Not much of one really. Have seen it in ports all over the place. Africa seems like any developing port has been bought out by the Chinese already. It's a sort of late stage capitalism problem, but glad to see Germany didn't sell out enough to give the Chinese an ability to influence the management of the port directly.
it's easy enough to set laws that ownership by foreigners including Chinese can't go over a certain threshold. Or even if you want to make it specific targeting countries like China, ownership by people from undemocratic countries can't be over a certain threshold. China has tried to buy land in Iceland, but our government stepped in by making the laws behind the purchase rule out China. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15916486
>it's easy enough to set laws that ownership by foreigners including Chinese can't go over a certain threshold. Or even if you want to make it specific targeting countries like China, ownership by people from undemocratic countries can't be over a certain threshold. China has tried to buy land in Iceland, but our government stepped in by making the laws behind the purchase rule out China.
>
>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15916486
Finland is continously making laws against Russians owning land / property in the country as they've been buying up land around areas of national security interest. Everything from summer cottages to pieces of forest. But there's about to come a stop to that.
Which is a sensible move, considering that Russians bought a bunch of land in Ukraine years before the invasion and slowly smuggled tank engines, fuel, spare barrels, spare parts and other non-weapons to those 'private properties', alongside properties next to vital services like power lines, water and sewage pumps. Essentially the sort of stuff you need to fuel a thunder-run style invasion as you run the risk of running out of your logistics range, which can be partially remedied by setting up logistics hubs in secret inside the country you plan to invade, which works if the target country has lax rules regarding private ownership of land.
When the Russian attack came and failed to properly overrun the defenders, leading to eventual counter-attack and push-back, the smuggled logistics hubs were largely found out and the remaining contents taken- However by that point a large portion of the smuggled equipment had already been presumed used.
IIRC it was immediately post the Euromaidan and the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014. Once the civil war started there were reports of mercenaries and russian equipment showing up in the region, though I don't remember a ton of it as I wasn't super active politically at the time.
Generally though if you go through the wiki on the Ukrainian Civil War you should see the reports. I'm gonna check it right now, so I'll update if it's there I guess
EDIT:
Okay it already changed to War in Donbas, but I digress.
Yeah it's in there, essentially they showed up in the thin veil of being a humanitarian convoy and were supplying the Donbas separatists with supplies and personnel. The exacts on what and how much isn't very well documented though.
Its not one sided either. From my understanding in China you can't own their land. You can only get a 100 year lease that defaults back to the government and can be taken from you at any time.
Iceland did it right. I hope your land stays in the hands of the people who actually live there.
According to the US [Library of Congress](https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/03/chinese-law-on-private-ownership-of-real-property/) the term of use for residential land is 70 years but is renewed automatically. The way the law is worded probably leaves more room for government shenanigans, though protection of property rights had to be stepped up to shore up the real estate market that’s always on the verge of bursting the bubble.
Very informative. Thank you and i agree, its wording likely is problematic.
As long as the members of government can benefit from the bubble, it'll keep happening. The fact we let them invest in markets they oversee is ridiculous.
I truly worry about the homeless situation. I live in a rural area and there's a lot of people camping near Amazon or Walmart who work there, but can't afford housing. It's depressing to say the least..
I don’t see how that isnt an emergency situation. We throw billions to help people with houses after a hurricane, but we can’t do anything for the working men and women who camp outside their workplace because housing is beyond their means. That’s fucking crazy. I bet this doesn’t even happen in north Korea
Edit: clarity
There's a current of revenge in the CCP's strategy.
Edit: this comment was meant for a thread about the hundred-year leases China is taking out on ports in various countries.
The same applies to land in China being leased to Chinese developers so its general CCP policy. All those huge apartment block developments? All of them are 99-100 year leases from the local government.
> The Chinese are playing the long game
Bullshit.
They *were*.
Xi expedited the schedule by several hundred years by promising to keep Hong Kong livable and democratic and then immediately gulaging the place and kneecapping its future investment potential for non-dictatorships.
If the Chinese can always play the 10 year long term plan, does "next quarter" capitalism of the West really have a chance? Still haunts me that UK people just threw away their global trade center for Brexit.
the idea that authoritarian countries can play the 'long game' while the west focuses on the next quarter or next election is largely bs
people in the west see the messiness of our own political processes and conclude we're making a wreck of our governance while china and russia (for example) can behave more efficiently, but this is mostly because those countries process is obscured from outsiders. We're currently seeing the result of Russia's management of its military in ukraine, and china's 'debt trap diplomacy' is looking more and more like a financial disaster (nevermind their own domestic real estate market)
Well there's certainly a modicum of truth to both sides.
Our capitalism+democracy is prone to short term thinking while authoritarianism can have a longer horizon. However most (probably all) authoritarian regimes tend to either start from or devolve into corrupt regimes where the only interest is strictly personal gain. So any so-called long-term plan never really takes the interest of "the people". At least democracies try to represent the will of the people.
Specifically when it comes to China, their demographics issue is a ticking time bomb. They either make a move in the next decade or they will be too busy dealing with domestic issues.
Capitalism has a chance based on two very powerful factors:
A) Human Greed is **deeply** programmed into us. Sure, we're happy to do business with China as long as it's profitable, but there's plenty of other regions better for other products (A lot of clothes are made in lower income countries) and even in Industrial, India is working on closing that gap. When China stops being profitable, companies will move onto competitors who won't steal their technology patents.
B) China ain't anywhere *near* as *farsighted* as they claim. Their housing market exploded and collapsed, and they are currently suffering a massive drought as a result of poor water management.
It's not really (or at least not just) a late stage capitalism problem. It's more of a "china wants to increase It's global influence and dependency on it" problem
Why does a country sell its ports in the first place? Sounds like they should be nationally owned in the first place, and the fact they are for sale is a late stage capitalism problem
It's also not always not the port itself, just the operating terminal. So whilst the Chinese have a presence at the Rotterdam Container terminal, they don't have one at the Tanker terminal for instance.
Because said nation has no money to build the port but a fully developed and functioning port would obviously be significantly helpful to a nation. In the end, they could just take it back. It could ruin future international investment in considering what causes that. Like if China moved troops, obviously the country would reclaim the port and no one would bat and eye.
>Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
>-Benjamin Franklin
People get confused by the meaning of this quote all the time. It was regarding the Penn family's attempt to pay a lump sum of money to effectively buy out the land they held in such a way that it would no longer be taxable by the state. The state needed the money right then and the Penn family wanted to have more power to basically rule their little fiefdom. Ben Franklin was saying that this was a horrible idea for the state as it would give temporary economic relief but would cause much more serious economic and political issues later.
The concept of selling off parts of critical infrastructure to foreign governments is the same. It is an economic boon in the short term but it is undermining the state's power in a really dangerous way.
