So China, what can be done?

[UltraMagnus]

A lot of these jobs will be automated within that decade and China themselves would probably want to shift away from manufacturing. What China has at the moment is infrastructure and scale, it would take a while to build up similar capacity elsewhere.

I don't know about a 'collapse' but the trade war has made it pretty easy to feed a nationalistic narrative to the slowing economy. Add more sanctions and the anger in China would just as likely be directed towards the west as it would at CCP.

Click to shrink...

Any kind of move away from the traditional manufacturing economy hurts China no matter what, whether its that manufacturing being moved out or automated, once it shifts they are in big trouble.

You're not going to be able to control/influence how the Chinese populace feels either way from the west, I think that's a futile effort.

 

[Reverse Giraffe]

HK was considered to have been handed back to China, so as far as China is concerned, HK is like Hawaii to them. Just another state. In China's eyes, other people are interfering in a domestic issue. So, it'd be like if France decided to back some protestors in TX on their right to secession. Not saying that is what is happening, saying what it looks like for the Chinese government. They're not happy that other countries are interfering with their own governance, basically.



Yeah, China also considers Taiwan to be a part of China. In fact, even like sixty years ago, Taiwan considered itself to be the "head" of China (including mainland). I would argue that Taiwan has had enough time to develop differently from mainland and while the majority of people in Taiwan are Chinese by blood, that the culture is still not quite the same. Of course, you could make the argument that in the US, the cultures between LA and rural Mississippi are not the same, either.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, rural Louisiana has much better food than Mississippi.

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

Strong arm them, pursue FTAs like TPP for strategic economic purposes, protect our patents, maybe engage in a non petty and effectual trade war. Hate Trump for starting it the way he did, but at least it's in motion.

Oh and support Hong Kong by whatever means possible

 

[Zen]

Yeah, rural Louisiana has much better food than Mississippi.

Click to shrink...

Hard to top Cajun...

 

[Deleted member 6263]

Hard to top Cajun...

Click to shrink...

Very true. And if I could make a final point - as long as people like you and me don't stop talking, nobody can stop the USA. I'm talking about freedom, about choice. Us Americans, I don't think we need to worry. Because if we want to beat China, we will. If we don't, that's fine. That, my friend, is our victory.

Y'know, a lot of people say if you dig long enough and hard enough, you'll get to China, and that may be the true. But what they don't tell you is that if you dig long enough and hard enough in a conversation, you get to a friend.

So here's to conversation.

 

[kmfdmpig]

Arguably this doesn't matter. Read Xi's public commentary at the CCP conferences or the New Asian Security Concept.

China doesn't want friends. The word 'alliance' rarely appears in official policy documents. 'Partner', however, does. China views Asia in terms of business transactions. The PRC has immense economic hard power and it's using it to fill a development gap which has remained unfulfilled by the IMF and the US. The Sri Lankan government may not like the Chinese government, but they sure do like the billions in investment.

Click to shrink...

Sure, public sentiment only gets you so far. The poster I was responding to was arguing that only the West has a negative view of China, and that's simply not true. The countries that are right in China's neck of the woods have a similarly negative view of China as the West does.

 

[Chikor]

Arguably this doesn't matter. Read Xi's public commentary at the CCP conferences or the New Asian Security Concept.

China doesn't want friends. The word 'alliance' rarely appears in official policy documents. 'Partner', however, does. China views Asia in terms of business transactions. The PRC has immense economic hard power and it's using it to fill a development gap which has remained unfulfilled by the IMF and the US. The Sri Lankan government may not like the Chinese government, but they sure do like the billions in investment.

Click to shrink...

I think China really wants a good relationship with the US. They don't like it when the US talks shit about them, and they don't think the US gets to dictate their domestic policies.
But I don't think that there is any evidence that China wants this trade war. I would also bet you that China would have been really happy to join the TPP instead of it being an agreement to "contain" it, whatever that mean. And they certainly don't want to get sanctioned, nor do they want to sanction anyone really.

You can argue that the US vaguely aggressive stance against China is justified, I'm not sure what it's supposed to achieve, but I' willing to listen, but I really don't think this is early signs of cold war 2.0 is China's doing or anything they want.

 

[PurpleCopper]

Nothing, because the world is heavily intertwined economically speaking, and it's gonna take a long-ass and painful time to untangle all of that (if that even happens).

Damn the liberal IR paradigm, inviting China to the WTO back then was a huge mistake. The USA should've stuck with Realism model instead.

 

[FreeangelGP05]

Realistically, nothing short of military intervention by the other superpower in the planet and that's not a good idea. Best case scenario would be to let its own economic power collapse, especially since they have a demographic crisis coming in a few decades.

Click to shrink...

This. The best thing anyone can do is educate themselves as much as possible on the situation. The world basically either has to wait for China to collapse from within or do something about it.

 

[Hey Please]

Interesting Tweet:



Related article:

https://www.reuters.com/article/chi...ge-for-using-nine-dash-line-map-idUSL3N26U2HE

 

[Zed]

A united front by major Western and Asian powers against China by cutting off all relations and isolating them. Would it hurt the rest of the world? Of course. It would hurt China more though.

