Now of course this is just regurgitating Varoufakis' description, but I find it rather compelling. China is only a small player in the Greek debt drama, but it seems to me that they are one of the few friends that Greece has that is both willing and able to play a helpful role.
(But limited by political considerations within Europe itself!)
Is/was their role charitable because they are nice guys? or is there something there for them also? I would imagine that they had a long view and would have really liked to get control of Greece as a gateway to Europe by taking advantage of the Greek financial crisis. I don't believe China has any friends, just business partners they cooperate with to benefit them in the end.
And they’re clever enough to do it slowly, lots of small transgressions, giving each time to be accepted before moving on to the next quiet domination. Perfect example is taking control of the South China Sea.
And they’re smart enough to colonize in the most modern of ways...... buy the politicians and thereby remove all possibility of government resistance.
They did it by not following the recommendations for development of the IMF and the World Bank (that are, basically, American institutions).
China is aggressively seeking that superpower global positioning, at a time of peace between great nations. They're not inheriting a position of power by default, they're strategically trying to acquire it - a very different context. They have a multi-decade plan to build military bases all over the planet, to enable global power projection. They've openly stated that it's their destiny to become the global power - it's a wide-spread cultural belief that has been written about ad nauseam for two decades - supplanting the United States.
All the assets you say China is planning to build (military bases, economic control and political clout) have been very, very forcefully acquired by the US.
That “now” has been lasting for at least as long as since 1981, according to the lyrics of “B Movie” from Gil Scott-Heron's album “Reflections” (1981):
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_...
They have just finally put their foot down and are learning from the West how it's done. A case in point is the South China Sea: They know that the best claim is the 'fait accompli', that's how the West did 'colonize the world' and it's telling that the only remaining land available are a few islands and reefs in the South China Sea. These are the crumbs we left over.
But the truth is everyone in the region is claiming everyone else's territories. Vietnam is claiming Philippine territory, and vice versa. Malaysia snatched Brunei's islands several years ago and so on. And you would think that China is the most aggressive in grabbing islands judging by those reports. But the actual fact is that honour goes to Vietnam. It has grabbed the most contested islands in the South China sea and theyre the earliest to militarise them but I don't hear a single word of this in the English media. As if some narrative is being pushed.
For Africa, if you're referring to "debt trap diplomacy", you know what's an easy solution? Stop taking Chinese money and loans. Problem solved.
10 years ago, the media was scaremongering over chinese investment in brazil. I remember thinking that china was buying brazil and then I found out that the largest foreign investors in brazil was the US and the netherlands and china was a distant third. Don't remember reading articles about how we were taking over brazil or how the dutch were though.
5 years ago, the media was scaremongering over chinese investment in africa. Oh no, china is taking over africa. Turns the largest investor in africa was the EU by far and that european business dominated the african market. Also, there was hysteria over china leasing farmland in africa. Turns out the saudis, koreans and a bunch of other countries also lease land all over the world.
Now it's the chinese investment in the EU. Nevermind that the EU is a much larger economy than china and the EU invests far more in china than vice versa. I mean come on.
Maybe if the EU hadn't forced Greece to sell their largest port to the highest bidder they'd do better. Some German lobbyists thought they'd get it for pennies, then the Chinese stepped in and bought it for a half-decent price. Also Greece, Hungary and Czech Republic would be much fonder of the "European" side (a euphemism for "Franco-German Bank interests" at this point) if they weren't treated like second-class colonies to be milked and dumped to the trash.
I can assure you that the cental European lobbies will abuse the periphery up until the very last drop of patience runs out.
In this case, they lost a piece of the carcass they were tearing up because they were too sure no other preditors were around. But if they keep pushing the smallest countries this way, nobody will care about allegiance to "Europe" (whatever that means) in the future. I wish the US would step in and stop them from destroying the EU, but I guess they don't care much, which is disappointing.
If interests of one region buy up all the production of another, they inevitably move all production to one place, their original base. Ports, mines and railways are a generally an exception to a the rule, but still lots of positions on management, engineering, logistics etc are lost in the selling country/region and moved to the buying one.
To elaborate on the US-EU analogy:
In US, some regions concentrate more wealth and power than others, having the majority of production and/or headquarters based there. But in the US there's real freedom of movement. You can work in Montana one day, move to Florida the next, and it's no big deal. The residents of economically disadvantaged areas have to carry the burden of moving away for work, but that's the only burden they face.
