Thread: Chinese emigrants to conquer Siberia

The problem of the Chinese emigration is becoming more serious for Russia

It seems that migration is supposed to happen at the expense of highly-qualified professionals, not poorly-educated citizens as it happens in the US. Russia is currently experiencing a rather serious situation with the Chinese unemployed. There has already been more of them saved than the entire Russian population. Furthermore, it looks like Russia is forced to deal with this issue, otherwise it will not become a WTO member. No one can guarantee that millions of Chinese unemployed will not go to labor exchange to ask for the unemployment allowance instead. It is an open secret that smart people go to California and silly people go to Siberia.

Historically, the Chinese called Siberia "the land of hunger." The primary development of the region was over many years ago. At present time, one could do it in the Kamchatka region only. China is not likely to take care of Russia's WTO membership or the development of Siberia. If they wanted to develop the Far East, they would invest money in it, not the unemployed. However, they prefer to invest money only in saw-mills.

The last century of the oil history of humanity is drawing to its end. However, they have found oil in the "hungry country." One may not say that Russia is strongly against the Chinese emigration. Yet, it would be more reasonable to follow the example of the American practice - to introduce special tests on history or the Russian language, for instance.

Dozens of Russian traveling agencies have been deprived of their licenses to accept tourist groups from China this year. A lot of other agencies had to pay fines too. However, spokespeople for the Russian Federal Border Guard Service say, the situation is almost out of control at the border with Kazakhstan. The Chinese population there doubles every year. They even publish several newspapers in Chinese, they have paging companies, there are even hotels and hospitals.

In Russia's Far East the Chinese make about eight percent of the six million strong population. It is 480,000 people. The Russian population is gradually becoming the minority. Small vendors introduced a special term there - a "100 percent flaw." The term is used when they buy defective goods at factories and then sell them in Russia. Such an activity is strictly prohibited in China. Furthermore, the Chinese mafia in Russia is growing very fast too. In 1994 the Chinese committed 431 crimes only in Primorye region alone. The figure increased tenfold in 2004.

It is obvious, the problem has already become serious. Former Foreign Affairs Minister Andrey Kozyrev wrote a letter to then Vice Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais: "Esteemed Mr. Chubais. According to your regulations, we have considered the letter from the Primorye region Governor Yevgeny Nazdratenko addressed to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. We would like to express the following thoughts about the visa-free exchange of tourists between Russia and China. The Foreign Affairs Ministry shares the concern of the law-enforcement bodies. However, it is early to say that the tourist exchange should be based on visas now."

There are Chinese dormitories in Moscow. In the dormitories there are dirty trade halls filled with computers and sacks. One can find even small hospitals there. It goes without say that the criminal environment for such emigrants in Moscow is absolutely natural. It is hard to come across a Chinese at markets or in the street. They usually do not show up in public. They hire Russian children to work for them.

Several generations of Russian people have tried to develop Siberia. The Baikal-Amur Railway, known as BAM, may serve a bright example for it. It has recently celebrated 30 years, but it is still not finished. Attempts to turn Siberia to the penal servitude, or a camp for prisoners of war did not bring any good.

Russian people flee back to Russia from other CIS countries now. The majority of them prefer to settle somewhere closer to the center. The Kamchatka region, for example, is totally ignored. The difficulties of living in the region made it equal with living conditions on the mainland. President Putin often visits Kamchatka now, although he does not hurry to retrieve privileges for citizens of the north.

Russia's first Prime Minister Sergey Vitte used to say that Russia needs to defend itself on the west and to advance in the east. It does not concern only the military policy, it can be said about the demographic and migration policies too.

Chinese businessmen develop and grow, while Russian people still go to second-hand markets

Statistics is a tough thing. It says that over a million people have left the Far East of Russia over the period of ten years. Eight million people are left. The pressure of the 100-million-strong population of the Chinese border territory is obvious and objective like a nature decree. A lot of things have been said and written about the issue of the Chinese expansion in Russia. Generals, governors, common people and serious scientists have said enough. However, there is another important issue about the matter - the geopolitical balance. Russia tries to keep its balance, although there is a serious risk to stumble down and fall. Politicians repeatedly raised the question of settling people in the Russian Far East, the government tried to solve this problem too. However, none of their suggestions suit up-to-date conditions.