This tactic may not work against poor countries like North Korea, but China has fairly high standard of living. People are not going to like their standard of living going down.

Realistically though, I can't this happening because of how most major countries in the world are under de facto rule of greedy corporations who want to make a quick buck in China.

 

[GungHo]

Not a thing. Our idea of "saving" them and their idea of being "saved" aren't aligned, and tried so hard to exploit them that we ended up allowing ourselves to get exploited in the end and now we're starting to ask them to come save us.

 

[TiC]

Not a thing. Our idea of "saving" them and their idea of being "saved" aren't aligned, and tried so hard to exploit them that we ended up allowing ourselves to get exploited in the end and now we're starting to ask them to come save us.

Click to shrink...

No Western nation is asking China to save them

 

[Marossi]

Interesting Tweet:



Related article:

https://www.reuters.com/article/chi...ge-for-using-nine-dash-line-map-idUSL3N26U2HE

Click to shrink...

Well, at least Endgame was a good end to the Marvel saga. I'm done with Disney.

 

[Deleted member 19218]

Kinda off topic but it doesn't deserve it's own thread.

Someone on r/Blizzard photoshopped the Blizzard logo into an image of the Chinese flag and it got 182k upvotes making it the most up voted post of all time I think. Think about it, that's not really an offensive image. There's no curse words, no racist language, no offensive images.

Today that post was removed, a subreddit mod says it was not one of their moderators but a site administrator. So, is Reddit now censoring content? Why not get rid of things that are more inflammatory like r/Donald?

 

[Dalek]

Kinda off topic but it doesn't deserve it's own thread.

Someone on r/Blizzard photoshopped the Blizzard logo into an image of the Chinese flag and it got 182k upvotes making it the most up voted post of all time I think. Think about it, that's not really an offensive image

Today that post was removed, a subreddit mod says it was not one of their moderators but a site administrator. So, is Reddit now censoring content? Why not get rid of things that are more inflammatory like r/Donald?

Click to shrink...

If I'm not mistaken that's been happening for a while on Reddit. Any photos of Tiananmen Square get removed eventually.

 

[Zed]

Kinda off topic but it doesn't deserve it's own thread.

Someone on r/Blizzard photoshopped the Blizzard logo into an image of the Chinese flag and it got 182k upvotes making it the most up voted post of all time I think. Think about it, that's not really an offensive image. There's no curse words, no racist language, no offensive images.

Today that post was removed, a subreddit mod says it was not one of their moderators but a site administrator. So, is Reddit now censoring content? Why not get rid of things that are more inflammatory like r/Donald?

Click to shrink...

Reddit is partly owned by Tencent, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. They have their claws in a lot of things.

 

[The Fabled Englishman]

I think China really wants a good relationship with the US. They don't like it when the US talks shit about them, and they don't think the US gets to dictate their domestic policies.
But I don't think that there is any evidence that China wants this trade war. I would also bet you that China would have been really happy to join the TPP instead of it being an agreement to "contain" it, whatever that mean. And they certainly don't want to get sanctioned, nor do they want to sanction anyone really.

You can argue that the US vaguely aggressive stance against China is justified, I'm not sure what it's supposed to achieve, but I' willing to listen, but I really don't think this is early signs of cold war 2.0 is China's doing or anything they want.

Click to shrink...

I was talking specifically about Asia. China's immediate geopolitical goal is regional dominance. If nothing else, this is evidenced by the current military acquisitions of the PLAN, which point towards continental dominance rather than power projection.

In terms of the relationship with the US, sure, nobody really wants to have a poor relationship with other global powers. However, that's probably an irrelevant consideration at the end of the day. States respond to threat and China invariably presents a threat to US hegemony and the liberal order - and they know it. Xi-thought is founded around the prospect of China's global moral leadership. It's a revisionist state and that will never sit well with the US. At the very least, China certainly does not want the trade war. Domestically, it provides some benefits in terms of fuel for the Xi-brand of 'neo-Maoist' nationalism but it's a net disadvantage economically, obviously. The trade war benefits neither player in the long run.

The current CPTPP is a tricky prospect because it demands market liberalisation reforms that China is almost certainly unwilling to adhere to. The prospect of China joining came up again around October lasst year, but rapidly fizzled out. If China had its own way, the ASEAN nations would join the China-led RCEP, but that's been in limbo for years.

The emerging US stance against China is the behaviour realist IR scholars everywhere have predicted - the end of liberal hegemony and the return to multipolar power balancing.

 

[Anustart]

Support Chinese citizens who fight back against the government. Eventually the desire for a free nation will grow to be too big for the government to put down.

Click to shrink...

Just Naruto run. They can't stop us all! Just because corporate folks bow down to social movements does not mean government super powers will retreat in the face of twitter outrage.

 

[Chikor]

I was talking specifically about Asia. China's primary geopolitical goal is regional dominance. If nothing else, this is evidenced by the current military acquisitions of the PLAN, which point towards continental dominance rather than power projection. China certainly does not want the trade war. Domestically, it provides some benefits in terms of fuel for the Xi-brand of 'neo-Maoist' nationalism but it's a net disadvantage economically, obviously. The trade war benefits neither player in the long run.

