‘The country that bombed you is your friend. The one that built your new railway is your enemy’

[OIO]

Selling something to someone doesn’t make you to a friend. Chinese want to make money. Germans want to make money when building something in Europe. That’s it. Otherwise I can hug the women cashier because she is my friend after I buy a water melon.

Why doesn't the United States make money by building infrastructure for foreign countries?

 

[Stranagor]

Why doesn't the United States make money by building infrastructure for foreign countries?

Probably they believe it is too cumbersome, slow, and requires a give-take relationship.

Destroying and plundering is easier, quickier and does not require much intelligence.

 

[beijingwalker]

It's a traditon, US made most of its fortunes from different wars in the history.

 

[Globenim]

All this money could have been invested into sustainable golfparks for visiting Western elites and disfunctional overpriced Western weapons to fight imaginary enemies.

Laos needs a healthy dose of pro democracy-with-Americans-characteristics rioters to burn down this infrastructure and implement an new rules-based-society-with-American-characteristics.

 

[peagle]

USA propaganda debunked. Yet another reason why US trolls hate RT so much.

‘The country that bombed you is your friend. The one that built your new railway is your enemy’
Tom Fowdy

3 Dec, 2021 15:09
View attachment 798640
Major bridge across the Yuanjiang River along the China-Laos railway in southwest China's Yunnan Province © Global Look Press / Xinhua / Hu Chao

This is the Western media’s bizarre messaging to the people of Laos, a nation that was carpet bombed by America, and which is now being vilified for accepting a new $9 billion railway line paid for by China.
Thursday was National Day in Laos, a celebration marking 46 years since the landlocked Southeast Asian nation deposed its monarchy and became a revolutionary communist state, an effort which was supported by Vietnam.
This year, the anniversary had added significance, as it saw the opening of a major new project, an electrified high-speed and freight railway system connecting the capital city, Vientiane with its northern neighbour, China.


The $9 billion project is part of the Belt and Road Initiative, and has been hailed as one of its flagship achievements. It is the first commercial and industrial railway in Laos, which, given its geography and the fact it is surrounded by mountainous terrain, has not previously had many options to expand its exports and generate economic growth.

Now, though, it has a direct rapid link into the world’s second largest economy and the world’s largest consumer market by population, and a connection to the booming ports of Guangdong. In terms of what it will bring to Laos, it is a game changer. So, what’s not to like about it?

To nobody’s surprise, the mainstream media have responded to the railway with the usual anti-China negativity. A plethora of articles sought to paint the project as a ‘debt trap’, promoting the accusation that Beijing loans countries money for projects they cannot afford and then exerts political leverage over it.

The Financial Times, for one, ran with a cynical article headlined ‘Laos to open Chinese-built railway amid fears of Beijing’s influence’. It implied that somehow Laos feels threatened or fears the construction of this very pioneering railway project (which the country’s own leader made sure he was the first to travel on). This suggestion of ‘fears of Chinese influence’ has become a common feature on such stories, which seek to cast doubt over anything positive China may be achieving or doing.

A common Twitter meme among pro-China users which has followed from stories like this asks: “but at what cost?” highlighting the frequency of such negative coverage.

And if you Google “China, but at what cost?” you can find a great many examples of articles published in major outlets. In producing such pieces, the broader intention is to depict Beijing’s actions as unwanted, threatening and constantly facing opposition. In the case of the Laos railway project, the ‘problem’ is it was financed by debt, and therefore it is not a positive step.

Yet this argument is as insulting as it is outright insensitive to Laos’ contemporary history. Anyone who knows anything about Laos’ relatively recent past will be well aware that China is not the country to fear, but the United States – the nation that dropped over 260 million cluster bombs on Laos and completely devastated the country as an extension of the Vietnam War, making it the most single bombed nation in history and claiming over 50,000 lives.


Many of these bombs remain unexploded and litter the countryside of Laos, continuing to kill civilians. In constructing the new railway, workers first had to clear the unexploded ordnance. How is it that the world and the mainstream media remain indifferent to this atrocity? And how, by any stretch of the imagination, can they claim that China is the true threat to Laos, and that the US and its allies act in the true interests of the country?

Herein lies the problem. Such a mindset symbolizes the elitism, chauvinism and self-righteousness of the countries of the West, which are ideologically inclined to believe that they stand for the ‘true interests’ of the ordinary people in the countries they profess to liberate.

Western politics peddles the assumption that through countries’ adherence to liberal democracy, they exclusively hold a single, universal, impartial and moralistic truth, derived from the ontological legacy of Christianity, and they have an obligation to introduce it to others. The West always acts truthfully and in good faith, while its enemies do not. And therefore, so the logic goes, any policy the US or its allies direct towards Laos is motivated by sincere intent and goodwill for its interests, and in turn, anything that China does is bad-faith, expansionist and power-hungry behaviour motivated by a desire to influence or control the country.

This creates the bizarre scenario whereby Beijing is depicted as evil and sinister for building a railway to connect to its neighbour – but we should forget America dropping millions of bombs on the country because it was done in the name of ‘freedom’. I’m sure you can imagine how the media would react if China did the latter.