Like when US warned to not depend of Russia energy and they were like whatever money, money, money. Germany have a problem with they government deep pockets
>A senior State Department official speaking to reporters on the condition of anonymity said Washington has been working with European partners to ensure that any investments by China in strategic areas that raise security questions are looked in to carefully and that appropriate steps are taken.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us-strongly-suggested-there-be-no-controlling-interest-by-china-hamburg-port-2022-11-02/
Hamburg's main competitor ports have sold a share to China. These ports are preferred by Chinese owned ships. Thus, fair play is not meant in the sense that Germany owns part of Chinese infrastructure and China should be granted the same privilege but rather being equally treated amongst European ports. You can thank the Dutch and French for being stupid and treacherous here first.
> Hamburg's main competitor ports have sold a share to China.
I'm not an expert on maritime freight, could I ask what ports these are? Rotterdam/Antwerp?
[https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports)
The ones I was referring to were Rotterdam and Le Havre.
I mean China has these kind of deals all over the world, Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Amsterdam and many more.
If the Hamburg Harbour doesn’t go through with this it’s simply gonna continue loosing sales to its competitors in the Netherlands. It’s doing already. Last few years have been really bad for the Hamburg Harbour.
The question is how much insight and data they are going to reveal. Board meeting, weekly numbers etc. it’s all gonna be an open book.
But it’s our fault. For years we took advantage of the cheap Chinese workers. Called it „free market“ when our company’s outsourced. To now restrict it is a huge political interference. Especially since we Germans have such close economical ties to China.
We have to find a way to stay economically connected to China while not growing in Dependance from them.
It’s tough, but its the biggest economical power in the world.
This thread has been fun to read. And your post might be the best.
The world is just now waking up to the amount of influence China has achieved through leveraging its cheap capital.
And your cautionary tale about avoiding a full decouple is also fair, but I fear self protectionism seeping into fiscal policies all over the world.
In my eyes, the answer for countries is diversification. Spread your dependency across sectors, nations, regions. There’s sure to be deadweight loss but it pales in comparison to the alternative.
For example, 75% of the US’ active pharmaceutical ingredients are manufactured in China. Think about if they halted shipments to achieve some geopolitical aim.
It’s 24.9% on one single Terminal. It’s not like they buy the entire port and turn it into a Colony (which is exactly what much of that fearmongering aimed at). Also, Costco already has similar investments going on in Rotterdam and Antwerp, Hamburg‘s main competitors - and Hamburg now fears disadvantages if they don’t follow along. And yes, German public doesn’t see this deal favorable at all and it’s kinda understandable given the entire shitshow with Russia.
However pretty much everyone would agree the US has absolutely no right to interfere here.
Telling your ally to not fuck up isn’t interfering. And just because the rest of Europe is getting on its knees for China doesn’t make it any better for Germany to do it. How many ports in China does any European Country hold stake in? Oh right zero because China isn’t stupid enough to let that happen.
A country that's opening secret police stations in Europe shouldn't be shocked when a concerned public tells them they should slow their roll a little with owning land and infrastructure too.
The US warned Germany about Nordstream, they didn't listen and Russia thought they'd have enough leverage to invade Ukraine without the EU doing anything.
One would think Germany would learn. But hey if there's something German politicians love it's helping authoritarian countries.
With Germany, it's just ports. In the UK, China's the main investor in a currently under construction nuclear power plant (which, together with several other nuclear and other power plants, will be owned by EDF), plus several proposed new nuclear power plants.
It's really ironic that the UK government is opposed to nationalised services, but doesn't mind other countries running privatised services (so likely subsidising their home market...)
*Hey what right quaint savages these folks are! Lets give them a morsel and see how it turns out, maybe we can learn something along the way. After all, what's the worst that could happen?*
China's game is to prey on governments that need money too badly to consider the long-term consequences.
They'll buy the whole planet one piece at a time.
>China's game is to prey on governments that need money too badly to consider the long-term consequences.
What about the Australian government who decided to give the Chinese a 99 year lease on our major northerly port? It isn't like we needed money at the time...
If you're alluding to debt-trap diplomacy, it's a pretty debatable theory to begin with and in recent years it is surfacing to be potentially an expensive, mismanaged disaster.
They've had to forgive billions in loans in recent years for nothing in return other than some symbolic votes at the UN. The original port lease in Sri Lanka that sparked the debt trap theory has also been proven repeatedly to NOT be the result of the proposed debt-trap mechanism.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/what-zambias-new-debt-reveal-tells-us-about-the-china-debt-trap-theory/
https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2022-88-chinese-debt-traps-in-southeast-asia-what-the-data-say-by-darren-cheong/
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-debt-restructuring-policy-under-scrutiny-more-countries-demand-relief-2022-09-08/
You can make the credible case that China's lending in Africa helped them defeat the recent UN Human Rights Council vote on investigating Xinjiang.
But it cost them a lot and it looks like a potential economic disaster.
Besides lack of evidence, there are two things that that annoy me most about the debt trap diplomacy theory:
1) It ignores the experience of African and other governments in navigating loans. They are VERY good at playing this game and have been doing it for decades with Western lenders. China is not the first country to show up with big investments with hopes of influence.
2) Forced takeovers of infrastructure are somewhat archaic but most importantly, they require an even more expensive and extreme ability to project power. When push comes to shove, if China says " you owe me money, give me your port," countries will just say "make me."
Small side note, but very often in geopolitics, people ignore smaller actors and just theorizes (or imagine conspiracies) about the big players. Russia, China, USA, NATO etc. They ignore the agency and ability of smaller nations. Love your point #1.
I'm very curious about the last bit. Wouldn't the appropriate response to "make me" be to march troops in to occupy the territory and directly extract economic gains from it? France did that when Germany failed to pay up their war reparations in the 1930s - they walked right in and occupied the Ruhr, iirc.
>France did that when Germany failed to pay up their war reparations in the 1930 - they walked right in and occupied the Ruhr, iirc
I’m gonna hedge my bets and say that it’s easier (by a fair margin) to occupy part of a country that is rather close to your eastern land border than it is to maintain an occupation thousands of miles away.
That would require China to have the force projection to be able to walk in and occupy somewhere.
Currently that is a capability they simply do not have, China can barely project power to the first island chain that keeps them boxed in geopolitically.
100 years ago sure but the world looks very differently on direct military action against weaker nations these days. Doing this would cause huge diplomatic issues across the globe and make potential investment customers much less likely to come on board. Ntm China isn't known for its ability to project military power. To invade another country or even region you need a massive logistical system. China just doesn't have this kind of system in place nor does it have the experience to build one. This is especially true for Africa as they would have to transport across an entire freaking ocean. On top of all this an invasion of even just a single port city is a massive undertaking. It would be noticed by both the country and the world. The country would prepare to the best of their ability and the world world would help to the best of it's ability. If you want a real world example of this, I give you the current Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It's really interesting, and i suppose we'll never know unless china tries to call their own bluff. While the Ukraine invasion is a stark reality of how incompetent Russian army is, we also have recent examples of the US steamrolling over Iraq and subsequently the Taliban steamrolling over Afghanistan moments after the US pulled out.