The current CPTPP is a tricky prospect because it demands market liberalisation reforms that China is almost certainly unwilling to adhere to. The prospect of China joining came up again around October lasst year, but rapidly fizzled out. If China had its own way, the ASEAN nations would join the China-led RCEP, but that's been in limbo for years.

The emerging US stance against China is the behaviour realist IR scholars everywhere have predicted - the end of liberal hegemony and the return to multipolar power balancing.

Click to shrink...

What military aspirations do you think China has in Asia?
For real, which of their neighbors do you think they want to take over and be responsible for?
I think only the US see countries like Tajikistan or Myanmar and go "yeah, we want in on some of that mess".

And I think if you look at what economic policies the US actually force on countries under the banner of "market liberalization" (as opposed to what you wish that the US did) then I'm not sure if it's such a good idea, especially considering who is currently running America.

Like, have you considered what will happen if you "win"? let's say you manage to break down China's will and they blink first and go to the US and say "the pain is too much, let us know what you want us to do".
What do you think America will say?

Again, I am willing to revisit the question in the future if the US gets a more sane leadership.

 

[TiC]

What military aspirations do you think China has in Asia?
For real, which of their neighbors do you think they want to take over and be responsible for?
I think only the US see countries like Tajikistan or Myanmar and go "yeah, we want in on some of that mess".

And I think if you look at what economic policies the US actually force on countries under the banner of "market liberalization" (as opposed to what you wish that the US did) then I'm not sure if it's such a good idea, especially considering who is currently running America.

Like, have you considered what will happen if you "win"? let's say you manage to break down China's will and they blink first and go to the US and say "the pain is too much, let us know what you want us to do".
What do you think America will say?

Again, I am willing to revisit the question in the future if the US gets a more sane leadership.

Click to shrink...

They want the disputed sea regions and islands in the Pacific and they want to end make Taiwan part of themselves.

 

[Chikor]

They want the disputed sea regions and islands in the Pacific and they want to end make Taiwan part of themselves.

Click to shrink...

I really don't think that China is gearing up toward an invasion of Taiwan. For real, they're not stupid, what do they have to gain from that shit?
And you know, people have been predicting that China is gonna pick a war with Vietnam over the south China sea, so far, all those predictions haven't been proven wrong, but let's say they become really aggressive, do you seriously imagine some sort of domino theory where China start an Island hoping campaign in the pacific ocean in which it tries to challenge the US navy?
The US navy in the pacific ocean is like Steven Seagal in the kitchen (of a US Navy shit in the pacific ocean), no one beat them there, especially not China in their one old soviet aircraft carrier.

 

[The Fabled Englishman]

What military aspirations do you think China has in Asia?
For real, which of their neighbors do you think they want to take over and be responsible for?
I think only the US see countries like Tajikistan or Myanmar and go "yeah, we want in on some of that mess".

And I think if you look at what economic policies the US actually force on countries under the banner of "market liberalization" (as opposed to what you wish that the US did) then I'm not sure if it's such a good idea, especially considering who is currently running America.

Like, have you considered what will happen if you "win"? let's say you manage to break down China's will and they blink first and go to the US and say "the pain is too much, let us know what you want us to do".
What do you think America will say?

Again, I am willing to revisit the question in the future if the US gets a more sane leadership.

Click to shrink...

I'm not claiming that China is going to wholesale invade one of its neighbours. The nine-dash-line is almost a given at this point, which is patently an attempt to impinge on the EEZs of numerous countries. Depending on who you talk to, a secondary objective of the Belt and Road is to operationalise the so-called string-of-pearls strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean)

More broadly speaking, China wants to reformulate the Asian security architecture with itself in charge. This is obviously in conflict with Washington's vision. Further, the point behind the NASC is not to outright exert military hard power over other countries but to tie the region close together with China's economic fortune. Hence, as I mentioned, 'partners' rather than 'allies'.

To clarify, I am not American. I am Australian, I speak Mandarin and I've been there quite a few times.

I agree in principle about the problems with market liberalisation. A large part of the reason why the BRI has been successful is suspicion of the IMF's notion of development especially during the 1980s and 1990s - forcing Global South countries to privatise public assets, remove tariffs and the like. However, the CPTPP has nothing to do with America anymore. It's a Japan-led initiative.

I really wasn't trying to moralise about what is 'good' for China and the world, I'm just speculating about the possibility of an escape from the current situation where an illiberal government is now competing with the United States at least for regional hegemony, if not global hegemony. We aren't talking about breaking China's 'will', as it were, but incentivising it to adhere to established liberal norms - basically, creating a situation where China stands to gain from acting as a status quo, rather than a revisionist power. The thing is, a large portion of power-transition theorists believe that states NEVER act like that and that a rising power will always be revisionist and, hence, challenge prevailing norms.

 

[Paxton25]

The traditional western powers have to keep their nuclear weapons, simple as that. With them China wouldn't try anything.

 

[Hercule]

Thinking something can be done is not realistic. The west needs China.

People can make Twitter posts about the situation as it is now but the people doing that are such a small minority.

If the west would cease all contact with China prizes of products would become a lot higher. That's when most people are going to complain. A lot of Chinese people will lose their job and start blaming the west for being anti China.

