How China Beat Out the US To Dominate South America (bloomberg.com) 88
No province is too small or remote for Beijing's careful attention. Bloomberg Businessweek: Chinese technology and money have helped build one of Latin America's largest solar energy plants in Jujuy (pronounced hu-HUY), where hundreds of thousands of panels coat the desert like giant dominoes. Chinese security cameras guard government buildings across the provincial capital. Servers hum in a Chinese data storage plant. Beneath the remote, craggy hills and vast salt lakes lie veins of copper, lithium, and zinc, the raw materials of 21st century -- technology -- including Chinese-made electric-car batteries. It's no secret that China has been pouring resources into South America this century, chipping away at the U.S.'s historic dominance and making itself the continent's No. 1 trading partner. But while international focus has turned in recent years to China's ventures in Africa and Asia, an important shift has gone largely unnoticed in the country's approach to South America: going local to expand and strengthen its financial grip.
Instead of focusing on national leaders, China and its companies have built relationships from the ground up. In 2019 alone, at least eight Brazilian governors and four deputy governors traveled to China. In a September 2019 speech, Zou Xiaoli, China's ambassador to Argentina, said his country's infrastructure push was helping weave Latin America into the global marketplace. "China will lend strong support to Argentina's economic and social development," he said. As Argentina's Jujuy province illustrates, no region is too remote for China's scrupulous attention. With perhaps a touch of hyperbole, Gabriel Marquez, chief executive officer of a Jujuy lithium research and development center, describes the effectiveness of the approach: "You have this poor governor from Argentina who has Xi Jinping's phone number."
Instead of focusing on national leaders, China and its companies have built relationships from the ground up. In 2019 alone, at least eight Brazilian governors and four deputy governors traveled to China. In a September 2019 speech, Zou Xiaoli, China's ambassador to Argentina, said his country's infrastructure push was helping weave Latin America into the global marketplace. "China will lend strong support to Argentina's economic and social development," he said. As Argentina's Jujuy province illustrates, no region is too remote for China's scrupulous attention. With perhaps a touch of hyperbole, Gabriel Marquez, chief executive officer of a Jujuy lithium research and development center, describes the effectiveness of the approach: "You have this poor governor from Argentina who has Xi Jinping's phone number."
Money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, is this even a question that needed asking? What's next, oh insightful Slashdot? "Water: why is it so goshdarned wet?" I'll add however that today's dollars does not necessarily add up to tomorrow's domination. Sure, you can buy hearts and minds today, but I suspect China will find that the thirst for cash infusions will be never ending in SA. Either that, or SA will develop their own economy and not need China anymore. Either way, China's investment of today may not pay any dividends tomor
Re: (Score:1)
They make money and it costs us.
You don't know many Latinos, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Great....China gets all the minerals and materials and we get all the people.
They make money and it costs us.
Do they really "cost" us? It seems like we're exploiting desperate immigrants. You think inflation is bad today. Imagine how bad it would be if the gov actually enforced its immigration laws and held the employers responsible for breaking the law. Your daily life would be a lot more expensive if everything from food to maintenance to transport had to be done by US citizens or immigrants who are in the country lawfully.
Fucking conservatives get their panties in a bunch at the poor desperate latinos crossing the border, but never seem to be too concerned about the white employers hiring them. You know those people are crossing because there's money here, right?...because people are hiring them...often notable regional companies, led by white Americans who have full knowledge they're either directly violating labor laws or skirting around it by hiring contractors to break them for them. WalMart has done that in the past. Sure, they're a huge target, so they hire documented workers. However, they outsource cleaning operations to companies who clearly don't at cost savings to them. Conservatives never seem to care about that.
Also, your comment is just ill-informed and kinda racist. You know there are varieties of Latinos, right? South American immigrants tend to be more middle class or educated. There's not huge migrant caravans of Argentinians waiting hovering around Home Depot. The desperate poor immigrants are more likely to come from Central America these days and Mexico previously. And while we get more poor immigrants from Central America and Mexico, my company is filled with talented engineers from those countries and we even have a major team in Costa Rica which is far outperforming our Bangalore, Austin, Munich, and Krakow teams.
