Another factor that complicates things is the fact that Taiwan is a strategic location for the US's military containment of China. The whole "first island chain" depends on it. The US knows it, China's life depends on it.
There's a reason why this issue has persisted since 1949 and why it's China's "reddest of the red lines".
But more importantly, you dodged the military strategic significance of Taiwan. Telling China to give up Taiwan is like asking China to give cut off its lifeline.
At the end of the day, your point boils down to that China ought not to think that way, for reasons that you believe are the only legitimate reasons. But that is useless: Chinese do view things that way, and if foreign forces pressure China to let Taiwan go, then they will fight to the end.
It seems to me that you are saying that a contemporary political position (that Taiwan should be ruled by the same government as mainland China) is in fact a "core value". Unity can be a value, but the political position that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of China, and China can't be unified without it, is not. That's the position which is encouraged by propaganda and government rhetoric, and mirrors similar positions with regards to, for example, Tibet.
Were this danger to disappear then I foresee much greater chances of Taiwan emerging as a independent state, probably as one that is aligned with PRC in the same manner Canada is to the US.
Say what?
Can you give some background (and, especially, evidence or documentation) for this? Because that sounds completely insane.
China obviously doesn't want the matter resolved peacefully, if at all, because they use this conflict for internal control.
I don't have an opinion on that. Just want to point out that out of the previous 2500 years, China has been unified for only 500 years, and 300 of those 500 years was spent under the yoke of a foreign invader (the Mongols).
This is not true, Mongol rule only lasted for about 100 years.
Han dynasty lasted 400 years. Tang about 300 years, Ming and Qing together lasted about 550 years. All of that adds to about 1250 years of unified times. That did not count Qin or Sui or Northern Song, which are unified that just happened to be short lived.
I don't know where you got your numbers.
> China's people also believe that.
Only because that is what they learn and hear (literally) daily, starting with kindergarten. Just reduce this crab step by step, and it will fade away. The same is true for this even more stupid 7-dash line. They draw this stuff only really, really every map you see in China.
Yes education is a contributing factor. But it is my no means the only factor. Your take also ignores the fact that unification is Chinese core value, which is valued more than western freedom of speech, and that this core value has been around for thousands of years.
I think if you asked the average American living in the continental United States, that they would not care one iota if Puerto Rico suddenly became independent. And frankly it's the same for people living in mainland China - their day-to-day lives would change zero percentage if Taiwan was formally recognized. It's purely a matter of conditioned education delivered as part of the party system.
Is warring with all neighbors a core value too? Chinese government, through censorship, controls the minds of the Chinese people. The government needs to update the core values.
The extent of "mind control" is really not that great. The internet exists, and despite imperfect controls people have access to information. It would probably take Xi down to try to abandon Taiwan.
If the vision is that everyone will be living happily ever after under the PRC umbrella, I could see some flaws in that reasoning. Like a whole population that will probably take up arms guerilla-style. I've visited Taiwan and even wearing pro-CCP colours is frowned upon. If they just want the territory and not the people and it'll end up another XinJiang style "re-education" camp, well that's obviously something unsupportable.
Also, of course Taiwan is so crucial to global supply chains that this has all the ingredients to become a world war in short order, which is pretty worrying.
How about unification, under the government of Taiwan? Is everybody down with that? No? Oh, then maybe the mainland could see why Taiwan isn't down with unification on the mainland's terms.
But that's the problem. Neither side is willing to be unified "under" the other. That's not unification; that's subordination. Neither is willing to be subordinated. So no non-violent unification is currently possible.
They mostly don’t. It’s not that big of an issue outside politics and loudmouths, which sometimes converge.
Taiwan is an excuse to add fire to patriotic indoctrination.
This has strategical implications. Do we want to grandstand or do we want to actually solve a problem? If we want to grandstand at all cost, then we have to wage war with China and force them into submission. If we want an actual peaceful resolution then something has to give.
Maybe the Taiwanese can defend their nation mostly by themselves; amphibious assault is not easy, even for major world powers. Even more difficult with satellites watching your (extensive) preparations. Even more difficult with hostile submarines prowling the seas. The PLA can't march to Taiwan.