It's a lose lose situation and won't end till the system in China collapse on its own from within.

 

[Dyle]

The only way any significant action can be taken against China is at great cost to the group taking action against them. We can see this with Trump's tariffs, which do more damage to the US than China and the reactions of almost every business doing work in China. So ultimately very little can be done until the country collapses internally, which is effectively out of anyone's control

 

[electricblue]

The only way any significant action can be taken against China is at great cost to the group taking action against them. We can see this with Trump's tariffs, which do more damage to the US than China and the reactions of almost every business doing work in China. So ultimately very little can be done until the country collapses internally, which is effectively out of anyone's control

Click to shrink...

Thinking something can be done is not realistic. The west needs China.

People can make Twitter posts about the situation as it is now but the people doing that are such a small minority.

If the west would cease all contact with China prizes of products would become a lot higher. That's when most people are going to complain. A lot of Chinese people will lose their job and start blaming the west for being anti China.

It's a lose lose situation and won't end till the system in China collapse on its own from within.

Click to shrink...

China needs America way more than America needs China. Yes it would hurt consumers for a short time and companies would be mad but there's lots of poor exploitable labor in the world, only 1 United States that buys all this shit

 

[Reckheim]

China needs America way more than America needs China. Yes it would hurt consumers for a short time and companies would be mad but there's lots of poor exploitable labor in the world, only 1 United States that buys all this shit

Click to shrink...

I disagree.

The entire world is dependable on Chinese made products.

 

[raygcon]

China's economy will probably collapse within the next decade or so as more and more manufacturers pull out. It is almost inevitable at this point and it is going to suck for everyone.

When China's economy finally collapses that is when the best chance for change in that country will happen.

Click to shrink...

And you think China is stupid enough to not see that coming? They already start lots of R&D locally and support the growth of locally company. So eventually all these factories actually are not gone but replace by Chinese one. Same thing as how other Chinese phone makers take over Samsung which just moved their last operation to Vietnam.

One thing that China is doing different that the Soviet Union is they know they need to develop their economy. Produce enough output and eventually the money flow will push everything , including the government ability to spend. They gradually increase their output in every aspect, army, local company, their own technology, and now they have more than enough money to start lending it to other smaller countries which will eventually let them put their influence on them.

The West know what exactly China is doing, actually i'm surprised it takes this long for US to even start doing something. But as I said previously, I'm afraid it might be a bit too late. The first mistake was to invite China to WTO, and second mistake was to let China lean themselves to be the 'factory of the world' long enough so they have almost everything at this point.

Anyway, this is not the best case scenario for them, and it will affect them eventually as I don't think they are yet ready for that transition. But I guess there never be the best time for China. At the end of the day they will just suck it up and push forward their local production even faster. Like some of the analyst said , this trade war will just accelerate Made in China 2025 vision. This is clearly a crucial point for them, doing it right and there is no going back for the rest o the world, or they will just collapse by themself due to all other problems ( property market bubbles, demographic, people, etc ).

 

[massivekettle]

Reddit is partly owned by Tencent, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. They have their claws in a lot of things.

Click to shrink...

Except that the post itself was not removed by Reddit administrators, but rather the image within the post was deleted by the OP.

 

[Dyle]

China needs America way more than America needs China. Yes it would hurt consumers for a short time and companies would be mad but there's lots of poor exploitable labor in the world, only 1 United States that buys all this shit

Click to shrink...

Not really, it's very expensive and difficult to move those supply chains and some industries like electronics simply cannot be moved unless the entire industry moves together at once. Most companies that are moving production out of China are still sourcing many of their parts from Chinese suppliers because there are no other options and the producers of those components cannot possibly afford to produce them elsewhere. The cost of rebuilding those supply chains without China is immense. It isn't consumers you need to be worried about, but producers.

That's also ignoring that China is the world's largest market and their power as a consumer of goods is as great as or greater than their power as a producer of goods.

 

[Chikor]

I'm not claiming that China is going to wholesale invade one of its neighbours. The nine-dash-line is almost a given at this point, which is patently an attempt to impinge on the EEZs of numerous countries. Depending on who you talk to, a secondary objective of the Belt and Road is to operationalise the so-called string-of-pearls strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean)

More broadly speaking, China wants to reformulate the Asian security architecture with itself in charge. This is obviously in conflict with Washington's vision. Further, the point behind the NASC is not to outright exert military hard power over other countries but to tie the region close together with China's economic fortune. Hence, as I mentioned, 'partners' rather than 'allies'.

To clarify, I am not American. I am Australian, I speak Mandarin and I've been there quite a few times.

I agree in principle about the problems with market liberalisation. A large part of the reason why the BRI has been successful is suspicion of the IMF's notion of development especially during the 1980s and 1990s - forcing Global South countries to privatise public assets, remove tariffs and the like. However, the CPTPP has nothing to do with America anymore. It's a Japan-led initiative.

I really wasn't trying to moralise about what is 'good' for China and the world, I'm just speculating about the possibility of an escape from the current situation where an illiberal government is now competing with the United States at least for regional hegemony, if not global hegemony. We aren't talking about breaking China's 'will', as it were, but incentivising it to adhere to established liberal norms - basically, creating a situation where China stands to gain from acting as a status quo, rather than a revisionist power. The thing is, a large portion of power-transition theorists believe that states NEVER act like that and that a rising power will always be revisionist and, hence, challenge prevailing norms.