It is obvious that it is absolutely not enough to offer people a vacant space. The traditional "exile to Siberia" that was widely practiced in the tsarist and Soviet Russia does not have any perspective at all. Fortunately, no one discusses an opportunity to repeat the Stalin's great transmigration of people. Who is going to travel in the middle of nowhere, while smart people open accounts in Swiss banks?

There was another great transmigration of people before. In the middle of the 1980s, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ordered to take a lot of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan republics nationals to the Russian Far East. The grand experiment failed on account of a trivial reason: the party forgot that they do not grow maize over there.

Only a crazy person might wish to travel to the Far East to "earn money" there: the living standard in the region is twice as less in comparison with the rest of Russia. This is the problem. A great transmigration is always inspired with great incentives. Why not going to Israel, for example? The Israeli government maintains every migrant for six months, paying social allowances to elderly people on monthly basis. It is rather easy to raise a loan in order to buy an apartment, electric equipment and so on. More importantly, all of that does not depend on the level of patriotism of every certain repatriate.

Israel's way can not be an example for the Russian Far East, though. The relative well-being of this country is not based on its economy, but on American investments. The United States transfers three billion dollars to this country annually. The goal of that is all about American interests in the Middle East, the idea of the Jewish state does not have anything to do about it, of course.

This brings up a question, if Russia has similar interests in the Far East. They usually put it as follows: there are interests, but there is no money. This can not but raise doubts: there is money, but it is not aimed at the Far East. However, it may seem at first sight that the state tries to do it best to direct the funds there. Yevgeny Anoshin, the secretary of the presidential envoy in the Far East administrative district, said that the state undertook to solve three major problems in the power industry, transportation and communication. "The state does the main thing, while businessmen are supposed to do the rest," the official said. The secretary also added that the presidential envoy in the Far East initiated the presentation of Russia's Far East region at the VII International Economic Forum in St.Petersburg. It goes without saying that a forum like that is a very serious enterprise: UN spokespeople, President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Jean Lemierre will be present. As it was said, the Russian region is ready to present 118 investment projections.

This seems incredible. So many investment projections, but there is no money in the Far East anyway. What is that "main thing" that the state does? It deems that it is about the fact that the state allowed Chinese to build big towns on the sites of previous depressive settlements over ten years of the so-called border trade. The government did not allow Russians do the same, though. As a matter of fact, the border trade is not really relevant. It is the strategy that the state determines. Chinese border towns obtained both the official status of "border open town" and numerous privileges. That was a good incentive for business activities. Chinese enterprises that wished to conquer the Russian market were given wider autonomous rights. As a result, Chinese businessmen are ready to invest in the Russian mining industry. The maximum that Russian people gained from the border trade is second hand goods markets.

A very interesting article. Is it your own work? Please clarify the source.

I can't help feeling that the recent decision to build the Siberian oil pipeline to Japan instead of China was a terrible geopolitical mistake on the part of the Russians. But admittedly I know very little about it.

There is such an obvious synergy between China's booming marketplace and the natural resources of the Dalnii Vostok. All that's needed is the correct political structures.

The paranoia about being "overrun" is understandable, but - get over it. My home town of London was overrun by immigrants long ago, but it doesn't stop us having a very healthy economy, in fact it helps us.
I don't see why Russia should be so worried about undereducated or underfunded Chinese swarming into Russia; those who want to work and earn money will have an infinitely better chance by internal migration to Chinese cities. This place has capitalism gone into warp drive. There is simply no comparison between doing business in China and in Russia, you have to see it to believe it - it's staggering.

Perhaps a few poor Chinese end up in Russia, all the more visible because of their appearance. But that's not a real problem I think. After all Moscow has droves of immigrants from all over the CIS etc.

On the other hand, Chinese who go to Russia with money to invest, for example in raw materials - now that's an interesting question, and I guess it's just a matter of having the right political/bureaucratic framework.

As for the Chinese mafia - physician, heal thyself...

