Quote :

"Liu Yuqin was eager to talk about China’s involvement in South America in general, and in Chile in particular. First she dispensed a short history lesson, the main point of which was that there were long-standing fraternal ties between Asians, including the Chinese, and South Americans. It might be the case, she began, that Asians and indigenous South Americans are related by blood, as scientists speculate that Asians might have crossed over to the Americas from the Bering Strait “land bridge” long ago, during a prehistoric ice age. There is a similarity in cheekbone structure, she pointed out. China’s direct ties with South America, she continued, go back to the 16th century, when a sea route for trade in silk developed between ports in South China and Mexico by way of Manila. In the late 19th century, Chinese workers were among those brought in to dig the Panama Canal, a difficult project the French initiated but failed to complete, with many laborers dying of malaria and yellow fever. (The United States took charge of the Canal Zone early in the 20th century and finished the job under vastly improved health conditions for the workers.) After the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, no country south of the United States recognized the regime until Castro’s Cuba did so in 1960. Recognition from Chile came in 1970, from Salvador Allende, who, Yuqin noted, had first visited China in 1954, when relations between America and “Red China” were extremely tense. Skipping ahead to the present, she said China was eager to deepen its ties with Chile, not just on the basis of copper but on cultural initiatives like Chinese-language programs. I asked if Chileans should be concerned about the Chinese succeeding the Spanish and the Americans as the new imperialists of South America. “It’s not like China comes in to ransack this country of its raw materials—China pays for these raw materials,” she noted evenly. When I pointed out that a union of Chilean copper workers had taken a stand against China’s bid to become an owner of the Gaby mine, she said, “As in all families, brothers can have an argument.” China has a policy of “noninterference” in all countries and believes in the motto “Win together.” China, she insisted, is preoccupied with its own internal development: China’s goal is “peaceful development, never hegemony. We don’t have as much time as your country does to intervene in the affairs of others.” I had asked about the sensibilities of the Chileans, but she was responding to me as an American. And the truth, not surprisingly, is that Beijing is hoping to extend its ties with Chile to the military domain. So far, that part of the relationship is a modest one, involving Mandarin-language training for Chilean military personnel in Santiago. The next step is a broader initiative in language and cultural training for the Chilean military, who would go to China itself for their courses. A natural step beyond that would be an officer exchange program, such as Chile and the United States long had. Beyond that might be Chilean purchases of routine military gear, such as goggles, as well as weapons, from the Chinese. “The Chileans have told us that the Chinese are interested in a much more robust military-to-military relationship,” a knowledgeable U.S. official told me."

Quote :

"I asked Liu Yuqin whether China recognized the Monroe Doctrine—proclaimed by U.S. president James Monroe in 1823 to keep the Southern Hemisphere free of political systems “essentially different” from that of the United States. At the time, the intention was to deter South American colonization by the Spanish or other European monarchies. Referencing the imperial European powers, Monroe had said that the United States “should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” It was a long time ago, but the Monroe doctrine was one basis for the efforts of cold warriors in Washington to keep communism out of South America after the Second World War, and the doctrine remains alive for hawks in early- 21st-century Washington. Liu Yuqin, with a smile, first corrected me on the date of the proclamation—I had flubbed it at 1815. Then she said, “It’s not a question of whether we do or do not” recognize the Monroe Doctrine, because it exists as a unilateral declaration of the United States and nothing more than that. That was something of a nonanswer answer, but she added: “The U.S. has to undergo a change of mentality, as the world has changed.”"

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905u/china-chile

Couple of things I take away from this:

-A lot of people talk about a new "Chinese mercantilism", but this might just be a smart way to assure access to resources to maintain their exporting edge: forge closer ties which in turn brings access to the materials necessary to maintain that edge, such as oil and other minerals. I think it's obvious that China sees this still as an exploitative advantage, more like the Monroe Doctrine with a smile and a handshake.

-Did the US miss the boat on Latin America following the Cold War? Once the thread of Soviet intervention was dead and buried in the 90s, we continued to press the Washington Consensus on Latin America. Its economic merits can be debated, but I think the ultimate problem was its paternalism: aid was conditional on our demands for their nation's governments, which doesn't exactly engender a culture of national sovereignty. Now, Washington skeptics rule in much of the continent, leaving the strategic opening for China. It's dissapointing, if we'd been more respectful of their sovereignty earlier, and moved towards a more equitable "common market" approach like what led to the EU in the 1950s rather than the massive joke that is NAFTA (3,000 pages of subsidies for American farmers, quotas, and exceptions) maybe today we'd have that trade bloc we wanted so bad.