Click to shrink...

I think the issue with speculating about the worst, most aggressive course of action in China and nothing else is that it provide moral cover to people who want a hawkish stance against China for totally unrelated reasons. This is just like the first cold war.
And you know, you can't keep imaging that if the west gear up and try to "contain" or "stop" China, it's gonna be done by some benevolent, impartial leaders.
Because you might not want to think about it, but when you invite the west to involve itself in shit like the south China sea, you are really saying "Donald Trump should have more input about how Brunei and Vietnam should draw their maritime borders", and why the fuck would you do that.

p.s.
"Power transition theorist"? seriously, stop fantasying about regime change in China, it's not gonna happen, trying to do that is not gonna help anyone, especially not the Chinese people that you seem to be really concerned about.

 

[adz2ka]

I bet shutting down /r/fashionreps and /r/repsneakers will help!

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

I think the issue with speculating about the worst, most aggressive course of action in China and nothing else is that it provide moral cover to people who want a hawkish stance against China for totally unrelated reasons. This is just like the first cold war.
And you know, you can't keep imaging that if the west gear up and try to "contain" or "stop" China, it's gonna be done by some benevolent, impartial leaders.
Because you might not want to think about it, but when you invite the west to involve itself in shit like the south China sea, you are really saying "Donald Trump should have more input about how Brunei and Vietnam should draw their maritime borders", and why the fuck would you do that.

p.s.
"Power transition theorist"? seriously, stop fantasying about regime change in China, it's not gonna happen, trying to do that is not gonna help anyone, especially not the Chinese people that you seem to be really concerned about.

Click to shrink...

Why would anyone give a dictatorship the benefit of a doubt on anything?

 

[Chikor]

Why would anyone give a dictatorship the benefit of a doubt on anything?

Click to shrink...

What does "not giving them the benefit of the doubt" even mean?
No seriously, can you explain to me what are you trying to achieve and how getting Donald Trump involved in that gonna help you achieve that goal?

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

What does "not giving them the benefit of the doubt" even mean?
No seriously, can you explain to me what are you trying to achieve and how getting Donald Trump involved in that gonna help you achieve that goal?

Click to shrink...

You know what it means, don't be obtuse. This is your first sentence in your previous post:

I think the issue with speculating about the worst, most aggressive course of action in China and nothing else is that it provide moral cover to people who want a hawkish stance against China for totally unrelated reasons. This is just like the first cold war.

Click to shrink...

IE Not expecting the worst. Just do nothing, everything will be fine.

It paints the Chinese government as a harmless group, rather than acknowledge the fact they are a dictatorship. Do you think they are a dictatorship? Do you think dictatorships are bad forms of government?

I'd love to get a regime change there because it is a dictatorship. Trump isn't going to help with this.

 

[Maxximo]

China needs America way more than America needs China. Yes it would hurt consumers for a short time and companies would be mad but there's lots of poor exploitable labor in the world, only 1 United States that buys all this shit

Click to shrink...

The first line I believe is verbatim from a Trump tweet, like the famous "trade wars are easy". xD

 

[The Fabled Englishman]

I think the issue with speculating about the worst, most aggressive course of action in China and nothing else is that it provide moral cover to people who want a hawkish stance against China for totally unrelated reasons. This is just like the first cold war.
And you know, you can't keep imaging that if the west gear up and try to "contain" or "stop" China, it's gonna be done by some benevolent, impartial leaders.
Because you might not want to think about it, but when you invite the west to involve itself in shit like the south China sea, you are really saying "Donald Trump should have more input about how Brunei and Vietnam should draw their maritime borders", and why the fuck would you do that.

p.s.
"Power transition theorist"? seriously, stop fantasying about regime change in China, it's not gonna happen, trying to do that is not gonna help anyone, especially not the Chinese people that you seem to be really concerned about.

Click to shrink...

Power transition theory refers to changes in the hierarchy of the global order, not domestic governments. I have an academic background in IR, I'm speaking in terms of international relations.

You seem to still be under the impression that I'm taking a moral stance. I am not. All I am doing is elucidating what I think the likely future scenarios for US-China relations will be based on established theories.

Here's the thing about realist politics. Historically, structural realists have been the least hawkish about inter-state interaction. Vietnam, the Gulf War, the WoT. All of these wars were undertaken off the back of liberal idealist principles. It would be like the US invading China tomorrow based on the ongoing human rights abuses or China's debt-trap diplomacy. Typically, wars fought on idealistic bases go poorly for everyone.

In terms of the South-China Sea, the realist approach would posit that the US should (and will) formulate strong alliances with local players such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Why? Because the US is a status quo hegemon and has a vested interest in preventing the propagation of a competing hegemon. Hence, the logical path for the US is to engage in balancing behaviour.

 

[Steel]

I think China really wants a good relationship with the US. They don't like it when the US talks shit about them, and they don't think the US gets to dictate their domestic policies.
But I don't think that there is any evidence that China wants this trade war. I would also bet you that China would have been really happy to join the TPP instead of it being an agreement to "contain" it, whatever that mean. And they certainly don't want to get sanctioned, nor do they want to sanction anyone really.