It is not China that is deviating from the status quo.
Who is we and they? Based on your Twitter profile, you're Chinese and your views seem perfectly aligned with the official CCP position.
If you think my views are too much like CCP's, you should talk to more mainlanders. There's a way deeper rabbit hole out there.
Yes I have a different opinion than the mainstream western one. So what? I can have my own legitimate, independently researched opinion, of which some parts may or may not align with other actors because that's what I happen to believe in based on research results.
Who is "we" and "they"? The west vs China of course. This was, after all, the context to which I was replying to. Not sure how you missed that context.
Again, the question: does your opinion of her statement change when considering the panicked crying (that you casually omitted) which was pointed out by another user?
>To be perfectly clear, if that wasn't already so, I am against any kind of sexual assault and I support an investigation into corrupt officials.
Another dodge. The question isn't about generalities. It isn't about "different opinions about China". The question is about this very specific instance.
(I didn't doxx you, your information is in your profile.)
My post was never supposed to be a full summary, and I never claimed that it is, so it's very strange that you attack me for not fully summarizing. Passages such as crying, feeling like a zombie, etc are already covered by western media and people have likely already read that -- me pointing out all that again does not add anything useful. The intention from the beginning is to let people read the full thing, including translation nuances, and to let them read parts that they probably haven't read yet (or not in its original form), so that people can make up their own minds. That includes reading up about crying, and more importantly, how the passage about crying was written as well as the context in which that passage appears.
I added some commentary after people asked me to comment on another translation and compare that with the first. But that commentary was secondary to the main goal, which is to let people read the original, full text and make up their own minds. Thus it is neither necessary nor a goal of that commentary to be a full analysis, and I never claimed that it was.
Why are you so obsessed with this? Why is my opinion so much more important to you than what Peng Shuai herself wrote in full? What are you afraid of? Why do you not like the fact that I let others read the original source?
I think there is only one possible answer: you have a specific opinion that you want to force on others, so you are alarmed by others being exposed to more and original information. That's some chilling 1984 thought police behavior right there.
What do you make of the crying?
Do you not see how your attempt to skirt the question makes you look like an apologist and not a neutral commentator? Do you think people reading our exchanges won't notice?
>I think there is only one possible answer: you have a specific opinion that you want to force on others, so you are alarmed by others being exposed to more and original information.
I haven't disputed any "information" you've provided. Not once. The truth is exactly the opposite: I've been questioning your omission of key information.
>That's some chilling 1984 thought police behavior right there.
In a thread precisely about abuse of state power, with real lives at stake, this comment is tasteless. It's you who support the CCP in almost all your commentary here and on Twitter.
I hope you see the irony. Rest assured, people reading this will.
>Why are you so obsessed with this? ... What are you afraid of?
As someone with women in his family who have suffered sexual assault, I find your refusal to even acknowledge her crying, both sickening and cowardly. That's not even to mention your unwavering support for the CCP. But that will be on your conscience not mine.
Okay you know what, this time I'll tell you why I was reluctant to answer.
The first part is: because I don't trust you!
Here, just look at this sentence:
> It's you who support the CCP in almost all your commentary here and on Twitter.
This is a huge misrepresentation of my (much more nuanced and complex) position. If you do good research into my Twitter history will you find multiple points where I disagree with CCP. But the fact that you disregard such facts, and choose to misrepresent me as "supporting CCP in almost all commentary", is telling.
Right off the bat, your suspicious, paranoid behavior gives you away as someone who actively seeks to label people as a propagandist, shill, enemy, criminal, etc. merely for disagreeing with your world view on China. The fact that you continue to stalk and hunt me further confirms it.
The second part is because the Hacker News crowd loves to attack, or downvote without discussing, comments on China that they don't agree with. I have to be careful with not offending the crowd by giving too much wrong opinion. And here you are, zooming in on wrong opinions, which you call "apologist".
I've discussed the Peng Shuai situation in detail in private with multiple people, including women. The opinion among mainland Chinese is, for the most part, very different than the narrative painted in mainstream western media. But why should I say too many things which will potentially cause a flood of downvotes and shitstorm simply because that's not what people here like to hear?
