5 ms·

It's not just a stretch, it's ridiculous. It's a fact made up to make their narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121 Taiwan is an entirely

It's not just a stretch, it's ridiculous. It's a fact made up to make their narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121 Taiwan is an entirely different entity politically no matter if you subscribe to the one China doctrine. China has little to no control over it and therefore derives no power from its companies.

yoz-y 7y ago
> China has no control over it This is quite a stretch too. The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this to pressure Taiwan in the past.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Ok, but then by that logic, Mexican and Canadian companies should count to the USA total. After all, the US is their largest export market and the USA frequently puts diplomatic and economic pressures on her neighbours.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state, in contrast to Mexico and Canada, with the recognition of Taiwan steadily falling. This is a strange comparison.
    - adventured 7y ago
      > Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state That's incorrect. The US does not endorse that Taiwan is owned by China and that there is only one China (which includes Taiwan), in the terms that China recognizes it. The US policy is to recognize China's position, and that is all it represents. If your premise were correct, the US would not be selling military weapons to Taiwan to defense itself from China. This explains it moderately well: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 > What is the 'One China' policy? > It is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there is only one Chinese government. Under the policy, the US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than the island of Taiwan, which China sees as a breakaway province to be reunified with the mainland one day. > The One China policy is a key cornerstone of Sino-US relations. It is also a fundamental bedrock of Chinese policy-making and diplomacy. However, it is distinct from the One China principle, whereby China insists Taiwan is an inalienable part of one China to be reunified one day. > The US policy is not an endorsement of Beijing's position and indeed as part of the policy, Washington maintains a "robust unofficial" relationship with Taiwan, including continued arms sales to the island so that it can defend itself.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        This gets into nuanced territory where words fail. When the US sells arms to a rebel group, does that mean the US recognizes that the rebels are a sovereign state, or a a sovereign non-state military entity, or what? At the end of the day, legal structures are convenient fictions with no mother nature or computer compiler to check the logic for consistency or completeness.
        goblin89 7y ago
        > At the end of the day, legal structures are convenient fictions Exactly. Most countries have relations with Taiwan, and they only keep their stances ambiguous to not lose business with PRC. Fun example is Nauru, which accepted $130 million from PRC to abandon relations with ROC, and then a couple years later promptly did a 180-degree turn and stood with ROC again.
      - rangibaby 7y ago
        “there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China” Remember that there are two sovereign states that call themselves China
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      It's not a strange comparison, it's simply applying the parent comment's standards: > The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. [The US] is one of the largest market to which [Canada] exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and [the USA] has used this to pressure [Canada] in the past.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - rangibaby 7y ago
      That’s misrepresenting the US position “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
- nailer 7y ago
  Yes but the CCP doesn't run Taiwan. You could say China has control over Australia and the United States for the same reason but you wouldn't include them in China either.
  - sho 7y ago
    > You could say China has control over Australia and the United States for the same reason I think that's a bit disingenuous. No-one would seriously claim that those two countries are beholden to China in anything other than trade. Meanwhile Taiwan has a freaking "independence movement". Would there be an independence movement if a country is truly independent already? They call themselves the Republic of China for pete's sake. A fact, needless to say, not lost on the mainlanders. I'm not any kind of expert but I know enough that it's not as simple as "separate country, game over". Every decision Taiwan makes is taken with careful consideration of the mainland's reaction. And I know exactly what the mainlanders think of Taiwan - renegade island to be brought to heel ASAP. Probably not by brute force - although that possibility always lurks, and no-one would stop them. No, they'll do it the Chinese way - long-game manipulation until they hold all the cards. There's no if here, there's simply when. Some countries simply can't exist in the long term, especially when they're right next to a much larger party with designs on them - doubly so if there's some sort of history. Ukraine was/is one. HK too. The clock is ticking for DPRK, it's just a question of who's going to own the mess afterwards. The clock is set further out for Taiwan but.. the writing on the wall is so clear you could read it from space. Don't get me wrong, I think all of this sucks. I love Taiwan and don't want to see it subsumed into the Borg. That doesn't really change anything, though.
