Well done! World's longest 3-rope cable car system inaugurated in Vietnam

[TaiShang]

World's longest 3-rope cable car system inaugurated in Vietnam
Xinhua, February 2, 2016

The world's longest three-rope cable car system was inaugurated in Vietnam's northern Lao Cai province on Tuesday.

With the total length of 6,292.5 meters, the system was recognized by Guinness World Records as world's longest three-rope cable car route, and the world's biggest height gap between its departure and arrival stations of 1,410 meters.

The system, connecting Muong Hoa Valley and Fansipan Mountain in Lao Cai, some 250 km northwest of capital Hanoi, has a capacity of 2,000 passengers per hour with each cabin accommodating 35 people.

The system shortens the travel time to the peak of the 3,143-meter Fansipan Mountain, which is dubbed the Roof of Indochina, to 15 minutes. Construction of the cable car system began in November, 2013.

The cable car system is expected to help boost the number of tourists to Lao Cai's Sa Pa town by 30 percent to 40 percent every year, reaching around 3 million by 2020, Vietnam's state-run news agency VNA reported.

 

[Aepsilons]

Excellent read. @TaiShang lets engage the Vietnamese brothers in a more inclusive spirit. In the end I believe Vietnam will be an asset in containing and thwarting western maneuvering in the region. They are our spirited brothers , after all.

 

[TaiShang]

Excellent read. @TaiShang lets engage the Vietnamese brothers in a more inclusive spirit. In the end I believe Vietnam will be an asset in containing and thwarting western maneuvering in the region. They are our spirited brothers , after all.

I have since I joined this forum tried to hold this line, my friend, although, at times, emotions might run high. I find it extremely antithetical to mingle certain territorial disputes with "greater" chances of cooperation that lie elsewhere. I believe in diplomacy in layers; altogether they give a form to nation's foreign policy but still can be worn/taken off separately.

I especially do not like the idea of making the growing people to people (often cross-border) interaction a matter of geopolitics.

It is oftentimes these minor regional conflicts that distract us from the larger geopolitical reality, which is the destructive presence of heavy foreign meddling. This is ahistorical and should be reversed.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Congrats Vietnam!

 

[dichoi]

 

[Aepsilons]

I have since I joined this forum tried to hold this line, my friend, although, at times, emotions might run high. I find it extremely antithetical to mingle certain territorial disputes with "greater" chances of cooperation that lie elsewhere. I believe in diplomacy in layers; altogether they give a form to nation's foreign policy but still can be worn/taken off separately.

I especially do not like the idea of making the growing people to people (often cross-border) interaction a matter of geopolitics.

It is oftentimes these minor regional conflicts that distract us from the larger geopolitical reality, which is the destructive presence of heavy foreign meddling. This is ahistorical and should be reversed.

Yes, i have realized that sometimes in our discussion of topics pertaining to China and Vietnam, the barriers to productive dialogue can be the ultra-patriotic members. I agree with you that we must be more layered, more diplomatic when we engage -- sure there will be differences, but wee should separate the differences, from the overall similarities and agreements or common national objectives.

I am in the position that sees, and IDENTIFIES that Chinese Rise does not necessarily mean impeded Vietnamese Growth. In fact, both act in syncrenism, government leaders at the local level need to keep positive rapport and complement each other. Disagreements will never be 'fully' eradicated as disagreements are a phenomena innate in politics, why even in our own respective governments, there are even disagreements amongst legislative leaders in regards to policies. The common , unifying theme is compromise. If our domestic leaders can realize comprise, then there is no reason why regional partners cannot do so to drive region-specific development.

Ultimately, I believe that Viet Nam's growth lies with China. Washington or Russia are too geographically and socially as well as cuturally alien to Viet Nam to be of indicative change. In comparison to China. To Russia and US, Vietnam can be used as a proxy to annoy China in the region, thus leading to regional instability (for Viet Nam, China and the rest of East Asia). Viet Nam will always be seen by these entities as a tool to be used as Viet Nam, to them, is neither a geographical neighbor or historically correlative entity. However, in context to China, Viet Nam is a historical partner ; bound by a common history, a common culture, a common social system and a common apprehension to external-catalyzed disharmony.

 

[TaiShang]

I am in the position that sees, and IDENTIFIES that Chinese Rise does not necessarily mean impeded Vietnamese Growth. In fact, both act in syncrenism, government leaders at the local level need to keep positive rapport and complement each other. Disagreements will never be 'fully' eradicated as disagreements are a phenomena innate in politics, why even in our own respective governments, there are even disagreements amongst legislative leaders in regards to policies. The common , unifying theme is compromise. If our domestic leaders can realize comprise, then there is no reason why regional partners cannot do so to drive region-specific development.

You are deeply involved in academic work as member in a department and so you must know very well how depratmental politics is unavodable. Politics is a science that umasks power structures in social relatioships, among co-workers at a department as well as among neighbors in a geogrpahically-culturally defined region.

I tend to take disagreements and disputes as natural phenomena; there was deep disagreements between France and the US during the second Iraq War. There are disagreements among EU about the money to be given to Turkey to contain "illegal immigration." At least, as I see it, what is between CN and VN is a solid territory with overlapping sovereignty claims. It is neither historical nor emotional/cultural. I believe it can better be managed.

Therefore, the central theme should be compromise (mainitaining the status quo) and perhaps seeking points of mutual strength in order to further explore. Areas of development (from material to public) need to be sought for by the two sides.

Ultimately, I believe that Viet Nam's growth lies with China. Washington or Russia are too geographically and socially as well as cuturally alien to Viet Nam to be of indicative change. In comparison to China. To Russia and US, Vietnam can be used as a proxy to annoy China in the region, thus leading to regional instability (for Viet Nam, China and the rest of East Asia). Viet Nam will always be seen by these entities as a tool to be used as Viet Nam, to them, is neither a geographical neighbor or historically correlative entity. However, in context to China, Viet Nam is a historical partner ; bound by a common history, a common culture, a common social system and a common apprehension to external-catalyzed disharmony.

And, definitely, as historical-social-cultural neighbors, the two sides can better accommodate each other under new geopolitical and development-related conditions than would be between distant partners. Especially in terms of Washington's planning, it is obvious that they won't be seeing VN outside the confines of their larger struggle with China, and hence they will treat these countries as bargaining chips. See in the Syrian theater how the US (gladly, for me, I should add) has been deserting Turkey in the middle of the way and siding with the Kurdish PYD despite Turkey almost shouts right in to Obama's ear that "PYD is simply an extension of PKK."

If the US can make the acute strategic move by leaving its "NATO ally" (again, to my absolute joy) in cold, they would not be hesitant to repeat it in the Asian theater. The only hope for the small countries betting on continous US supprt is the extent of the threat posed by China to the US existential interests. But at some point the "threat" may come to the point of no return and the US could be left with no other choice but making new arrangments with China at the cost of small states' bets.