Just think about how wrong this is. For a crowd that loves to preach freedom of speech, I have to fear giving my opinion, in no small part thanks to people like you who continue to harass me and continue to label imaginary enemies. For a crowd who wears the mantra of "we are only against the CCP, not the Chinese people", I have to be wary of giving opinions aligned with the Chinese people. No, having a different opinion on China is not "being an apologist", it's having a different opinion.
So my statement that you are engaging in 1984 thought policing, and actually also in McCarthyism 2.0, is not "irony", it is accurate. The biggest irony is that even though you are supposed to be a supporter of free speech, you attempt to deny others of their free speech by labeling them as enemies, merely because you disagree with them.
You know what, my relatives lives are indeed at stake, and they are indeed being threatened — by a potential US-led war for which its consent is manufactured by anti-China propaganda. So I'm pushing back at that. I can see that you have fully bought into the China threat theory, zooming into anybody who has a different opinion about China, like a drone, denying others of the opportunity to see a different perspective. This is entirely deplorable behavior.
You've said this a few times so I'm going to call you on it.
Can you point to a few examples? Specifically, do any of your Twitter posts disagree with the CCP's official stance on censorship, human rights, international relations, international boundaries, democracy, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Tiananmen Square? Are any of your comments critical of specific, highly ranking CCP officials?
Or, are your comments limited to economic policy and other similarly non-controversial issues?
You've repeatedly touted how critical you are of the CCP on Twitter as proof that your opinion is not one-sided, so I'm looking forward to your response.
> and the first time you've even acknowledged that the crying wording exists(!)
Go back and read what I wrote in verbatim! I wrote:
> There is no doubt that Zhao is a manipulative jerk and that he engaged in unacceptable questionable acts.
"unacceptable acts" include that which make her cry! I didn't "omit" saying that he did deplorable things. This is yet another deplorable example of you looking for imaginary enemies and engaging in thought policing.
No, they aren't. China has been making empty threats for literally decades.
Yes, I am sure they will throw around more empty threats and not follow through on them.
But this "red line" thing is just internal propaganda that they never actually follow through on.
It is time the rest of the world stops pretending.
Furthermore, China can no longer afford to use empty threats when US warships are inceasingly sailing in China's backyard. Things weren't so militarily contested before.
And yet it keeps making them, and no actually doing anything about any of this.
It has been decades of empty threats. I am sure people said the same thing, the last time more empty threats for made.
Yeah, no. Thats the facts. They keep making empty threats, and not following through on them, and they are still doing that to this day.
> more serious about true independence
Well, Taiwan is already truly independent, and that has been the case for decades. They have their own laws, borders, and taxes. That is what an independent country is.
Furthermore, the official stance of the ruling party, is that they are already independent.
Nothing really needs to change, for them to become independent, because that is already the case.
> had maintained the One China Policy.
They have their own taxes, laws and borders. They are already an independent country, actually. There is nothing to be maintained, other than some fantasy make believe lip service.
But you seem to think that this trend can go on forever no matter what. That is a dangerous mistake. What's needed is deescalation, not more escalation in the faulty thinking that they will continue to do nothing no matter what happens.
Exactly, I agree. They keep making threats, that they don't follow through on, and they will continue to not follow through on them.
Nothing is needed, to do anything, given the fact that Taiwan is already independent, and that has been the case for decades.
> What's needed is deescalation
There is nothing to de-escalate. Taiwan is already an independent country, and it has been so for decades, and that will continue.
They have had their own taxes, laws, and borders for decades. And they have those same things today. Nothing has changed. They are already independent, and that was the case before, and still is now.
And anyway, the only one who can choose to stop making those empty threats is china. Complain at them if you don't like their big talk, and no follow through threats.
I am saying that none of this has changed. Taiwan is its own independent country, for decades, and we've been doing the same things, which is follow our defensive treaty with them, and have been doing this for decades.
That's the status quo. Nothing needs to change. Nobody is shooting down Chinese military assets.