    - SllX 7y ago
      That independence movement is as much about giving up their own claims on the mainland and continuing as an independent nation without ambitions to one day kick out the poser government currently controlling the PRC as anything else. All these years later, Taiwan still maintains their claims, actually they maintain technically larger claims on the mainland past PRC borders than even the PRC claims.
    - goblin89 7y ago
- goblin89 7y ago
  The argument that ROC may be considered part of PRC because PRC is an important business partner to me doesn’t seem to hold water. How is it different as opposed to, say, Russia and Ukraine? Mutual trade is big and one player may have more leverage (as is almost always the case with two countries in proximity to each other), should we count Ukraine’s stats in favor of Russia’s? In both cases there are similarities in language and ethnicity, and in case of Taiwan there additionally are US military troops stationed.
  - maehwasu 7y ago
    Ethnic, linguistic, and cultural ties tend to have great staying power (see US-Britain, the unification of Germany and Italy, Balkan conflicts, and on and on). This is all even more true when the countries are close geographically. Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them. Lines on a map and citizenship papers are easier to redo than centuries (millenia for China/Taiwan) of culture/language. This is NOT an endorsement of China taking over Taiwan, which I do NOT want and think would be a bad thing.
    - goblin89 7y ago
      > Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them. More predictive in what regard? The only way I can see it being usefully predictive is if you count on the larger entity annexing the smaller one. An I missing something?
      - empath75 7y ago
        You can exert power through hegemony without annexing.
        goblin89 7y ago
        In the part that I quoted “power”, I believe, stands for economical strength. How can it be useful or at all correct to count economical strength of, say, Kazakhstan (as another example) as part of Russia’s stats, if the former is developing and trading independently? That’s why I object to article’s angle: it uses “China” to refer to an aggregate in one case (lumping ROC and PRC together), and to PRC in another case (quoting their president and intentions to dominate global economy). Counting ROC in PRC’s favor serves to tip the numbers and make article’s premise seem more compelling, but since PRC and ROC are separate economies the premise is false. It almost makes it look like a major business publication is playing a political game.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mytailorisrich 7y ago
> Taiwan is an entirely different entity politically not matter if you subscribe to the one China doctrine. That's true in the same way as North Korea is an entirely different political entity from South Korea (for example).
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Not the "same". NK and SK both have stronger international recognition then Taiwan does. NK is censured and shunned by many states, but it's independence isn't challenged. SK isn't challenged either.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    You're missing the point. The situation is the same. The difference in the case of China is that one side is strong enough to influence the international community's recognition of the other side. The point being that mainland China + Taiwan constitute the 'Chinese sphere' so to speak. The formal position of both sides on many international issues is not very different. For example, although mainland China gets a lot of flack for its claims in the South China Sea, Taiwan has the same claims because both sides agree that this area should be under Chinese sovereignty.
Yuval_Halevi 7y ago
>It's a fact made up to make their narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121 Agree. If the author combined a few unrelated stats to create this fact it means that it's not a fact.
AFascistWorld 7y ago
The 5 electronics conmpanies have their factories in China, and the Fortune probably wanted to avoid China's wrath from territorial claims more than shoehorning this argument. Just like this kind of glorious China stories play right into China's palate.