Most of the people I know from South America are engineers, accountants, teachers who moved to the USA for the better job. They really are no different than European immigrants I know, education or income-wise...just people who wanted to live in the USA because they love the culture or found a great job.
Talk to more Latinos and you'll find out they're a diverse group of people. But then again, I suspect you're the type that doesn't want your simplistic world view challenged by basic empathy.
I doubt you'd be stupid enough to judge all Europeans by the traits of Russians, however.
Re: (Score:2)
see also Afghanistan, or really anywhere the US has tried nation building
I would say that places like Japan or Western Europe (via the Marshall plan) did quite well though. I believe the problems with Afghanistan and/or Iraq were due to the wishy-washy American approach - they didn't put American leaders, nor did they enforce modern laws or constitutions. Instead they promoted local leaders, but never held them responsible for corruption or mismanagement. There never was any serious effort (that I know of at least) to dismantle extremist groups like the Taliban. Hence situations
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, see also Afghanistan, or really anywhere the US has tried nation building.
The US tried nation building in Japan and Germany. Went pretty well.
Afghanistan had an opportunity to join the civilised world, but chose not to take it.
Key point is that it's up to the people of the country to decide what they will do with the opportunities given to them.
Re:Money (Score:5, Interesting)
The US when they invest (as a country rather than as a company), they basically want the place to change to something favourable to them.. and that often creates instability and power struggles..
China on the other hand basically says... Here's the money, you KNOW who we are.. but you keep doing what you do.. meanwhile I'll take my points on the back end.
So from an investment stance, its more desirable to partner with China than the US. (Basically China is doing what the US USED to do.. leverage their economic clout and history as soft power.. vs. the US increasingly uses more hard power and manipulation along with the influx of craziness)
Re: (Score:3)
China on the other hand basically says... Here's the money, you KNOW who we are.. but you keep doing what you do.. meanwhile I'll take my points on the back end.
Either way you're gonna pay. And China is playing the long game where they expect to control the culture later... after they control the economy.
Re:Money (Score:4, Insightful)
In simple terms, it's easy when the west in general only looks towards short term profits or grabbing power in the next election. There is no long term plan, it's just grab what you can as fast as you can and if you can screw over everyone else - that's just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
That means:
Viewing China in a more favorable light (which helps others to excuse their actions as necessary/needed)
Shifting the worlds dependency from the US to China (again a lot of soft power which is far cheaper than hard power and ultimately earns more money.. soft power earns on average 10 dollars for every 1 dollar s
Re: (Score:3)
China doesn't want to be the world's police... but they DO want to hold the purse strings for the world..
But as China holds the purse strings for more and more of the world, its need for military security over its scattered assets will increase, just as it did for the US. China World Police Force, here we come.
Re: (Score:2)
But this going local stuff is a smart move from China. I would bet that South American lo
Re:Money (Score:4, Insightful)
And now the Chinese appear offering financing without demanding control of the country in return, treating everyone as de facto trading partners rather than vassals. Who do you think we South Americans will prefer?
Re: (Score:2)
the CIA appeared to overthrow the government and put a puppet in its place.
This gives the CIA way too much credit. They are not competent enough to manage governments in disparate places. When you look at the places they tried to take credit for influencing, you find that actually they took credit for trends that were already happening.
Re: (Score:1)
And now the Chinese appear offering financing without demanding control of the country in return, treating everyone as de facto trading partners rather than vassals. Who do you think we South Americans will prefer?
With a few well known and disastrous exceptions, the US hasn't demanded control of any country in the post-Soviet past. What they insist on at most is the granting of special privileges to US companies. These are typically the agriculture and dieselpunk companies that pollute the environment or make people fat.
Would the PRC be a more benign taskmaster? I doubt. Not because of any inherent evil designs, but because the PRC has a larger population that has to be fed or supplied other creature comforts under a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And honestly if you really believe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
vs. the US increasingly uses more hard power and manipulation along with the influx of craziness)
That's simply not true, particularly in regards to South America. We used to sponsor coups down there, nowadays our influence is based much more on soft power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, that's nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Debt seizure (Score:5, Insightful)
Money talks.
