It is interesting how long a nearby territory/country can 'Stand up to China'
When you look at _countries_ (not even territories!) that have tried to 'stand up' to the USA, you only see a trail of immiseration and coup d'état. They don't even have to be _that_ close to us geographically, like Nicaragua or Chile. Cuba is the closest to a success story, and look at their economic indicators. https://tradingeconomics.com/cuba/gdp-per-capita-ppp
I’m not sure it’s a valid comparison, because no other country is even remotely comparable in aggressiveness with USA. What if you compared with eg India instead?
What about the 7-14 million Ukrainians Russia starved to death, do they count? Sure it happened a while ago but it happened and it was Russian aggressiveness that still reverberates today. Your attitude dismisses you from any and all future discussions on this matter. You have demonstrated that your are unfit to comment.
What about all the natives slain by Americans, and then the slavery? How about racist laws designed to get the black population into prisons (largely successfully)? What about people dying, because money that would normally be used to fund healthcare are being wasted on invading other counties instead?
So, I’d say it makes sense to focus on the current state of affairs, including recent history. War in Georgia is recent history, as is the Middle East. Holodomor, American concentration camps for Japanese, or apartheid - not so much.
Not to mention that people responsible for Holodomor are all dead. People responsible for killing million random civilians in the Middle East are living very comfortable lives, and their fellow citizens don’t even consider them criminals.
You don’t decide what is relevant. Ukraine has not forgotten and it is clear which side they have chosen now. No country in the world has such bad relations with it’s neighbours than Russia.
Oh, American natives didn’t forget either, same way the Chinese never forgot about Japan and Russians about Nazis, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s all ancient history.
Also, don’t get me wrong, but Ukraine doesn’t exactly have good relations with USA either. Remember how twenty years ago they promised you protection if you give up your nuclear weapons? They screwed your over. Now they are denying you NATO membership, for the same reason. They are really good at propaganda though.
Maybe you should follow your own advice - your numbers are wildly inflated (can easily be checked at Wikipedia), Ukrainians weren't the only ones in USSR who were starving to death and they were part of USSR leadership as any other nation there (with Stalin being Georgian). And frankly, idea that you're going to judge who is fit to comment is highly delusional.
If we are talking about China-India equations, they are troubled too. China claims vast swathes of land all along the Himalayas, including two Indian states (as being part of ancient Southern Tibet). It is interesting that China recognizes claims only unilaterally, as any territory in dispute on Chinese side is immediately shut off from the discussion.
India & China are in middle of a military standoff, which began in 2020 summer, about border lines [1]. It has seen one of the most massive buildups since 1962 Sino-Indian war
About 40 Chinese soldiers from unofficial sources, CIA reports etc, & ~20 soldiers on the Indian side. India seems to be more transparent on casualties here as the list of dead soldiers has been published in their newspapers/gazettes after the skirmishes in 2020. This information is better explained on Wikipedia.
Superpower (from Google):
A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.
> I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, but it's just wild to me that China is a superpower, and not only has Taiwan failed to have a revolution, but they're a financial success.
It would seem that China doesn’t meet the definition of a superpower, but I think we should all be very wary of any nation or individual who seeks power over others. Those who seek power are those we don’t want to have it.
> Isolating yourself from the world's largest economy isn't a winning economic policy.
If you're saying that Taiwan is isolating itself from China, then you are very wrong. Taiwan and China's economies are very intertwined. Taiwanese companies have had a large hand in the economic growth of China during the past generation.
It's a good reminder that countries can do quite well working with one another even if they're rivals. Hopefully this reality keeps hostilities in check.
Taiwan (ROC) has been a separate country on the doorstep of China (PRC) for more than 70 years. This status quo could certainly continue another 70 years. This status quo could even outlast the PRC government.
I think the conclusion you should draw from this is the obvious one: China is not all powerful.
by "separate country", Taiwan is governed by a group that believes it is the true government of China in exile. It might be helpful to be clear about this.
> by "separate country", Taiwan is governed by a group that believes it is the true government of China in exile. It might be helpful to be clear about this.
The overlapping (though not equal) border claims by the ROC and the PRC don't change the fact that they are two separate countries. No clarity is required because it really isn't relevant. Border disputes between countries is entirely normal.
you're muddying the waters and it's absolutely relevant (History and historical context is always relevant). In 1949, the Republic of China retreated to the island of Taiwan and continues to this day to claim to be the government (in exile) of China.
This is pretty funny though, if I've understood this correctly. People in the West always seem to think that a properly democratic government made by the chinese people (be it those in Taiwan or those in China) would be "peaceful", but to me if I look at a map and observe the lands Taiwan claims for herself, it seems quite a lot (if they do actually claim the rights to governing the China-China too, and not just Taiwan the Island)
> This is pretty funny though, if I've understood this correctly. People in the West always seem to think that a properly democratic government made by the chinese people (be it those in Taiwan or those in China) would be "peaceful", but to me if I look at a map and observe the lands Taiwan claims for herself, it seems quite a lot (if they do actually claim the rights to governing the China-China too, and not just Taiwan the Island)
Are you making the claim that Taiwan's official historical claims somehow make the current country not peaceful? How exactly? Exactly what belligerent actions has Taiwan engaged in recently?
> This isn't a simple border dispute between separate countries. It's a governance dispute between two competing claims to a single country.
Actually it's not even theoretically a single country. The "China" officially claimed officially by the ROC is quite different than the "China" officially claimed by the PRC. The difference between the claims it at least Mongolia.
But you are correct it's not a simple border dispute. It is a complicated border dispute that has gone on a couple generations now. But it's also complicated dispute between two separate countries. It is quite clearly you who are trying to muddy the waters here.
"Technocrat" doesn't necessarily imply "technologist". It's like the more colloquial "wonk", i.e. someone who's more interested in the minutiae of policy rather than party affiliation or personal aggrandizement.
