3 ms·
the question is - how much of that "reason" is protectionism (patents, etc)? if you no longer care about pissing off the US and EU (because they're up in your
by paulmd 6y ago
the question is - how much of that "reason" is protectionism (patents, etc)?
if you no longer care about pissing off the US and EU (because they're up in your business anyway) then maybe it doesn't matter so much if you violate those patents.
Same thing as with Taiwan's "special trade status", Trump thinks that revoking their status will get China to leave them alone, because he has a very simplistic bullying-oriented view of international politics, but it's widely predicted to have the exact opposite effect as intended and lock in PRC control. Or trying to bully Iran with further sanctions even though they're already in compliance with treaties.
The approach is "carrot and stick", if you only use the stick then you provide no incentive for future compliance, people realize it's more effective to just start preparing for the inevitable future beatings and set yourself up to mitigate as much of the pain as possible.
This often leads to countries building up their own domestic industry to make themselves impervious to sanctions - that's how it's worked with Iran, after 50 years of sanctions they are more independent and less susceptible to the effects of sanctions than ever. That's how it's working with China, this is far from the first thing we've tried to choke off, there was the spat with memory too and they just ended up building their own plants.
And it often leads to further "escalation" and violation of norms. If you're going to get shit on anyway, why would they respect ASML's intellectual property?
- puranjay 6y agoThe US under Trump is just far too unpredictable and unreliable. China appears more stable and predictable. Case in point: even post pandemic, when the US is withdrawing from the world, China doubled down on its commitment to Pakistan and initiated massive billion dollar projects last week. If I were Pakistan and in desperate need of financial assistance, I would look to China instead of USA, simply because of the former's consistency (despite all the strings attached to these investments). Predictability is highly underrated, in international politics and elsewhere.
- selimthegrim 6y agoSources?
- syshum 6y ago>> I would look to China instead of USA and now you know why China is investing in Pakistan, it is not because they are good hearted wanting to help Pakistan It is destabilize the Region by putting a wedge between the US and Pakistan, The US keeps Pakistan and India stable, if the US loses it's influence over Pakistan well that will be very bad for the region.
- puranjay 6y agoI'm not defending Chinese actions in Pakistan (I am Indian; I have no reasons to). I'm just pointing out that Chinese actions have been consistent and hence, more reliable.
- syshum 6y agoAuthoritarian regimes that never change their power structures will always be more "reliable" Not sure that is really an advantage or defense. One would hope more than just "reliable" would go into a complete foreign policy
- jacquesm 6y agoPatents have never stopped China from obtaining something if they felt it was strategic. The fact that they haven't done it yet is proof positive - to me - that it isn't all that easy. Note that this is not for lack of trying.
- KMag 6y ago> Same thing as with Taiwan's "special trade status", Trump thinks that revoking their status will get China to leave them alone, because he has a very simplistic bullying-oriented view of international politics, but it's widely predicted to have the exact opposite effect as intended and lock in PRC control. Have I missed major developments, or have you confused Hong Kong and Taiwan?