Yep. All that infrastructure built on credit, and if the government starts missing the payments the ownership reverts to the Chinese government.
That's the overall plan for China to take over/own the major infrastructure giving them enormous leverage - essentially control - in various countries.
In about 20 years we can expect a fair number of essentially communist bloc countries across the world, in the manner of the soviet union. Probably enough to swing votes at the UN, in the manner of the soviet union.
Where are these communist block countries (Score:3)
Communism isn't fascism let alone the kleptocracy that is China. I'm not a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not advocating for communism or China's system of government but when you call China a communist Nation you're helping them disguise their actual system of government and letting them off the hook for being a cryptography.
But I thought they banned Bitcoin?
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
But the general snobbishness of US. There is a general idea, in the US that other countries should feel honored to have us a trading partner, and they should change their laws to accommodate us.
I once did a business analysis for a growing company to find new opportunities. My research showed Brazil to be an excellent location to expand to, even accounting in Brazil general intolerance towards imports with complex laws, it still showed to be a very profitable location. However it was rejected, because they didn't personally like the laws, as they were too much like "Communism", where the options were to price to deal with a higher tariff, or setup a factory in Brazil (either would still be very profitable)
China is use to such restrictions and is more apt to deal with other countries in order to get into the game, and being still the #2 economy out there, they are more apt to accommodate their practices to get the business.
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's NOT just money.
Latin America has long been a focus of great powers. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spain and Portugal divided the region for colonial exploitation. After national revolutions in the 19th century created independent states, Washington promulgated the Monroe Doctrine, which required European powers to consider the Western Hemisphere the U.S. sphere of influence. Well into the 1980s, Washington supported coups and sent troops into sovereign neighbors to its south.
This interference inspired anti-American resentment, creating an opening for China. Over the past two decades, as the U.S. focused on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, China moved into the Western Hemisphere with exceptional speed, as well as financial and political muscle. Much of China’s investment began at the start of the century during the so-called pink tide, when leftist parties rose to power in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
The USA loves talking about freedom until people freely elect governments that the USA doesn't like. Then it's sanctions and assassinations and regime change. if I lived in South America I'd be looking somewhere else for money, too. China's money only talks because the USA has been so antagonistic for so long. It's a void that didn't need to exist, so China's there to fill it.
Re:Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Hi, I'm from Argentina. You know what else China does here? Not cause coups that kill thousands of people, or keep their boots on our throats for decades.
At least for now.
But as you say, money talks, and that's definitely the main reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, I'm from Argentina. You know what else China does here? Not cause coups that kill thousands of people, or keep their boots on our throats for decades.
At least for now.
Give them time. America has historically been very open about what it expected from countries in its "sphere of influence." Right or wrong, it wasn't a mystery. China is expanding its power in a much smarter and more subtle way, and I suspect that's intentional to keep the US and Europe complacent. But eventually subtlety loses its value.
It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if in not too long the Chinese began requesting to host military bases in these countries. At that point the Chinese will have ext
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think China will try to be too forceful in latin america, in terms of control.
They will not want to give the US an excuse to support a coup against a government which is overally positive towards China, especially if the local population is not too happy with things.
Re: (Score:2)
So this. Mod parent up to the roof.
You know, we South Americans are not exactly well developed. So we kinda need foreign investments. Wherever they come from.
Look, as we're (mostly) free countries, we'd love to get money from the free world. But USA and EU are too busy minding their own business (i.e. barking to each other in the eastern Europe fence, or in the South China Sea fence).
So if China and Russia knock at our doors willing to do business, we can't help but to accept. Even knowing we maybe are sell
"dominate" South America? (Score:2)
China is the #3 trading partner of the US (#1 and 2 are Canada and Mexico) but that doesn't mean those countries dominate the USA.
https://www.census.gov/foreign... [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
(Also, I don't think China has laws against bribing local officials.)