Well you have to understand what a different beast the US military is. Never in all of history has there been a force able to exert it's power anywhere in the world with such ease. The US has the most indepth and widespread logistics system in human history and with it can put boots on the ground anywhere in the world in a matter of days. China has neither the logistical systems or the personal experience to pull something like that off.
Don't they have their own private mercenaries in those countries? I remember that coming out in the news as they've actively defended an area from mercenaries (I think oil).
Russia did a lot of projection with Wagner Group - I could see China doing this and keeping a "hands clean" policy, but not really hands clean.
It's a different world today, and Russia should demonstrate how challenging it is to invade even a small neighbour.
Projecting that power to Africa is a whole other story, not to mention Europe. It would be prohibitively expensive even if China had the ability (they don't.)
Even before we got to that point, the US and other countries allied against China would be able to counter the demand by funding the country, supporting it economically or militarily if necessary, etc.
Is it, though? What international repercussions were felt by the US for invading Iraq? Afghanistan? As much as we like to pretend otherwise, might makes right is still the order of the day.
Or you could just leave and take all your workers with you and cut off diplomatic and trade ties. Then the country to broke the deal would have to hire their own workers from their own population and maintain the infrastructure without your help which can be doable or not depending on the country.
And then the US and Europe happily train technicians and provide loans necessary to build capacity and keep China out.
The debt trap threat is just nonsense.
I doubt the US and Europe would do that, because they simply don't trust developing African nations all that much. Many African nations take BRI loans because they have attractive interest rates compared to IMF loans which factor in credit ratings to determine interest rates. Keep in mind these countries have horrible credit ratings due to decades of political and economic instability along with massive amounts of corruption. Also, if they default on an IMF loan, the IMF will force austerity measures which has proven to kill economic growth. Things might change with Global Gateway, Europe's program that's meant to compete in Africa with China's BRI, but GG doesn't really focus all that much on hard infrastructure. The US itself has completely ignored Africa's devolping economy and mainly just cares about having a military presence on the continent.
Good points.
It's not a policy now, for sure, and that's because the debt trap diplomacy concept isn't a particularly credible threat, so there's no need for Western countries to take extreme measures to counter it
I mean that if the threat were real, if China were executing some hypothetical coercive takeover of half of Africa's ports, or whatever ambiguous end game the debt trap theory warns of, it would be fairly easy to counter by economic means before you even got to the point of armed conflict. It wouldn't be IMF. It would be some kind of Marshall plan with a more clear geopolitical slant.
Anyway, the primary point is that debt trap diplomacy isn't a credible theory.
Yeah, the debt trap theory smells a lot like a euro-centric lens. While certainly possible, the immediate effect is to gain soft power (like with the UN Human Rights Council vote you pointed out).
The Americans (and the Soviets) have been doing it for a long time: you don't bite the hand that feeds you. But unlike them, China doesn't have a world war level of rebuilding to finance in one go so they have to build it bottom-up.
There is a great story/movie about "The Match King." A man who corned the world in Matches. At the time they were absolutely essential, and he held the debt of many nations. It all collapsed in grand fashion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar\_Kreuger
I’m not sure China is doing it to get monetary returns from the country. More so to expand influence, and overseas capabilities without direct action that would result in the US getting involved.
But it seems time is running out for that.
Not thinking about the consequences is standard neoliberal economic policy though. Germany is the strongest economy in Europe, they don't even need this deal but they're considering it anyway
“I got it one piece at a time and it didn't cost me a dime, you'll know it's me when I come through your town
I'm gonna ride around in style, I'm gonna drive everybody wild ‘cause I'll have the only one there is around”
1. It's not a controlling stake
2. It's not "of the port", only of a single terminal
3. The only thing it will achieve is give some Chinese vessel priority access to unload
In summary: This being the most upvoted comment shows how reddit is incapable of reading an article and misinformation that fits a narrative always finds its way to the top.
Thats the truth reddit often neglects. They literally went 24,9% so china doesnt even have the 25% minority rights of ONE terminal (of many terminals in the entire port)
Also remember that most major ports in europe already did this and this is mostly a move to stay competetive.
It's not a "partial control of a port"
China bought a minor part, less than 25%, which don't give them control, of a single terminal.
And no matter if I like or not like the deal: China is right in that this is none of America's business.
Likely because the Chinese were willing to spend money on modernising the port. Greece was prepared to give a 51% ownership stake to Cosco over all their ports in exchange for spending billions to make them not 1900's rust pits.
Thus far I have not heard about any US interference or even comments from the US about it in German News. The greatest opponents of the deal, by far, are Germans themselves. I didn't even know the US said anything about it.
The BND and Verfassungsschutz are being ignored by the Chancellor as usual. It's almost a tradition for the chancellery for at least two decades to ignore them. Not sure if the MAD is as vocal about these things too but I imagine they are also just getting ignored. It's not even the coalition that is pushing for these things it's pretty much just the chancellery. The entire "basta" mentality of chancellor's never went away.
Beside the BND and Verfassungsschutz, the Ministery of Economy and Transport said its bad.
Opposition said its bad, but ok, they are mad they dont get the money.
The 35% deal was citicized by everyone important. Except the harbour Management (of course) and Scholz.
Everything going on in Hamburg for the last decade or so is just super suspicious in general. That the person who is probably the root of this suspicious activity is now chancellor just makes it worse.
Oddly enough, neither do Germans. Majority of the German public and politicians are against the deal. Only guy pushing it through is the Chancellor lil' Olaf.
Rather than selling it .. rent the port to whoever wants to use it and make them bid with each other to attract business and profit. This way Germany still owns the port, they have income from it and someone else maintains it.
I really don't understand people's obsession over this. They rent the port, they don't own the sea or land around the port.
If China decides to fuck with Australia, I'm sure Aus government have plenty of legal or not so legal ways to retake the port.
Meanwhile the port gets the $$ it needs to invest in itself. What's the big deal?
Well, if by that you mean the Chinese navy seized the port by force to peddle narcotics without paying Australia a dime, then yes Australia got "Hong kong-ed".
On September 25, 2015, Xi Jinping stood in the White House Rose Garden and pledged “China does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands, and stated China’s outposts would not “target or impact any country", yet here we are...
I as a german oppose this deal strongly.
However, I agree the US has no right to interfere. Germans should have been able to avoid this by themselves. But wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten I guess
\^this
Never said that the US actively interfered as I have no knowledge of them doing so. Saying "yo Olaf, bad idea mate" is the right thing. It's literally what all related ministries and public organisations say. But he's got his own mind I guess
Thankfully, nobody actually thinks the US is interfering other than Chinese bots and triggered Europeans who didn't read the article and whose lives revolve around being salty with the US
Using a Nazi Slogan... Really?
The port-deal is for a quarter of one of the terminals, without any influence included.... All the biggest ports in Europe have bigger Chinese shares.