-The Monroe Doctrine is obsolete in the global economy we have now. Colonization isn't necessary to maintain an economic empire like the one China wants. Countries and businesses have the ability to take advantage of certain economic benefits without guns. All you need is a computer and modem. As the playing field levels, paternalism can't be expected: India no longer needs what we have. If anything, they have what we need. It's mutual. The window for exploitation has closed somewhat. Will Latin America be able to assert this on China or will they allow them to exploit them for their advantage?

6/4/2009 1:53:55 PM

Quote :

"Did the US miss the boat on Latin America following the Cold War?"

No, no, no. The US dragged the boat out of the water, took it way inland, and set it on fire in the 200 years preceding the end of the Cold War.

We're seen as a bunch of jerks in most of Latin America, and with good reason. We plotted mad coups down there, invaded several countries, took the good half of Mexico and almost went to war with Chile. We supported and helped install some horrible right wing dictators, and we were cordial to others, but every time they elected a leader who'd even heard of "The Communist Manifesto" we shit our pants and started planning the coup. And most of the bad things we did for reasons as stupid as "We want cheap bananas."

6/4/2009 7:48:25 PM

while we are figuring out a bunch of meaningless ideological bullshit wrt to foreign policy philosophy, china is keeping its head down and doing what's pragmatic. they really are better capitalists than us.

6/4/2009 8:21:01 PM

I too respect how China runs shit.

6/4/2009 8:35:15 PM

So does anyone know how much of chile's resources are privatized?

I couldnt tell if China was buying material from the chilean government or from chilean private businesses

6/4/2009 8:57:48 PM

Quote :

"No, no, no. The US dragged the boat out of the water, took it way inland, and set it on fire in the 200 years preceding the end of the Cold War. We're seen as a bunch of jerks in most of Latin America, and with good reason. We plotted mad coups down there, invaded several countries, took the good half of Mexico and almost went to war with Chile. We supported and helped install some horrible right wing dictators, and we were cordial to others, but every time they elected a leader who'd even heard of "The Communist Manifesto" we shit our pants and started planning the coup. And most of the bad things we did for reasons as stupid as "We want cheap bananas.""

We were very quick triggered in instances like Guatemala in the 1950s. But there was a precedent for Soviet intervention in the area. Look at Cuba. Regardless, you have to respect national sovereignty and this didn't and now we shouldn't expect LA to forget. You must respect sovereignty when at all possible. That's a liberal idea that no nation can forgive.

Quote :

"So does anyone know how much of chile's resources are privatized? I couldnt tell if China was buying material from the chilean government or from chilean private businesses"

I think China's investing in private materials and forging closer ties with the gov. at the same time, probably in hopes for preferred trade status.

6/5/2009 1:25:01 AM

Quote :

"But there was a precedent for Soviet intervention in the area. Look at Cuba."

More than half a century before Soviet intervention in Cuba -- and about a quarter of a century before there was a Soviet Union to intervene -- we had invaded Cuba to "liberate" it and effectively ruled it for a while. That's my point. No matter what the Russkis and the Chicoms did or do, we've done just as bad, if not worse, for much, much longer.

6/5/2009 12:46:57 PM

United Fruits has basically destroyed Latin America

6/5/2009 1:28:19 PM

Quote :

"we had invaded Cuba to "liberate" it and effectively ruled it for a while. That's my point. No matter what the Russkis and the Chicoms did or do, we've done just as bad, if not worse, for much, much longer. "

That's pretty intellectually dishonest. We have done some shit in Latin America, no doubt. But the invasion, occupation, then liberation of Cuba from the Spanish isn't one of them. You act like Cuba was a sovereign nation... Then, to compare the stuff we have done, to what the Soviets or the Chicoms have done/did? Really?

I gotta laugh out of the Chinese trying to ethnically link up with South Americans.

But China does pose a long term problem in South American, and Africa to boot, hell everywhere. American politicians, of all stripes, are way to short sited to see the danger in China becoming heavily involved in LA. Hell, just reading the statements of this official sends chills up my spine.

6/5/2009 2:12:02 PM

Quote :

"Then, to compare the stuff we have done, to what the Soviets or the Chicoms have done/did? Really? "

Who were the Chicoms?

