I'm not sure this is all that much better for the countries that end up with their critical infrastructure in Chinese hands.

If any country ever has problems with relationship to China going way south, they can go the Chavez route and nationalize it.

I also applaud that idea.

But I do wonder if it's possible to protect/expand trade without military activity. Historically it seems military expansion is the tip of the spear for trade expansion.

The best example is probably the opium wars between China and Britain.

Historically the superpower role has shifted hands thru wars. But not with the superpower in direct conflict with the ascending power. The British empire fell apart after 2nd world war in which Britain was a victor. However Britain was bankrupt and all capital that could move had fled to USA.

There are plenty of examples in the late 20th century where military activity wasn't a help: Taiwan and South Korea have succeeded despite their military challenges -- and spend basically nothing militarily protecting their trade.

They can only do that because someone else is subsidizing a large part of their defense (the US). Without that they would have been conquered by NK and China long ago.

Ironically, it is the US overspending in military which is part of what is driving his economic push for China instead of trying to compete militarily.

Nixon expanded trade without the military.

Other than that... except for the awful Iraq situation, I don't remember any kind of gunboat diplomacy post WW2.

Edit: nevermind, Iran.

Uhm, yeah, well the Soviet Union also conquered quite a bit through investment.

The member states and allies were willing participants, but we all know the threat of open or covert military and economic action was always implied and played a huge role.

and that's what people also criticize China for; looking the other way just to make a buck.

If others weren't providing some of the military security china wouldn't be able to do what it does