All that is happening is the same exact, completely normal defensive treaty actions that we've been doing for a while.
And china isn't going to do anything about this status quo, of Taiwan already being an independent country, with a defense treaty with the US.
So go tell the fucking PRC to deescalate.
Chinese people initially saw Taiwan as part of China for historical reasons as well as a result of the civil war. Propaganda slows this from stopping, but the problem very much is not manufactured.
[1] Sino-Japanese Friendship and Trade Treaty
Yes, there is a certain believe among Chinese that Taiwan is an inalienable part of their territory, but most don't believe that reunification should be achieved by force. There is also the idea that Taiwanese people are indeed different from mainland Chinese, but at the same time, any strong Taiwanese identity is the result of propaganda and indoctrination by the Taiwanese authorities.
In other words, it seems that Chinese citizens believe that Taiwanese are "misguided children", thus there is no reason to punish them militarily, and the Taiwan question should be treated as an internal conflict, like any other separatist movement.
Hence, I did not say people believe reunification needs to be achieved by force. What I did say is that if foreign forces pressure China into letting Taiwan go, then China will fight back.
Then this line:
> if the president lets go of Taiwan, the CCP would be overthrown tomorrow.
doesn't make much sense to me. Who would overthrow the CCP, if not the Chinese people? And if they would be willing to do that, why wouldn't they believe in achieving reunification by force?
Letting go of the reunification aspiration entirely, and letting Taiwan relinquish their identity as Chinese, is a whole different matter and would make lots of people angry. It would be seen as a sign of a weak government, one which is in collusion with foreign forces to destroy Chinese sovereignty; an extension of early 20th century efforts by the west to balkanize China. The CCP will lose legitimacy.
Once CCP is overthrown, who can say whether the new policy is peaceful? Maybe a populist will make use of the anger to incite people to call for an invasion.
The CCP are actually moderates. Be careful of what you wish for.
There are different types of "Chinese", and as the PRC frequently does, you are blurring the difference between them.
Taiwanese are 中文 but not 中國.
> being Chinese is being 中国人, which doesn't mean belonging to the Chinese state
I wish that were the case, but the CCP declare themselves the arbiter and they have all the guns. People's Daily says we are "race" traitors if we don't obey their government.
So we don't like calling ourselves 中國人 anymore. I can read OK but not speak their 國語 well enough with the Taiwanese I meet to understand what they prefer. It is not a simple question. 或者华人? Maybe they ignore the pinks and still say 中國人.
我叫自己唐人
If the PRC were as reasonable as the relative you quoted above, none of this would matter. But they are not.
Haha, no. CCP will just present it as a victory for some weird reason, and everyone will just keep applauding. There might be some resentment, but not open one.
And even for those who "cared" I've explained, that imagine yourself as a Taiwanese, who had and always will have a better life than any mainlander. Would they want to have a dictator above themself who beat them up like they did with HKese? So far, I've found no mainlanders yet who would still insisted to take them over. (of course personally, in chat it might be different)
Even Chinese people seem to think that Taiwanese want to be part of China. In reality support for unification is about 4% of the population. The official One China Policy exists to prevent immediate start of war.
There is nothing to do with the Communist ideology or any particular party or people. If it were KMT on the mainland and Communist Party on Taiwan, they would do the same.
I would bet that a Scottish-style ref in Taiwan (which would be tantamount to declaration of independence and hence, dead on arrival) may yield a surprising similar response: no majority support for independence.
You are also missing the part where the ambiguous stance is mostly a consequence of China's threat of immediate violence if independence is ever declared. Taiwanese support for reunification is under 15% or so - and even lower among Taiwanese who were born in Taiwan. Why would they, when their living standards are way higher than China's and they live a free country?
If China would allow a referendum in Taiwan (accepting any outcome peacefully), there would be 90%+ majority for independence.
Once people taste freedom they tend to not want to give it up, no matter how messy.
So, no, I don't think Taiwanese would agree to become Chinese.
Democracy != Liberal democracy.
I hope you are not seriously thinking true propagandists are recruited out in the open via HN comments. Are you seriously paranoid and naive at the same time?