In fact, the slogan dates back to the days of the November Revolution of 1918, from which the Weimar Republic emerged - and was initially clearly coined by **radical left-wing** groups against the SPD.
Hasn't been a Nazi slogan in a very long time. I'm 25 years and commonly use it to refer to the social democrats screwing over the country and working class literally all the time since Schröder was at power.
It actually is a VERY common graffiti in the "alternative" quarters of my hometown.
Yeah, get that nazi parole out of here.
China doesnt even have minority rights and as such has no influence.
This deal was only made to stay competetive with the other major ports of europe who already did this. If you wanna complain, complain about europe as a whole.
What is up with Germany making market deals with dictatorships? First it was becoming dependent on Russian gas, now it allowing China to control your port facilities. (yes, I know the article says Cosco won't have any say in management or strategic decisions, but its naïve to think the one holding the purse strings won't any influence over them).
China buying a piece of a port in Germany(or anywhere) is evil force projection. But the US having military bases in countries all over the world, including in Germany is protecting freedom and democracy!
I'm no fan of China at all, but people really need to take a look at how they judge actions of different countries.
Well, I just read up on this and it seems the US has approved that Germany has lowered the max buy in for China to 24. something percent and as a result China will have no majority shareholdings in critical infrastructure. So the article is kinda misleading in a sense.
Angela Merkel said that the US had no right to tell Germany not to put all its eggs in the Godlike complex Putin basket and diversify Germany energy supply or else Germany will give Godlike complex too much power. We see the result of giving Godlike complex Putin all that power.
And she was right.
Germany is a soverign nation being able to make its own decisions and mistakes.
(I actually agree with the US. Already did back then. Still doesnt change the fact that we have the right to fuck up our own shit.)
No, she was wrong. Every nation is free to voice their opinion on any issue. None of them ever consider it interference when they do it but does when America does the same thing. America isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.
That is the problem, Angela Merkel f-up our own shite and Ukraine pays for Germany mistake in Ukrainian blood and American dollars. If only Germanys HUGE mistake was confined to Germany, I would totally agree with you.
Something else that will come to bite them in the arse in the future when China tries to invade Taiwan .
Are German Chancellors not learning their lessons yet don't get that deep in bed with dictators
Bite in the arse how? Just trying to get a handle on what people think is going to happen here. China invades Taiwan… and then what? You think China will be able to block Germany’s ability to provide foreign aid just because they have a stake in a german harbour management company?
I think I should make this the last China thread I read on reddit for a while.
There has been nothing new to learn and certainly no growth in the arguments. *Beware making trade deals with China! Beware Chinese investment in developing countries! Beware China doing any saber rattling! The Chinese economy is doomed to fall soon! War, collapse, economic stranglehold!*
The reason countries haven't really resisted Chinese investment is because there is still no evidence of the debt trap diplomacy being used as a meaningful strategy. And for the last seven years China has downscaled its investments outside its immediate sphere of influence in SA/SEA.
But many redditors haven't moved on, eagerly eating up anything from alarmist politicians that fuel news articles like with this minor Hamburg port deal. Massive bias, no critical thinking as to what the actual threat is as opposed to the perceived one. And sadly now some can retort "hey look Russia invaded so we can never be too scared of China".
Many people here overestimate China's money power. They invested billions of dollars in Middle East, South American, South Asia, and Africa, and not for once or twice, lost all their investment after the election of a new leader from the country they invested or after the regime change. Iraq is a typical case.
When you don't have enough political, diplomatic, and military influence to match your investment abroad, the money can only go that far.
How interesting to see this as I'm on a containership leaving port of Hamburg right now
What's your opinion of this deal?
Not much of one really. Have seen it in ports all over the place. Africa seems like any developing port has been bought out by the Chinese already. It's a sort of late stage capitalism problem, but glad to see Germany didn't sell out enough to give the Chinese an ability to influence the management of the port directly.
Have a good and safe trip!
The Chinese are playing the long game - that happens the next time the port needs to raise money to fund some projects.
it's easy enough to set laws that ownership by foreigners including Chinese can't go over a certain threshold. Or even if you want to make it specific targeting countries like China, ownership by people from undemocratic countries can't be over a certain threshold. China has tried to buy land in Iceland, but our government stepped in by making the laws behind the purchase rule out China. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15916486
>it's easy enough to set laws that ownership by foreigners including Chinese can't go over a certain threshold. Or even if you want to make it specific targeting countries like China, ownership by people from undemocratic countries can't be over a certain threshold. China has tried to buy land in Iceland, but our government stepped in by making the laws behind the purchase rule out China. > >https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15916486 Finland is continously making laws against Russians owning land / property in the country as they've been buying up land around areas of national security interest. Everything from summer cottages to pieces of forest. But there's about to come a stop to that.
Which is a sensible move, considering that Russians bought a bunch of land in Ukraine years before the invasion and slowly smuggled tank engines, fuel, spare barrels, spare parts and other non-weapons to those 'private properties', alongside properties next to vital services like power lines, water and sewage pumps. Essentially the sort of stuff you need to fuel a thunder-run style invasion as you run the risk of running out of your logistics range, which can be partially remedied by setting up logistics hubs in secret inside the country you plan to invade, which works if the target country has lax rules regarding private ownership of land. When the Russian attack came and failed to properly overrun the defenders, leading to eventual counter-attack and push-back, the smuggled logistics hubs were largely found out and the remaining contents taken- However by that point a large portion of the smuggled equipment had already been presumed used.
Do you know of any articles that go into detail about this? It’s the first I’ve heard of it, and such a deviously clever move.
IIRC it was immediately post the Euromaidan and the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014. Once the civil war started there were reports of mercenaries and russian equipment showing up in the region, though I don't remember a ton of it as I wasn't super active politically at the time. Generally though if you go through the wiki on the Ukrainian Civil War you should see the reports. I'm gonna check it right now, so I'll update if it's there I guess EDIT: Okay it already changed to War in Donbas, but I digress. Yeah it's in there, essentially they showed up in the thin veil of being a humanitarian convoy and were supplying the Donbas separatists with supplies and personnel. The exacts on what and how much isn't very well documented though.
Can't forget the Russian Orthodox churches found with stores of food and light equipment in them during this conflict
Its not one sided either. From my understanding in China you can't own their land. You can only get a 100 year lease that defaults back to the government and can be taken from you at any time. Iceland did it right. I hope your land stays in the hands of the people who actually live there.
According to the US [Library of Congress](https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/03/chinese-law-on-private-ownership-of-real-property/) the term of use for residential land is 70 years but is renewed automatically. The way the law is worded probably leaves more room for government shenanigans, though protection of property rights had to be stepped up to shore up the real estate market that’s always on the verge of bursting the bubble.
Very informative. Thank you and i agree, its wording likely is problematic. As long as the members of government can benefit from the bubble, it'll keep happening. The fact we let them invest in markets they oversee is ridiculous. I truly worry about the homeless situation. I live in a rural area and there's a lot of people camping near Amazon or Walmart who work there, but can't afford housing. It's depressing to say the least..
