There’s nothing bold about any claims I’m making for anyone that knows much at all about these topics.
Want a single example of a foreign business with long-term benefits in China? Take KFC. They’ve been in China since the 80s, have 2× as many restaurants in China as they do in the US, and almost double the revenue. Not long-term benefit? Sure seems like it to me.
Want an example of a country? Take Indonesia. $140B of annual bilateral trade. High-value infrastructure development. Development of their critical minerals industry and their green tech industry, including large projects like hydropower. Investment and building of industrial capacities such as smelting to do value-adding work domestically. All things that contribute to Indonesia’s improved competitiveness in the global economy, and helping them maintain an overall surplus in their global trade.
So, Indonesia is exporting raw materials and increasingly some value-added products from those, and this is what supports a trade surplus overall, and they’re importing low-cost consumer goods from China that allow better quality of life for people while also importing things like machinery to improve industrialization.
Doesn’t sound bad.
Anyone who knows much about these topics would know the bold claims are your absurd suggestions that no companies or countries have long-term benefits with China.
Indonesia suffers a one-way economic dependence from China. Indonesia has a structural trade deficit with China. It also mainly exports commodities (such as oils, mineral fuels, nickel) while high-end products are imported from China (such as machinery, electronic equipment), making it largely impossible for Indonesia to develop its own industry.
Significant Chinese investments in Indonesia’s critical minerals and renewable energy sectors have created path dependency, as much of the technological know-how Indonesia sought to acquire for its economic transformation is 75% controlled by Chinese companies. Since these projects rely on Chinese raw materials or midstream processing, this keeps Jakarta’s critical minerals industrial ecosystem tied to Beijing’s technological and financial orbit. Recent developments – including South Korea’s LG Energy Solution withdrawal and the likelihood of its replacement by a Chinese company – indicate that competitive pressure on Chinese firms remains limited and may even be narrowing. Still, this would not change the underlying dependence of Indonesia’s downstream industries on Chinese technology, capital, and supply chains. -[Emphasis mine.]
This economic dependency will, among others, limit Indonesia political sovereignty. For example, Indonesia will unlikely follow the Philippines’ transparency against China regarding Beijing’s aggression in the South China Sea.
… The Philippines’ transparency initiative is crucial for addressing and countering disinformation and misinformation, as well as exposing China’s unlawful activities in the South China Sea. Even though Indonesia often faces similar threats from China in the North Natuna Sea, it is less likely to implement such a transparency initiative … Transparency initiatives may not always be a policy choice for other Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia … Therefore, while a ‘transparency initiative’ could put pressure on China to comply with international law and avoid reckless behaviour in the South China Sea, Indonesia is less likely to implement such a policy …
There is much more information about Indonesian-Chinese relationship, and literally all of them point in a similar direction. With Indonesia becoming increasingly dependent on China, Beijing exploits this relationship to achieve not just commercial goals and political coercion, very mich as it does with all of its other ‘partner’ countries.
The absolutely predictable reply of running to pieces by organizations like ASPI and Lowy to find ideologically aligned and bias-confirming snippets, because you don’t actually have any depth in international development economics or the nuances of Southeast Asian policy.
All you’re actually demonstrating is a lack of understanding. Conflating a structural trade deficit, that is actually standard for a developing nation with a manufacturing base early in development, with “economic dependence” is, as typical for your posts, all about ideology not about reality.
Importing capital goods and machinery is the typical mechanism for nations to industrialize. It is not a trap. It’s the same development ladder that Japan, South Korea, and China used to climb up. This is how flying geese works.
Also, presenting Lowy and ASPI as objective sources is laughable. Do you know these think tanks and how they fit into the picture of the region? Both have been heavily funded by US/Western defense and government interests or benefactors tied to those. They operate to produce knowledge products that facilitate opposition to Chinese influence. Quoting them to make a shallow “China bad” argument is, at best, circular. Really, it’s your standard propaganda.
You’re pushing the idea that Indonesia’s 2024 e-commerce restrictions sre proof of a failed relationship? Nope. That is a demonstration of Indonesia’s agency in the relationship. A dependent puppet state wouldn’t do things like ban TikTok Shop or tax Chinese imports to protect domestic SMEs. So, it’s actually a counterpoint to the narrative you’re trying to push. A nice self own.
What they’re actually doing in Indonesia is leveraging the smile curve of value-added production. They banned the export of raw nickel ore and forced Chinese firms to build refineries inside Indonesia. That pulls the country up the value chain and is part of the development process.
As for your take on the South China Sea, Indonesia’s refusal to mimic the Philippines’ “transparency initiative” isn’t them being afraid. They have a long-standing, non-aligned foreign policy doctrine of being “free and active.” They are actually prioritizing strategic autonomy and ASEAN centrality over becoming a pawn in US-China containment.