In the EU there are 24 official languages. Simply put, you can't just move anywhere you'd like to be. Learning a new language takes many years. I've been using English almost daily for 10+ years and I still come across new words quite often. Primarily due to this reason, in the EU, freedom of movement is allowed only on paper. Workers from disadvantaged areas have to take on a huge burden if they decide to move. They have to learn a new language, a new tax system, a new everything from workplace H&S rules to mains outlet types. Also they often face a lot of discrimination (even if language skills aren't a dead giveaway, ethnic differences are usually visible to us, even if they would seem minute to an American). So essentially when a factory moves from Italy or Slovenia to Germany, the locals lose a lot more than just the inconvenience of having to move across a couple states for work.
I understand a fuller quote is "an unsinkable aircraft carrier of Chinese investment expansion". We have not yet reached the point where the ambition of European countries is to become a military base for China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio for some of the most shameless cases...
And serving as a buffer against the territorial ambitions of the USSR for 45 years, for one of the least shameful cases ...
Only if you never bothered to ask the center- and left-inclined population of each country (which was quite substantial) -- and ignored the protests against them.
And with the help of a few interventions (e.g. in Italy) and dictatorships (e.g. in Greece) imposed when needed to keep some pro-US goons in government.
https://thesefootballtimes.co/2018/08/22/aston-villa-slavia-...
Well that's one way of saying thanks for all those bailouts they received...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/08/23/jthe-imf...
So I'm honestly not surprised that they turn to China, maybe the EU should treat their own countries decently (and I say this as a non-Greek EU citizen).
The emigration, life expectancy, and growth data don't say that. Not even the public debt data say that.
The Greeks themselves somehow made a society with a shocking amount of tax dodging.
The Greek government allowed this, and lied its ass off while applying to the EU.
The EU either didn’t do due diligence or didn’t care. Once the time bomb did it’s inevitable thing, they were “shocked” and proceeded to punish Greece with forced austerity measures.
EU citizens from their part expressed some pretty ugly sentiments against the Greeks, IIRC.
Pretty much everyone came out of this looking far worse.
To understand the tax mentality of Greeks, it's worth pointing that not a single Greek government existed in modern history that didn't have multiple corruption scandals and blatant misspending/mismanagement incidents come to light. And only a small percentage of those incidents probably ever came into light. The last two generations got used to knowing that tax money vanish into a black hole, needless public sector hires, ridiculous under-the-table contracts, etc, all while the public health system was suffering to the extent that bribing the doctors to receive decent service became the norm. That practice extended everywhere: you'd bribe for your driving license or you'd likely fail even if you did everything right, you'd bribe the tax inspectors or you'd face fines even if everything was in order, etc. Not saying that this makes tax evasion a good thing but it does feed some interesting thoughts about how hard it is to change a system that keeps mishandling tax money while failing the people and how the natural urge of the people in these cases is to just avoid contributing into it however they can.
Source: I'm Irish, we screwed up Ireland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/world/asia/sri-lanka-chin...
Make a list of islands you want to give away for 99 years.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/08/11/greece-debt-c...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-bailouts-idUSBRE...
https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/germany-profits-from...
But the EU did not cause the massive hole Greece dug for itself for years/decades. Reckoning was coming. The EU agreement was harsh, I think there could have been a softer version available, especially had Greece not been in the EURO.
But outside the EU entirely, Greece would have eventually defaulted on its debt, and considering the insane amount of debt and massive budget imbalance that caused it in the first place, that would have sent the Drachma spiralling out of control. Without the backing of the EU, Greece would have had a hard time coming up with an economic and social plan to earn back some international credibility. It is unlikely it would have maintained inflation in control, but even if it did, high inflation would have been dramatic in an economy so reliant on import for basic necessities. It is extremely doubtful they would have been better off.
One way (in the EU) or another Greece was looking at terrible consequences for their politicians mismanagements.
I think that has several causes:
1) Greek politicians (and Greek elites complicit with them) consumed a lot of infrastructure money from EU in BS overpriced public works projects. That said, Greece infrastructure wise is a totally different country from Greece in 1980. But those infrastructure projects didn't and could't themselves generate money.
2) Greek economy was traditionally based on smaller production units (SMEs). When global outsourcing (and later China and co) became an option for everything of that kind, Greece competence in the area dropped to 0. The small business owners at the time didn't have the savvy to market their products as premium goods and justify higher margins (like e.g. Italy does at least for some things), neither did they have the brand name to assist them in moving production abroad (and continue selling). The quality+price points they competed at were no longer possible. Tons of such Greek industries died off in the 80s and 90s with no replacement.