Offtopic: dear god that article is a design trainwreck. I don't think I've ever been more thankful for Firefox's reader view.
The constant onslaught of US "news" drumming up war on China and Russia is very scary. The production value of this site and the detail of its design are a problem. Reuters is a problem. This is indeed war propaganda. I do think the United States is on the offensive in this "cold war", and they they want it to be hot. United States foreign policy has historically been, let's say, less than helpful. I really do not believe China is a threat to the world.
What exactly is there to stand up to? Why not cooperate with China for mutual good? I believe Chinese leadership when they say all they want is a more multilateral world. US simply can't stop being world hegemon. Looking at the way people post both on this site and on Reddit about China, it's all same old Yellow Peril racism if you ask me. Really getting sick and tired of everyone just uncritically taking in US war propaganda and jumping on the war wagon.
So first, Taiwan is not sovereign nation. Under international law, Taiwan and mainland is one nation. So there is no such concept of Taiwan airspace per international law.
And, the so-called incursion is to Taiwan's air defence identification zone. That zone covers majority of Fujian province. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Z...
Literally, mainlanders are intrusion Taiwan adiz constantly. That's how ridiculous the western media repotting has been nowadays. They'll refuse to even acknowledge an obviously physically impossible situation, and blame on China...
> So I think it's useful to hide my identity and make throw away account to just reflect a point.
You made the throwaway account 3 years ago, and only started to use it two hours ago.
> Otherwise, people would start associate my comments to certain ideology allegence.
I think the converse is true. If your account had a history of points of view on different topics people would be far less likely to see it as being driven by ideological allegiance.
> I am just come to provide CCP's view on hot issues.
Thank you for being clear about what you are doing here. That is much appreciated.
In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over.
In the unilateral case, China prevents individual countries from recognizing Taiwan or even implying it’s independence through threats and retaliation.
Which "international law" are you referring to that doesn't consider Taiwan sovereign? Maybe you mean to say that Taiwan/ROC is not a member of the UN? That is true, but it doesn't mean that Taiwan isn't a sovereign country. Switzerland didn't become a sovereign country only in 2002.
Yes, this is a fair point. I was referring primarily to the fact that the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a separate entity and doesn’t give it a seat independently from the mainland - e.g. The WHO has been blocked from doing so by the CCP.
But, you are right, this is not the same at all as an ‘international law’ establishing that Taiwan is not a sovereign country.
> In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over.
I think you are just stating that that is part of the international law, right? Law is just law. It went to effect for stakeholders agree that they can abide by bits ruling.
Texas is not independent because US does not allow that. Right? Because the law dictates that the sovereign power is legally the care giver of a group of population on a land.
This is relatively balanced description on the issue. One can certainly see that the politics have made the matter intentionally vague.
And nternational law is not necessarily written. It could be some commonly agreed principles. For example, there is no written law says US government can govern the land on here. It's based a certain aggreed upon concepts in people's mind.
Which "international law" exactly states that Taiwan is a part of "China"? For example, the UN certainly has never taken that position. (Many people mistakenly believe that UN Resolution 2758 says that, but even a cursory reading of the short resolution shows.)
I think it’s clear that there is nothing to support your claim that there is any ‘international law’ that establishes that Taiwan is part of the mainland.
It is literally only a position of the CCP and nothing more.
As I have pointed out, your account was created three years ago, but was silent until a couple of hours ago, when you have used it only to support the claim that Taiwan is part of mainland China, never commenting on anything else.
> If you want to advance the idea that it's only China mainland had this idea of Taiwan is part of China, then you already made a US centric view that is very likely to be wrong.
As I said elsewhere - if you can provide us a link to this international law, we can discuss it, and we can see if I am wrong.
As it is, it is clear that there is no international law establishing that Taiwan is part of China, and nothing you can point to.
Once again, I will mention that you created this throwaway account 3 years ago, and only activated it in the last few hours to make comments solely supporting the CCP’s claim to Taiwan.
No, it’s the CCP. The CCP is the government of the mainland and it is the government that makes the claim.
> throw away accounts have no connection to a particular point of view.
If you say so, but then can you explain why you created a throwaway account 3 years ago, only to use it now only for the purpose of defending the CCP’s claim to Taiwan?
> CCP/China that's the same thing. You might want separate you cannot separate your head from your body.
You contradicted me earlier when I called it the CCP’s claim, so I guess you have changed your mind.
> The throw away account. I don't get it. Throw away are created for temporary use. After this episode of chat, this account will disappear. I just have quite a few I created in a whim, and use any one from the Google password manager.
Ahh so you created quite a few accounts all at one time, 3 years ago, and you use a different one each time you want to present the CCPs point of view.
That makes sense.
> Lastly, your reasoning of questioning other's motivation through minor details are really killing the conversation.
I’m not questioning your motivation. You have been clear about that. I am simply trying to understand the method.
By creating a set of throwaway accounts to use later, you avoid them appearing to be new accounts which show up in green at the time you use them, which makes it less likely people will notice that they are throwaways.
Please read the link you included in your comment. There is no connection between democratic process and international law except that some of the nation states themselves are democracies.
Note also that capital D Democratic refers to an American political party. Lowercase d democratic is correct for your comment.
It's also fair to push back on war hungry narratives, it is equally as important to understand all scenarios. Nobody puts this better than Gen. Mark Milley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSBN5xBC1L4
Well, as a matter of fact, any independent news organization is a problem for any modern government. CCP and US establishment are equally fearful of independent news organization. For example, Assange and wikileak.
Superpower logic is far too cold for terms like colonizing. There is very little focus on such ideological by-products of power when the General Staff makes its considerations and recommendations for the security of the state. If you think in terms like these, from some liberal shitlib university, against military superpowers who can guarantee MAD with nuclear weapons you are not going to make heads or tails any of it.
It is best to purify your mind and just read Thomas Schelling.