Re:"dominate" South America? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the people of Africa and South America think China is going to be less exploitative than the West they are going to be surprised.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's hard to imagine how China could do worse than what the West did in Congo.
Re:"dominate" South America? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the people of Africa and South America think China is going to be less exploitative than the West they are going to be surprised.
Comments like this show how condescending the (North)West hemisphere is when it comes to Africa and South America, as if the people there are simpletons that are not aware of the current global dynamics and that they are capable of doing their own risk/reward analysis.
Yeah, they don't know what China is about... only we know. Shut that noise.
Re: (Score:2)
If the people of Africa and South America think China is going to be less exploitative than the West they are going to be surprised.
Comments like this show how condescending the (North)West hemisphere is when it comes to Africa and South America, as if the people there are simpletons that are not aware of the current global dynamics and that they are capable of doing their own risk/reward analysis.
Yeah, they don't know what China is about... only we know. Shut that noise.
Yeah, maybe. Although, I don't think its unreasonable to question rapidly strengthening ties with a nation that is led by a man who quite obviously is fashioning himself in the mould of the most successful dictators of the previous century. A nation that actively and unapologetically eradicates cultures to make them more serviceable to its ethnostate. A nation that historically tries to radically embed itself into areas it sees as its to control, relegating the existing populations to at best second-clas
Re: (Score:2)
Although, I don't think its unreasonable to question rapidly strengthening ties with a nation that is led by a man who quite obviously is fashioning himself in the mould of the most successful dictators of the previous century.
You expect those 'shithole countries' [google.com] to choose Trump instead...
Re: (Score:2)
As it clearly stated in the article, Argentina 'defaulted on the bonds it sold to Wall Street, and it still owes tens of billions of dollars to the International Monetary Fund. “Argentina’s economy is so calamitous that only adventurers like China can do business here,” says Carlos Oehler, who ran the provincial energy and mining company Jemse.' Brazil has a credit rating worse than Mexico.
As for China, the Belt and Road initiative has not gone well elsewhere so why would South America do
Re: (Score:1)
Keep smoking that copium, dickhead. It will keep you from remembering the death squads that the USA sent to Central and South America, and that there are people still held in Guantanamo.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think China is going to be less exploitative than the West, jackass?
Re: (Score:2)
Canada and Mexico are part of North America.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
Re: (Score:2)
It would make more sense to explain our relationship with South America.
I am also not following what point you want to make. Canada, Mexico, and China are major trading partners in the US. If any of these countries were to just cut off trade with us the US will hurt from it.
However the reportorial if the US Cuts off trading with these countries they will hurt a lot more.
China being dominate in South America creates a condition where these smaller countries are reliant on China for Trade so they are going
Re: (Score:2)
It would make more sense to explain our relationship with South America.
I am also not following what point you want to make. Canada, Mexico, and China are major trading partners in the US. If any of these countries were to just cut off trade with us the US will hurt from it. However the reportorial if the US Cuts off trading with these countries they will hurt a lot more.
China being dominate in South America creates a condition where "these smaller countries" are reliant on China for Trade so they are going to be more accommodating to China.
Are you aware how f* big some of those regional economies are, in term of geographical size or GDP? Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia?
Re: (Score:2)
I was taking issue with the headline of the article, that was obviously my point. Merely being a trade partner does not result in 'dominance'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be, but it also might mean a large amount of money down the drain. All that infrastructure wasn't just given away. From the article, Argentina "defaulted on the bonds it sold to Wall Street, and it still owes tens of billions of dollars to the International Monetary Fund".
Re: "dominate" South America? (Score:2)
Ohh wait...the [mighty] USA has been busy too... (Score:2)
...It's no secret that China has been pouring resources into South America this century, chipping away at the U.S.'s historic dominance and making itself the continent's No. 1 trading partner...
You may ask why I say the USA has been busy...
You see, the USA has been busy fomenting chaos and mayhem in distant lands, (Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine). How things have panned out in Iraq and Afghanistan is another topic all together.
