As far as I'm aware, China has been giving loans to various countries in Africa and building infrastructure in exchange for money and maybe some stuff like recognizing Taiwan as part of China. But why do people say China is imperialist for doing this? Is there truth to it or is it another strain of radlibs eating state department propaganda?
Do you think that "reaching out and improving or having good relations" isn't being done to build or utilize influence?
That seem more like imperialism.
But that was your definition of diplomacy?
No, you applied my definition to a specific function, one that I didn't bring up.
I guess we're miscommunicating here. My first comment, to clarify, was intended to ask, what do you think the goal of
"reaching out and improving or having good relations"
is for a state other than to gain or use influence with other states?
EDIT: Also, you did bring up the idea of states cultivating influence with each other (to gain power) as imperialism.
"Imperialism is when you try to increase your power, often by gaining influence."
I'm saying that to me the definition you gave for diplomacy and the one you gave for imperialism seem almost identical but one of them uses more negative sounding language.
I would say that diplomacy is when somebody wants to reach out to somebody else, for the goal of something like solving an issue that exists or forming an alliance. The two sides may not be equal ins stature, but the dominant side also isn't trying to gain power over the other.
Meanwhile, imperialism could be somebody providing something to somebody else, but with the goal of having them become subservient as a result.
I mean, when you say that the dominant side isn't trying to gain power over the other what exactly do you mean?
Like, the goal is always to get the other party to act in a way that is more beneficial for you, right? That's the point of forming an alliance or solving a problem, they both are done for the benefit at least one party, ideally both parties?
What is power other than getting someone to do what you want? Is the distinction you're drawing here just that diplomacy is more equitable than imperialism, which is strong arming or manipulating other states into doing what you want even though it's harmful for them?
What I mean is that the dominant side is just trying to get somebody else on their side. Theoretically, they are equals.
That's a good summary.
Okay, but the BRI appears to be some of the most mutually beneficial investment into poorer countries that we've seen in decades. Several people from countries that have been part of BRI have praised it and studies have shown it to have lasting positive impact on the affected economies, right?
So if you define imperialism basically as "one-sided diplomacy that is parasitic instead of symbiotic" then China is clearly not engaging in imperialism.