4 ms·

I’m not sure what “geopolitical realities” I’m missing because the KMT was born from the same grandfather that sired the CCP, Sun Yatzen. Also, almost all of As

I’m not sure what “geopolitical realities” I’m missing because the KMT was born from the same grandfather that sired the CCP, Sun Yatzen. Also, almost all of Asia has been either under the colonial yoke or sphere of influence yet they are still friendly to the West due to both political alignment and deeper economic integration. I feel that history better supports my argument than it does yours

mytailorisrich 6y ago
Exactly, the KMT was born from the same struggle as the CCP, and their overall policies regarding China's territorial claims and place in the world are quite aligned because these really are aims of the Chinese people, not specific political parties. The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs. How 'friendly' countries are between each others (and China isn't really unfriendly) depends on their interests, not really on political regimes. Case in point: The US are extremely friendly with Saudi Arabia. 'friendly' in this context is pretty meaningless, but if you insist: Korea is 'friendly' (well half of it) with the West because it sees it in its interests in order to balance China (and Japan) and because as a small country there is no reason not to be friendly, plus there are American troops there to remind them. They were as 'friendly' under the military dictatorship. Japan is 'friendly' because it sees it in its interests (against Russia and China, especially during the cold war) and because it was not left a choice anyway. When Vietnam opens up to the US it is to balance China's rise. The US are quite happy with that although Vietnam's regime is very similar to China's. Why? shared interests again. China does not need to balance between the big guys and to stay on their good side in that way. It is one of the biggest guys, so it acts like the US do, and that is the root of the problem for the US. Hopefully this clarifies the "geopolitical realities". To think that if 2 countries are both democracies they will be 'friendly', or that if they aren't they won't be, is very naive, frankly.
- chaostheory 6y ago
  > The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs. This is a weak argument because a non-CCP China would be even more economically entwined with the West since its market would be a lot more open ie shared interests. It would share more political culture as well e.g. Tienanmen and Xinjiang would never have happened. Also if your argument was correct, developed Western nations would have a lot more beef with both India and Brazil today, and with Japan decades previous. They don't. A modern KMT China would a much stronger version of Japan or South Korea. History still sides more with my argument.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Exactly, the KMT was born from the same struggle as the CCP, and their overall policies regarding China's territorial claims and place in the world are quite aligned because these really are aims of the Chinese people, not specific political parties. The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs. How 'friendly' countries are between each others (and China isn't really unfriendly) depends on their interests, not really on political regimes. Case in point: The US are extremely friendly with Saudi Arabia. 'friendly' in this context is pretty meaningless, but if you insist: Korea is 'friendly' (well half of it) with the West because it sees it in its interests in order to balance China (and Japan) and because as a small country there is no reason not to be friendly, plus there are American troops there to remind them. They were as 'friendly' under the military dictatorship. Japan is 'friendly' because it sees it in its interests (against Russia and China, especially during the cold war) and because it was not left a choice anyway. When Vietnam opens up to the US it is to balance China's rise. The US are quite happy with that although Vietnam's regime is very similar to China's. Why? shared interests again. China does not need to balance between the big guys and to stay on their good side in that way. It is one of the biggest guys, so it acts like the US do, and that is the root of the problem for the US. Hopefully this clarifies the "geopolitical realities". To think that if 2 countries are both democracies they will be 'friendly', or that if they aren't they won't be, is very naive, frankly.

chaostheory 6y ago
> The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs. This is a weak argument because a non-CCP China would be even more economically entwined with the West since its market would be a lot more open ie shared interests. It would share more political culture as well e.g. Tienanmen and Xinjiang would never have happened. Also if your argument was correct, developed Western nations would have a lot more beef with both India and Brazil today, and with Japan decades previous. They don't. A modern KMT China would a much stronger version of Japan or South Korea. History still sides more with my argument.