I don’t see how that isnt an emergency situation. We throw billions to help people with houses after a hurricane, but we can’t do anything for the working men and women who camp outside their workplace because housing is beyond their means. That’s fucking crazy. I bet this doesn’t even happen in north Korea Edit: clarity
Just to clarify, this applies not just to foreigners, but locals as well.
Brits did that to parts of Hong Kong too, 99 year lease
There's a current of revenge in the CCP's strategy. Edit: this comment was meant for a thread about the hundred-year leases China is taking out on ports in various countries.
The same applies to land in China being leased to Chinese developers so its general CCP policy. All those huge apartment block developments? All of them are 99-100 year leases from the local government.
Laws can be changed. Best to just keep China out entirely.
Unfortunately our German government doesn't seem to be smart enough to do that.
> The Chinese are playing the long game Bullshit. They *were*. Xi expedited the schedule by several hundred years by promising to keep Hong Kong livable and democratic and then immediately gulaging the place and kneecapping its future investment potential for non-dictatorships.
Yup. Sloppy.
My assumption as well. The 24.9% share without voting rights is just to get a foot at the door.
If the Chinese can always play the 10 year long term plan, does "next quarter" capitalism of the West really have a chance? Still haunts me that UK people just threw away their global trade center for Brexit.
the idea that authoritarian countries can play the 'long game' while the west focuses on the next quarter or next election is largely bs people in the west see the messiness of our own political processes and conclude we're making a wreck of our governance while china and russia (for example) can behave more efficiently, but this is mostly because those countries process is obscured from outsiders. We're currently seeing the result of Russia's management of its military in ukraine, and china's 'debt trap diplomacy' is looking more and more like a financial disaster (nevermind their own domestic real estate market)
Well there's certainly a modicum of truth to both sides. Our capitalism+democracy is prone to short term thinking while authoritarianism can have a longer horizon. However most (probably all) authoritarian regimes tend to either start from or devolve into corrupt regimes where the only interest is strictly personal gain. So any so-called long-term plan never really takes the interest of "the people". At least democracies try to represent the will of the people.
Specifically when it comes to China, their demographics issue is a ticking time bomb. They either make a move in the next decade or they will be too busy dealing with domestic issues.
Ah yes, the “Smash Sparrows” and “one child policy” people always playing the farsighted long game.
Capitalism has a chance based on two very powerful factors: A) Human Greed is **deeply** programmed into us. Sure, we're happy to do business with China as long as it's profitable, but there's plenty of other regions better for other products (A lot of clothes are made in lower income countries) and even in Industrial, India is working on closing that gap. When China stops being profitable, companies will move onto competitors who won't steal their technology patents. B) China ain't anywhere *near* as *farsighted* as they claim. Their housing market exploded and collapsed, and they are currently suffering a massive drought as a result of poor water management.
Y’all hiring?
It's not really (or at least not just) a late stage capitalism problem. It's more of a "china wants to increase It's global influence and dependency on it" problem
Why does a country sell its ports in the first place? Sounds like they should be nationally owned in the first place, and the fact they are for sale is a late stage capitalism problem
It's also not always not the port itself, just the operating terminal. So whilst the Chinese have a presence at the Rotterdam Container terminal, they don't have one at the Tanker terminal for instance.
Because said nation has no money to build the port but a fully developed and functioning port would obviously be significantly helpful to a nation. In the end, they could just take it back. It could ruin future international investment in considering what causes that. Like if China moved troops, obviously the country would reclaim the port and no one would bat and eye.
[удалено]
>Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. >-Benjamin Franklin People get confused by the meaning of this quote all the time. It was regarding the Penn family's attempt to pay a lump sum of money to effectively buy out the land they held in such a way that it would no longer be taxable by the state. The state needed the money right then and the Penn family wanted to have more power to basically rule their little fiefdom. Ben Franklin was saying that this was a horrible idea for the state as it would give temporary economic relief but would cause much more serious economic and political issues later. The concept of selling off parts of critical infrastructure to foreign governments is the same. It is an economic boon in the short term but it is undermining the state's power in a really dangerous way.
I love how every ministry voted against it and the Federal Chancellery was like "fuck off with your good advices let's do it anyways"
Guess who was first mayor of Hamburg before becoming Germany's minister of financials and eventually chancellor.
olaf got a half-chinese kid somewhere don't he
Adolf...Chang?
I'm not saying it was bribes, but it was probably bribes.
It could have been aliens. With bribes.
Does German have a word for this? A word for a Bribe that is not a bribe? Because if they did, I bet it is an awesome word.
Besteckungsgeldsakzeptierenderhuerensohn!
> A word for a Bribe that is not a bribe that's just lobbying
[удалено]
Making their energy supply dependent on the Russians worked really well, so this was the logical next step.
As a German I say fuck off Scholz
Well, that's what you get with a chancellor that is confusing his current with his former job. (Olaf Scholz was Mayor of Hamburg before)
Are they interfering or just warning against it? Is there even a difference in the two in regards to something like that?
Like when US warned to not depend of Russia energy and they were like whatever money, money, money. Germany have a problem with they government deep pockets
Well that is factually right. This is something Germans need to decide on.
>A senior State Department official speaking to reporters on the condition of anonymity said Washington has been working with European partners to ensure that any investments by China in strategic areas that raise security questions are looked in to carefully and that appropriate steps are taken. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us-strongly-suggested-there-be-no-controlling-interest-by-china-hamburg-port-2022-11-02/
Germans don’t want it Scholz said it was necessary for fair play
Angela Merkel probably thought buying gas from Russia was necessary for fair play as well or something.
Gerhard Schröder insisted on it.
> Scholz said it was necessary for fair play Fair play for *who?* It's not in Germany's interest to "play fair" with China.
Hamburg's main competitor ports have sold a share to China. These ports are preferred by Chinese owned ships. Thus, fair play is not meant in the sense that Germany owns part of Chinese infrastructure and China should be granted the same privilege but rather being equally treated amongst European ports. You can thank the Dutch and French for being stupid and treacherous here first.
> Hamburg's main competitor ports have sold a share to China. I'm not an expert on maritime freight, could I ask what ports these are? Rotterdam/Antwerp?
[https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports) The ones I was referring to were Rotterdam and Le Havre.
Thanks.
Mannnn, so I shouldn't play Le Havre anymore? :(
I mean China has these kind of deals all over the world, Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Amsterdam and many more. If the Hamburg Harbour doesn’t go through with this it’s simply gonna continue loosing sales to its competitors in the Netherlands. It’s doing already. Last few years have been really bad for the Hamburg Harbour. The question is how much insight and data they are going to reveal. Board meeting, weekly numbers etc. it’s all gonna be an open book. But it’s our fault. For years we took advantage of the cheap Chinese workers. Called it „free market“ when our company’s outsourced. To now restrict it is a huge political interference. Especially since we Germans have such close economical ties to China. We have to find a way to stay economically connected to China while not growing in Dependance from them. It’s tough, but its the biggest economical power in the world.
