China's real 'Manifest destiny' doctrine

This subject is really new to me, but has caused major shifts in my thinking almost immediately. There are links that connect with this subject that I don't know how to add beyond the first one which describes the the initial group.

I use 'manifest destiny' as the closest comparable label loosely. The original was, in hindsight, a fraudulent one as the U.S. had no national army while the British had a significant professional army garrisoned in Canada. Even if it was some individual 'sounding off' in the U.S., it died on the vine rather quickly. Not so in this case.

en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously, this group overlaps with many arenas. NATO, the U.N.. Economic issues, the U.S.. Complicated and far reaching in and of itself. Far more than I can sort out.

This is one version of the NWO we are faced with. Apparently, there's more than one possible 'NWO' to be considered. Future. That's the battle being fought. Not just 'banks', MICs, and the like. The may even be nothing more than smoke screens to deflect from the battle for future control. Who runs what and how in the ME may be utterly secondary to the world's future players. After all, oil is a short term asset of the ME, considering the technical advances occurring almost daily. That puts the ME much lower and perhaps on the bottom of the priority list.

I see no reason to support either version, by the way. It looks much more about future world control and who wins out.

The immediate realization is the U.S. will inevitably lose dominance on the world stage. Whether this is delayed somewhat seems academic. Sooner or later, the greater population of Eurasia, with equal to better education and resulting technologies will win out. 10 years? 20? Even 50? Who knows? It is coming, however, and it's down to how the U.S.- and not other influential groups- decides to respond to that future. Willingly? Resignedly?

Perhaps the overall intention is to remove/fix the apparent rouge nations in an era of WMDs, prior to relinquishing the world's policeman role?

I offer no subject label either way on this as without knowing what consequences we face either way. It's not worth speculating that aspect. What is worth the speculation is this the actual base reason behind the games we play?

When one sees China constructing a Naval Base in northern Africa- apparently in cooperation with Saudi Arabia!!- and laser damage to American pilots even before that base is apparently completed, The dots start connecting.

In any event, it's a different perspective and I invite feedback.

If all enemies (and closet enemies) of the USA were to unite, I would imagine it would look a lot like this Eurasian SCO. Pretty scary stuff.

a reply to: hombero

An understandable first reaction.

Facing the fact that there's considerable untapped potential in Eurasia, people and resources, the numbers will sooner or later show an inevitability of that occurring, sans a major war which would change everything.

I don't know if it should be scary, at all. It may end up a good thing for the U.S.. We just don't know it plays out.

I suspect I will be urn-filler before it does, however, so I'm not losing much sleep over it's possibilities.....

a reply to: nwtrucker
As a large industrialised nation, modern China wants access to the raw materials of the world and access to the markets of the world. This doesn't necessarily mean control of the seas, but it does mean having enough power on the seas that those access routes can't be blocked. I think most of China's diplomacy and alliance-building on other continents can be explained in those terms.
The British empire of Victorian times was "ruling the waves" for similar reasons. For the future course of relations between the U.S.A. and China, think about what happened to Anglo-German relations when the Kaiser began building a fleet.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: nwtrucker
As a large industrialised nation, modern China wants access to the raw materials of the world and access to the markets of the world. This doesn't necessarily mean control of the seas, but it does mean having enough power on the seas that those access routes can't be blocked. I think most of China's diplomacy and alliance-building on other continents can be explained in those terms.
The British empire of Victorian times was "ruling the waves" for similar reasons. For the future course of relations between the U.S.A. and China, think about what happened to Anglo-German relations when the Kaiser began building a fleet.

I understand your point. Yet what Ive seen is a China that pushes the envelope. First claiming islands, then the South China Sea, then militarizing those islands. Massive movement in Africa, far outstripping even the traditional imperialist nations, never mind the U.S.. I'd have thought securing the closer oil fields of the South China Sea would have eased China's interest in the ME, but no Naval base construction, interest in Afghanistan, Even Syria. Then add in the economic expansion AND the SCA and it's expansion?

Too many 'dots' connecting here to buy your scenario as any more than a potential option now that Trump is gradually pushing back.

Frankly, it makes sense that Eurasia will continue to grow and expand it's power and influence. One uses a topical anesthetic before injecting the needle. What we've seen fits your scenario. It also perfectly fits the OP.

Could go either way?

I guess, from reading this stuff, it would not be inaccurate to described this a Eurasian version of NATO.

:

originally posted by: incoserv
Would anyone say this could be described as a Eurasian version of NATO? Or does it go deeper than that?

My guess is definitely one facet of it. Much more than a military application seems likely.

Wish I had more time and/or energy to read about this. But it makes me wonder what kind of things China is doing behind the scenes. Seems like they benefit a lot from hostility between US and Russia, so they'd be interested in keeping that up. But then the West is Russia's natural enemy in any case, Russia's population is mostly concentrated in the western part, as if someone picked it up and tilted it. In the east there's a lot more space.

