> The west needs to sanction China.

Do you understand that the West mostly sanctions itself when it tries to sanction a country which:

1. Has surreal trade surplus with it.

2. Supports nearly entire consumer spending part of your economy.

3. Provides most of your light industry goods.

4. Buys a big chunk of your debt.

This is why I was saying that China can easily do a blunder, after a blunder, and still outmatch the West economically, and you need something other than simply sanctions.

We just need leaders in place who understand these systems, the economics, and trust that once investing resources into their own people and nations who are aligned with the same/similar values - with freedom of speech at their core - that they will work hard and generate an ROI for their work; understanding the human heart, mind, will, and exponentials are the key to having this faith - faith perhaps deriving from seeing the good and potential in every being.

You're correct that more than sanctions are necessary, you need to also invest in the infrastructure and production of goods that your society primarily relies on. There's tons of space for innovation and improving efficiencies in this space via automation, vertical and horizontal integration, reducing planned obsolescence, etc. There's an incredible amount of waste in our societies, along with other types of pollution we must address. All this requires is work, which means jobs, and adequate organization and appropriate directing of resources.

Isn't the point of sanctions to make the offending product so expensive that other options become more viable?

They would've to be hard enough to make it more cost effective to create a new production line in another nation over buying the sanctioned goods.

Not without consequences for the consumer and political suicide if attempted... but technically possible

> Isn't the point of sanctions to make the offending product so expensive that other options become more viable?

The key word here is other options. Are there any?

China on other hand has many other options than the US market. They will have no problem redirecting things like household goods, and other light industry products to other markets without impact to its industrial capacity.

That's what has happened in 2008, and indeed worked marvelously for them in the end.

When the American economy was flopped, they simply took all those luxuries destined for sale to America, dumped them on developing markets, and adjusted quality-quantity balance for this target market.

> The key word here is other options. Are there any?

Yes if you ask about them at the right place, like https://www.reddit.com/r/avoidchineseproducts/

The terms of the treaty state anything about the relative strength of each nation?

I tell you a secret: The CCP doesn't actually care about the rules of international law.

Who is gonna stop them? Nobody.

This is the problem restated, yes, and that’s what we’re talking about.

Neither does the US or the UK or any other country that actually matters. And btw there is no such thing as international law.

I mean, you’re right, however most constitutions, including the US, put treaty obligations as equal in force of law.

But that’s how treaties work. We’re just upset we’re not the ones breaking treaties anymore. Ironically, the treaty was signed because the British pretended they were in a Position to unilaterally re-negotiate a previous treaty obligating them to return HL.

The Chinese had no obligation to sign the 1980s treaty to get HK back, and were hardly intimidated by the UK’s 1980s military might to do so (I mean an British admiral said about the Falkland war: “if not for a few defective fuses we would have lost”. Against Argentina. Pretty pathetic)

The UK was delusionaly saying it might not give HK back to commies (understandable sentiment, surely) and the commies signed something to let the Brits save face.

About HK:

There’s nothing we can do.

Deluding ourselves that there is weakens us

We must contain the CCP, but HK is not it.

The relative strengths of the nations help to dictate the terms. Treaty of Nanking was signed after the defeat of the Qing army, you think the terms were favourable to the Qing Emperor?

Of course it's valid. If it can be enforced is another issue.

A century old treaty signed at gunpoint can be dissolved at gunpoint.

That’s not how international obligations work. Most borders were defined at gunpoint but we generally don’t allow for arbitrary redefinition when the loser gets uppity, Crimea aside.

For a long time American policy was also that these "unfair" treaties made by Colonial Powers should go. Roosevelt was very much of that opinion that these treaties should be abbrograted in the aftermath of World War II, and his views did lead to some differences of opinion with Churchill.

Infact all other concessions except HK and Macau were returned to Chinese about the end of the war.

We probably need to return California to Mexico by your logic.

We're still the ones pointing the guns in that scenario.

Well in that case, you’re arguing that since you lost the war of 1812 when you tried to invade Canada, now that you’ve got the bigger guns you would just go for a quick stroll up north.

It's not my logic, it is what the American Policy thought was the decent thing to do.

For the record Macau was leased freely to Portugal as a trading post in the mid 1500s. Not everything is an unfair imposition.

That's not how international relations work. Appealing to some arbitrary set of conventions (that you prove in your own comment don't get followed) and then complaining that the other side is "uppity" does nothing.

china probably wouldnt mind burning Versailles n Buckingham to the ground, recovering taiwan. then taking over hawaii and returning it 100 years later.

The history of the region is far more complicated of course, you’re neglecting that Macau wasn’t lost in a war. It was leased as a trading post. There’s no reason to believe that the contiguous border China would like to espouse is either historically fair or reasonable today. Macau is more like St Pierre and Miquelon or Point Roberts. It’s governed under the same terms as HK.

It’s also unclear why Taiwan should be “recovered” at all, they were two factions of the cultural revolution sure, but that doesn’t mean they should be unified now any more than the UK should “recover” America.

of their quarrels with the rest of the world. to the chinese. i think taiwan is the least negotiable. they're not done yet, their revolutionary war.

we can of course disagree with china. but ignoring what they want is...i don't know...naive?

Then again, if the old loser is the new winner. They get to define the rules...

They've not won anything though, in fact they showed their hand to the world to wake us up, and sooner than later there will be a multi-lateral trade agreement between Democracies that will reduce the CCP's economic power - and India who' aligned with, allied with Democracies are readying to replace any economic activity in China. This isn't a war they can win.

That's exactly how international obligations work.

Any others you want to revisit? Maybe the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo? How about 1812? Should America get to annex Canada? America did lose the war of 1812 after all!

If breaking a treaty is in best interest and situation permits it, it will probably get broken. Annexing Canada is not very practical at this point is it? Breaking a bunch of treaties made with Native Americans, sure why not.

If one day situation permits it, Canada will become 5X US state.

Sure if you use your imagination and a pathological attitude anything can happen!

The laws of physics are inflexible.

The laws of man, including international law, treaties and borders, are made up and can be change with enough will or force.

I mean of course they can but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do, or even productive towards a country’s ends, or beneficial to then international community. Peace relies on honoring agreements. If you see countries start breaking their obligations, stand back and go “whelp that’s guns for ya” I’d call that a pretty regressive take on international relations.

China is violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed between the UK and China in 1984. [0]

Not century old. And not at gunpoint.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

China produces everything. We produce dollars, scrap products, corn, soybeans, timber, plastics and some software [1]. Where would you get all of your things if we did that?

[1] https://www.uschina.org/reports/us-exports/national

Well, they produce a lot.

From China. Sanctions don't necessarily mean ceasing all trade.

> This is violation of China's treaty obligations

Maybe it's time to de-colonise Hong Kong and just give it back to the Chinese properly?

It's not our business how they conduct their internal affairs.

First of all, you seem to be talking about the PRC and not Chinese. All of us would gladly take China away from the CCP dictatorship, and give it to the Chinese people as a true democracy.

Secondly, here is such a thing as human rights, and westerners believe that such a thing is worldwide. We should not close our eyes to the wrongdoing that is done to our fellow human beings.