And no matter how it sounds or what we did, it's clear by these point that imposition of your nation's vision on another (in this case, our economic interests surpassing their need for sovereignty) does not help long term unity and leaves an opening that can be filled by competitors who at least pretend to be unlike you.

6/5/2009 3:06:39 PM

Quote :

". . . . . . . danger in China becoming heavily involved in LA. Hell, just reading the statements of this official sends chills up my spine. "

what sort of scenarios are you so worried about? I can see China is "out-competing" us for resources, but at the same time our need for raw resources (other than energy) I would think is falling.

6/5/2009 4:14:52 PM

Quote :

"Chicoms"

chinese communists.

6/5/2009 5:36:18 PM

Quote :

"That's pretty intellectually dishonest. We have done some shit in Latin America, no doubt. But the invasion, occupation, then liberation of Cuba from the Spanish isn't one of them. You act like Cuba was a sovereign nation... Then, to compare the stuff we have done, to what the Soviets or the Chicoms have done/did? Really? I gotta laugh out of the Chinese trying to ethnically link up with South Americans. But China does pose a long term problem in South American, and Africa to boot, hell everywhere. American politicians, of all stripes, are way to short sited to see the danger in China becoming heavily involved in LA. Hell, just reading the statements of this official sends chills up my spine."

oh wow...you would fit perfectly in Washington with that backwards thinking!

6/5/2009 5:57:53 PM

THOMAS (angrily): Well, the association don't like the government camps. Can't get a deputy in there. Can't arrest a man without a warrant. But if there was a big fight, and maybe shooting--a bunch of deputies could go in and clean out the camp.

(Unfolding a newspaper)

Like last night. Lissen. "Citizens, angered at red agitators, burn another squatters' camp, warn agitators to get out of the county."

TOM (sick of the expression) : Listen. What is these reds? Ever'time you turn aroun' somebody sayin' somebody else's a red. What is these reds, anyway?

WILKIE (chuckling): Well, I tell you. They was a fella up the country named King--got about 30,000 acres an' a cannery an' a winery--an' he's all a time talkin' about reds. Drivin' the country to ruin, he says. Got to git rid of 'em, he says. Well, they was a young fella jus' come out an' he was listenin one day. He kinda scratched his head an' he says, "Mr. King, what *is* these reds you all a time talkin' about?" Well, sir, Mr. King says, "Young man, a red is any fella that wants thirty cents a hour when I'm payin' twenty-five.

6/5/2009 6:01:17 PM

Quote :

"what sort of scenarios are you so worried about? I can see China is "out-competing" us for resources, but at the same time our need for raw resources (other than energy) I would think is falling."

I mean, for the time being, yes. And the trend to electric vehicles could speed the decline of oil's importance. And copper is less important now due to fiber optics. I mean, I guess the argument could be made that they would demand preferred trade status and spark a trade war of sorts, but only if we insist it's "our" hemisphere, still. I don't know, maybe I feel compelled to more actively court trade w/ LA because of this?

It's too bad that prior attempts were so patronizing and slanted towards this country's interests. A trade area like the EU encompassing most of Latin America could help economically down South and stop the temptation to elect more Chavez-type leaders.

6/7/2009 11:19:08 PM

Quote :

"But the invasion, occupation, then liberation of Cuba from the Spanish isn't one of them."

But...I mean...really? You're actually, honestly saying this?

No, Cuba wasn't a sovereign nation, but that didn't give us the right to go take it and make it a puppet. It damn sure didn't give us the right to claim we were liberating it and then make it a puppet.

Quote :

"But China does pose a long term problem in South American, and Africa to boot, hell everywhere. American politicians, of all stripes, are way to short sited to see the danger in China becoming heavily involved in LA."

What dire threats are you seeing? I'm not thrilled that China has growing influence in our hemisphere, but I'm not really getting the "danger" yet. They're business competition. American business needs to man up anyway. And if they are throwing some political influence around, so what? We've been throwing it around in Latin America -- with guns, mind you -- for as long as they've been independent.

6/8/2009 12:19:46 AM

I doubt China is dumb enough to start a military war. What do they have to gain from defeating us? The debt they already hold?