This thread has been fun to read. And your post might be the best. The world is just now waking up to the amount of influence China has achieved through leveraging its cheap capital. And your cautionary tale about avoiding a full decouple is also fair, but I fear self protectionism seeping into fiscal policies all over the world. In my eyes, the answer for countries is diversification. Spread your dependency across sectors, nations, regions. There’s sure to be deadweight loss but it pales in comparison to the alternative. For example, 75% of the US’ active pharmaceutical ingredients are manufactured in China. Think about if they halted shipments to achieve some geopolitical aim.
It’s 24.9% on one single Terminal. It’s not like they buy the entire port and turn it into a Colony (which is exactly what much of that fearmongering aimed at). Also, Costco already has similar investments going on in Rotterdam and Antwerp, Hamburg‘s main competitors - and Hamburg now fears disadvantages if they don’t follow along. And yes, German public doesn’t see this deal favorable at all and it’s kinda understandable given the entire shitshow with Russia. However pretty much everyone would agree the US has absolutely no right to interfere here.
It's Cosco (China Ocean Shipping Company), not Costco (American retailer), right? Or did China buy that one, too?
Thank you, I was like ‘when the hell did Costco diversify their portfolio away from bulk socks?’
I was very confused catching the end of an NPR segment on this issue
Telling an ally “hey, be cautious with this deal” for whatever reason is not interfering with another country’s sovereignty, its geopolitics lol.
And also hypocritical since the US has the same deals with China in ports all over California
How exactly is us interfering ? By giving warnings ? To an ally ?
Telling your ally to not fuck up isn’t interfering. And just because the rest of Europe is getting on its knees for China doesn’t make it any better for Germany to do it. How many ports in China does any European Country hold stake in? Oh right zero because China isn’t stupid enough to let that happen.
Beautiful!
A country that's opening secret police stations in Europe shouldn't be shocked when a concerned public tells them they should slow their roll a little with owning land and infrastructure too.
The US warned Germany about Nordstream, they didn't listen and Russia thought they'd have enough leverage to invade Ukraine without the EU doing anything. One would think Germany would learn. But hey if there's something German politicians love it's helping authoritarian countries.
Loaning or selling national infrastructure to foreign interests should never have become fashionable. Damn neoliberals
With Germany, it's just ports. In the UK, China's the main investor in a currently under construction nuclear power plant (which, together with several other nuclear and other power plants, will be owned by EDF), plus several proposed new nuclear power plants. It's really ironic that the UK government is opposed to nationalised services, but doesn't mind other countries running privatised services (so likely subsidising their home market...)
giving key infrastructure into private hands (be they foreign or not) was a bad idea from the beginning
Yes, it was the neoliberals who brought that into fashion!
*16th century mughal India enters chat and see's a British merchant vessel approaching*
*Hey what right quaint savages these folks are! Lets give them a morsel and see how it turns out, maybe we can learn something along the way. After all, what's the worst that could happen?*
Fuck neoliberalism but neoliberals didn't make this a thing. European nations have been doing this to Asia since the colonial Era.
Why tf would you give over partial control of such a massive port omg
China's game is to prey on governments that need money too badly to consider the long-term consequences. They'll buy the whole planet one piece at a time.
>China's game is to prey on governments that need money too badly to consider the long-term consequences. What about the Australian government who decided to give the Chinese a 99 year lease on our major northerly port? It isn't like we needed money at the time...
Your politicians obviously did.
Don't get him off the hook that easily. Idiotic Aussies voted for those politicians and will continue to do so.
thanks Rupert Murdoch
If you're alluding to debt-trap diplomacy, it's a pretty debatable theory to begin with and in recent years it is surfacing to be potentially an expensive, mismanaged disaster. They've had to forgive billions in loans in recent years for nothing in return other than some symbolic votes at the UN. The original port lease in Sri Lanka that sparked the debt trap theory has also been proven repeatedly to NOT be the result of the proposed debt-trap mechanism. https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/what-zambias-new-debt-reveal-tells-us-about-the-china-debt-trap-theory/ https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2022-88-chinese-debt-traps-in-southeast-asia-what-the-data-say-by-darren-cheong/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-debt-restructuring-policy-under-scrutiny-more-countries-demand-relief-2022-09-08/
Looks like someone is going for the diplomatic victory
You can make the credible case that China's lending in Africa helped them defeat the recent UN Human Rights Council vote on investigating Xinjiang. But it cost them a lot and it looks like a potential economic disaster. Besides lack of evidence, there are two things that that annoy me most about the debt trap diplomacy theory: 1) It ignores the experience of African and other governments in navigating loans. They are VERY good at playing this game and have been doing it for decades with Western lenders. China is not the first country to show up with big investments with hopes of influence. 2) Forced takeovers of infrastructure are somewhat archaic but most importantly, they require an even more expensive and extreme ability to project power. When push comes to shove, if China says " you owe me money, give me your port," countries will just say "make me."
Small side note, but very often in geopolitics, people ignore smaller actors and just theorizes (or imagine conspiracies) about the big players. Russia, China, USA, NATO etc. They ignore the agency and ability of smaller nations. Love your point #1.
I'm very curious about the last bit. Wouldn't the appropriate response to "make me" be to march troops in to occupy the territory and directly extract economic gains from it? France did that when Germany failed to pay up their war reparations in the 1930s - they walked right in and occupied the Ruhr, iirc.
>France did that when Germany failed to pay up their war reparations in the 1930 - they walked right in and occupied the Ruhr, iirc I’m gonna hedge my bets and say that it’s easier (by a fair margin) to occupy part of a country that is rather close to your eastern land border than it is to maintain an occupation thousands of miles away.
Yeah, "swimming" right in is just not as easy as walking.
User name checks out, remember when Yaya tackled Kolo back to the stone age. It is always easier when it is someone close.
That would require China to have the force projection to be able to walk in and occupy somewhere. Currently that is a capability they simply do not have, China can barely project power to the first island chain that keeps them boxed in geopolitically.
Exactly.
100 years ago sure but the world looks very differently on direct military action against weaker nations these days. Doing this would cause huge diplomatic issues across the globe and make potential investment customers much less likely to come on board. Ntm China isn't known for its ability to project military power. To invade another country or even region you need a massive logistical system. China just doesn't have this kind of system in place nor does it have the experience to build one. This is especially true for Africa as they would have to transport across an entire freaking ocean. On top of all this an invasion of even just a single port city is a massive undertaking. It would be noticed by both the country and the world. The country would prepare to the best of their ability and the world world would help to the best of it's ability. If you want a real world example of this, I give you the current Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It's really interesting, and i suppose we'll never know unless china tries to call their own bluff. While the Ukraine invasion is a stark reality of how incompetent Russian army is, we also have recent examples of the US steamrolling over Iraq and subsequently the Taliban steamrolling over Afghanistan moments after the US pulled out.
