←back to thread

China

(drewdevault.com)
847 points kick | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.358s | source
Show context
ilamont ◴[] No.21585386[source]
Xi's in a trap. The nationalist fervor that the CCP has whipped up for decades, coupled with the demonization of the HK protestors by Chinese media and Xi's 'no compromise' stance, makes it impossible for him to lighten up -- and the protests to de-escalate -- without him seeming weak. The HK protestors/population at this point are so angry and the radical wing so large, that they won't willingly de-escalate. Even if Lam leaves the demonstrations will continue. This sets up the stage for atrocities and more international condemnation.

Already on the international front, China is in trouble. The pro-China KMT party in Taiwan may suffer greatly in the next election because of what's going on in HK now (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3037040/tai...), making China's aggressive demands for forced unification even more unlikely in the medium term. This week, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a HK rights bill (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-usa/us-...) that, if it becomes law, will put China through an annual review, which will further erode the Sino-U.S. relationship for years to come. There have been calls for a boycott of the 2022 Olympics in Beijing which seems fringey now, but won't be if China sends in the troops.

There's also the internal question. Ordinary people in China are getting censored news, but some of the raw information about what's going on is getting through via social media. What does this mean for sentiment in Cantonese speaking areas of southern China, or for areas of China where provincial officials are resented for unjust or unfair treatment of citizens?

replies(5): >>21585583 #>>21585587 #>>21586279 #>>21586559 #>>21589796 #
camgunz ◴[] No.21586279[source]
> Xi's in a trap. The nationalist fervor that the CCP has whipped up for decades, coupled with the demonization of the HK protestors by Chinese media and Xi's 'no compromise' stance, makes it impossible for him to lighten up -- and the protests to de-escalate -- without him seeming weak.

Yeah I don't have any sympathy for him or for the CCP. Appealing to nationalist sentiment to amass political power is making a deal with the devil, and we know how that goes. Let's just hope the US doesn't need to learn this lesson as well.

The sad fact is that when these kinds of authoritarian regimes rise to power, it takes years of abhorrent violence to tear them down. The West naively thought the "free market" would liberalize China (and Russia) and we were very wrong. We're reaping the consequences of that policy mistake on a global scale.

It's the rule of law and human rights that are liberalizing (which careful readers will realize is a tautology). The West needs to stop legitimizing and funding regimes that don't respect these fundamental ideas, and here I'm thinking of China, but also other totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. Furthermore we need to build alliances against these regimes across the world.

replies(3): >>21588824 #>>21591607 #>>21626209 #
treebeard901 ◴[] No.21588824[source]
> The West naively thought the "free market" would liberalize China (and Russia) and we were very wrong.

We have all heard this idea thrown around now for some time. It’s only in the last few years it seems people have accepted that it wasn’t going to work.

In the context of the trade war and everything lately, I’ve really been thinking about this theory.

On one hand, we know the current reality. An ascendant authoritarian country looking to return to great power status. We have a trade war as a result of years of toxic codependency. It remains to be seen how far the trade war goes and wether or not it is the catalyst for some future war.

Now on the other hand, what direction would China have gone had Nixon not gone to China to open up trade negotiations in the 70s.

It’s impossible to know, but I can imagine quite a number of scenarios that are far worse than a trade war with China. Imagine a North Korea type situation where the country is much larger and influential and does not have such a co dependent trading relationship with the United States.

Is that really a better outcome?

Also important noting that China already had nukes when they began joining international trade in the 70s.

The situation could’ve been much worse.

replies(2): >>21589189 #>>21590071 #
camgunz ◴[] No.21589189[source]
Yeah, that's all fair and counterfactuals are impossible. My instinct, though I have nothing to back this up, is:

- The US foreign policy of regime change and bullying hegemony was a complete failure, and totally counterproductive.

- We should have deployed soft power, like aid, diplomacy, and the Peace Corps, to places that were vulnerable to falling into authoritarian rule long term, and invested in the development of poorer countries.

- We should have more seriously considered deploying hard power to places that initially fell into authoritarian rule. I know Cuba was a failure and I know military action has serious consequences (especially for civilians), but compared to authoritarian governments wielding vast nuclear arsenals and ponderous economic weight... it's a tough choice.

- We should internalize that as the US goes, the world tends to follow. Whenever we violate sovereignty, human rights, or our own values and laws, the world takes notice. Like it or not, we're responsible for showing the world how a liberal superpower behaves. We need to take that responsibility seriously.

replies(1): >>21591915 #
skrebbel ◴[] No.21591915[source]
> We should have more seriously considered deploying hard power to places that initially fell into authoritarian rule. I know Cuba was a failure and I know military action has serious consequences (especially for civilians), but compared to authoritarian governments wielding vast nuclear arsenals and ponderous economic weight... it's a tough choice.

I'm impressed how you blatantly assume that marching into some foreign country, guns blazing, will magically turn them into a liberal democracy.

I mean, your track record is abysmal. There are exceptions (eg Japan) but generally when the US puts boots on the ground somewhere, the place turns to shit.

replies(1): >>21594455 #
camgunz ◴[] No.21594455[source]
Yeah, I agree we're bad at it. Are there alternatives you're thinking of I haven't considered?
replies(1): >>21596136 #
skrebbel ◴[] No.21596136[source]
Good point. Harder soft diplomacy, maybe? Eg Drew in this post proposes a full trade blockade.
replies(1): >>21612623 #
1. camgunz ◴[] No.21612623[source]
Yeah I think trade and economic pressure is kind of the only other road; basically put authoritarianism in quarantine. I'm a little unsatisfied with that because it's hard to fully isolate anyone. We can't isolate China from Russia, for example, and it more or less just creates a club of authoritarian regimes. But like, realistically we couldn't have done anything about the Bolshevik revolution, or the rise of the CCP. Maybe we fucked up in the Korean War by stopping, but we failed in Cuba. It's a tough problem, and smarter, more experienced people than I have been trying to crack it for longer than I have.