Oh, and did you know the “transparency initiative” is based on work of a US air force colonel who moved out of direct military service into operating an organization focused on serving the same US defense goals but at arms length? Probably not. Did you watch the US senate hearings back in October where that former USAF colonel was advocating for the expanded use of the “transparency initiative” as a method serving US interests in the region and essentially lobbying for more funding to have his “independent” organization expand application of the method to serve US security interests? Probably not.
Well, that’s exactly the type of stuff that Indonesia’s free and active policy doctrine is about keeping themselves out of. So, choosing not to be part of it isn’t dependence. They are making a strategic choice aligned with long-standing doctrine to maintain independence and agency.
When you try to present hedging strategies that are actually demonstrations of agency as just being “dependency”, you’re just revealing your own inability to view SEA nations as independent, rational actors making their own intelligent moves.
What you have is an ideological commitment combined with a lack of experience and expertise, so you end up parroting a narrative funded by stakeholders from Washington and from Canberra with deep defense ties that treats Indonesia as a victim that ought to be saved through conformity with Western interests, but not as an active and intelligent agent in their own economic development. That is some pretty weak and foul-tasting sauce.
Instead of habitually pushing articles on topics you don’t actually know much about to advance an ideological position, a good faith actor would take some substantial time to really read and research issues from a balanced range sources and raw data. But, that’s not what you do here, is it? You push heavily ideologically aligned articles, cross posting to numerous communities to drive a narrative. Your account has been called out by multiple people as being one of several sock puppets engaged in the same activity pushing the same narratives here. So are you a good faith participant, or a bad faith participant? People can make up their own minds about that based on the evidence.
Lol, as usual, Scotty Sockpuppet posts some bs to push a narrative and when the bs gets called out for what it is and runs up against anyone who actually knows something about the topic, Scotty runs away with his tail between his legs.
You are posting lists of countries and companies, make bold claims without providing any evidence.
People can see through? Yeah, I have no interest in such a discussion with a bad faith-actor parroting narratives straight out of China’s propaganda outlets.
Lol, you’re good for a laugh, Scotty. I’ll give you credit for that.
Anyone can go look up the smile curve, flying geese, bebas dan aktif, ASPI & Lowy funding, Colonel Powell and the transparency initiative or that senate hearing, and can look up actual data.
I don’t need to curate people’s sources for them.
As for bold claims, you actually posted this:
Which non-Chinese company ever had long-term success in the Chinese domestic market?
And you expect anyone to take you even a tiny bit seriously?!? I’m still laughing at that.
So, if you “have no interest” in the discussion, by all means go ahead and run of with your tail between your legs again, and maybe consider stopping posting bs about topics you’re ignorant of just to push an ideology.
There’s nothing bold about any claims I’m making for anyone that knows much at all about these topics.
Want a single example of a foreign business with long-term benefits in China? Take KFC. They’ve been in China since the 80s, have 2× as many restaurants in China as they do in the US, and almost double the revenue. Not long-term benefit? Sure seems like it to me.
Want an example of a country? Take Indonesia. $140B of annual bilateral trade. High-value infrastructure development. Development of their critical minerals industry and their green tech industry, including large projects like hydropower. Investment and building of industrial capacities such as smelting to do value-adding work domestically. All things that contribute to Indonesia’s improved competitiveness in the global economy, and helping them maintain an overall surplus in their global trade.
So, Indonesia is exporting raw materials and increasingly some value-added products from those, and this is what supports a trade surplus overall, and they’re importing low-cost consumer goods from China that allow better quality of life for people while also importing things like machinery to improve industrialization.
Doesn’t sound bad.
Anyone who knows much about these topics would know the bold claims are your absurd suggestions that no companies or countries have long-term benefits with China.
Indonesia suffers a one-way economic dependence from China. Indonesia has a structural trade deficit with China. It also mainly exports commodities (such as oils, mineral fuels, nickel) while high-end products are imported from China (such as machinery, electronic equipment), making it largely impossible for Indonesia to develop its own industry.
As one study states:
This economic dependency will, among others, limit Indonesia political sovereignty. For example, Indonesia will unlikely follow the Philippines’ transparency against China regarding Beijing’s aggression in the South China Sea.
One report - among many others - on that reads (here is an archived link):
There is much more information about Indonesian-Chinese relationship, and literally all of them point in a similar direction. With Indonesia becoming increasingly dependent on China, Beijing exploits this relationship to achieve not just commercial goals and political coercion, very mich as it does with all of its other ‘partner’ countries.
You are right in that Indonesia is importing low-cost consumer goods from China, but this doesn’t not “allow better quality of life for people” as you claim. Your statement is wrong. Already in 2024, Indonesia has introduced measures to limit sales of cheap imports on e-commerce platforms such as Shopee, Lazada and TikTok Shop that are hurting local firms.
