US-China rivalry could force unwelcome choices on some countries

Observers say Beijing is not trying to create its own camp but aiming to discourage others from aligning with Washington

Smaller nations will need to carefully manage escalating competition between the two powers

Teddy Ng and Rachel Zhang  in Shanghai

SCMP

Published: 12:00pm, 3 Apr, 2021

----

1. Other Countries in the World - many of them have express unwillingness to take sides in US-China geopolitical tension.

2. The reason is simple, why offend 1 power at the expense of the other power - when Countries can work in Win-Win mutually beneficial outcomes with both powers?

3. By selecting and siding one power - at the expense of the other power --- will expedite the collision of the 2 powers.

4. By not taking side, but maintaining a principle stand in dealing with both powers (whether in economic, politics and social engagement) --- will make geopolitical tension less intense ---- as neutral countries will act as a buffer and cushion in preventing the 2 powers from colliding - by not partaking in the 2 powers' power play.

5. The World should learn from historical lessons in World War 1, World War 2 and the Cold war ---- when countries take sides into 2 Blocs - where countries snatch world scarce resources instead of sharing and trading at the expense of the other Blocs, harm one another interest at the expense of the other Blocs and make the World more dangerous  - and will not mutually benefit one another Bloc through trade, investment, business. As a result, World war break out with destruction and death of mammoth proportion.

6. Mutual beneficial trade, investment, business, climate agreement, fighting pandemic through global cooperation, global terrorism and other global issues ---- will be the best global cooperation and collaboration  going forward ----- instead of focusing on one power clobbering another power - for self-interest --- at the expense of global safety, security, peace and the consequence prosperity.

-------

User since May 2019

D. C.

As a smaller country, how to get the most out of the two powers? Well, depending how much USA or China pays, and how long, with the condition that if other side increases offer, either match or cancel? Important strategy is to be flexible and ensure easy cancellation (like USA can terminate any agreement for security reason). Of course, stay away from any military involvement. Let USA fights with China directly, small countries serve as outsiders or observers only. Isn't that good enough?

20h ago

1

---

1. Smaller Countries must not play 1 power against another power - just to reap benefits. This become a "transactional relationship" or "a bribe relationship" ---- that will not be long lasting. 

2. Expecting 1 power to "pay" the smaller Countries more than the other power - so as to gain "friendship" or "support" or "stand on the side" of that power --- does not come from a principle stand, but based on which power has more financial strength and the willingness to splurge the money to "buy" friendship --- will not last - and will not make the World less dangerous or lesser conflict. Because the power that lose out in "buying friendship" --- will create more trouble.

3. Smaller Countries should adopt the following stances in their relationship with the 2 powers:-

a. Forge mutual benefits with the 2 powers.

b. Adopt Win-Win outcome with the 2 powers through :-

- Trade

- Investment

- Business

- Travel

- Tourism

- R&D collaboration

- Resolving climate conditions, pandemic etc

4. Such relationship with the 2 powers - will be more strategic. more longer lasting - as not only the smaller Countries will benefit economically, benefit domestic business, create jobs for their people and grow their GDP. The 2 powers will also similarly benefit economically, making their business vibrant, create jobs and grow their GDP --- indeed a Win-Win outcome.

5. Such relationship between the smaller Countries and the 2 powers - will be more lasting, more strategic, more beneficial, more dignified - than expecting the powers to pay the smaller Countries to stand on their side.

6. Through such web of economic relationship and integration - the 2 powers will less likely to "locked horn" with one another or elicit smaller Countries to clobber the other power --- as every Countries have stakes in the Global Economy ---- and will not want the 2 powers to adopt confrontational stance --- that will hurt the economic interest of all stakeholders.

------

User since May 2019

D. C.

@Babe B. Thanks for your comment. Think it is more on the theoretical n academic side than reality. Are you aware how USA n the West pound the Belt n Silk Road project and want to replace it with their own to constraint China's growth n influence? Small countries can do very little and may have to choose side. And what criteria to use when choosing? Naturally who generates the biggest benefits to its citizens n country. Don't talk moral standards, freedom or democracy, or righteousness, or fairness. The big powers also will not use that. This is a political world, not Utopia. 

12h ago

-----

1. I agree with you that choosing a development project or building an infrastructure - has to be based on merits or benefits to a Country and to its citizens.

2. In addition, I also believe in mutual benefits (as I don't believe in one-sided benefit - which will not last, as there are no free-lumch) - because the power who are financing the project, offering loans, offering technical assistance, co-own or other form of collaboration - will also want to benefit from the projects (such as gaining accessibility, create jobs for its workers, create business opportunities for its companies, bank earn interest from loans, gaining goodwill, trust and winning friendship and cooperation which in turn strenghten its political influence, spur external economic growth etc).

3. Hence, selection of the projects will based on the following considerations to be objective (free from political influence) :-

a. Does the project benefit the Country and its citizen and its Economy

b. Does the Country has the means to repay the infrastructure loan based on the terms of loan

c. Does the Country benefited from technical transfer to be able to operate, and maintain the infrastructure upon completion

d. Does the Country able to collaborate with the powers to participate in other future projects etc.

e. Does the Powers has the financial means to finance the entire programme?

f. Is the programme reliable and will not flip-flop?

Eg. a power coin the concept of a multi-lateral FTA - TPP - and all members sign the FTA.

However, when a new President is elected, the power withdraw from the FTA - and leave the members in the lurch.

If a programme upon roll-out - pose the risk of flip-flop and withdrawal - then smaller Countries will hesitate to participate - because integrity and sincerity to see the programme through is the basic lowest denomination.

Else the programme lose its credibility - and the trust lost is very difficult to regain.

4. Hence to conclude, the above evaluation criteria will be on the mind of smaller Countries whether they will want to participate in the project and which project from which powers.

It will be an objective, technical assessment, financial assessment - professional assessment.

This will make selection - more professional, diplomatic and less likely to choose sides - ensuring the World is less confrontational.

=====