People in China are happy. People in Taiwan are happy. What moron would start a war over it now?
People in China and Taiwan are happy as it is right now, yes. But if the status quo changes, for example if Taiwanese independence is recognized, people will become unhappy.
Why would they give up on this “charade” as you put it? They’re closer than ever to annexing Taiwan in 2021. They hold every card.
- Diplomatic advantage. Only 14 tiny, inconsequential countries + the Vatican recognise Taiwan as a country. Everyone else acknowledges that there is “One China”.
- Military advantage. Taiwan struggles to man their military. In any case the investment in the PLA in the last 10 years means no military can stand up to it except for America. Except America is at peak war weariness with the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. They’re comfortable with Sabre rattling but it’s clear they won’t draw the sabre from the scabbard.
- Economic advantage. Every country in the world needs China. China doesn’t need any single country. See how they bullied Australia and Canada successfully. This dependence on China is at an all time high. It could maybe diminish, but it’s unlikely.
And Taiwan is a more compelling prize than ever.
- Political incentive. The leader who integrates Taiwan will enjoy unquestioned power for the rest of their life. Xi Jinping is often described as the strongest leader of China since Mao. This would be his opportunity to become more powerful than Mao by doing something he couldn’t. Unify China and importantly, face down America and show the world who’s #1.
- Economic incentive. 2020 and 2021 has made the world realise exactly how important Taiwan is to the world economy. TSMC in particular the most pivotal supplier for most of the worlds critical industries. If Taiwan could be annexed and TSMC brought under state control, China would have a bargaining chip of unparalleled power.
If China invades Taiwan then most likely the USA goes to war over it. Anything else is to accept the final end of US leadership in the world. If we're going to end the world and kill billions then I guess it might as well be over something as honourable as Taiwanese freedom and in the broader name of freedom, human rights and democracy. Human civilisation could end in a far more banal way.
Not only that, but the loss of coal imports from Australia led directly to massive power outages in the northeastern provinces this fall. Though it's possible that the people aren't aware of that causal connection.
> Anything else is to accept the final end of US leadership in the world
There is some sense in which the US is willing to relinquish its "leadership in the world" and "take some me-time"; it's just too much of a pain in the ass. This has been a trend since 2001, when george bush was elected on a "humble foreign policy" platform (but not delivered upon), skipped obama's cabinet (though he was famously aloof during high level diplomatic meetings), through Donald Trump, who hasn't started any new foreign adventures, and Biden has actually withdrawn from Afghanistan. I think that we are emerging into an zeitgeist where the US doesn't really care to be number one, it's just so stupid and so much of a waste of time.
But even in context of deliberately disengaging from the world, the US still goes to bat for Taiwan.
This myth has been repeated so many times, how about: https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-production-by-countr...
The outage was caused by misguiding policy incentive (clean air etc), which was seen as a huge blunder, rightfully so, but it had nothing to do with Australian coal.
"anything at all besides what you did"
- On the Beach (2000)
I think this is why the war weariness would matter little.
Americans may be many things, but liberal or conservative, they’re all proud as fuck.
They won’t initiate a war, but barring a complete takeover of Taiwan in the course of a day (e.g. Crimea), they’ll fight.
The same is more or less true for Japan, which really just needs an excuse.
Except how the rest of the world would react.
It seems like a recipe for war.
That said, I’d expected more of a reaction to the annexation of Hong Kong too.
"One country, two systems" is being curtailed early, but that is harder to argue against without a foreign power there to do anything about it.
How is my statement about the Sino-British Joint Declaration incorrect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
Yes.
> 2020 and 2021 has made the world realise exactly how important Taiwan is to the world economy.
These two statements are exclusive.
If China would invade Taiwan, the economic downfall and the reactions from most western countries, which, on the other hand, are essential partners for China to continue its manufacturing dominance, would be catastrophic.
Diplomatic: Official allies matter less and less. The deepening unofficial ties with the US and Japan (I can cite examples here if you like) are much, much more important. If the current trend continues, ties between Taiwan and the US will be unofficial by name only. Dual recognition by stealth.