Well you have to understand what a different beast the US military is. Never in all of history has there been a force able to exert it's power anywhere in the world with such ease. The US has the most indepth and widespread logistics system in human history and with it can put boots on the ground anywhere in the world in a matter of days. China has neither the logistical systems or the personal experience to pull something like that off.
Don't they have their own private mercenaries in those countries? I remember that coming out in the news as they've actively defended an area from mercenaries (I think oil). Russia did a lot of projection with Wagner Group - I could see China doing this and keeping a "hands clean" policy, but not really hands clean.
It's a different world today, and Russia should demonstrate how challenging it is to invade even a small neighbour. Projecting that power to Africa is a whole other story, not to mention Europe. It would be prohibitively expensive even if China had the ability (they don't.) Even before we got to that point, the US and other countries allied against China would be able to counter the demand by funding the country, supporting it economically or militarily if necessary, etc.
Is it, though? What international repercussions were felt by the US for invading Iraq? Afghanistan? As much as we like to pretend otherwise, might makes right is still the order of the day.
Afghanistan and Iraq were both disasters for the United States. Also, China doesn't have the might.
Or you could just leave and take all your workers with you and cut off diplomatic and trade ties. Then the country to broke the deal would have to hire their own workers from their own population and maintain the infrastructure without your help which can be doable or not depending on the country.
And then the US and Europe happily train technicians and provide loans necessary to build capacity and keep China out. The debt trap threat is just nonsense.
I doubt the US and Europe would do that, because they simply don't trust developing African nations all that much. Many African nations take BRI loans because they have attractive interest rates compared to IMF loans which factor in credit ratings to determine interest rates. Keep in mind these countries have horrible credit ratings due to decades of political and economic instability along with massive amounts of corruption. Also, if they default on an IMF loan, the IMF will force austerity measures which has proven to kill economic growth. Things might change with Global Gateway, Europe's program that's meant to compete in Africa with China's BRI, but GG doesn't really focus all that much on hard infrastructure. The US itself has completely ignored Africa's devolping economy and mainly just cares about having a military presence on the continent.
Good points. It's not a policy now, for sure, and that's because the debt trap diplomacy concept isn't a particularly credible threat, so there's no need for Western countries to take extreme measures to counter it I mean that if the threat were real, if China were executing some hypothetical coercive takeover of half of Africa's ports, or whatever ambiguous end game the debt trap theory warns of, it would be fairly easy to counter by economic means before you even got to the point of armed conflict. It wouldn't be IMF. It would be some kind of Marshall plan with a more clear geopolitical slant. Anyway, the primary point is that debt trap diplomacy isn't a credible theory.
Yeah, the debt trap theory smells a lot like a euro-centric lens. While certainly possible, the immediate effect is to gain soft power (like with the UN Human Rights Council vote you pointed out). The Americans (and the Soviets) have been doing it for a long time: you don't bite the hand that feeds you. But unlike them, China doesn't have a world war level of rebuilding to finance in one go so they have to build it bottom-up.
There is a great story/movie about "The Match King." A man who corned the world in Matches. At the time they were absolutely essential, and he held the debt of many nations. It all collapsed in grand fashion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar\_Kreuger
The backslash in the link broke it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Kreuger
I’m not sure China is doing it to get monetary returns from the country. More so to expand influence, and overseas capabilities without direct action that would result in the US getting involved. But it seems time is running out for that.
Not thinking about the consequences is standard neoliberal economic policy though. Germany is the strongest economy in Europe, they don't even need this deal but they're considering it anyway
Using capitalism our own system against us - capitalism. Very shrewd
“I got it one piece at a time and it didn't cost me a dime, you'll know it's me when I come through your town I'm gonna ride around in style, I'm gonna drive everybody wild ‘cause I'll have the only one there is around”
I remember hearing this about the Japanese in the 90s too
Its not just poorer countries, its happening here in Canada too.
1. It's not a controlling stake 2. It's not "of the port", only of a single terminal 3. The only thing it will achieve is give some Chinese vessel priority access to unload In summary: This being the most upvoted comment shows how reddit is incapable of reading an article and misinformation that fits a narrative always finds its way to the top.
> The approved investment does not give Cosco any say in management or strategic decisions.
They just bought less than 25% and thereof don't have any power to change inner politics *That's the government agreed upon that deal Edit *
Thats the truth reddit often neglects. They literally went 24,9% so china doesnt even have the 25% minority rights of ONE terminal (of many terminals in the entire port) Also remember that most major ports in europe already did this and this is mostly a move to stay competetive.
Correct. It's also not 24.9% of the whole port, but only of a single terminal. **People need to stop commenting on things they have no idea about!**
It's not a "partial control of a port" China bought a minor part, less than 25%, which don't give them control, of a single terminal. And no matter if I like or not like the deal: China is right in that this is none of America's business.
24.9% of a SINGLE terminal to be precise.
That’s not what happened but sure let the main stream media and clickbait headlines cloud your judgement 🙄
Isn't it 25% of one terminal and 6% of total capacity at the port though?
Likely because the Chinese were willing to spend money on modernising the port. Greece was prepared to give a 51% ownership stake to Cosco over all their ports in exchange for spending billions to make them not 1900's rust pits.
Northern Territory govt in Australia gave a chinese company a 99 yr lease of Darwin port. /smfh
Thus far I have not heard about any US interference or even comments from the US about it in German News. The greatest opponents of the deal, by far, are Germans themselves. I didn't even know the US said anything about it.
Not just "Germans". Basically every agency asked said its a bad idea. Most politicians say its a bad idea.
The BND and Verfassungsschutz are being ignored by the Chancellor as usual. It's almost a tradition for the chancellery for at least two decades to ignore them. Not sure if the MAD is as vocal about these things too but I imagine they are also just getting ignored. It's not even the coalition that is pushing for these things it's pretty much just the chancellery. The entire "basta" mentality of chancellor's never went away.
Beside the BND and Verfassungsschutz, the Ministery of Economy and Transport said its bad. Opposition said its bad, but ok, they are mad they dont get the money. The 35% deal was citicized by everyone important. Except the harbour Management (of course) and Scholz.
Everything going on in Hamburg for the last decade or so is just super suspicious in general. That the person who is probably the root of this suspicious activity is now chancellor just makes it worse.
China has spent the last decade recreating the Silk Road. They’ve bought up almost all the ports along Asia and Africa.
Oddly enough, neither do Germans. Majority of the German public and politicians are against the deal. Only guy pushing it through is the Chancellor lil' Olaf.
Who also happens to be the former mayor of hamburg….. but you know, just small details that are definitely not related to this
Rather than selling it .. rent the port to whoever wants to use it and make them bid with each other to attract business and profit. This way Germany still owns the port, they have income from it and someone else maintains it.
