Sep 23, 2022·edited Sep 23, 2022Liked by Claire Berlinski, Vivek Y. Kelkar
Building railroads that could connect China to Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe sounds like a fine idea. A reliable land route would probably reduce reliance on sea-borne freight snd overburdened mega-ports, not to mention an implied reliance on the US Navy as the world's ocean-going policeman keeping international waters safe and secure from piracy. On the other hand, and there is usually an "other hand" wagging a cautionary finger at such schemes, rail freight necessarily must cross national boundaries, while ocean freight need not. I assume that securing its supply routes is a major factor driving China's BRI, and not simply fostering dependent relationships with less affluent nations, the fear being, what happens to China if the US were to apply sanctions to it? Should relations between China and its debtors deteriorate, rail freight could be interrupted fairly easily, whereas applying sanctions to ocean freight is complicated and resource-intensive.
The idea is wonderful whether you're CCP or not. Rail links are necessary and save time and cost. The problem is China's mode of investment. They try and keep the countries they invest in under their thumb through selective investment. Central Asia may well turn out to be quite different from Africa though, simply because of its location. But as Claire says Eurasia dominated by China is not a happy thought. Neither is the problem of Europe and the US, confronting a China Russia combine in Central Asia. It's early days yet but this is probably the way it will go.
There is of course a problem with crossing national boundaries. Vulnerabilities rise. States could hold up freight and create hindrances. Such problems are not unknown--Suez Canal, the Persian Gulf, the Malacca Straits, and the Taiwan Straits come to mind. But sound economics is likely to prevail quite as much as it has for maritime freight. It's very early days in overland models, so the kind of global treaties and understanding that will come about is not clear. But I believe that come about it will.
That's exactly how I understand this, yes: an effort to secure supply routes. And particularly interesting in light of Peter Zeihan's predictions, which I've been thinking about recently--viz., that the days in which the US secures the global maritime arteries are coming to a close. Is it a "fine idea?" It depends whether you welcome a Eurasia dominated by China, I suppose. I prefer it to one that starves to death, but only barely: it comes with a totalitarian down side.
Claire, the maritime routes were vital for commerce. If the overland routes fall into place, other than some very high volume and special goods like LNG, most freight will shift overland. I think Zeihan is partly right. It will end the US' control over economics through maritime arteries but for military purposes, the US has no choice but to try and retain as much control of the sea as it can. The world can ill afford to hand control of both overland and maritime routes to China. Europe simply does not have the muscle. Nor does it have the inclination. It's far too preoccupied with itself. Re: Eurasia. It's already totalitarian albeit not Chinese style. The worry there is Islam. Central Asia already has some rumblings that have been controlled by strongmen. But Turkey is beginning to meddle and Erdogan's ambitions are another worry.
Building railroads that could connect China to Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe sounds like a fine idea. A reliable land route would probably reduce reliance on sea-borne freight snd overburdened mega-ports, not to mention an implied reliance on the US Navy as the world's ocean-going policeman keeping international waters safe and secure from piracy. On the other hand, and there is usually an "other hand" wagging a cautionary finger at such schemes, rail freight necessarily must cross national boundaries, while ocean freight need not. I assume that securing its supply routes is a major factor driving China's BRI, and not simply fostering dependent relationships with less affluent nations, the fear being, what happens to China if the US were to apply sanctions to it? Should relations between China and its debtors deteriorate, rail freight could be interrupted fairly easily, whereas applying sanctions to ocean freight is complicated and resource-intensive.
The idea is wonderful whether you're CCP or not. Rail links are necessary and save time and cost. The problem is China's mode of investment. They try and keep the countries they invest in under their thumb through selective investment. Central Asia may well turn out to be quite different from Africa though, simply because of its location. But as Claire says Eurasia dominated by China is not a happy thought. Neither is the problem of Europe and the US, confronting a China Russia combine in Central Asia. It's early days yet but this is probably the way it will go.
There is of course a problem with crossing national boundaries. Vulnerabilities rise. States could hold up freight and create hindrances. Such problems are not unknown--Suez Canal, the Persian Gulf, the Malacca Straits, and the Taiwan Straits come to mind. But sound economics is likely to prevail quite as much as it has for maritime freight. It's very early days in overland models, so the kind of global treaties and understanding that will come about is not clear. But I believe that come about it will.
That's exactly how I understand this, yes: an effort to secure supply routes. And particularly interesting in light of Peter Zeihan's predictions, which I've been thinking about recently--viz., that the days in which the US secures the global maritime arteries are coming to a close. Is it a "fine idea?" It depends whether you welcome a Eurasia dominated by China, I suppose. I prefer it to one that starves to death, but only barely: it comes with a totalitarian down side.
Claire, the maritime routes were vital for commerce. If the overland routes fall into place, other than some very high volume and special goods like LNG, most freight will shift overland. I think Zeihan is partly right. It will end the US' control over economics through maritime arteries but for military purposes, the US has no choice but to try and retain as much control of the sea as it can. The world can ill afford to hand control of both overland and maritime routes to China. Europe simply does not have the muscle. Nor does it have the inclination. It's far too preoccupied with itself. Re: Eurasia. It's already totalitarian albeit not Chinese style. The worry there is Islam. Central Asia already has some rumblings that have been controlled by strongmen. But Turkey is beginning to meddle and Erdogan's ambitions are another worry.
In what way do you think Zeihan is partly right?
That's actually the subject of another article. :)
I mean “ fine idea if you are the CCP”.
Got it.