I‘m a Russian language learner for many years. When you listen to Putin what he tells his Babushkas, you now you cannot trust him one word. BTW, I recommend to listen to him as a learner: He speaks slowly, very articulate with clear pronunciation, so he can tell Babushkas that foreign power are threatening Russia.
US isn't technically drumming up war on China and Russia; they are promoting war to the last Ukrainian against Russia, and probably the last Taiwanese against China. A difference, but probably enough to help US hitch a long as superpower couple of decades if either of these events take place.
Direct confrontation between Russia, China vs. US is not even in the question. US couldn't defeat couple of goat herders and they're going to level up to S-tier opponents? I wouldn't even bet on US against Venezuela or Iran at this point.
> US couldn't defeat couple of goat herders and they're going to level up to S-tier opponents? I wouldn't even bet on US against Venezuela or Iran at this point.
Operation Desert Storm was a success and completely overwhelming. The amount of power projected was incalculable. Here is an extremely detailed account of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg
OTOH, US did just this year lose its longest war and it was against Afghanistan. I rely on this closer event. Granted, admitting the loss there was the first step in road to recovery.
It wasn't a conventional war. I don't think there is any defense to the massive fuck up in the Afghanistan exit strategy though. But, to say that US military is incapable of doing anything is a pretty lousy argument.
What is conventional war? Do you think that the Chinese or Russians will play nice and play war ship for ship, plane for plane and tank for tank against the US like the Iraqis did at the beginning?
The US military generally has a very "meh" track record.
Otoh, the us was able to maintain the status quo with the taliban being relegated to the mountains with 3500 troops against ~75000 taliban. The DOD has over 1 million troops at their disposal. If you seriously think Afganistan was more about absolute power vs political willingness.. I just don't know what to say.
That isn't actually right. Yes there were 3500 actual soldiers on the ground, but they also had tens of thousands of afghans they would use for a lot of the dirty work, and multiple thousands of other support personnel necessary outside of Afghanistan. And that was just during the drawdown, during surges there were even more at various points in time.
As for sheer numbers of troops, the US doesn't have the capability to actually outfit, support, and deploy anywhere near a million troops in, for example, the middle east.
I guess it's arguable what the actual whole truth is in Afghanistan, but a lot of writing on it paints the Afghan troops themselves as being unprepared to defend themselves and in many cases unreliable. We were ostensibly trying to help organize and train them, but just being there doesn't mean people will be inspired to take the risks and do the job.
It's also not the first time a highly motivated group of rebels won a guerrilla conflict in Afghanistan. The USSR fought a 9 year unsuccessful war in Afghanistan too, if you don't recall, after probably helping destabilize and overthrow the government; the current Taliban leadership grew out of factions of the mujahideen that ousted the Soviets back in the 1980s.
I'm no military expert, but it does seem like the US is not geared towards massive troop deployments right now. I've always thought that's because the expectation is that we won't have a massive troop war like WW1/WW2 again.
The USSR was actually fairly successful once they figured out that brute force was never going to work, and executed the crazy leader of the national government to replace him with a more moderate leader. Their puppet state survived over a year without Soviet support, until Yeltsin sanctioned them. That's something the US never managed to do, not even close, and it took them 9 years instead of 20. Likely if the USSR wasn't moribund the puppet government could have pulled through long enough to start a process of consolidation.
And that's despite massive and direct US support to the Mujahideen, which the US didn't have to worry about.
Afghanistan was a winnable war. The way to win the war was, from the outset, to build a strong state that is fairly self-sufficient and motivated to defend itself, without too much corruption. The US military wasn't able to do that. At every turn they were ineffective in rooting out corruption and moral decay, didn't have anywhere near a workable vision for a path out of the Afghan disaster, and lacked the ability to implement a stable political system.
I agree that the US isn't geared towards massive troop deployments. That's why it's absurd to trot out troop numbers as the person I was replying to did.
> I believe Chinese leadership when they say all they want is a more multilateral world.
They say but don't do it. China's behaviour towards Canada, Lithuania and most of Eastern Asia is anything but multilateral. It is plain and simple imperialism.
I'm not old enough to read mainstream news during the 80s, but learnt that there was a period of anti-Japanese fear mongering due to Japan's rising economy. It caused riots, burning of japanese products, and street violence to people who looked like Japanese.
I'm not too worried about war between nuclear powers, but I do fear for Chinese and Chinese-looking people living in the west.
We should all worry about the kind of people who would harass Chinese looking people in the west, but as someone in Australia, I’d like to assure you that while it is definitely very hard to move to a new country, a new language a new culture, and there are racists everywhere who tend to be loud and impulsive and hurtful, people here are deeply proud that this is a place where people from around the world have been able to come to make a life and contribute their culture. With each wave of immigration there has been initial wariness and eventual embrace. If you ever get the chance to come to Melbourne, ask people about the post war Vietnamese migration, if you read the media from the time you’d think there was hostility towards Vietnamese, what you’ll actually encounter is pride that Vietnamese are here and a real love for the Vietnamese people. Read about the visas given to Chinese students after Tiananmen, and the pride people have in the hybrid Indigenous/European/Asian culture of Broome which was exempt from the White Australia Policy, and you’ll see the world people want is a very different place to the fearful place our national leaders are dreaming for us
I would love to be able to work with the people of China and Russia as you’re suggesting, I think the great mass of people in all these countries would, but you’re blurring the populations of the countries and the strategic plotting of the national leaders. I wonder if you might be making the terrible mistake that almost all of us seem to make, of seeing your country from the intimate perspective of family, friends and ordinary people living their lives, and others through the words and actions of national politicians. I think the leaders of all of these countries are threats to the world, and not because they necessarily have plans of expanding their empire across the globe, but because their primary goal is to hold power in their own country which requires theatre to the populace and flows of wealth to their core supporters. China doesn’t need to retake Taiwan, there are already Chinese people there doing just fine, Russia doesn’t need to threaten Ukraine, US doesn’t need its military practically everywhere, but the leaders in each of those countries can’t back down on any of those things or their person hold on power is over
The leader exists because the (majority of) people implicitly allow it. The calculus of whether to resist and /or topple the leader is whether the individual is worse off without doing so.