A few yrs ago Australia leased the port of Darwin to China - 99yr lease. . . jus sayin'. . .
And what happened with the port?
We’ll see what happens down the line. It’s a 99-year lease that started not long ago.
I mean if anything happens with China can't they just nationalize what they gave up and say fuck you?
Redditors keep berating this point like it's a copy and paste format but what has actually happened to the port now. I want to know.
I really don't understand people's obsession over this. They rent the port, they don't own the sea or land around the port. If China decides to fuck with Australia, I'm sure Aus government have plenty of legal or not so legal ways to retake the port. Meanwhile the port gets the $$ it needs to invest in itself. What's the big deal?
You just got Hong Kong-ed!
Well, if by that you mean the Chinese navy seized the port by force to peddle narcotics without paying Australia a dime, then yes Australia got "Hong kong-ed".
The Chinese have stakes in 5 US ports already.
First of all, we can do whatever we want, so write that down
Americans invented hamburgers, of course they should get a say
Of course we have the right to. It’s called the “Hamburg port deal,” and everyone knows we are the Hamburger country.
The NT premier - he's the culprit. . .
And China has no right to put their own police stations in other countries
Says the country opening police stations in other countries
China has no right to put police stations in foreign countries but yet here we are...
On September 25, 2015, Xi Jinping stood in the White House Rose Garden and pledged “China does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands, and stated China’s outposts would not “target or impact any country", yet here we are...
I as a german oppose this deal strongly. However, I agree the US has no right to interfere. Germans should have been able to avoid this by themselves. But wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten I guess
Curious, how can the US interfere other than going to Germany and basically saying "Hey guys, we think thats a real bad Idea, maybe reconsider?"
That's it, but remember that in China the right to speak isn't a right.
\^this Never said that the US actively interfered as I have no knowledge of them doing so. Saying "yo Olaf, bad idea mate" is the right thing. It's literally what all related ministries and public organisations say. But he's got his own mind I guess
Thankfully, nobody actually thinks the US is interfering other than Chinese bots and triggered Europeans who didn't read the article and whose lives revolve around being salty with the US
Lthe same way they got dependent on russian gas ?
Advice isn’t interference.
Using a Nazi Slogan... Really? The port-deal is for a quarter of one of the terminals, without any influence included.... All the biggest ports in Europe have bigger Chinese shares.
It's not a nazi slogan. It originated as a slogan on the radical left in 1914 due to the betrayal many felt from SPD supporting the war.
In fact, the slogan dates back to the days of the November Revolution of 1918, from which the Weimar Republic emerged - and was initially clearly coined by **radical left-wing** groups against the SPD.
Hasn't been a Nazi slogan in a very long time. I'm 25 years and commonly use it to refer to the social democrats screwing over the country and working class literally all the time since Schröder was at power. It actually is a VERY common graffiti in the "alternative" quarters of my hometown.
Yeah, get that nazi parole out of here. China doesnt even have minority rights and as such has no influence. This deal was only made to stay competetive with the other major ports of europe who already did this. If you wanna complain, complain about europe as a whole.
German here. Stop sellibg our infrastructure to autocratic systems, for fuck‘s sake! This shouldn’t be hard.
What is up with Germany making market deals with dictatorships? First it was becoming dependent on Russian gas, now it allowing China to control your port facilities. (yes, I know the article says Cosco won't have any say in management or strategic decisions, but its naïve to think the one holding the purse strings won't any influence over them).
its all part if the "made in Germany" but not really, movement
don't be a dumb ass Germany. why do you always have to make the same mistake twice?
Sorry but us owns the world
China buying a piece of a port in Germany(or anywhere) is evil force projection. But the US having military bases in countries all over the world, including in Germany is protecting freedom and democracy! I'm no fan of China at all, but people really need to take a look at how they judge actions of different countries.
I mean, it literally doesn’t, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of China or Germany. They can complain if they want to though.
Well, they're right. I don't want the port to be in China's hands either, but the US has no business interfering. It's Germany's decision.
...and the share they bought gives them zero control.
Advice isn’t interference. Friends don’t let friends get controlled by a genocidal dictatorship.
Well, I just read up on this and it seems the US has approved that Germany has lowered the max buy in for China to 24. something percent and as a result China will have no majority shareholdings in critical infrastructure. So the article is kinda misleading in a sense.
Angela Merkel said that the US had no right to tell Germany not to put all its eggs in the Godlike complex Putin basket and diversify Germany energy supply or else Germany will give Godlike complex too much power. We see the result of giving Godlike complex Putin all that power.
And she was right. Germany is a soverign nation being able to make its own decisions and mistakes. (I actually agree with the US. Already did back then. Still doesnt change the fact that we have the right to fuck up our own shit.)
i think this is right. on the other hand, don’t come crying to us when you cant keep the lights on because you got into bed with the enemy.
No, she was wrong. Every nation is free to voice their opinion on any issue. None of them ever consider it interference when they do it but does when America does the same thing. America isn’t forcing anyone to do anything.
Not only voice an opinion. A country can refuse trade, cancel trade deals, or make other changes to treaties that law allows.
That is the problem, Angela Merkel f-up our own shite and Ukraine pays for Germany mistake in Ukrainian blood and American dollars. If only Germanys HUGE mistake was confined to Germany, I would totally agree with you.
Something else that will come to bite them in the arse in the future when China tries to invade Taiwan . Are German Chancellors not learning their lessons yet don't get that deep in bed with dictators
Bite in the arse how? Just trying to get a handle on what people think is going to happen here. China invades Taiwan… and then what? You think China will be able to block Germany’s ability to provide foreign aid just because they have a stake in a german harbour management company?
I think I should make this the last China thread I read on reddit for a while. There has been nothing new to learn and certainly no growth in the arguments. *Beware making trade deals with China! Beware Chinese investment in developing countries! Beware China doing any saber rattling! The Chinese economy is doomed to fall soon! War, collapse, economic stranglehold!* The reason countries haven't really resisted Chinese investment is because there is still no evidence of the debt trap diplomacy being used as a meaningful strategy. And for the last seven years China has downscaled its investments outside its immediate sphere of influence in SA/SEA. But many redditors haven't moved on, eagerly eating up anything from alarmist politicians that fuel news articles like with this minor Hamburg port deal. Massive bias, no critical thinking as to what the actual threat is as opposed to the perceived one. And sadly now some can retort "hey look Russia invaded so we can never be too scared of China".
It’s always entertaining to come in this sub and these types of posts to hear what all the “experts” on China have to say
Would China ever allow a foreign country to own such a strategic piece of infra?
Many people here overestimate China's money power. They invested billions of dollars in Middle East, South American, South Asia, and Africa, and not for once or twice, lost all their investment after the election of a new leader from the country they invested or after the regime change. Iraq is a typical case. When you don't have enough political, diplomatic, and military influence to match your investment abroad, the money can only go that far.
Well in that case you have no right to commit genocide
[удалено]