(Add to the mix a bevy of EU policies that were in fact protecting interests of major EU nations (Germany, France, mostly), against competition from the South).
3) Even so, Greece had control over its debt, which was never a major part of GDP before 2001, using its monetary policy. The inflection point was the switch to the Euro, when suddenly a volatile economy was tied to a "strong" currency, with no room for corrections (imagine the US debt if the Fed couldn't print dollars and the world didn't accept dollars as a de facto exchange currency -- now imagine that with an much weaker economy to begin with).
Greece would have experienced market discipline instead of discipline by government fiat. The latter is much more dangerous politically, as we saw with the election of Syriza.
I think it's telling to contrast the fate of Greece with the outcome for Iceland.
Yes, and that "reckoning" was a digging bigger hole. The real reckoning is when European sovereign yields go through the roof when the ECB runs out of ammo…
(And the debt is actually the same than it was when the crisis started, so all the "bailout" did was to save the banks exposed to it using European's people's money, so instead of DB and other private banks now it's owed to ECB, the IMF and so on -- the same debt but under a much worsened infrastructure and economy, so even less chance of ever coming over).
Not paying taxes, retirement with 50, not playing by the rules, people go blind very quick: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0430/Greek-islan...
There are only two options:
1. Leave the Euro (not the EU). See, what your new Drachma will be able to buy you.
2. Keep the Euro, negotiate a hair cut. Change how things are done in Greece.
And we haven't turn to China. It's just that our (incompetent) government has ties to communist parties because of their legacy. On the other hand, Greece-US relations are at their best phase in the last 40 years or so. We are and will always be a country that belongs to the West. Fuck China and fuck Russia too, and any other oppressive regiment out there.
Yeah, just not unconditional, not free, and no money.
They got credit (e.g. not money but another loan), under severe conditions (e.g. not unconditional), foreign analysts have compared to those signed when you're defeated in a war, and even IMF officials have admitted they were "the wrong solution"), and it had to go directly to repayments (e.g. not free).
So in effect, the German-led EU paid the German banks and major private investors holding most of the debt, with EU money, still keeping Greece in debt (from the new credit), making some good money in the process (see linked articles above), and imposing their economic agenda on top.
>and the least they could do is not cause anymore trouble
A, those pesky Greeks always causing trouble. And ungrateful at that.
Not, like e.g. a galant nation invading their country, causing the death of a million people (including almost all Greek Jews), taking a "loan" to itself from the occupied government it had setup, bombing Greece's ports and infrastructure before leaving, and then refusing to pay recuperations...
You want Greece start thinking in the EU like "us" when they deal with China, but, at the same time, we Europeans, talk about how "they fucked" it.
You can't have it both ways: or Greece are "us" or Greece are "they".
In my opinion, the debt crisis showed them, and others, clearly that it's not* the former.
*edited: added the 'not'.
The EU only tried to get Greece to pay back most its debt, at all costs (social/political/economical...). Who do you think they were helping the most: the big banks or the Greek citizens?
EU has a fundamental problem: it is a now a unified economical entity, but not a political one. Using Germany's money to bailout other countries' economy is frown upon by both sides, thus can't sustain.
Uh? Their economical politics have been dictated by EU since the crisis.
> even with unconditional free money
Uh? You mean mostly extra loans that they had to repay, like any loan. And it was not unconditional either, since they had to apply the economical politics of EU, so that EU was sure they would repay.
I've long thought that the EU has focused far too much on combining bureaucracy and too little on combining actual politics.
Now that we're facing political challenges, there is no EU polity to deal with it. If we're faced with any major political or military conflict, the members will fall on multiple sides and the EU will be split.
most of the bailout money went straight to Germany to buy back outstanding bonds in possession of their central bank ensuring they'd be insulated from further deterioration of the Greek economy.
It's the banks and institutions from the bailing out countries who received the bailouts.
A good first step would be for the EU to put its foot down and recognize Taiwan as an independent state with full diplomatic relations. As it stands, no individual country dares do it.
The article proposes changing the voting scheme to a qualified-majority rather than unanimity, but personally I think it would be better to try to understand why those countries are against it and work to change that, rather than overruling them, which just reinforces the idea that the EU is a tool of a small clique of countries to rule over the others.