In China, most people are better off with the current leadership (than the previous), and the economic prospects is at least looking good for them. They wouldn't want to rock the boat obviously.
So despite the fact that the people of china is peaceful and willing to cooperate unlike the CCP's external stance, they do hold responsibility for the actions of their leaders.
I take the same stance with the USA's actions under trump - this is in no way targeted at any particular country.
I suppose I agree with you.
But we’re all at fault here.
We’re born into a world with existing power structures that know how to defend themselves, that know the amount of carrot and stick that will this dismal compromise together. There’s no obvious way to change them, and by the time you’re big enough to try anything you have people you love, and a sense of what you risk. In the west we have nice memories of peaceful marches changing things. Even people who won’t discuss Tiananmen, know about the cultural revolution, about the millions that died in the civil war, and no illusions as to the danger of trying to change China
Ms. Tsai is a skillful politician. Her success primarily lies on the adoption and the adept use of identity politics in Taiwan.
Despite a long history of national linkage with mainland China, Taiwan, under the colonization and brutal cultural and economic transformation by Japan invasion in the early 20 century till the end of WWII, have gone through a heart breaking separation from the homeland.
Ms. Tsai, just like her mentor, Mr. Lee Teng-hui are heavily influenced by liberal Democratic political ideology, and refined that with a modern form that is closer to western worlds. Mr. Lee Teng-hui represents a more Japanese heritage. And because of his disillusioned passion for communism, Lee had been a communist, and got bullied by KMT after the retreat.
Ms. Tsai led a whirlwind of political ascension through labeling "本省人” “外省人” political identities. Where she also mastered the online propaganda toolings eg the 1450 army (https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B6%B2%E7%B5%A1%E6%89%93%...). Mrs. Tsai's domestic policy heavily rely on trade economic value for political ties like importing US pork with additive that are known to have harm to human https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B6%B2%E7%B5%A1%E6%89%93%...
And cultivation of national pride to distance the Taiwan island from mainland, and make the island more prestigious and similar to a national body. Like the so-called "advanced vaccine" by Taiwan's own Rd center https://www.dw.com/zh/%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%E5%BC%80%E6%89%93%E... these vaccines are rushed to public without adequate testing, and caused higher than usual death.
Ms. Tsai obviously has no adherence to the international law that recognize Taiwan as a part of China. And many Taiwan politicians are fearful of joining China for historical reasons. They even rejected Jiang Zeming's offer to retain it's own military and civil government, by just recognizing formally the CCP led central government, literally a federated nation.
Unfortunately, Taiwan's cultural linkage to China is weak. And the mainland is gearing towards a coercive reunification in some form that is appropriate to China's economic and political consideration. I.e., If China continue to grow and surpass US in all major aspects of national strength, Taiwan can keep this state indefinitely, as China does not really care that much when it becomes a more powerful US. But US won't allow that, global hegemony is a zero sum game, the loss of that status will destroy US financial industry, for an example of the consequence. And Taiwan for her self proclaimed high vision of independence, is heading into a dead end. As a weakening China will be more hostile to the island, Taiwan, in its own pursuit of some potlical value, will bring ruin to the island, probably bundled with significant damage to the mainland. Meanwhile, US would righteously declare the victory of democracy, and say nothing about the human suffering in the conflict, and exploit the economic loot afterwards.
In the end, I'll support the growth of China in all aspects of national power. Hopefully a better version of US can born from that. I'll do my best to influence the Western audience about the more complicated aspect of Taiwan issue, to broaden their view about alternatives than just the black and white democracy vs xxxx (authoritarian dictatorship swap any of your favorite words on China).
The US led world order is simply not going to sustain, ever...
I have to disagree. The comment above uses proper English, proper formatting, cites sources where appropriate. That's a 5 dollar comment at the very least.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
In the case of articles touching on China, though, this is hard. We will never hear the perspectives of Chinese nationals who disagree with the CCP line, even if they reside outside of China, because they will be reported and their loved ones will face fearsome punishments. So HN "debate" is polluted because only one side is let through, regardless of whether those espousing the CCP line have any formal relationship with the CCP.
The logical reasoning is starting lacking, and the preassumptions are equally entrenched.
> We will never hear the perspectives of Chinese nationals who disagree with the CCP line
This is not true. Watch Radio Free Asian, the epoch times, and many indenpent Chinese dissident channels on YouTube like Mr. Jiang Feng (https://youtube.com/c/%E6%B1%9F%E5%B3%B0%E6%97%B6%E5%88%BB). These are mostly Chinese speaking content. You of course can find a lot of English content of western media interviewing Chinese dissident.
> they will be reported and their loved ones will face fearsome punishments.
Another slander by western Media about the social situation in China. Essentialy, the media wants to paint the Chinese soceity as inhuman, and incapable of rational thinking. That of course becomes a nice subconscious justification of violence towards them, like what happened in the colonial era by White colonists to justify their policy towards Indians.
Chinese do not report their friends and family. The might expose by standers occasionally, online. But again that's not too different from someone got cancelled here.
> polluted because only one side is let through
The one sided part is the negative and inhuman side of China right?
Think yourself for a moment the slanders some IDs received when they advanced a contrararian view on China with seemingly plausible backings, and the unanimous views that portrait a unjust and inhuman Chinese society.
If you think the one-sided part is the positive part, then it bears explanation that how someone stating objective truth got slandered repetitively without any factual counterparts.
> The might expose by standers occasionally, online.
That sounds like a terrifying threat to anyone who might post on this page who has loved ones within the reach of the CCP.
The number of people who should be reported to any government for criticizing it is zero. If there are laws against criticizing the government, such laws are unjust.