Militarily: Taiwans problems here are well known. But Taiwan has a free and very critical press, and will gladly tear into their military for clicks. This is not the case for China, god knows what problems it has (though the skirmish with India probably gives you some clues). You call the US military war weary, I call it highly experienced at waging war.
Economic: China is completely dependent on global trade. To act otherwise is laughable.
Obviously China is dependent on world trade. What’s laughable is not reading what I wrote, in that China can afford to lose trade ties with one or two nations, although not all at the same time. Whereas no single country can afford to lose China. That gives China the high ground - it can threaten any single country with a boycott. And it has done so successfully.
Which Chinese economic boycott was successful in achieving their goals? You surely can't point to the Australian one.
But the aftermath would be pretty terrible. The US and EU would lock them out of the their economies, as would basically every country in the region except NK. Economic collapse would ensue and that would likely lead to a revolution: the CCP have basically ruled on a "give up freedom and get economic opportunity" ticket. If they can't deliver...
There is also a pretty big US air force base there which would be hard to... Invade around?
I am inclined to believe that it would look similar to Iraq invading Kuwait, only 100000 times bigger and bloodier.
I think the US, UK, Australia, Japan, and many EU nations would strongly disapprove and take military action.
The best they could realistically do if the invasion does succeed is try to force an embargo. This will be massively unpopular, kill tens of thousands in third countries that will be sanctioned as collateral damage, and crash the world economy, and still might not work.
The past 100 years of wars and military conflicts have shown that military logistics can overcome great distances if needed.
Great distances and economic consequences did not stop past wars. I doubt they would stop a war caused by the invasion of Taiwan.
>> This will be massively unpopular, kill tens of thousands in third countries that will be sanctioned as collateral damage, and crash the world economy, and still might not work.
The damage would be incredible, likely as bad as World War 2, or possibly worse.
Great distance stopped many, many wars. It is the reason the US is so rich, right now.
Economic consequences did not stop actual wars, yes. But in the event that an embargo is the only realistic alternative, it is a very powerful factor.
> Great distances and economic consequences did not stop past wars.
Yeah, the wars of German invasion of North America -- sub-theaters of WW1 and WW2 -- were over so quickly hardly anyone even noticed them.
I do wonder though: if that is the USs plan, why not say so? The US has formal alliances with NATO, Japan etc. They're public, because making them public dissuades the chance of an attack. If you're going to risk getting into a war, why not minimise the risk at no cost by being upfront about it? Instead the US maintains a position of "strategic ambiguity".
It would also be hard because China isn't Iraq. It's a nuclear nation with a bigger stronger army and much better morale. And Taiwan is an Island. You can't mass your troops 100m from the border and then march over when ready. The allies would need to do an amphibious landing less than 200 miles from the Chinese coast (aka air force), under fire from subs and against a fortified target.
Strategic ambiguity means china is emboldened and that Taiwan cannot rely on any US support whatever secret deals have been made no?
No country would lock China out of their economies. It would be the most painful suicide imaginable. China is already the source of most components in most industries. A China that annexed Taiwan would also be the main source of the world’s semiconductors.
And that’s even before getting into how companies cut off from the second largest market in the world would struggle to survive against competitors that weren’t.
I think you might be over estimating how indispensable they are.
This is one of (not the only reason) China is so hungry to move into harder to replace industries (cutting edge chip manufacturing for instance, infrastructure like 5G).
And of course Chinese markets are mostly closed to Western goods and services already...
The author was just pointing out China's incentives. Any negotiator, a person analyzing international relation theory, or any policy maker must do this.
He doesn't sound like Germany 1938. He sounds like a person trying to analyze a power dynamic.
The Congressional Research Service tries to boil down complicated issues for Congressional members in public, short reports. Here is the one on Taiwan that discusses Taiwan and China in two pages (and has Lithuania).
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10275
They do talk about China's perspective on the second page. They do not ignore it. They do not sound like Germany 1938.
A few of my friends think I am overboard when I talk positively about China, but really I am just reacting to how wonderful the people there were when my wife and I travelled in China, and I also really respect their AI tech, their tech in general, and how so many people have moved out of poverty.