I wonder if they could be behind Kim Jong-un's turnaround as well, but I'm not sure what they are gaining or loosing from that, so I dunno. Maybe Kim is more worried about China than the US. Trump seems to be though on China so probably they wouldn't want to help him at all. But Trump will only be President for another term and a half max, and I think Chine really plays the long game. So they might be playing 4D chess too. But then most nations play the long game compared to America.

originally posted by: Cutepants
Wish I had more time and/or energy to read about this. But it makes me wonder what kind of things China is doing behind the scenes. ...

In answer to that question, behold the Confucius Institute ...

In little more than a decade, a shadowy arm of the Chinese state has established a foothold in hundreds of university campuses across the world. Confucius Institutes, named after China’s most famous philosopher, claim their mission is to satisfy overseas demand for learning Chinese. Located within host universities, the centres offer language and cultural classes that in many cases earn students credits towards their degrees. But they are directly administered by Beijing and their rapid growth — the programme now has a presence in more than three-quarters of the world’s countries — is raising fears that Beijing is subverting traditional values of academic freedom as part of China’s global soft power push.

ig.ft.com...

Or, another Mao will emerge and send them back to the stone age.

a reply to: Cutepants

Hopefully, the U.S. is catching on to the long term game planning.

Again, guessing but I'd think China plays a big role in fat boy's decision. China isn't ready for a direct confrontation with the U.S.. Too easy to cut China's supply lines at this juncture.

a reply to: incoserv

I had no knowledge of this. Great input. Another 'dot'. A rather large one.

It raises the question, if there is, in fact, a conflict in potential 'world orders' why wouldn't the MSM point this out? Fear of increased confrontation with China and loss of already invested revenues by Corporations?

Just thinking out loud....

a reply to: nwtrucker
The South China sea is about oil, isn't it? On top of the specific Chinese drive to get China back to where it was before the Victorian westerners started pushing in. Hence re-occupation of Tibet, re-drawing the Himalayan frontier, refusing to let go of Taiwan, and probably expecting to influence Indochina and Korea.

I think Africa is about resources, as it always was. I'm not saying there won't be grabs at power, but I'm offering views about their motivation and the form they are likely to take.

One consideration about the drive west into the Middle East is the potential for cutting across and blocking the traditional Russian drive south, thus protecting China on the western side. This was already happening in Nixon's time, when Russia was friendly with India and China was friendly with Pakistan (Kissinger's secret visits to China went through Pakistan). There was a moment in the Bangladesh crisis when Chinese military support of Pakistan seemed possible. In the long-term, Chinese influence even in Syria might be countering Russian influence rather than American influence.
I still like Nixon's policy- work with China and against Russia.

a reply to: incoserv

Just another thought. These 'courses' remind me of the slightly less blatant incursion of socialist doctrine into U.S. Universities, in the day.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ideally, work with all three, hopefully.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think the future is pretty obvious. After the US defaults on the national debt, the Chinese will own the US. You cant fight an enemy without the money needed to buy ammo.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: nwtrucker

I think the future is pretty obvious. After the US defaults on the national debt, the Chinese will own the US. You cant fight an enemy without the money needed to buy ammo.

It had better be one tough 'repo man'....

Perhaps more than Manifest Destiny, their Cultural Revolution occurred under Mao Zedong.
www.theguardian.com...

And as a side note it was not fun being Mao.. Evidenced by his biography as such..www.scielo.org.za...

"The immediate realization is the U.S. will inevitably lose dominance on the world stage. Whether this is delayed somewhat seems academic. Sooner or later, the greater population of Eurasia, with equal to better education and resulting technologies will win out. 10 years? 20? Even 50? Who knows? It is coming, however, and it's down to how the U.S.- and not other influential groups- decides to respond to that future. Willingly? Resignedly?"

That is, if they don't die from air and water pollution first. It's not looking good for them.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Just another point that has come to mind is your 'Nixon policy' was when the Soviet Union was extant. A far different scenario, these days.

Putin backs down. The Soviets, only once and that was over our way, in Cuba. I'm still convinced we can work with the man. JMO, though.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: nwtrucker
The South China sea is about oil, isn't it? On top of the specific Chinese drive to get China back to where it was before the Victorian westerners started pushing in. Hence re-occupation of Tibet, re-drawing the Himalayan frontier, refusing to let go of Taiwan, and probably expecting to influence Indochina and Korea.

I think Africa is about resources, as it always was. I'm not saying there won't be grabs at power, but I'm offering views about their motivation and the form they are likely to take.

One consideration about the drive west into the Middle East is the potential for cutting across and blocking the traditional Russian drive south, thus protecting China on the western side. This was already happening in Nixon's time, when Russia was friendly with India and China was friendly with Pakistan (Kissinger's secret visits to China went through Pakistan). There was a moment in the Bangladesh crisis when Chinese military support of Pakistan seemed possible. In the long-term, Chinese influence even in Syria might be countering Russian influence rather than American influence.
I still like Nixon's policy- work with China and against Russia.

Re the oil. Sure the South China Sea is all about oil, unless there's more that we don't know about. The way I see it is China has largely alienated their immediate neighbors with these territorial grabs and that is not lost on China one whit.

I repeat the point I posted earlier that then why is China continuing and even expanding it's ME presence?

Here's a very slick move on China's part to take one player out of the adversary camp:

www.reuters.com... months-idUSKBN1HG10G