> The one sided part is the negative and inhuman side of China right?
We already know that promise is empty, having witnessed numerous incidents on American college campuses where CCP loyalists were watching and reporting those deemed disloyal to the government.
> CCP represents the nation. There is no clear separation from the ruling body vs. the nation.
The CCP wants there to be no distinction because they want those who oppose the CCP to be seen as enemies of the Chinese people and Chinese culture. I do not accept that. I am not an enemy of the Chinese people. We are all humans. Furthermore, I regard those Chinese people who struggle against CCP oppression as called upon by our times to exhibit greater courage than I will ever display in my life, and I have the greatest admiration and respect for them.
> In the end, I'll support the growth of China in all aspects of national power.
If you're a Citizen of the Mainland China, then I'll support your right to support your nation and its current CCP Government, even if I disagree with it.
However, if you're a resident/citizen of a Western nation and earning your livelihood there, I'll encourage you to take another look at the whole situation and decide for yourself if CCP model and its behavior towards other nations and even its own minorities is really the right model for any country, let alone China.
> I'll encourage you to take another look at the whole situation and decide for yourself if CCP model and its behavior towards other nations and even its own minorities is really the right model for any country, let alone China.
Yes, I did that every single day. This is just what I currently feel. My perception might change. BTW, I am a Chinese living in US.
The Taiwanese leader is hardly "standing up" to China. China's calculus of attacking Taiwan is probably a more global in scale: for example US submarines can end the maritime traffic in South China Sea completely at any given point.
SCS is not conducive to submarine operations, which is why China wants to monopolize it so badly. Otherwise, they are completely hemmed in by Korea, Russia, Japan, Taiwan. Unfettered sea access for trade or military reasons is seen as very important, right now it is easy to cut China off (and Russia is still considered a frenemy despite how relations have improved in the last 20 years).
> "With their lives, blood and tears, the young people in Hong Kong have demonstrated for us that one country, two systems is not feasible," Tsai said.
The saga of Hong Kong is so sad. They didn't take their freedom for granted, they struggled mightily, but ultimately they have been crushed.
The lesson for Taiwan could not be more stark. I can see why Tsai said this, and why she has received such support from the Taiwanese people in response.
It is hard to stand up to the CCP. If an individual with Chinese ties did so on a forum such as HN, doubtless they would be reported by omnipresent loyalists monitoring these exchanges, just as the students were at various US universities.
Add the large numbers of Left and Right politicians (both Labour and Liberal) happy to sell their soul and lawmaking abilities for corrupt bags of dirty money from Chinese Communist Party / Mining / Gambling / Property Developers.
Vote all these old geezers out! The major political parties in Australia are by and large a cesspit of spineless sellouts.
Vote for the smaller independent parties, especially those with younger candidates.
Drew Pavlou's party for example (with some Uyghur-Australians).
The game is asymmetric. Hongkonger cannot fight back with all guns with chinese hands. Look at many countries and firms (say intel lately), Taiwan is still in danger as we are not sure any real consequences once the Dist settled down. And how many insiders are there. In Taiwan.
The point of PRC subsuming HK now is have ample time to cultivate new generations of HKers sympathetic to One Country before 2049 as exemplar for One Country Two Systems. The previous generation under UK education was always going to be tainted. Identity politics today is not going to be the same as that generations from now. The countercurrent is Tsai trying to manifest a strong, independant TW identity. The cultural clash will be in 20 years when those TWers look at HKers who will remain privileged and prosperous, but with a democratic facade - basically Singaporeans - and wonder if that life is better than war once the current charade that US can defend TW collapses. And more significantly, once PRC develops military capabilities to stalemate US both MAD and conventionally. Even then PRC will probably have to concede with some sort of satrap / vassal status. 1C2S doesn't have to be "feasible", it just has to be unambiguously better than the alternative, which is a matter of eroding US deterrence.
The only Hong Kongers who will remain prosperous in 20 years are the sycophants who embrace this new fear-based system imposed upon them by a genocidal regime.
They can never speak out against their unwanted political overlords or end up like the incarcerated opposition politicians, journalists, lawyers, students, doctors, etc
Basically anyone who want to voice their own truth under their own free will ends up jailed and maybe tortured until they recant their true feelings and become another crushed spirit.
If there are "two systems" in the future, they will both be repressive — transforming "two systems" into a rotten shell, a sickening corruption of the original ideal of preserving the freedom of the people to choose their own government.
138 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 234 ms ] threadWhen you look at _countries_ (not even territories!) that have tried to 'stand up' to the USA, you only see a trail of immiseration and coup d'état. They don't even have to be _that_ close to us geographically, like Nicaragua or Chile. Cuba is the closest to a success story, and look at their economic indicators. https://tradingeconomics.com/cuba/gdp-per-capita-ppp
I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, but it's just wild to me that China is a superpower, and not only has Taiwan failed to have a revolution, but they're a financial success. https://statisticstimes.com/economy/country/taiwan-gdp-per-c...
So, I’d say it makes sense to focus on the current state of affairs, including recent history. War in Georgia is recent history, as is the Middle East. Holodomor, American concentration camps for Japanese, or apartheid - not so much.
Not to mention that people responsible for Holodomor are all dead. People responsible for killing million random civilians in the Middle East are living very comfortable lives, and their fellow citizens don’t even consider them criminals.
Also, don’t get me wrong, but Ukraine doesn’t exactly have good relations with USA either. Remember how twenty years ago they promised you protection if you give up your nuclear weapons? They screwed your over. Now they are denying you NATO membership, for the same reason. They are really good at propaganda though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
India & China are in middle of a military standoff, which began in 2020 summer, about border lines [1]. It has seen one of the most massive buildups since 1962 Sino-Indian war
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
Because, frankly, I don’t give a damn about oil or territorial claims. That’s just politics. People’s lives - that’s what matters.
