Yes, Iftikhar’s right, Defence spending is going up under the Conservatives.
Sidetracking my own thread, but couldn’t help but think of this great moment in naval history…
Taking an interest is one thing. Actively influencing decisions by Myanmar’s military is another.
1 Like
There is a middle position, acquiescence in the knowledge of what will occur.
3 Likes
Which is what I would file under taking an interest… If China was aware in advance, I would think that it is more likely that it is as a result of its own information gathering than some one in the military telling the Chinese directly.
1 Like
Ok, this is turning into one of those things, but I don’t think we’re as far apart as you imply.
My position is that I think the generals would have weighed up their options before acting and would have had at least tacit approval from China before going ahead. At least they would have known that there wouldn’t be opposition. They would have reckoned with push back from The US and Europe and if China had let them know that they were against a coup I doubt they would have gone ahead. The opportunity was there in those 24 hours between their signal and their action.
2 Likes
I don’t think it even needed tacit agreement. North Korea has frequently shown itself as acting without concern about China’s opinion, yet China has usually avoided public criticism or confrontation of their regime. I think it reasonable to assume the Military in Myanmar are capable of reaching a conclusion that China would act similarly to their actions.
1 Like
Trouble with international affairs, its always months after when other events transpire, that you can really tell what happened, whereas at the time it was supposition like this. Trouble is, with a continual unfolding of major events that favour China, you have to be naive to think this is not subtle orchestration. This is how fraudsters work, cosy up next to you posing not threat, then whamsky.
2 Likes
No, i’m just not prone to assuming that everything is always planned or orchestrated by the big actors.
Well, Im afraid thats way behind the curve to me.
1 Like
Your position appears to be that nothing can happen in that part of the world without complicit agreement from China, and/or anything that happens that is favourable to China must be because China has deigned it to be so. Yet, I don’t think you have evidenced either point - and as I have already pointed out there are sound reasons for questioning either of those two statements.
For example, using a simple balance of probabilities, Myanmar military could probably be fairly sure that China would take no action against them - so why would they need to tip their hand in advance with a country they don’t trust?
Secondly, it is not clear yet that this situation is beneficial to China - Myanmar plays a key role in its plans for the region and much of its belt and road investment was agreed with Suu Kyi’s government. That in part arose because Suu Kyi had blotted her copy book with the west over her stance on the Rohingya issue.
I really think differently to you on how events unfold in the world; there is never evidence for the most significant events. I dont even think your own State tell you the truth, never mind a foreign one with competing interests. You would do well to read up on it, because in sporadic places, the real situation is revealed. Like where Emerson wrote “every actual State is corrupt”. This is indisputably true; people that do not believe this mostly cannot stomach the fact that we are lied to on mass. Because they want the safety that comes with believing in the sheer hyperbole that all States publish in relation to themselves.
Back to Myanmar, if you think a Junta in Burma, that borders a main enemy like India, is not beneficial to China, then Crimea wasnt unlawfully seized by Russian special forces either.
1 Like
I never said the Junta couldn’t be beneficial to China, I said it wasn’t yet clear that the situation was. After all, China isn’t directly getting anything it didn’t already have, and risks seeing what it did have diminish.
Myanmar’s military are less likely to give China what it wanted than Suu Kyi was, and would be more likely to break any agreement Suu Kyi had signed with China than she was. While I expect the deals in place to be honoured to some degree, there is a greater level of risk to China of it not being the case.
Just to be clear. I’m not ruling out China being involved in some way. I’m just saying that from what little we know, there is enough there to see that the Myanmar military could have acted alone without engaging in anyway with China.
1 Like
Why? China is the only country not condemning them. They don’t have any other allies, so why would they break agreements or do anything to jeopardise that?
1 Like
Because they never signed them and they don’t necessarily trust China. As I said above I expect they will continue to honour the deals - but it isn’t a given as the Rust and Belt agreements China is agreeing with countries such as Myanmar have been criticised as being more beneficial to China than the country it is investing in, while leaving those nations indebted to China.
1 Like
Yes you did you clearly said its not clear the situation is beneficial to China.
regardless of what Suu Kyi agreed with China who is to say, on your hypothetical argument, that those terms wont get better for China under the Junta? You used a false logic of a future postulate, that because the democratic Myanmar had already agreed transit etc through their country, it must somehow be worse under the Junta. It could well be better.
I dont know what you are saying; but if you are waiting for evidence you will wait forever. Follow the money, follow who benefits, then work it back, and join the dots. What self respecting spy would expect for the answer to be served up for them.
Perhaps you should look at the current terms… and again, I haven’t said it would be worse under the junta. You continue to twist what I have said.
The biggest issue with China is the countries in the West have become intrinsically linked and dependent.
Look over at Australia how critism have turned into a trade war. China blocking Australian coal, cotton, timber, wine and meat. In past times it would not be such an issue, but today there is huge exposure as for certain products they represent 70% of export destination. Criticism of China now fears retribution in trade.
I am less concerned about Myanmar, I think that was an inevitable outcome irrespective of China. It’s been clear the army has been running things there since the ethnic cleansing a few years back. A greater concern is the use of chequebook diplomacy to to poor countries (Africa, South America, subcontinent, Pacific islands) with China is building railways, roads, mines, data centres, telecommunications infrastructure. The concern is debt is then used as a lever. When coupled with chinas dominance in trade it’s a powerful combination.
The world is coming to a realisation that China has or will become the strongest country in the world. This has huge implications given it has been the UK and the US arguably for the last 400. History tells us a rise of a new power into dominance typically leads to war.
The five eyes nations (US,UK,OZ, Canada and NZ) will increasingly apply and come under pressure.
2 Likes
Sorry, yes you are saying nothing.
Biden all but made this same announcement today, indicating diplomacy was the preferred method of dealing with them, warning to expect ‘extreme competition’.