Why is this interesting to you waxwing? It is just more xenophobic garbage from some guy who'll post another couple articles or two and disappear back to Pravda Forums or wherever he came from. Sometimes it seems like the only thing Russian people can find to do on the internet is post crazy right-wing rants about too many darkies coming into their country. I mean Jesus, start a blog or something. Register for Yahoo! games. Download porno. There are other things to do online. The World Wide Web is your oyster. White power isn't the only section of it you need concern yourself with.

If I had to guess, this article was written by an ameteur journalist who is looking to see what peoples responses are. Looks like he/she came to the right place!

Cool, man! I always wanted to start my own oil empire in Siberia. Вперед, 同志们！

同志们！
What does this mean?

Why isn't this in Russia's best interest? It's certainly not in mine, just from an environmental perspective. I would rather people just leave Siberia alone for the sake of biology. But I can't see the Kremlin being bothered too much by this, it's more manpower where resources are least developed. Russia (as a government, not a region) has never in its many incarnations been a country based on strong ethnic ties anyways.

Originally Posted by mike

Why is this interesting to you waxwing?

I'll pretend this question wasn't rhetorical. Because I've been living in and around it for the last year and a half.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Why isn't this in Russia's best interest? It's certainly not in mine, just from an environmental perspective. I would rather people just leave Siberia alone for the sake of biology.

Hmm perhaps you would also prefer oil at $100 a barrel and perhaps you would prefer China to simply stop its industry due to lack of energy resources, call in its 1 trillion in US debt and plunge the United States into a worse depression than that of the 1930s.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

But I can't see the Kremlin being bothered too much by this, it's more manpower where resources are least developed

I think it's a very tough one for the Kremlin to play - the strategic significance of the Eastern seaport, the very significant energy resources (Sakhalin etc.) .. and in any case is Russia really Russia without its far east? They spent centuries carving out their position there, I seriously doubt that they'll throw it away. And yet there must be some advantage, I think, in cooperating with Chinese interests in this region.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Russia (as a government, not a region) has never in its many incarnations been a country based on strong ethnic ties anyways.

Eh?

"Problem of Chinese immigration" can solve the problem of Siberia depopulation.

...can solve the problem of Siberia depopulation

First off, let me tell you that I'm not anti-Chinese or anything, I'm meerly musing on the subject of population/depopulation. Question is, do we want Siberia to be densely populated or not? What do we want - pristine forests or industrial wilderness? Man is Nature's worst enemy...

Originally Posted by waxwing

Hmm perhaps you would also prefer oil at $100 a barrel and perhaps you would prefer China to simply stop its industry due to lack of energy resources, call in its 1 trillion in US debt and plunge the United States into a worse depression than that of the 1930s.

I would prefer oil to be $100 dollars a barrel. Then maybe it would approach its real environmental cost. The argument that a low oil price is necessary for a strong world economy is the biggest, fattest industrial lie. An industry will do anything in it's power to convince people to consume as much of its product as possible. If we though we didn't need it, they would go out of buisness. I hardly think that clearcutting Siberia is worth 40 years of cheap material resources.

The problem is that developing nations are trying to follow the western path of industrialization that we took 150 years ago, but now all teh good resources have been used up in the first wave. What I think we need to do as a world community is work with these nations to help them industrialize, but in a way that is realistic with the current state of the world's environment.

Oh, and btw, China has no energy shortage. China has enormous coal resources.

Originally Posted by waxwing

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Russia (as a government, not a region) has never in its many incarnations been a country based on strong ethnic ties anyways.

Eh?

What I mean is that Russia has always been a multicultural country, and "Russian" blood is verry mixed. I'm sure Chinese would be no different to the Kremlin than any of the other diverse peoples that living in Siberia.

What I mean is that Russia has always been a multicultural country, and "Russian" blood is verry mixed. I'm sure Chinese would be no different to the Kremlin than any of the other diverse peoples that living in Siberia.

I'm no expert on Russian history, but the various ethnic groups living on Russian territory have long been under the Russian sphere of influence. Chinese have not.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

Originally Posted by waxwing

Hmm perhaps you would also prefer oil at $100 a barrel and perhaps you would prefer China to simply stop its industry due to lack of energy resources, call in its 1 trillion in US debt and plunge the United States into a worse depression than that of the 1930s.