Similar to how small-terrorist attacks (with small number of deaths) can result in huge policy changes that change countries forever.
> I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, but it's just wild to me that China is a superpower, and not only has Taiwan failed to have a revolution, but they're a financial success.
It would seem that China doesn’t meet the definition of a superpower, but I think we should all be very wary of any nation or individual who seeks power over others. Those who seek power are those we don’t want to have it.
How telling.
If you're saying that Taiwan is isolating itself from China, then you are very wrong. Taiwan and China's economies are very intertwined. Taiwanese companies have had a large hand in the economic growth of China during the past generation.
It's a good reminder that countries can do quite well working with one another even if they're rivals. Hopefully this reality keeps hostilities in check.
>_countries_ (not even territories!) that have tried to 'stand up' to the USA, you only see a trail of immiseration and coup d'état.
I think the situation demonstrates that China needs Taiwan more than the US needs Cuba.
I think the conclusion you should draw from this is the obvious one: China is not all powerful.
The overlapping (though not equal) border claims by the ROC and the PRC don't change the fact that they are two separate countries. No clarity is required because it really isn't relevant. Border disputes between countries is entirely normal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_the_government_of_t...
This isn't a simple border dispute between separate countries. It's a governance dispute between two competing claims to a single country.
Are you making the claim that Taiwan's official historical claims somehow make the current country not peaceful? How exactly? Exactly what belligerent actions has Taiwan engaged in recently?
Actually it's not even theoretically a single country. The "China" officially claimed officially by the ROC is quite different than the "China" officially claimed by the PRC. The difference between the claims it at least Mongolia.
But you are correct it's not a simple border dispute. It is a complicated border dispute that has gone on a couple generations now. But it's also complicated dispute between two separate countries. It is quite clearly you who are trying to muddy the waters here.
Offtopic: dear god that article is a design trainwreck. I don't think I've ever been more thankful for Firefox's reader view.
What exactly is there to stand up to? Why not cooperate with China for mutual good? I believe Chinese leadership when they say all they want is a more multilateral world. US simply can't stop being world hegemon. Looking at the way people post both on this site and on Reddit about China, it's all same old Yellow Peril racism if you ask me. Really getting sick and tired of everyone just uncritically taking in US war propaganda and jumping on the war wagon.
And, the so-called incursion is to Taiwan's air defence identification zone. That zone covers majority of Fujian province. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Z... Literally, mainlanders are intrusion Taiwan adiz constantly. That's how ridiculous the western media repotting has been nowadays. They'll refuse to even acknowledge an obviously physically impossible situation, and blame on China...
This is the CCP position, yes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=justicezyx
Also, I see your account was created 3 years ago, but only became active in the last hour to post defenses of the CCP and China.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=newbear1
You made the throwaway account 3 years ago, and only started to use it two hours ago.
> Otherwise, people would start associate my comments to certain ideology allegence.
I think the converse is true. If your account had a history of points of view on different topics people would be far less likely to see it as being driven by ideological allegiance.
> I am just come to provide CCP's view on hot issues.
Thank you for being clear about what you are doing here. That is much appreciated.
How can that be? You created a throwaway account 3 years ago and haven’t used it until now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29681040
And who made that "international law"? The CCP? Taiwan is sovereign because they want to be, overwhelmingly.
China's imperialism towards Taiwan is just imperialism, like in Tibet and Hong Kong. And like Russia in Ukraine.
Nothing different than the U.S. did in Philippines, Iran and Latin America during most of 20th century.
In the unilateral case, China prevents individual countries from recognizing Taiwan or even implying it’s independence through threats and retaliation.
A recent example: https://news.yahoo.com/china-threatened-send-lithuania-garba...
The only reason Taiwan is not considered sovereign under international law is because China has prevented it.
Same question as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29677548
Which "international law" are you referring to that doesn't consider Taiwan sovereign? Maybe you mean to say that Taiwan/ROC is not a member of the UN? That is true, but it doesn't mean that Taiwan isn't a sovereign country. Switzerland didn't become a sovereign country only in 2002.
But, you are right, this is not the same at all as an ‘international law’ establishing that Taiwan is not a sovereign country.
I think you are just stating that that is part of the international law, right? Law is just law. It went to effect for stakeholders agree that they can abide by bits ruling.
Texas is not independent because US does not allow that. Right? Because the law dictates that the sovereign power is legally the care giver of a group of population on a land.
You are mixing law and self conscience.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over....
This is relatively balanced description on the issue. One can certainly see that the politics have made the matter intentionally vague.
And nternational law is not necessarily written. It could be some commonly agreed principles. For example, there is no written law says US government can govern the land on here. It's based a certain aggreed upon concepts in people's mind.
If you can provide us with a link to the law in question, we might be able to go into this question in more detail.
Until then I think it’s fair to assume that you are mistaken.
Which "international law" exactly states that Taiwan is a part of "China"? For example, the UN certainly has never taken that position. (Many people mistakenly believe that UN Resolution 2758 says that, but even a cursory reading of the short resolution shows.)
It is literally only a position of the CCP and nothing more.
As I have pointed out, your account was created three years ago, but was silent until a couple of hours ago, when you have used it only to support the claim that Taiwan is part of mainland China, never commenting on anything else.
As I said elsewhere - if you can provide us a link to this international law, we can discuss it, and we can see if I am wrong.
As it is, it is clear that there is no international law establishing that Taiwan is part of China, and nothing you can point to.
Once again, I will mention that you created this throwaway account 3 years ago, and only activated it in the last few hours to make comments solely supporting the CCP’s claim to Taiwan.
> That's China mainland's claim
No, it’s the CCP. The CCP is the government of the mainland and it is the government that makes the claim.
> throw away accounts have no connection to a particular point of view.
If you say so, but then can you explain why you created a throwaway account 3 years ago, only to use it now only for the purpose of defending the CCP’s claim to Taiwan?
