to be brought back on track when needed.
Basically a modernised tributary state system.
As always, you are missing the entire point. China mostly doesn't involve itself militarily and geopolitically outside its borders (doing imperialism), not because it is a "coward", not "masculine enough", "it is not in their culture", or what other dumb Westoid stereotype you have, but because they do a simple cost-benefit analysis and see that it isn't the most optimal choice for them by a landslide. They have way better ROI options.
Fundamentally, China has 1.4 billion people internally (way more than the entire Collective West combined) with every one of those 1.4 billion citizens individually having the potential to have the same productivity per capita as Japanese, SK, and Taiwan, etc, citizens, due to the same genetics and culture.
So, it makes way more sense to focus on developing internally to the maximum and do everything to first realize those potentials - by that point, they would've already "won" the 21st century.
For example, Japan with 10 times fewer people than China was a threat to the US once it fully developed (and is still close to it in terms of patents and scientific research), not to mention 10 times more numerous China (completing urbanization, education, trends, etc). The US would look like Congo to them once it fully developed.
(Yes, as you can see, these people are truly "exceptional" ones, on their own, internally, not the Euro Westoids, especially not Ameritards).
If they realize their own potential, if they are just let be, they will be a hyperpower multiple times stronger than the entire West combined, just like they were throughout most of history. Especially now in the age of extremely advanced modern technology like AI, when only the highest intelligent people can contribute.
That's totally opposite to the previous European/Western global empires who didn't have those innate potentials, and that's why they developed through colonialism, that's their only option. They leapfrogged over China only in the last 500 years due to colonialism.
For them, as they don't have the innate potential of China, it makes sense for them to try and hold on to neo-colonialism because they see that's their only option and the only way they were historically able to rise from the Dark Ages.
However, that playbook is like I said long gone for Anglos due to the rise of asymmetric warfare, and the US MIC system being extremely inefficient. Nowadays, for example, the US simply loses way more than it gains through imperialism.
They can't even "police" Houthis anymore, they just lose money, to gain nothing, so what was the point of all those inefficient carriers in the navy? They have to shoot millions worth of missiles against cheap tens of thousands worth of drones and accomplish nothing. They build a drone base in Niger, hundreds of millions of dollars worth, just for them to throw them out later and give the base to Russians eventually.
They have bases in Arab countries, yet those countries support Russia in Ukraine, joined BRICS and SCO, partnered with Russia in OPEC+, and started to trade with energy in yuan, started buying more gold, stopped buying the US treasuries, and invested more and more in China with their accumulated capital...
They wasted trillions in Iraq just to clear it to fail in Iran's hands (and also doing the de-dollarization expressly now, gave oilfields to China, the reason it was attacked by the Muricans in the first place), the same story with Afghanistan (attacking them led to them being totally on Chinese and Russian side nowadays).
They went off of a gold standard, started decades of deficits, debt, and money printing, and destroyed their economy over the long run, just to lose in the Vietnam War. Therefore, have yet to see where US imperialism made sense in recent times in post-WW2. Investing in basic proper infrastructure, healthcare, and education that they lack, might've been a better choice and made them stronger in the end, and better prepared against China.
So, the reason the UStards are doing the imperialism now is not because it is profitable, but because they are an oligarchy led by their MIC, so they don't have any choice. Lobby - Start a war - sell my garbage, expensive, inefficient weapons, get more bonuses and shareholder profit.
PS: Your French neo-colonialists are "so strong" in Africa right now that even Iran can outmuscle them in Francophone Niger (outlawed selling uranium to France, instead they will sell it to Iran among others). CAR, Mali, and Burkina Faso were all taken over by Russia, with French troops evicted, etc. If I were, to be completely honest, not only is France not the "biggest player" in most of Africa, as you brain-farted, but Russia is around 10 times bigger player (has 5000 troops now, Wagner, etc, and soon that number will rise to 20000 by estimates), while China is around 50 times bigger player too (through unparalleled economic influence there with dwarfs France by multiple orders of magnitude, not even close).
Last edited:
@Michael90 Why does US need heavy handed interference anyways? It all comes back to driving national activity (gdp) in the end.
China is more geographically blessed, possessing a larger inhabitable area that is far more hospitable to modern industry, both in terms of resource availability and city locations.
Sure, targeting a province with additional development isn't as sexy as when US rants and rave about how it will harvest entire countries. But it's China that has the larger economy and growth at the end of the day. The same effect is achieved, in a more efficient way, because China actually has direct 100% control over its own initiatives, rather than relying on bribes and nominally independent compradors.
"non interference policy" is marketing only, and probably outdated marketing at that as of 2024. China does interfere in what it considers important global or Chinese security and economic questions.
What is truth though is that interference is not needed as a way of survival for China. Countries can rely on that China doesn't have a high drive to interfere, and this is what China markets as "non interference".
This is why today there are only 11 countries (and shrinking) that maintain formal relations with Taiwan island
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
I think, "non interference policy," refers to not interfering in the domestic issues of other nations, ie not placing any preconditions on a nation's domestic policies when dealing on a state-to-state level. It also means that China will only deal with the legitimate government of a country at the state-to-state level, rather than other groups/factions within the country.