You can argue that the US vaguely aggressive stance against China is justified, I'm not sure what it's supposed to achieve, but I' willing to listen, but I really don't think this is early signs of cold war 2.0 is China's doing or anything they want.

Click to shrink...

TPP's containment goal was either
A: Get China to join and as a prequisite they would have to change their IP laws among many other things.
B: Lower dependence on China over time if China doesn't join.

China was always welcome to join the TPP.

 

[Chikor]

You know what it means, don't be obtuse. This is your first sentence in your previous post:

IE Not expecting the worst. Just do nothing, everything will be fine.

It paints the Chinese government as a harmless group, rather han acknowledge the fact they are a dictatorship. Do you think they are a dictatorship? Do you think dictatorships are bad forms of government?

I'd love to get a regime change there because it is a dictatorship. Trump isn't going to help with this.

Click to shrink...

Listen, if all you want to do in regards to China is talk in super harsh words about how much you hate their form of government on an internet forum then it's fine.
If you demand that any Chinese person swear to you that they believes their government is shit and their country is shit before they talk about anything then the only thing you're gonna to achieve is that they won't post here, but I think that goals has already been generally achieved.

But I always get the sense that this is all done in the service of something, I never know what, because people always get super vague about what specifically do they want and how it's supposed to help anyone.
I will repeat my position again - I think trying to start a cold war with China is really stupid. China doesn't want it, I don't think what it will help anyone, and it will just hurt normal people, all over the world. And I refuse the accept this is all done because the US is all of a sudden just can stand Muslims suffering.

For real, you think the first cold war was a good thing we should try again?

 

[Chikor]

TPP's containment goal was either
A: Get China to join and as a prequisite they would have to change their IP laws among many other things.
B: Lower dependence on China over time if China doesn't join.

China was always welcome to join the TPP.

Click to shrink...

China already adopted the same shitty IP laws that the US forced on the entire world.
The US mostly whine about the fact that they don't enforce them enough.

Also, the US didn't invite China to the TPP, it was specifically an anti-Chinese trade agreement from the start.

Power transition theory refers to changes in the hierarchy of the global order, not domestic governments. I have an academic background in IR, I'm speaking in terms of international relations.

You seem to still be under the impression that I'm taking a moral stance. I am not. All I am doing is elucidating what I think the likely future scenarios for US-China relations will be based on established theories.

Here's the thing about realist politics. Historically, structural realists have been the least hawkish about inter-state interaction. Vietnam, the Gulf War, the WoT. All of these wars were undertaken off the back of liberal idealist principles. It would be like the US invading China tomorrow based on the ongoing human rights abuses or China's debt-trap diplomacy. Typically, wars fought on idealistic bases go poorly for everyone.

In terms of the South-China Sea, the realist approach would posit that the US should (and will) formulate strong alliances with local players such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Why? Because the US is a status quo hegemon and has a vested interest in preventing the propagation of a competing hegemon. Hence, the logical path for the US is to engage in balancing behaviour.

Click to shrink...

I'm guessing because you never tell me what you want to actually do.
Outside that you think that the US should have more input in drawing borders in the south China sea. And for real, do you imagine a parallel universe America that is not run by the idiots currently running it?
I am willing to revisit my position if the US ever get a sane administration, but given the people who are currently running the show, why do you think anything will improved by involving them?

 

[Serpens007]

this thread is eerily fascistic

"hey let's ban Chinese people from the US and trigger a global depression whilst ignoring all the other countries that also commit human right violations"

Click to shrink...

Truth being spoken here.

I guess most of those comments come from the US. They really miss the global scale.

Yeah, sanction them, further damage the economies of the third world. We aren't commiting mass murder, but we'll get to get damaged anyway, and in the long run even more dependant on the US so we can't do anything on our own either. While at the same time, the US is an unstable country with a mad man in charge that will likely stay in power anyway.

Or yeah, enforce the TPP, damaging also our democracies and ways of self-determine economic shifts.

And they also expect us to take that seriously while they support Israel, look away with Saudi Arabia, betray the Kurds... Not to mention the long history of bombing, destabilizing democracies, all in the name of "freedom and human rights".


What can you do about China? How about start by having the US as a positive ally to the world so the world doesn't make business with China?

 

[Velezcora]

Lots of angry people on here who want to fight the injustice going on in China. The problem is change will only come from within the country. That's unlikely to happen as the majority of the country, Han Chinese, are currently enjoying a much higher standard of living than before. The reason why China is such a big market for Hollywood and gaming is because there are people who can finally spend the money to buy these luxuries.

These people are satisfied with their government and are not going to push for any change. Outside forces pushing to financially harm China isn't going to affect the regime much but will likely make things worse for the people living there. Which is frankly unethical. The Chinese government can easily spin this as west hurting China, while ignoring the reason the west is doing and thus generating a hatred for the west in the Chinese people.

Just think about the potential ramifications before you go on your crusade. I'm not saying you should support China, I'm saying think about how this will effect the people living there and how the government can manipulate the message it sends. What message will the Chinese perceive and what actions will they take?