You contradicted me earlier when I called it the CCP’s claim, so I guess you have changed your mind.
> The throw away account. I don't get it. Throw away are created for temporary use. After this episode of chat, this account will disappear. I just have quite a few I created in a whim, and use any one from the Google password manager.
Ahh so you created quite a few accounts all at one time, 3 years ago, and you use a different one each time you want to present the CCPs point of view.
That makes sense.
> Lastly, your reasoning of questioning other's motivation through minor details are really killing the conversation.
I’m not questioning your motivation. You have been clear about that. I am simply trying to understand the method.
By creating a set of throwaway accounts to use later, you avoid them appearing to be new accounts which show up in green at the time you use them, which makes it less likely people will notice that they are throwaways.
Note also that capital D Democratic refers to an American political party. Lowercase d democratic is correct for your comment.
It's also fair to push back on war hungry narratives, it is equally as important to understand all scenarios. Nobody puts this better than Gen. Mark Milley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSBN5xBC1L4
Any independent news organization is a problem for the CCP.
What? They didn't?
What? They didn't?
It is best to purify your mind and just read Thomas Schelling.
> simply another form of racism.
That's just plain stupid. I fear their authoritarian and murder leader, I don't fear their people.
Direct confrontation between Russia, China vs. US is not even in the question. US couldn't defeat couple of goat herders and they're going to level up to S-tier opponents? I wouldn't even bet on US against Venezuela or Iran at this point.
Operation Desert Storm was a success and completely overwhelming. The amount of power projected was incalculable. Here is an extremely detailed account of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg
The US military generally has a very "meh" track record.
As for sheer numbers of troops, the US doesn't have the capability to actually outfit, support, and deploy anywhere near a million troops in, for example, the middle east.
It's also not the first time a highly motivated group of rebels won a guerrilla conflict in Afghanistan. The USSR fought a 9 year unsuccessful war in Afghanistan too, if you don't recall, after probably helping destabilize and overthrow the government; the current Taliban leadership grew out of factions of the mujahideen that ousted the Soviets back in the 1980s.
I'm no military expert, but it does seem like the US is not geared towards massive troop deployments right now. I've always thought that's because the expectation is that we won't have a massive troop war like WW1/WW2 again.
“Probably”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333
And that's despite massive and direct US support to the Mujahideen, which the US didn't have to worry about.
Afghanistan was a winnable war. The way to win the war was, from the outset, to build a strong state that is fairly self-sufficient and motivated to defend itself, without too much corruption. The US military wasn't able to do that. At every turn they were ineffective in rooting out corruption and moral decay, didn't have anywhere near a workable vision for a path out of the Afghan disaster, and lacked the ability to implement a stable political system.
I agree that the US isn't geared towards massive troop deployments. That's why it's absurd to trot out troop numbers as the person I was replying to did.
This works until it doesn't. "American exceptionalism" is not unique to Americans.
They say but don't do it. China's behaviour towards Canada, Lithuania and most of Eastern Asia is anything but multilateral. It is plain and simple imperialism.
I'm not too worried about war between nuclear powers, but I do fear for Chinese and Chinese-looking people living in the west.
Tibetans, Uighars, HKers and citizens of almost all the countries that share a land or sea border with China will disagree with you.
And so will all the countries, such as Lithuania, and private companies who have been forced to toe CCP line.
I can keep going on…
China is attacking Lithuania economically for opening a Taiwanese Representative Office. China is not cooperating for mutual good.
In China, most people are better off with the current leadership (than the previous), and the economic prospects is at least looking good for them. They wouldn't want to rock the boat obviously.
So despite the fact that the people of china is peaceful and willing to cooperate unlike the CCP's external stance, they do hold responsibility for the actions of their leaders.
I take the same stance with the USA's actions under trump - this is in no way targeted at any particular country.
We’re born into a world with existing power structures that know how to defend themselves, that know the amount of carrot and stick that will this dismal compromise together. There’s no obvious way to change them, and by the time you’re big enough to try anything you have people you love, and a sense of what you risk. In the west we have nice memories of peaceful marches changing things. Even people who won’t discuss Tiananmen, know about the cultural revolution, about the millions that died in the civil war, and no illusions as to the danger of trying to change China
Despite a long history of national linkage with mainland China, Taiwan, under the colonization and brutal cultural and economic transformation by Japan invasion in the early 20 century till the end of WWII, have gone through a heart breaking separation from the homeland.
Ms. Tsai, just like her mentor, Mr. Lee Teng-hui are heavily influenced by liberal Democratic political ideology, and refined that with a modern form that is closer to western worlds. Mr. Lee Teng-hui represents a more Japanese heritage. And because of his disillusioned passion for communism, Lee had been a communist, and got bullied by KMT after the retreat.
Ms. Tsai led a whirlwind of political ascension through labeling "本省人” “外省人” political identities. Where she also mastered the online propaganda toolings eg the 1450 army (https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B6%B2%E7%B5%A1%E6%89%93%...). Mrs. Tsai's domestic policy heavily rely on trade economic value for political ties like importing US pork with additive that are known to have harm to human https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B6%B2%E7%B5%A1%E6%89%93%... And cultivation of national pride to distance the Taiwan island from mainland, and make the island more prestigious and similar to a national body. Like the so-called "advanced vaccine" by Taiwan's own Rd center https://www.dw.com/zh/%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%E5%BC%80%E6%89%93%E... these vaccines are rushed to public without adequate testing, and caused higher than usual death.
Ms. Tsai obviously has no adherence to the international law that recognize Taiwan as a part of China. And many Taiwan politicians are fearful of joining China for historical reasons. They even rejected Jiang Zeming's offer to retain it's own military and civil government, by just recognizing formally the CCP led central government, literally a federated nation.