6/8/2009 12:40:29 AM

they are a nuclear power

so the consequences are far more disastrous (and yes... I know they maintain a limited stockpile... but it would still suck for us to have to kill so many people)

6/8/2009 10:00:06 AM

I think this is a good thing. The world needs a colonial-type power to settle various parts of it, particularly Africa. Leaving these places to their own devices has resulted in decades of ruin and suffering. They strongly need someone to go in and tell them to stop robbing each other blind and get productive.

6/8/2009 11:21:08 AM

Quote :

"so the consequences are far more disastrous (and yes... I know they maintain a limited stockpile... but it would still suck for us to have to kill so many people)"

by 'us' I'm assuming you mean mankind. Because both sides would wipe each other out along with the rest of the world if nuclear weapons are involved. China's military isn't stretched thin in terms of personnel. and as the US military has shown us...they aren't very successful in Iraq...what makes you think they'll be effective against a super power?

6/8/2009 11:29:33 AM

You are mistaken. There are no longer enough nuclear weapons on planet Earth to wipe out human civilization, much less humanity as a species. It is unclear that there ever were enough.

And the U.S. military was ungodly sucessful in Iraq. The question is what are you trying to do. The U.S. military is very good as smashing organized military activity, it is just that they are not very good at putting a country back together, which is irrelevant in a conventional war. Since China is not an oil exporter, we wouldn't care about putting China back together. As such, it is merely a question of defeating China's navy and airforce, eliminating it as a threat to U.S. interests. We would never need to occupy Chinese territory, so we would never need to come into contact with China's multi-million man army.

6/8/2009 11:40:26 AM

^lol

6/8/2009 11:58:55 AM

Quote :

"I think this is a good thing. The world needs a colonial-type power to settle various parts of it, particularly Africa. Leaving these places to their own devices has resulted in decades of ruin and suffering. They strongly need someone to go in and tell them to stop robbing each other blind and get productive."

Your kidding right. I think a lot of people would agree that the colonization of Africa is one of the major reasons its so screwed up today.

Also, China doesnt exactly have the best track record in Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503428.stm

Quote :

"China 'is fuelling war in Darfur' "

6/8/2009 1:05:00 PM

And I think history has shown that while Colonialism was a huge waste of effort and resources and quite costly to locals, the alternative was not substantially better and perhaps even worse. Afterall, the parts of Africa that were never part of a colony are just as depressing as those that were.

6/8/2009 2:41:21 PM

Quote :

"But...I mean...really? You're actually, honestly saying this? No, Cuba wasn't a sovereign nation, but that didn't give us the right to go take it and make it a puppet. It damn sure didn't give us the right to claim we were liberating it and then make it a puppet."

What right is needed? What right did the Spanish have to conqueror and colonize Cuba in the first place? What right did they have to continue colonial rule and crush the revolution of 1895? Cubans wanted independence from Spain, revolted, and were crushed by the Spanish on numerous occasions. Spanish Colonialism in Cuba was much worse that US interventionism in Cuba. Are you arguing that the Spanish treated Cubans better than the US? That life was better before the war? That the US committed atrocities in Cuba? Again, your original point was that what we did in Cuba was bad, but you lack any evidence to support this. You say we didn't have the right to fight the Spanish, but why didn't we?

I see you didn't defend your comment comparing the USA and the Soviets and Chicoms. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that.

The US did a lot of shit in LA during the Cold War that continue to have repercussions today, most of which is pretty indefensible. But acquiring Cuba from the Spanish and setting it on the course to independence? Yeah... that doesn't really rank up there with the bad shit we have done in LA.

6/8/2009 3:31:31 PM

Quote :

"I think this is a good thing. The world needs a colonial-type power to settle various parts of it, particularly Africa. Leaving these places to their own devices has resulted in decades of ruin and suffering. They strongly need someone to go in and tell them to stop robbing each other blind and get productive."

Well, it might help, but it's not necessarily the only way forward for them. In 1960, South Korea was about even with Nigeria in GDP. Now they're way out in front. Sometimes nations just need to be allowed to build protected industries. Samsung, Hyundai, and SK's biggest steelmaker, one of the world's top 5 were once state-controlled or subsidized for decades until they reached a level where they were comfortable exporting. Of course, this is only a good idea when you have no foothold in the economy and need to build the infrastructure to even provide such industries. You have to open up and compete eventually once you have the ability to or you get complacent like Argentina.

It's easy to say that they should play to their competitive advantage and engage in free trade, but when you see that Africa has no competitive advantage in anything save some ag products, you can see something else is needed.