This is just a TINY summary of why your claim of Indonesia benefiting from its relationship with China is outright false.
The absolutely predictable reply of running to pieces by organizations like ASPI and Lowy to find ideologically aligned and bias-confirming snippets, because you don’t actually have any depth in international development economics or the nuances of Southeast Asian policy.
All you’re actually demonstrating is a lack of understanding. Conflating a structural trade deficit, that is actually standard for a developing nation with a manufacturing base early in development, with “economic dependence” is, as typical for your posts, all about ideology not about reality.
Importing capital goods and machinery is the typical mechanism for nations to industrialize. It is not a trap. It’s the same development ladder that Japan, South Korea, and China used to climb up. This is how flying geese works.
Also, presenting Lowy and ASPI as objective sources is laughable. Do you know these think tanks and how they fit into the picture of the region? Both have been heavily funded by US/Western defense and government interests or benefactors tied to those. They operate to produce knowledge products that facilitate opposition to Chinese influence. Quoting them to make a shallow “China bad” argument is, at best, circular. Really, it’s your standard propaganda.
You’re pushing the idea that Indonesia’s 2024 e-commerce restrictions sre proof of a failed relationship? Nope. That is a demonstration of Indonesia’s agency in the relationship. A dependent puppet state wouldn’t do things like ban TikTok Shop or tax Chinese imports to protect domestic SMEs. So, it’s actually a counterpoint to the narrative you’re trying to push. A nice self own.
What they’re actually doing in Indonesia is leveraging the smile curve of value-added production. They banned the export of raw nickel ore and forced Chinese firms to build refineries inside Indonesia. That pulls the country up the value chain and is part of the development process.
As for your take on the South China Sea, Indonesia’s refusal to mimic the Philippines’ “transparency initiative” isn’t them being afraid. They have a long-standing, non-aligned foreign policy doctrine of being “free and active.” They are actually prioritizing strategic autonomy and ASEAN centrality over becoming a pawn in US-China containment.
Oh, and did you know the “transparency initiative” is based on work of a US air force colonel who moved out of direct military service into operating an organization focused on serving the same US defense goals but at arms length? Probably not. Did you watch the US senate hearings back in October where that former USAF colonel was advocating for the expanded use of the “transparency initiative” as a method serving US interests in the region and essentially lobbying for more funding to have his “independent” organization expand application of the method to serve US security interests? Probably not.
Well, that’s exactly the type of stuff that Indonesia’s free and active policy doctrine is about keeping themselves out of. So, choosing not to be part of it isn’t dependence. They are making a strategic choice aligned with long-standing doctrine to maintain independence and agency.
When you try to present hedging strategies that are actually demonstrations of agency as just being “dependency”, you’re just revealing your own inability to view SEA nations as independent, rational actors making their own intelligent moves.
What you have is an ideological commitment combined with a lack of experience and expertise, so you end up parroting a narrative funded by stakeholders from Washington and from Canberra with deep defense ties that treats Indonesia as a victim that ought to be saved through conformity with Western interests, but not as an active and intelligent agent in their own economic development. That is some pretty weak and foul-tasting sauce.
Instead of habitually pushing articles on topics you don’t actually know much about to advance an ideological position, a good faith actor would take some substantial time to really read and research issues from a balanced range sources and raw data. But, that’s not what you do here, is it? You push heavily ideologically aligned articles, cross posting to numerous communities to drive a narrative. Your account has been called out by multiple people as being one of several sock puppets engaged in the same activity pushing the same narratives here. So are you a good faith participant, or a bad faith participant? People can make up their own minds about that based on the evidence.
Do yourself a favour and stay away from wherever you get these fantasies.
Lol, as usual, Scotty Sockpuppet posts some bs to push a narrative and when the bs gets called out for what it is and runs up against anyone who actually knows something about the topic, Scotty runs away with his tail between his legs.
People can see through that.
You are posting lists of countries and companies, make bold claims without providing any evidence.
People can see through? Yeah, I have no interest in such a discussion with a bad faith-actor parroting narratives straight out of China’s propaganda outlets.
Lol, you’re good for a laugh, Scotty. I’ll give you credit for that.
Anyone can go look up the smile curve, flying geese, bebas dan aktif, ASPI & Lowy funding, Colonel Powell and the transparency initiative or that senate hearing, and can look up actual data.
I don’t need to curate people’s sources for them.
As for bold claims, you actually posted this:
And you expect anyone to take you even a tiny bit seriously?!? I’m still laughing at that.
So, if you “have no interest” in the discussion, by all means go ahead and run of with your tail between your legs again, and maybe consider stopping posting bs about topics you’re ignorant of just to push an ideology.