Those who push this narrative predictably omit any insight into how Laos itself thinks about the situation. Another piece which took a similar stance, published in The Diplomat, was titled ‘Laos-China Railway inaugurated amid mounting debt concerns’.

But like the ‘fears of Beijing influence’ expressed in the FT, who are these ‘concerns’ from? The report cites the “Washington-based Center for Global Development” and what it merely describes as a “US based analyst” as sources who push the ‘debt trap’ narrative. But nowhere in any of these articles is there an actual voice direct from Laos who raises any fear of China, or objects to the railway’s existence.

Instead, they simply talk on the country’s behalf, obscuring the reality that a communist state which suffered from extreme levels of aggression from the US probably does not see its northern neighbour – and its most important economic partner – as a threat to its regime. With many more articles running variations of the same theme, there is minimal effort given to the consideration that the railway will help the country rapidly expand its exports, sustain greater growth and help Laos pay for the project.

The Laos-China railway has provided a textbook example of how the media can distort a story in order to fortify an incriminating narrative, while brushing aside brutal realities. We are shown a lopsided world, where the travesty of a country being bombed into oblivion with consequences lasting decades is ignored, and the preference is to try to convince us how that same country’s first commercial railway line is, in fact, what it should really be scared of.

It is a demonstration of how the power of the English-language, pro-US media distorts reality itself and how they can blow up an issue, yet hide the truth, by professing to care dearly about the wellbeing and interests of a country which the West poured death, destruction and carnage upon in the name of freedom.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/542114-railway-china-laos-us/

US imperialists can't stop the World.

I visited Laos around 15 years ago, travelling from south to the north, and across back into Thailand by an overnight river ferry.
It's a beautiful country with lovely people. There was a desperate need for organised infrastructure. This line will make a big difference.

 

[aziqbal]

It's a traditon, US made most of its fortunes from different wars in the history.

USSR was defeated by confrontation and isolation

same policy is now being used against China

we let China grow and allowed them to expand by allowing them in WTO in 2000

unfortunately they didnt play nice so we need to cut this journey short

one thing is for sure, China poor and backward is better for the World just like it was in the 1960s

we cannot allow China to be a world leader and allow them to organise any global event

nor can the free and fair world discuss important issues with China

China should have waited a but longer before showing its true colours but we caught them early and now have the policies in place

 

[tower9]

Why doesn't the United States make money by building infrastructure for foreign countries?

The US can’t even build infrastructure at home. How is it going to handle building it in other countries? The US has stopped building any meaningful infrastructure since the 60s.

 

[aziqbal]

Who are we? Master or the lapdog? Sometimes your we seems to mean Muslims , sometimes Pakistanis, and now it seems it means Brits.... It seems you have a "we‘ identity crisis, are you really sure about who you are?

reported

 

[Piotr]

Selling something to someone doesn’t make you to a friend.

I think you missed the point. The article is about US propaganda claiming that US (a country that bombed Laos) is Laos friend. The article does not say that building railway makes China Laos friend.

Chinese want to make money.

That's right.

Anyway Laos is paying for it's section of the railway and the railway is beneficial for both China and Laos.

Why doesn't the United States make money by building infrastructure for foreign countries?

Because the so called USA do not want other countries to become richer or more developed. USA want others to be weak and poor. Haiti is the best example. Haiti is under US influence since many decades and is one of the porest countries in the World.

 

[beijingwalker]

reported

So have you made up your mind on who you speak for when you keep saying "we"? Muslims? Pakistanis? Brits? or..?
You can't be everyone, who knows if or not you mean you represent we Chinese when next time you say ‘’we" again.

 

[beijingwalker]

China-aided rural water project in Cambodia completed

 

[comci]

It is absolutely true in real life.

You hit someone many times, and then give them some gifts, they will be grateful for you for a lifetime
You help someone many times, and then happen a small conflict, they will hate you for a lifetime

You hit someone many times, and then give them some gifts, they will be grateful for you for a lifetime= stockholm syndrome

You help someone many times, and then happen a small conflict, they will hate you for a lifetime=shameless/ungrateful folks

 

[fisher1]

The difference is America bombs and kills people but China bankrupts and imprisons people even having an issue with their thoughts and minds. China is a backstabber.

I don't know but I like my enemy out in the open fighting with me not pretending to be my friend then backstabbing me. Look at what is happening to Uighurs. China won't even allow them to have Islam in their hearts or offer prayers in their homes.

Both are enemies but if you have to choose one, choose the one that is obvious to you. A friend that fixes your home pavement but poisons your food is no friend.

 

[beijingwalker]

I don't know but I like my enemy out in the open fighting with me not pretending to be my friend then backstabbing me.
Both are enemies but if you have to choose one, choose the one that is obvious to you. A friend that fixes your home pavement but poisons your food is no friend.

No one wants to be your friend, you don't have to choose at all.

 

[fisher1]

No one wants to be your friend, you don't have to choose at all.

Chinese Communist Party pretends to do that though. It took control of East Turkestan through lies and now it is being crushed.