In Ukraine, they have been talking of the imminent [Russian] invasion since November last year!!
May the Almighty keep us safe.
Re: (Score:2)
"You see, the USA has been busy fomenting chaos and mayhem in distant lands, (Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine). How things have panned out in Iraq and Afghanistan is another topic all together."
That doesn't hinder one from selling arms to a couple of dozen anti-government guerilla groups.
The US government can't run (Score:2)
what a surprize (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benef
both parties to blame (Score:3)
First, let's either reject or accept the Monroe Doctrine: is South America something the US should *particularly* be attending to, or is this a colonialist view that we should disregard?
Yes, it's 'connected' to the US (in a way that touches something unique for American strategic planners), but I don't think in 2022 that bears any weight, geopolitically.
The Caribbean basin is another thing, however.
South America otherwise is a mixed 2nd/3rd world zone of -let's be blunt - no objectively greater importance strategically than other non-connected places. Would it be less good for the US if, say, China had a naval base there? Sure. But we've lived with Cuba for 50 years, we can deal with China too.
To the original point: I blame both parties for two reasons.
1) this is what constant irresponsible debt does. 2nd/3rd world economies generally need support from wealthier states, and they trade that for money. Simple as that. Whoever writes Argentina bigger checks, consistently, reliably, will be their friend. Having 1/4 of US spending being borrowed means even irresponsible presidents don't have the pockets to spread the largesse. It's not a surprise that the country we're borrowning from is winning that race. Anyone see a problem with that?
2) general trend of both parties to be geopolitically ignorant and navel-gaze US domestic issues. We argue about what gender can use bathrooms, while shit on the other side of the world IS ACTUALLY BLOWING UP but since we can't find it on a map, we don't care. That's a STUPID policy in the long run that will bite us in the ass.
For eight brazillian dollars? (Score:2)
Yep, sounds about right.
The China Advantage (Score:5, Informative)
China has a tremendous advantage in South America because paying bribes is a prerequisite for doing business there and U.S. corporations are legally prohibited from paying foreign bribes.
from this report [mit.edu] from Harvard and MIT:
Anecdotal and survey evidence suggests that corruption is rampant in the developing world and more prevalent in developing countries than in rich ones.
from wikipedia, here [wikipedia.org]:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests.
That effect has been common knowledge among experts for a long time, I heard the United States Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the 1980's remark then that it placed U.S. businesses at a significant disadvantage when operating in third-world countries.
The Usual (Score:3)
However, more money will usually be required, and that friendship simply depends on bribes. There is no repayment. You can try to get paid back, but then they just flip you the bird and are actively your enemy. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is a lot smarter than that.
For one, China typically invests in infrastructure projects and they can end up with toll payments and other such funding or even ownership models.
Further, China typically includes clauses that are basically 'make work' projects for Chinese firms. They will use Chinese workers even if the project is in Africa.
A lot of the infrastructure is geared towards the movement of goods. For example, if there are rich resources in the Congo, the infrastructure will facilitate that. Chi
Re: (Score:2)
China will soon discover what everyone else on the planet has discovered: When dealing with 3rd world countries, especially corrupt one, they will gladly take your money and proclaim friendship.
However, more money will usually be required, and that friendship simply depends on bribes. There is no repayment. You can try to get paid back, but then they just flip you the bird and are actively your enemy. Good luck with that.
Yeah, because every country in South America is corrupt, right? Never mind Chile or Uruguay, or even Argentina. They are all the same /rollseyes.
Also, it's kind of stupid to think the Chinese don't know what they are getting into. Only us in our 1st-world western golden toilets we know the truth of the world.
Long predicted - book from the 1960s (Score:2)
Trumpkin / Reichwing fallout (Score:3)
War Is a Racket (Score:2)
Short answer (Score:2)
Gee, and maybe the relatinoships... (Score:3)
...were easier to build, given that China hasn't sent troops in, or paid for military coups in S. America, the way the US has.
(For the ignorant, look up "Nicaragua", and "the Pinochet coup in Chile").
Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? (Score:1)