> China has begun talking to ten nations in the South Pacific with an offer to help them improve^h^h^h^h^h^h^hcompletely own their network infrastructure,
China has begun talking to ten nations in the South Pacific with an offer to help them improve their network infrastructure, cyber security, digital forensics and other capabilities – all with the help of Chinese tech vendors. Newswire Reuters broke the news of China’s ambitions after seeing a draft agreement that China’s …
It is not like these Pacific nations are typically ignored by e.g. either Australia or NZ. But of course China typically has a lot more money to throw at the problem; and arguably less historical baggage, so it doesn't have to tread so carefully; nor is it as likely to consider the islander's interests as being of primary importance.
This post has been deleted by its author
Why? There is enough profit in just running the infrastructure, and if they start doing that already they won't get that many more customers. If they're offering transparency there are no real barriers to accepting this, other than the howling of Western tech companies who want to flog their wares.
Add to that that Huawei is at present actually the only comms gear provider which has been publicly screened by the West and found to have code that may not have been upper shelf quality (opined by nations that use Windows, grin) but was confirmed to be backdoor free as opposed to the likes of Cisco, which tend to remind me of the Crypto AG affair in Switzerland and they may actually have something to sell.
Technically and logically it's a no brainer. Ethically and politically, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
It's not about profit to china, it's about control. Currency cost is of little to no issue.
It is public information that over 30 years ago china started their task of taking over the globe through financial means, until other resources are needed. It's been working pretty well, less those pesky westerners not always selling out.
One is by military force, but that has the bad habit of being poorly viewed on the international scene, and creating resistance on the local scene.
The other is by subverting the country's economy by "helping" with infrastructure, like many of China's "donations" to Africa. Once Beijing has its claws into a strategic part of your infrastructure, you'll find that Beijing's "suggestions" are accompanied by rather obvious implications.
This is the difference between Western politicians and Eastern politicians. In China, they play Go, in the West, they play checkers. Only one of those has long-term implications built in.
China is pretty good at the long game; however much we disagree with aspects of CCP policy.
The situation in Taiwan is, however, an extremely confusing play. Sabre rattling to draw off resources diverted to a European war; or a prelude to actually trying it on?
In the interest of balance I would like to observe that "help" from Western nations with, for instance, a war is also followed by a bill. AFAIK, the UK only finished paying off the WW II "help" it got from the US.
In that context I see the US "help" to Ukraine as a ploy to establish a hold on the food supply to Europe and so re-establish a level of control over Europe that they lost after Brexit (IMHO, UK's main role in Europe was to meddle on behalf of the US, which is why the US isn't terribly supportive of UK problems post Brexit). At some point, the bill will become due.
The Chinese merely play a longer game which isn't interrupted by political cycles, they no longer have those.
The bill the UK paid was a tiny fraction of overall US Lend-Lease, mainly related to supplies which arrived after the end of the war and ended up being handed over on very favourable terms.
There were a few other quid pro quos, notably so called Reverse Lend-Lease from across the British Empire, and the Tizard Mission but overall the US deployed an awful lot of resources to shore up it's European allies against Facism and subsequently against Communism in the post-war period. Of course it reaped diplomatic and strategic rewards, but that's a longer subtler game than tired tropes about control over raw materials. The US has more than enough food and oil it doesn't need to go starting or supporting wars just to get more.
-> In that context I see the US "help" to Ukraine as a ploy to establish a hold on the food supply to Europe
Ukraine has already asked for debt 'forgiveness' of about $50 billion. This war, brought about not by Russia or Ukraine, but by the USA and its poodles could not have come at a better time for Ukraine. I can hear them from here: let us off the debt and we will be your poodles.
-> like many of China's "donations" to Africa
Britain, France, Germany, and Italy all went to Africa. We plundered everything we could. It rather puts your donations-in-quotes into perspective. We don't have a toenail to stand on and point an accusing finger.
which could be seen as a way of isolating Australia so when and if China wants cheaper iron ore they can just mine it instead of buying. With an armed ocean perimeter to cross the remnants of the USA wont bother despite Quad, Aukus and the rest. Never happen of course. The Clinton Doctrine is just a myth
The Dutch had a pre-WW2 philosophy that the Chinese seem to be taking lessons from. 1000 unsinkable aircraft carriers; referring of course to the islands out there that could be turned into airbases.
Now, I'll grant the number that are suitable for a 3000' runway is rather less; but a good number are.
A carrier force against those is at a marked disadvantage with regards survivability.