yoz-y 7y ago

> China has no control over it This is quite a stretch too. The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this to pressure Taiwan in the past.

ForHackernews 7y ago
Ok, but then by that logic, Mexican and Canadian companies should count to the USA total. After all, the US is their largest export market and the USA frequently puts diplomatic and economic pressures on her neighbours.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state, in contrast to Mexico and Canada, with the recognition of Taiwan steadily falling. This is a strange comparison.
  - adventured 7y ago
    > Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state That's incorrect. The US does not endorse that Taiwan is owned by China and that there is only one China (which includes Taiwan), in the terms that China recognizes it. The US policy is to recognize China's position, and that is all it represents. If your premise were correct, the US would not be selling military weapons to Taiwan to defense itself from China. This explains it moderately well: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 > What is the 'One China' policy? > It is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there is only one Chinese government. Under the policy, the US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than the island of Taiwan, which China sees as a breakaway province to be reunified with the mainland one day. > The One China policy is a key cornerstone of Sino-US relations. It is also a fundamental bedrock of Chinese policy-making and diplomacy. However, it is distinct from the One China principle, whereby China insists Taiwan is an inalienable part of one China to be reunified one day. > The US policy is not an endorsement of Beijing's position and indeed as part of the policy, Washington maintains a "robust unofficial" relationship with Taiwan, including continued arms sales to the island so that it can defend itself.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      This gets into nuanced territory where words fail. When the US sells arms to a rebel group, does that mean the US recognizes that the rebels are a sovereign state, or a a sovereign non-state military entity, or what? At the end of the day, legal structures are convenient fictions with no mother nature or computer compiler to check the logic for consistency or completeness.
      - goblin89 7y ago
        > At the end of the day, legal structures are convenient fictions Exactly. Most countries have relations with Taiwan, and they only keep their stances ambiguous to not lose business with PRC. Fun example is Nauru, which accepted $130 million from PRC to abandon relations with ROC, and then a couple years later promptly did a 180-degree turn and stood with ROC again.
    - rangibaby 7y ago
      “there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China” Remember that there are two sovereign states that call themselves China
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    It's not a strange comparison, it's simply applying the parent comment's standards: > The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. [The US] is one of the largest market to which [Canada] exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and [the USA] has used this to pressure [Canada] in the past.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rangibaby 7y ago
    That’s misrepresenting the US position “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
nailer 7y ago
Yes but the CCP doesn't run Taiwan. You could say China has control over Australia and the United States for the same reason but you wouldn't include them in China either.
- sho 7y ago
  > You could say China has control over Australia and the United States for the same reason I think that's a bit disingenuous. No-one would seriously claim that those two countries are beholden to China in anything other than trade. Meanwhile Taiwan has a freaking "independence movement". Would there be an independence movement if a country is truly independent already? They call themselves the Republic of China for pete's sake. A fact, needless to say, not lost on the mainlanders. I'm not any kind of expert but I know enough that it's not as simple as "separate country, game over". Every decision Taiwan makes is taken with careful consideration of the mainland's reaction. And I know exactly what the mainlanders think of Taiwan - renegade island to be brought to heel ASAP. Probably not by brute force - although that possibility always lurks, and no-one would stop them. No, they'll do it the Chinese way - long-game manipulation until they hold all the cards. There's no if here, there's simply when. Some countries simply can't exist in the long term, especially when they're right next to a much larger party with designs on them - doubly so if there's some sort of history. Ukraine was/is one. HK too. The clock is ticking for DPRK, it's just a question of who's going to own the mess afterwards. The clock is set further out for Taiwan but.. the writing on the wall is so clear you could read it from space. Don't get me wrong, I think all of this sucks. I love Taiwan and don't want to see it subsumed into the Borg. That doesn't really change anything, though.
  - SllX 7y ago
    That independence movement is as much about giving up their own claims on the mainland and continuing as an independent nation without ambitions to one day kick out the poser government currently controlling the PRC as anything else. All these years later, Taiwan still maintains their claims, actually they maintain technically larger claims on the mainland past PRC borders than even the PRC claims.
  - goblin89 7y ago
goblin89 7y ago
The argument that ROC may be considered part of PRC because PRC is an important business partner to me doesn’t seem to hold water. How is it different as opposed to, say, Russia and Ukraine? Mutual trade is big and one player may have more leverage (as is almost always the case with two countries in proximity to each other), should we count Ukraine’s stats in favor of Russia’s? In both cases there are similarities in language and ethnicity, and in case of Taiwan there additionally are US military troops stationed.
- maehwasu 7y ago
  Ethnic, linguistic, and cultural ties tend to have great staying power (see US-Britain, the unification of Germany and Italy, Balkan conflicts, and on and on). This is all even more true when the countries are close geographically. Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them. Lines on a map and citizenship papers are easier to redo than centuries (millenia for China/Taiwan) of culture/language. This is NOT an endorsement of China taking over Taiwan, which I do NOT want and think would be a bad thing.
  - goblin89 7y ago
    > Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them. More predictive in what regard? The only way I can see it being usefully predictive is if you count on the larger entity annexing the smaller one. An I missing something?
    - empath75 7y ago
      You can exert power through hegemony without annexing.
      - goblin89 7y ago
        In the part that I quoted “power”, I believe, stands for economical strength. How can it be useful or at all correct to count economical strength of, say, Kazakhstan (as another example) as part of Russia’s stats, if the former is developing and trading independently? That’s why I object to article’s angle: it uses “China” to refer to an aggregate in one case (lumping ROC and PRC together), and to PRC in another case (quoting their president and intentions to dominate global economy). Counting ROC in PRC’s favor serves to tip the numbers and make article’s premise seem more compelling, but since PRC and ROC are separate economies the premise is false. It almost makes it look like a major business publication is playing a political game.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mytailorisrich 7y ago

> Taiwan is an entirely different entity politically not matter if you subscribe to the one China doctrine. That's true in the same way as North Korea is an entirely different political entity from South Korea (for example).

lonelappde 7y ago
Not the "same". NK and SK both have stronger international recognition then Taiwan does. NK is censured and shunned by many states, but it's independence isn't challenged. SK isn't challenged either.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  You're missing the point. The situation is the same. The difference in the case of China is that one side is strong enough to influence the international community's recognition of the other side. The point being that mainland China + Taiwan constitute the 'Chinese sphere' so to speak. The formal position of both sides on many international issues is not very different. For example, although mainland China gets a lot of flack for its claims in the South China Sea, Taiwan has the same claims because both sides agree that this area should be under Chinese sovereignty.

Yuval_Halevi 7y ago

>It's a fact made up to make their narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121 Agree. If the author combined a few unrelated stats to create this fact it means that it's not a fact.

AFascistWorld 7y ago

The 5 electronics conmpanies have their factories in China, and the Fortune probably wanted to avoid China's wrath from territorial claims more than shoehorning this argument. Just like this kind of glorious China stories play right into China's palate.