Now I don't claim to know what to do. I think our best bet is to support Hong Kong and Taiwan. Tread carefully. Hey maybe if we hadn't destabilised up the middle east we could more easily support the people of Xinjiang.

 

[The Fabled Englishman]

China already adopted the same shitty IP laws that the US forced on the entire world.
The US mostly whine about the fact that they don't enforce them enough.

Also, the US didn't invite China to the TPP, it was specifically an anti-Chinese trade agreement from the start.


I'm guessing because you never tell me what you want to actually do.
Outside that you think that the US should have more input in drawing borders in the south China sea. And for real, do you imagine a parallel universe America that is not run by the idiots currently running it?
I am willing to revisit my position if the US ever get a sane administration, but given the people who are currently running the show, why do you think anything will improved by involving them?

Click to shrink...

Ok then, the short answer is this. Either the realists are right and we're fucked. The US and China are destined to go to war regardless of who is in charge, simply as a function of the security dilemma. Alternatively, we provide China enough of an incentive to increase its stake in the prevailing liberal order and modify its behaviour in line with existing norms. The latter scenario is where the current US administration is a miserable failure. The US would have to expand its multilateral engagement efforts with Asian middle powers - i.e. through mechanisms such as the TPP which Obama's Asian pivot appeared to set the stage for before it was promptly abandoned. The current approach of bilateral trade deals isn't enough. China is filling the vacuum left by US retrenchment, setting its own rules. Why should it adhere to an existing order when it can simply set the rules of the game itself?

Yes, obviously, the existing order disadvantages countries of the Global South, but it probably beats a scenario where China buys up large swathes of Asia. The good news is that the PRC still seems to want to maintain an outward 'liberal' facade, even as it commits human rights abuses and leverages dodgy loans to second and third-world countries. The Asian Development Bank may be a potemkin bank but it's still evidence that China is aware that its most powerful regional neighbours are largely liberal states.

 

[Chikor]

Ok then, the short answer is this. Either the realists are right and we're fucked. The US and China are destined to go to war regardless of who is in charge, simply as a function of the security dilemma. Alternatively, we provide China enough of an incentive to increase its stake in the prevailing liberal order and modify its behaviour in line with existing norms. The latter scenario is where the current US administration is a miserable failure. The US would have to expand its multilateral engagement efforts with Asian middle powers - i.e. through mechanisms such as the TPP which Obama's Asian pivot appeared to set the stage for before it was promptly abandoned. The current approach of bilateral trade deals isn't enough. China is filling the vacuum left by US retrenchment, setting its own rules. Why should it adhere to an existing order when it can simply set the rules of the game itself?

Yes, obviously, the existing order disadvantages countries of the Global South, but it probably beats a scenario where China buys up large swathes of Asia. The good news is that the PRC still seems to want to maintain an outward 'liberal' facade, even as it commits human rights abuses and leverages dodgy loans to second and third-world countries. The Asian Development Bank may be a potemkin bank but it's still evidence that China is aware that its most powerful regional neighbours are largely liberal states.

Click to shrink...

Do you really think China wants a war with the US?
I personally think that they really don't, but some people in the US decided that if China is not gonna regime change itself than the US must get into a conflict with it, but fucking why?
I know it can be hard to defend that stance, especially since doing that against the USSR worked really poorly for everyone involved, but I don't think you can pretend it is historical inevitability, especially when the people who keep shouting on that were wrong with literally all of their predictions about China.

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

Listen, if all you want to do in regards to China is talk in super harsh words about how much you hate their form of government on an internet forum then it's fine.

Click to shrink...

This is finely worded sentence which evades my questions on where you stand on my last post. It's vague enough that it gives the impression it's answering what I wrote and it reads like its coming from a welcoming place when all it does is softly ignore the biggest questions about where you stand on this crucial topic.

It paints the Chinese government as a harmless group, rather than acknowledge the fact they are a dictatorship. Do you think they are a dictatorship? Do you think dictatorships are bad forms of government?

Click to shrink...

These are simple, direct questions and your silence around them speaks volumes.

If you demand that any Chinese person swear to you that they believes their government is shit and their country is shit before they talk about anything then the only thing you're gonna to achieve is that they won't post here, but I think that goals has already been generally achieved.

Click to shrink...

Except we've had Chinese posters do that and as far as I know you're not in China or Chinese. If that were true of your position why post in these threads? Why take that risk unless your intention is not to have a genuine conversation but to advocate for the Chinese government?

But I always get the sense that this is all done in the service of something, I never know what, because people always get super vague about what specifically do they want and how it's supposed to help anyone.

Click to shrink...

People haven't been vague about anything, sanctions are popular for instance. Some have mentioned outright war, but that was shut down for obvious reasons. I know you dislike sanctions but your defence to use the Chinese populace as a shield from government criticism isn't hard to see through. This has grown in a position, at least on ERA, that something must be done to punish the Chinese goverment for being a tyranny and for good reasons.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/is...opian-as-the-media-makes-it-out-to-be.108771/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ch...h-bad-social-credit-from-planes-trains.30066/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/hi...t-censorship-in-china-with-sarah-cook.119520/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ch...or-kidneys-liver-hearts-eyes-and-skin.143874/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ho...m-to-re-education-camps-nyt-the-daily.115427/

I will repeat my position again - I think trying to start a cold war with China is really stupid. China doesn't want it, I don't think what it will help anyone, and it will just hurt normal people, all over the world. And I refuse the accept this is all done because the US is all of a sudden just can stand Muslims suffering.