Unfortunately, Taiwan's cultural linkage to China is weak. And the mainland is gearing towards a coercive reunification in some form that is appropriate to China's economic and political consideration. I.e., If China continue to grow and surpass US in all major aspects of national strength, Taiwan can keep this state indefinitely, as China does not really care that much when it becomes a more powerful US. But US won't allow that, global hegemony is a zero sum game, the loss of that status will destroy US financial industry, for an example of the consequence. And Taiwan for her self proclaimed high vision of independence, is heading into a dead end. As a weakening China will be more hostile to the island, Taiwan, in its own pursuit of some potlical value, will bring ruin to the island, probably bundled with significant damage to the mainland. Meanwhile, US would righteously declare the victory of democracy, and say nothing about the human suffering in the conflict, and exploit the economic loot afterwards.
In the end, I'll support the growth of China in all aspects of national power. Hopefully a better version of US can born from that. I'll do my best to influence the Western audience about the more complicated aspect of Taiwan issue, to broaden their view about alternatives than just the black and white democracy vs xxxx (authoritarian dictatorship swap any of your favorite words on China).
The US led world order is simply not going to sustain, ever...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
In the case of articles touching on China, though, this is hard. We will never hear the perspectives of Chinese nationals who disagree with the CCP line, even if they reside outside of China, because they will be reported and their loved ones will face fearsome punishments. So HN "debate" is polluted because only one side is let through, regardless of whether those espousing the CCP line have any formal relationship with the CCP.
> We will never hear the perspectives of Chinese nationals who disagree with the CCP line
This is not true. Watch Radio Free Asian, the epoch times, and many indenpent Chinese dissident channels on YouTube like Mr. Jiang Feng (https://youtube.com/c/%E6%B1%9F%E5%B3%B0%E6%97%B6%E5%88%BB). These are mostly Chinese speaking content. You of course can find a lot of English content of western media interviewing Chinese dissident.
> they will be reported and their loved ones will face fearsome punishments.
Another slander by western Media about the social situation in China. Essentialy, the media wants to paint the Chinese soceity as inhuman, and incapable of rational thinking. That of course becomes a nice subconscious justification of violence towards them, like what happened in the colonial era by White colonists to justify their policy towards Indians.
Chinese do not report their friends and family. The might expose by standers occasionally, online. But again that's not too different from someone got cancelled here.
> polluted because only one side is let through
The one sided part is the negative and inhuman side of China right?
Think yourself for a moment the slanders some IDs received when they advanced a contrararian view on China with seemingly plausible backings, and the unanimous views that portrait a unjust and inhuman Chinese society.
If you think the one-sided part is the positive part, then it bears explanation that how someone stating objective truth got slandered repetitively without any factual counterparts.
That sounds like a terrifying threat to anyone who might post on this page who has loved ones within the reach of the CCP.
The number of people who should be reported to any government for criticizing it is zero. If there are laws against criticizing the government, such laws are unjust.
> The one sided part is the negative and inhuman side of China right?
Not China. The CCP.
> That's not to government.
We already know that promise is empty, having witnessed numerous incidents on American college campuses where CCP loyalists were watching and reporting those deemed disloyal to the government.
> CCP represents the nation. There is no clear separation from the ruling body vs. the nation.
The CCP wants there to be no distinction because they want those who oppose the CCP to be seen as enemies of the Chinese people and Chinese culture. I do not accept that. I am not an enemy of the Chinese people. We are all humans. Furthermore, I regard those Chinese people who struggle against CCP oppression as called upon by our times to exhibit greater courage than I will ever display in my life, and I have the greatest admiration and respect for them.
If you're a Citizen of the Mainland China, then I'll support your right to support your nation and its current CCP Government, even if I disagree with it.
However, if you're a resident/citizen of a Western nation and earning your livelihood there, I'll encourage you to take another look at the whole situation and decide for yourself if CCP model and its behavior towards other nations and even its own minorities is really the right model for any country, let alone China.
Yes, I did that every single day. This is just what I currently feel. My perception might change. BTW, I am a Chinese living in US.
The saga of Hong Kong is so sad. They didn't take their freedom for granted, they struggled mightily, but ultimately they have been crushed.
The lesson for Taiwan could not be more stark. I can see why Tsai said this, and why she has received such support from the Taiwanese people in response.
It is hard to stand up to the CCP. If an individual with Chinese ties did so on a forum such as HN, doubtless they would be reported by omnipresent loyalists monitoring these exchanges, just as the students were at various US universities.
https://www.propublica.org/article/even-on-us-campuses-china...
Vote all these old geezers out! The major political parties in Australia are by and large a cesspit of spineless sellouts.
Vote for the smaller independent parties, especially those with younger candidates.
Drew Pavlou's party for example (with some Uyghur-Australians).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-15/drew-pavlou-democrati...
Donate funds to these truth seekers if you can...
Just … we can hope in a not so hopeful scenario.
Too early to tell.
The point of PRC subsuming HK now is have ample time to cultivate new generations of HKers sympathetic to One Country before 2049 as exemplar for One Country Two Systems. The previous generation under UK education was always going to be tainted. Identity politics today is not going to be the same as that generations from now. The countercurrent is Tsai trying to manifest a strong, independant TW identity. The cultural clash will be in 20 years when those TWers look at HKers who will remain privileged and prosperous, but with a democratic facade - basically Singaporeans - and wonder if that life is better than war once the current charade that US can defend TW collapses. And more significantly, once PRC develops military capabilities to stalemate US both MAD and conventionally. Even then PRC will probably have to concede with some sort of satrap / vassal status. 1C2S doesn't have to be "feasible", it just has to be unambiguously better than the alternative, which is a matter of eroding US deterrence.
They can never speak out against their unwanted political overlords or end up like the incarcerated opposition politicians, journalists, lawyers, students, doctors, etc
Basically anyone who want to voice their own truth under their own free will ends up jailed and maybe tortured until they recant their true feelings and become another crushed spirit.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-14/hong-kong-tycoon-jimm...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-28/hong-kong-detains-pro...