[Edited on June 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2009 5:25:26 PM

Absolutely incorrect. The protected industry argument has been proposed throughout history but there is still no mechanism for it to be true. Nigeria's competitive advantage is the same as South Korea's was: cheap wages. That a few South Korean firms used those cheap wages to compete effectively internationally was inevitable, just as various American firms which set up shop in South Korea used the cheap wages to compete effectively internationally. The difference between Nigeria and Korea is that South Korea kept taxes low, allowed state enterprises to fail, and sucessfully kept corruption in check. Yes, Korea subsidized many domestic firms, many of which it eventually allowed to go bankrupt, but they never represented a substantial percentage of either employment or GDP. What really drove South Korea were all the other businesses which were not subsidised, both foreign and domestic, which prospered under light interference and low wages.

From Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, to South Korea, their first big export earner in every case was toys manufactured in foreign owned factories. The path to prosperity does not start with state owned factories, or subsidised steel mills, but with foreign direct investment, a legal trick that only the most dedicated of judicial systems can sustain.

[Edited on June 8, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/8/2009 6:23:12 PM

Quote :

"The protected industry argument has been proposed throughout history but there is still no mechanism for it to be true."

The American System, British "Free Trade" in the form of its colonial mercantilism, and use of tariffs in industrialized nations from America and Europe to throughout East Asia from the 60s to the 80s disproves this.

Quote :

"Nigeria's competitive advantage is the same as South Korea's was: cheap wages."

Or the fact that Korea actively pursued the production of exporting industries from the time they had cheap wages till the 1980s when Hyundai captured foreign markets, when they could hardly be classified as a low-wage nation comparatively.

Quote :

"Yes, Korea subsidized many domestic firms, many of which it eventually allowed to go bankrupt, but they never represented a substantial percentage of either employment or GDP. What really drove South Korea were all the other businesses which were not subsidised, both foreign and domestic, which prospered under light interference and low wages."

I don't think the subsidizing of steel and energy sectors, both massive employers and the engines which made industrial exportation possible, is something you can ignore here. Don't discount their most important state investment either: education.

Also, wages rose well into the 80s, far beyond what they were at the start of the boom in the 60s. And to say that Asian governments were not or are not involved in driving industry is pretty dishonest. You're trying to paint the classical economics portrait here and I'm sorry but it just doesn't match up when you're industries producing the materials for exportation were heavily subsidized. Yes foreign investment was there, but it was selective, it always was in Asia, even in Hong Kong.

But it's important to say that you are right on the importance of foreign investment. That was also a key part of the boom, but it happened in concert with so many other interventionist policies, whether you like it or not, and I frankly don't care as long as the end result is a liberalized system when it becomes possible.

I know you've taken some econ classes, but apparently you missed one of the most important lessons of economics: there are hardly any absolutes when you're measuring success in any of the social sciences.

6/8/2009 6:58:56 PM

Quote :

"The American System, British "Free Trade" in the form of its colonial mercantilism, and use of tariffs in industrialized nations from America and Europe to throughout East Asia from the 60s to the 80s disproves this."

No it does not. All it proves is that protected industries are not a major impediment to growth, it does nothing more than imply that they help. What is missing is a discussion of how they might help, which is where this discussion always breaks down, as the costs on society of protecting an industry are usually larger than the establishing productivity benefits.

Quote :

"Or the fact that Korea actively pursued the production of exporting industries from the time they had cheap wages till the 1980s when Hyundai captured foreign markets, when they could hardly be classified as a low-wage nation comparatively."

Follow the money. The domestic markets were small and productivity was non-existant. As such, when foreigners (at the invite but not the subsidy of the government) come in and set up factories using western technology, they will naturally become a large component of the local economy in terms of production (almost all of the benefits, of course, acrue to the foreign direct investors).

Quote :

"And to say that Asian governments were not or are not involved in driving industry is pretty dishonest."

I said no such thing. What I said was that there was no logical mechanism by which it helped. In other words, had they not been so interventionist they would have prospered all the same. I am not trying to deny they were interventionist, what I am trying to do is say correlation does not prove causation. We have examples of countries that prospered without interventionism and examples of countries that failed to prosper with extensive intervention. You would do far better to assert cultural impacts, since Asian economies seem to have a tendency to prosper once they abandon state ownership of the means of production.

6/8/2009 11:30:22 PM