I would prefer oil to be $100 dollars a barrel. Then maybe it would approach its real environmental cost. The argument that a low oil price is necessary for a strong world economy is the biggest, fattest industrial lie.

I think you need to tell us what *you* mean by a "strong" economy. If you seriously think that exceptionally high oil prices wouldn't depress the economy in the short term you must be on another planet.

An industry will do anything in it's power to convince people to consume as much of its product as possible. If we though we didn't need it, they would go out of buisness. I hardly think that clearcutting Siberia is worth 40 years of cheap material resources.

"Clearcutting Siberia??" We don't need to chop down the Siberian forests to get the oil. The real environmental cost of oil is not at the point of extraction - it's global, post-usage, i.e. the greenhouse effect.

The problem is that developing nations are trying to follow the western path of industrialization that we took 150 years ago, but now all teh good resources have been used up in the first wave. What I think we need to do as a world community is work with these nations to help them industrialize, but in a way that is realistic with the current state of the world's environment.

If and when the "developed" (ugh) nations ever decide to take global warming really seriously, I'm sure people like GWB will get busy convincing "developing" nations not to develop the way we did, using his favorite methods of persuasion, no doubt.. for now (and I suspect forever) he and his ilk would prefer that they continue to industrialize at all environmental costs so that America can continue to feed its insane consumption and debt binge on their labor.

Geoduck ... you seem to have ignored my projection of what the result of $100/barrel oil might be. You think Americans will just suddenly decide to start taking buses? Using wind up radios instead of TVs?
We already see the result with oil at $50/barrel: war and lots of it. Is that what you want?
You see, I know as well as you do that the oil supply must run out and that therefore the price of this resource must eventually go through the roof. Projections of when that will happen vary wildly. But the point is that it is foolish to wish that on the world in the short term because we have not developed viable alternatives. Once we have, the whole question becomes irrelevant.

Oh, and btw, China has no energy shortage. China has enormous coal resources.

Thanks for telling me about the coal ... I can see that on my windowsill!
But "no energy shortage" .. wtf are you talking about? I suppose Beijing has authorized the building of 26 nuclear power plants and the largest dam/hydroelectric power station in history because it likes spending all its money?
And rolling blackouts (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY...1004nchin.html) all over the country are just to help the candle business?

And by the way, let me pretend for one minute that that makes sense - I would point out that, environmentally, coal is actually worse than oil. They are both hydrocarbons are greenhouse gas producers, of course, but coal mining is extremely dangerous and incredibly injurious to the health of miners. It also produces appalling pollution in the local area (hence my windowsill comment).

I think you are an intelligent person, and I do understand what you are saying. I despise the way western (and some eastern) nations have ravished the environment for short-term economic gain. I believe that China, as any other country, has equal right to a good standard of living. I can't, however, change what has already happened in the world with environmental exploitation. It is unfair that we, in the west, have already industrialized based on unsustainable models. My point is that I think we have developed viable alternatives, but that entrenched industry is keeping that suppressed until it is profitable for them to introduce reforms.

Also, gasoline in Europe is much more expensive than in America, and they are doing OK.

I know coal is more dirty, but honestly, I don’t think China cares too much about the environmental impact of one fuel over another. To the government, the have plenty of fuel in the form of coal.
for them

I'm sorry, but I can't give an exact definition of a strong economy. This is something that even economists can't settle on. Roughly it means that eveyone at least has the opportunity to feed and shelter themselves, and live the way they choose.

Originally Posted by Geoduck

My point is that I think we have developed viable alternatives, but that entrenched industry is keeping that suppressed until it is profitable for them to introduce reforms.

The problem with conspiracy theories (and I love them as much as the next man) is that in the Popperian sense they are bad theories - they cannot be disproved.
On balance, while I am sympathetic to ideas like this, I really don't believe such suppression could work in practice. Just my opinion.

Also, gasoline in Europe is much more expensive than in America, and they are doing OK.