Think why US governors vote differently on various foreign policy issues such the Iraq/Afganistan war or the current trade war. Absolute majority is hard to achieve even in the United States.
Not sure if this is sarcasm. American governors govern states. They have zero purview over foreign policy, which is strictly a federal matter.
China is smart, not naive. They can bring the EU to their knees with tens of billions of dollars making them completely ineffective due to their huge bureaucracy.
Don't be too sure. Even if not in absolute terms, the scale appears uneven. Still, you are correct that it needs to be at the EU level, if just to protect those that can't afford to stand on principle.
Also, you don't have to go full Taiwanese independence here. Simpler measures towards transparency of Chinese influence/demands would be a much more pragmatic initial step.
I wonder if there are some ulterior motive in the increased amount of anti-EU comments here on this site
See also sanctions against Russia: the trade of everyone _except Germany_ went down; overall the trade is the same. Cui bono?
Actually, the union makes it harder to confront china because of the collective nature. It's like if a group of ten people going to the movies vs 10 individuals. The group has to compromise while individuals don't. There is a reason why china is so pro-EU. It's why china wants britain to stay in the EU.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/18...
The EU can't confront china if it is going to hurt greece or one of its members. But norway can because it is free to act on its own interests.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/sino-norwegian-relations-5-y...
> China obviously can’t blacklist the EU.
And obviously EU can't blacklist china either.
> As it stands, no individual country dares do it.
A few individual countries do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#Ty...
Sure, it's harder to reach a consensus, but it has more power than individual decisions.
Divide and conquer has been tried and tested, it rarely works as well as the "muh sovereignety" people think.
2028: Greece wants help from EU after China strongarms it over loans. "Why does the EU do nothing to help us?"
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-china-gre...
We also leased our production and we got ripped off by politicians.
Basically, YMMV, as the details matter much more than the large picture here.
Although misguided, it is quite easy to understand citizens' anti-Americanism which is borne out of effects they experience compared to China's relatively domestic-only policies. Right or wrong aside, this has always been the cost of globalism and projection. I don't think it helps to present it as an either-or, weight-counterweight situation (which the article doesn't do and is warning against of course).
> Transparency should be demanded [...]
I've found this is just too much to ask anyone dealing with China. I don't care if you're Marriott or Apple or a politician or whoever, the leverage of an entire country weighed against your ability to even disagree publicly is an unfair fight. Sadly, if you want to demand transparency you are in effect forcefully removing a market. Consumers and journalists are going to have to just continue naming and shaming, which does little good, until that transparency is demanded of the true oppressor.
> That is misguided [...] however much Europeans may dislike the occupant of the White House.
> Ideally the Trump administration would stop treating Europeans as free-riders on American power who deserve a good kicking.
While ideal, sure, I think the author should heed their own thoughts on not focusing too much on the current occupant. In general US policy has no anti-EU slant (though the inverse seems less true).
Anyone else having the same issue?
Let's call it as it is: HN is a political instrument for anglocentric views. Not a particularly strong one, since topics are usually not about politics, but biased nontheless.
Which is fine, but let's stop denying it.
...but most of this thread is "bashing" the US and EU.
The best you could say about HN is that it hosts a pro-China contingent and an anti-China contingent, each of which believes the site is biased towards the other. But the site itself and the userbase is too diverse to be accurately labeled one or the other.
The issue is that China tends to be an emotive topic for some reason, and calm and factual analysis too rare.
It is possible to discuss China by recognising that it is a country that has been through a long period of decline and that is simply trying to re-assert itself on the world stage.
I would argue that your pro-China camp does not exist. Those who criticize the US (myself included) are perfectly aware that China is not a role model.
We simply refuse to accept the view good (US) vs bad (China / Russia, depending on the weather). And we argue that the US has a much bigger footprint on geopolitics. both good and bad. And we criticize the bad parts, of which there are plenty.
and by reducing that footprint (which is the main purpose of the critique) who do you think is in the best position to fill the vacuum? and what is the net effect of such change (good vs bad)?
> And we criticize the bad parts, of which there are plenty.
so you won't start criticizing China until US becomes the perfect utopia? how convenient..
A similar US-bashing political article would never get that much upvoted. Methinks.
Also, I see criticism of China in this article, but I don't see anything I would interpret as "bashing" China. For that matter I also see criticism of the US and EU in the article as well.
You are totally right, and I will add just one word: Guantanamo.