It is just their current government that I don’t like.
The people of China choose to allow CCP to run their country. If they were so different ideologically the CCP would no longer exist. Countries with orders of magnitude less people struggle to remain united. The fact 1.4 billion people can be represented by the same political party speaks to the strong ideological ties that are shared by most Chinese people. I would argue that those ideologies were implanted by decades of brainwashing and totalitarianism, but how it was achieved doesn't change that fact.
So, yes, your experience and likely many others' is with good people. Countries are not exclusively bad or good. We can recognize those good traits that China has as a nation.
But it would be wrong to also not criticize the bad aspects, and sweep them under the rug as the CCP constantly tries to do. The rampant economic and moral corruption, overfishing of world's waters and general disregard for animal life and nature, disregard for human life, widespread racism and xenophobia, isolationism, etc.
These are not only governmental issues, but part of the modern Chinese culture that taints whatever good aspects we can celebrate.
Undoubtedly comparisons to the US will be made, but at least we can criticize bad US aspects (both government and cultural) openly, without random US citizens coming up with defensive arguments. The US government will persecute whistleblowers for airing its dirty laundry, but we've known that for decades.
I fear a world where the dominant superpower has such a culture and is closed to criticism—not only because of its oppressive government, but because of its people.
In my worldview, and I am likely at least partially wrong, I think that almost all governments are totally controlled by corporate and elite interests - same as news media.
I do try to not get too upset by this, and I just try to be a decent person. Really, I am just an average person so what else can I do?
This seems closer to the mandate of heaven[0] than an explanation of how governments work or why they are overthrown.
Here's another explanation based on The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. The 18 minute video The Rules for Rulers[1] has a great summary of the principles from this book.
Dictators and elected representatives have the same problem; they must keep control of key supporters and reward them in order to remain in power.
Dictatorships have only a few key supporters - heads of the army, secret police, treasury, etc. Popular support isn't required; if these people are content with your rule, you will remain in power. If they aren't, you will be replaced.
Democracies have many more key supporters; we normally call them voting blocs - suburban voters, Hispanic voters, non-college voters, evangelic Protestants, etc. Popular support from these groups is required and this difference is why democratic governments change between parties so often.
Yup.
> without random US citizens coming up with defensive arguments.
Eh... No, usually not.
The problem is that it is enough for only a small minority to support the government for it to keep the power forever.
I have been born in a country occupied by communists and there for many decades an overwhelming majority of the people wished that the current government would be deleted, but nobody could do anything.
It is hard to estimate how many people supported the government, but it is very unlikely that they were more than 5% of the total population.
Nevertheless, that was enough to make impossible to organize any kind of opposition against the government because any attempt would be reported by informers and the initiators would be eliminated before being able to do any action.
Maybe in China there is a majority that supports the CCP, but that certainly is not a rule in dictatorships.
Not at all.
For a mainlander, Taiwan _is_ a region of China, think of it as Hawai for the US.
People in the west see Taiwan as a separate country that China tries to forcibly absorb.
People in mainland see Taiwan as a region of China that tries to be independent.
Also, there is a lot of eyes on the Taiwan case from mainlanders because other regions of China are seen as potential underdogs for independence, due to cultural heritage (and wealth), such as Shangai.
Where I live in the Midwest USA, nobody would care if Hawai'i claimed its independence in some not-harmful-to-tourists-nor-threatening-to-military-fuel-depots fashion.
That doesn't mean it would be easy. Much as was seen in the original USA annexation of Hawai'i, it is very common for interested parties to create violence where none naturally exists.
Also Midwest/Great Lakes and I’m not sure about that. I know I’d be pretty upset about it just as I would be if Texas tried to seriously secede or similar. I wonder what a poll would show? I hadn’t thought about Hawaii like you have but it would be interesting.
I was stationed there too. It felt like America on an island. It was weird.
The Us would never let it happen though. Too strategically important
Taiwan still has 400+ tonnes of gold the Guomindang took with them on their way out. I have no idea if good reserves have any relevance in this century but it’s just one part of the long term animosity.
