Part of being a global superpower is having some money to throw around.
Want to fund a giant 80 million person megacity in the Pearl River Delta for $322 billion? Piece of cake.
Re-build the Silk Road for up to $1 trillion? Not an issue.
But China doesn’t only show off its deep pockets domestically. The country has also been extremely active on the global market, buying up everything from natural resources in Africa to luxurious real estate in Manhattan. In total, Chinese companies have spent over $1 trillion on overseas investment over the last decade, and this has only accelerated in recent years as investors seek to acquire safe haven assets abroad.
Today’s infographic comes from SCMP, and it shows where Chinese overseas investment has been going, with a particular focus on the United States between 2000 and 2016.
Cumulatively, China has put $109.5 billion into the U.S. during this time period, with about 70% of that money coming from private companies. The sectors that have received the most Chinese investment so far include real estate and hospitality ($29.5 billion), information technology ($14.2 billion), energy ($13.4 billion), and entertainment ($8.8 billion).
According to Forbes, here were the five biggest investments made in the U.S. in 2016:
AFP The USS Carl Vinson is no stranger to the region
US aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson has started what it calls “routine operations” in the South China Sea, with a fleet of supporting warships.
The deployment comes days after China’s foreign ministry warned Washington against challenging Beijing’s sovereignty in the region.
China claims several contested shoals, islets and reefs in the area.
It has been constructing artificial islands with airstrips in the South China Sea for a number of years.
During his recent campaign, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump revealed little fondness for free trade agreements. But in the Middle East, there is at least one that deserves a second look: the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZs) protocol between Egypt and Israel, which, guided by U.S. commercial diplomacy, enhanced cooperation between the two countries beyond traditional security matters and into economic ties. It also helped save the Egyptian textile industry, benefited thousands of companies, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The QIZs were meant as extension of the U.S.-Israeli free trade agreement of 1985. The first round of talks began in July 2003, and the negotiations aimed to extend preferential treatment in U.S. markets to exports from designated areas in Egypt. For their part, the Egyptians wanted to avoid future setbacks from the changes in the WTO textile quota regimes. The y were also trying to mimic Jordan’s own QIZs and to secure a free trade agreement with the United States. As for the Israelis, they were keen on giving legitimacy to the business relations that had existed between the two partners for years without public recognition.
The invasion of Iraq was supposed to turn the country into a democracy that posed no threat to the United States, or the rest of the world. Thirteen years later, Iraq has collapsed into three warring states. A third of the country is controlled by ISIS, who have also taken huge amounts of territory in Syria. VICE correspondent Ben Anderson gains exclusive access to the three front lines in Iraq, where Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish forces are fighting for their lives. Anderson visits with the Russian military forces in Syria, meets captured ISIS fighters in Kurdistan, and interviews US policymakers about how the situation in Iraq spun out of control.
VICE on HBO is nominated for three Emmys in 2016, including Outstanding Informational Series or Special. For your consideration, VICE and HBO are releasing three full episodes, starting with Fighting ISIS. Fighting ISIS received two Emmy nominations, Outstanding Picture Editing and Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Non-Fiction Series.
The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has come under unprecedented strains in recent years. U.S. President Barack Obama has openly questioned Riyadh’s value as an ally, accusing it of provoking sectarian conflict in the region. According to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, when Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, asked Obama whether he saw the Saudis as friends, the president responded, “It’s complicated.” Many Americans continue to believe that the Saudi government was involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks, although the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of institutional or senior-level Saudi support. The Senate has even passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in U.S. courts for its alleged support of terrorism.
The Saudis have been equally intemperate in their recent comments. The kingdom’s officials have threatened to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. assets if Congress passes the bill, even though such a move would hurt Saudi Arabia much more than it would the United States. And they have made little effort to hide their contempt for Obama, whom they see as too willing to jettison old friends in order to cozy up to enemies. Prince Turki al-Faisal—the most outspoken senior member of the ruling family and a former head of Saudi foreign intelligence and former ambassador to the United States—has accused Obama of “throw[ing Saudi Arabia] a curve ball” because he has “pivoted to Iran.” The prince went on to say that the Saudis would “continue to hold the American people as [an] ally”—but implied that they no longer view the American president as one.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to the United Kingdom last week took place just over 70 years after British Prime Minister Winston Churchill championed a “special relationship” between Washington and London. Churchill’s 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri, called for a strategic and civilizational partnership against the “iron curtain” descending over Europe. Churchill’s faith in Anglo-American comity drew on his family heritage (he was the child of a transatlantic marriage) and the partnership he had forged with U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in their struggle against fascism. Their bond came to symbolize a natural affinity between the United States and the United Kingdom, which intensified during the Reagan-Thatcher era and reached its apotheosis as President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the case for war in Iraq.
Today, however, the relationship is showing signs of strain. Obama’s recent interview with The Atlantic highlighted a litany of complaints with the “distracted” government of British Prime Minister David Cameron. And indeed, the worldviews of the two men and the circumstances under which they came to office meant that a repeat of a Bush-Blair, Reagan-Thatcher, or FDR-Churchill partnership was never likely. In truth, though, the drift in U.S.-British relations is about far more than the policies or personalities of either leader. It is the result of a radically changed global context, beginning with the end of the Cold War and accelerating with the rise of Asia, which has reduced the relevance of the special relationship to both nations and pushed them to look for alternative partners.