That's a fair point, and I agree that the marginal effect of higher oil prices on Europe is lower than that on North America, but after all I never argued that the problems caused by high energy prices will primarily be felt in Europe - I argued that it was first and foremost the US that would suffer (but of course, when the US catches a cold....) And don't forget the European standard of living is much lower than that in the US. I just don't see American politicians enforcing a huge reduction in the standard of living on its populace without lashing out externally first (arguably they have been doing precisely this for some time). It seems to me they're looking for geopolitical solutions to internal economic/philosophical problems.
Getting back to the point - all of this is exacerbated if we don't make good use of (especially non-Mid East!) hydrocarbon resources until such time until we come up with alternatives.
I say, thank God the Chinese are finally getting wise to nuclear power. That's the kind of environmental alleviation the world desperately needs.

I know coal is more dirty, but honestly, I don’t think China cares too much about the environmental impact of one fuel over another. To the government, the have plenty of fuel in the form of coal.
for them

Once again, what are you talking about? Did you even read my reply on that point? Plenty? We're having blackouts and the government is undertaking a massive program to increase the amount of available energy. Oh well, if you insist, Dr Pangloss, then yes we have "plenty" ...

Originally Posted by waxwing

The problem with conspiracy theories (and I love them as much as the next man) is that in the Popperian sense they are bad theories - they cannot be disproved.
On balance, while I am sympathetic to ideas like this, I really don't believe such suppression could work in practice. Just my opinion.

I can only surmise that you have not actually given this much thought. “Conspiracy theories “ of one sort or another have been around since the dawn of history. Isn’t that really why the tobacco companies are loosing in court? I am pretty certain that people with as much money as oil companies can play dirtier pool than almost anyone, don’t you?

I guess this is a sore topic for me because I have actually witnessed “events” that “didn’t happen” in the past, so you can say what you like. I have my “proof”.

Now getting back to energy. My closest friend is involved in making a documentary on one of your own countrymen. He is well known in the alternative energy field. I have had a very small involvement in this project but enough to be privy to certain things that I otherwise would not have been and I know of the difficulties he has had. Such as the seizure of his paperwork and of working models.
I won’t go into detail because this is probably not the place for it.

I assure you that we will not see clean energy until we have used the last drop of oil.

Originally Posted by waxwing

Oh well, if you insist, Dr Pangloss, then yes we have "plenty" ...

China has 12% of the worlds coal resources. [http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infoshee...lreserves.htm] This, however, doesn't mean that China has the infrastructure right now to be exploiting it to their demand.

So, DDT, don't tease, tell us about this alternative energy source.

And I fail to see how you come up with the conclusion that "I haven't thought about it" from the fact that I gave an opinion that new energy suppression conspiracy theories strike me as unlikely. Your non-specific anecdotal evidence hasn't changed my mind actually, not that you should or will give a damn about that.
There are quite a few reasons why I don't think the analysis with the tobacco case holds up .. but .. I'm going too far now.


Geoduck, 12% - yes, but what does that really prove? On the same page we read that the US has 23% and so does the FSU. Does that mean the US can withdraw all its troops from the middle East (oh sorry guys, we forgot! we have tons of coal here!)?
Oil and coal are not generally used for the same purposes. Petrol (or gasoline in American English) is mainly used for transportation purposes, while the other derivates of crude oil are used in a whole variety of ways. Coal and natural gas are used mainly for power generation purposes - oil can also be used here but generally it's not the most cost-effective use of that commodity.

So my point is that we're off the point - whether it's coal or oil, both have a very negative effect on the global environment, while coal has a notably higher human cost in extraction and a notably worse effect on the local environment in the vicinity of its usage. In places like this city, you get everything - lots of traffic burning petrol and coal fired power stations .. not to mention industrial plants.
If the problem is "extracting and burning too much oil hurts the planet" then coal is certainly not the solution.

I never said I thought it was right that coal be emphasized in China, but I was just responding to your comment that they have an energy crisis. You were talking about scheduled blackouts, so you were specifically talking about electricity generation. That is why I brought up the large coal resources that China has.

I don't this coal is "the solution", but I think the Chinese government will probably think otherwise.