In other words - aside from containing Chinese/Communist external influence, when has the US threatened China?
Note: I'm not justifying or condemning any of those "external" actions by the US, I'm just curious if you can illustrate a past or ongoing threat to China proper?
They've been 'trying' pretty successfully since 1949 :) Maybe it's time to just cut your losses instead of trying to rebuild the past. You can pretend they're just a territory that wants independence but really the PRC has had no control over it for 72 years.
The UK (my country) does it with 1001 places (Greece and the Elgin Marbles, Argentina and the Falklands, German and WW1 and WW2, France and, well, everything). The US does it with Iran and Cuba. China does it with all it's neighbors.
It's childish and short-termist and dangerous. But it works.
That's what this is. It's Winnie the Pooh rallying support, not an actual political position.
Just because you personally don't see the impact doesn't mean it isn't there.
Since you asked for a source, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33253013/
Aren't you worried that it seems to be bad for children's mental health that they spend more time at home and with their parents, that our world is so broken that the only thing that seems to stop abuse of women is that the abuser goes to work so they don't have time for the abuse? The poor are also disproportionately affected by the disease and death consequences of Corona, the effect this has on children and women doesn't concern you? Financial problems can be solved, it just takes political will, illness and death is more complicated. Not to mention the destroyed trust in the state's ability to act and in the minds of fellow citizens, cue vaccination opponents. It seems to me that you are worried about the whitewash that has so far concealed our problems to some extent and that is now coming to light thanks to the pandemic.
The hospitals never became overloaded. Government run hospitals were mis-managed and appeared overloaded. The government ordered elective surgeries to be postponed, not the hospitals. Children need to socialize with other children, it helps them learn how to be functioning individuals. Telling people "your jobs have been taken away by the government, but here's a few hundred each week" forces people into situations they'd otherwise avoid.
I am VERY concerned about how the poor are affected by the lockdowns. The inflation the biden administration is causing under the guise of covid is hurting them the most. They'd be much better off in a free economy where there's plenty of market rate jobs and minimal to no inflation.
Things were going AMAZING from the start of 2017 until early 2020 when the democratic controlled house and democrat state governments starting forcing all of these lockdowns and moving the goalpost
Let me know when you've accomplished this. We'll wait.
I honestly spent a few minutes trying to figure out how to formulate a good-faith response to this, and I couldn't. I don't even know where to begin.
That wasn't why I was struggling. I was struggling because I deem it a very heartless argument, and I don't know how to have meaningful conversations with people when they don't seem to have the good of their fellow citizens at heart. The free economy can function as both an instrument of liberation and oppression depending on your place in society. It is not a universal panacea.
Living in a society requires giving up some of your personal liberties from time to time, so that other people can enjoy theirs. That doesn't mean that I condone the government stripping away everyone's personal liberties. I wish that people were individually capable of making those sorts of sacrifices without any government intervention. But that isn't the world we're living in.
> Do you mean to say that people should not be able to decide what is more important to them so that resources can be appropriately allocated?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to decide what is more important to themselves, but rather that they can't always be trusted to respect what's important to others. Thinking that a free market economy will always result in the most equitable distribution of goods and services for everyone -- that's childish.
> stay home
> don’t tell me how to live my life
I hope you see the irony there. If only it was that simple. You want to be out and about, unvaccinated, putting other people at risk, while the ones who took the vaccine and are trying to stay safe stay home? Yeah right.
If you want to live a “free” life you can go setup shop in an island somewhere away from civilization. Total freedom to do whatever you want.
> effectiveness against infection with the delta variant declined from 94.1% (90.5% to 96.3%) 14-60 days after vaccination to 80.0% (70.2% to 86.6%) 151-180 days after vaccination
80-90% is still infinitely better than zero. The “narrative” of infection being spread by the unvaccinated (also usually non-mask-wearers which doesn’t help) is obviously true, as logic would suggest, and hospitalization numbers everywhere confirm. Most recent data suggest slightly lower protection for Omicron, around 70%.
Not to mention, again, that hospitalization is still reduced by 95%+ even if infected which makes a huge difference for healthcare systems.