Click to shrink...

This is hypocritical, given the current state of the Chinese government's record on human rights. Of course many Americans care about Muslims suffering, this is deeply ironic when your focus switched to China it becomes a non-issue and that all we need to do is make the Chinese government happy. Look at my links above, why are you so comfy supporting China in this matter? These are Chinese citizens, what Trump and Bush's administrations did does note case that. They are governments. They are not above scrutiny and absolutely no-one is making a defence of the current government that any countries shouldn't do something to punish the US because it'll hurt the country's citizens. Because that's not a good argument, regardless of who the government is. It's a tactic to shut down discussion, not have an honest conversation about what to do about bad governments.

For real, you think the first cold war was a good thing we should try again?

Click to shrink...

No, but sometimes conflict is unavoidable. Say a cold war does break out between these two nations, who would you support?

 

[Dreaver]

Seriously question for people who say Chinese people should revolutionize: why would the majority Chinese people want to do that?

Yes, horrible things happen and minority groups are being prosecuted. However, hasn't the majority of people had a big improvement in the quality of wealth and life the past 50 ~ years?

 

[electricblue]

Seriously question for people who say Chinese people should revolutionize: why would the majority Chinese people want to do that?

Yes, horrible things happen and minority groups are being prosecuted. However, hasn't the majority of people had a big improvement in the quality of wealth and life the past 50 ~ years?

Click to shrink...

It's the most interesting question because in the past there were lots of autocratic states and you could almost set your watch to when upper class started making money they would soon want political power. Somehow CCP has subverted them, maybe by concentrating wealth in a few individuals and then bringing them into the fold? I dunno I'd love to know how they did it after Tiananmen square

 

[papermoon]

What military aspirations do you think China has in Asia?
For real, which of their neighbors do you think they want to take over and be responsible for?

Click to shrink...

Their build-up in the South China Sea. They're encroaching and gradually taking control over other countries' maritime-territories. Claiming all that water as "China" is some first class bullshit. Of course, they're not being all clumsy bull in a ______ shop about it: taking it by overt military action. The build-up is gradual, they're taking control piece by piece, inch by inch. Asserting their ownership over areas they have no proper claim to, but doing so at a level where it won't provoke hotter retaliation.

They weren't always subtle like that. When Communist China was barely a few years old, they decided to try take over the Korean peninsula with an invasion of military forces. They invaded Korea in all but name. But for the People's Republic of China, there would be no North Korea. But for the PRC, even today, there would be no North Korea. Today and since its inception, North Korea is the PRC's proxy state.

I guess the PRC learned from all that. Wars are so messy and inconvenient. The contemporary tack seems to be to try to lull the other into a sense of complacency. We'll just tuck ourselves into that corner over there, that you seemed to have misunderstood as being part of your territory. Don't mind us. Oops, you don't like it? That's "technically Chinese any way" - which is how I've seen people afflicted with undue Chinese nationalism (even on resetera) describe parts of Asia or cultural aspects of Asia they have no actual claim to.

China could be great. Truly great. The predecessors to the PRC were a panoply of gorgeous and fascinating civilizations and dynasties. They already have so much territory. So much land and water mass. They claim a fifth of humanity as Han Chinese already. All that rich, complex cultural history. Can they not just be secure in that? Stop intruding on the maritime territories of the Phillippines, Vietnam, and other ASEAN countries. Oh, and within their current borders, could they stop torturing and trying to annihilate ethnic minorities? Genocide is a high barrier to getting that influence, respect and soft power that they desperately crave from the rest of the world.



edited to add "PRC"

 

[thediamondage]

Seriously question for people who say Chinese people should revolutionize: why would the majority Chinese people want to do that?

Yes, horrible things happen and minority groups are being prosecuted. However, hasn't the majority of people had a big improvement in the quality of wealth and life the past 50 ~ years?

Click to shrink...

yup, thats the biggest flaw in any of these arguments: the majority of people are relatively happy, doing WAY better than their parents were doing, and can look forward to doing even better if they don't "rock the boat".

Its an interesting curve because we saw it in the west too, where from the 1950s - ?? most kids would generally do better than their parents. However as Asia has started rising that curve is flattening a bit, if you are upper middle class or better your kids will probably do better than you but more and more kids are doing worse via owning houses, bank accounts, stock markets, job security, etc. The West built its wealth on the backs of cheap chinese labor, African minerals, middle eastern oil, etc but that massive wealth transfer isn't as big as it was before. Not really that different from how past Empires built up their economy either from Europe and South American gold/silver, British Empire and Indian/Chinese spices and minerals, or America and the African slave trade.

The really difficult question becomes, will China do the same thing on the back of someone else? For almost all of human history, individual nations have achieved huge and great things but there has always been a shockingly high price paid by a very large exploited group of people. What happens when the exploited turn the tables?