10 ms·
What has happened to Hong Kong is a strong canary-in-the-coal-mine indicator for other Chinese territorial disputes [i]. With Hong Kong it was somewhat inevita
by canada_dry 6y ago
What has happened to Hong Kong is a strong canary-in-the-coal-mine indicator for other Chinese territorial disputes [i].
With Hong Kong it was somewhat inevitable but I can't help but imagine how different it would be if the US and EU/Britain (as leads) would have strongly denounced their approach. I suspect in a decade from now the West will be lamenting how Hong Kong was the right opportunity to stifle China's ambition.
[i] https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/territorial-disputes https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/territorial-disputes
- dbcurtis 6y agoThat argument is a lot harder to sell since the Korea and Viet Nam wars. Not that I disagree with you. China does need to be reigned in, and we should have started years ago. But the leadership of the USA was mostly of draftable age during the Viet Nam war, or, like me, did their grade school homework in front of the TV news with Walter Cronkite reading the daily body count.
- hnarn 6y agoNobody in their right mind is arguing for a land based invasion of China, so this argument is completely moving the goal posts. It's not either-or, there are many ways to pressure a nation without military intervention.
- dbcurtis 6y agoTrue, but this is the ancient rhetoric almost word-for-word. The words are triggering for those of certain generations.
- bsanr2 6y agoBut the same generation was in power when we launched our twenty-year War on Terror, and the comparisons to Vietnam that started popping up a decade and a half ago didn't manifest in any sort of wariness to move forward and keep moving forward with our attempted "regime change." If anything, it's that which has changed our willingness to step forward militarily. The conclusion is that we spent our war capital on frivolous quagmires when real threats were looming but not being taken seriously. See also: cointel on BLM while white supremacists plan and execute with freely. Team America: World Police reflecting our actual police.
- dbcurtis 6y agoThe war on terror was not about containing communism. It could not be labeled and dismissed as “anti-communist hysteria”
- bsanr2 6y agoIt was about extending capitalism (well, democracy morally and structurally enabling capitalistic integration of ME into the global market), and also an extension of Cold War jockeying, which was anti-communist (and arguably hysteria).
- srtjstjsj 6y agoIt was anti-Islamist hysteria. What's the difference?
- dbcurtis 6y agoThe difference is which generation the rhetoric triggers.
- bsanr2 6y agoMillennials are triggered by neither communism nor Islam.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoEducated Millennials are triggered by communism due to the horror it spread in terms of body count.
- bsanr2 6y agoThe victims of Western-backed dictators, American regime change campaigns, and the crushing poverty caused by austerity mandates, economic sanctions, and predatory international capital investment terms would like to have a word with you. Also, victims of the Atlantic Slave Trade, anti-union riots, and lax labor safety law. I get that Mao is a high hurdle to pass but I think we've done it and then some.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> China does need to be rei[]ned in, and we should have started years ago. Why? What would the benefit be? What would the benefit have been?
- treeman79 6y agoPerhaps avoiding Millions be put in camps and used as cheap source of organ harvesting.
- RustyBucket 6y agoThis is a weak argument: Should USA be reigned in as well to avoid millions be put in prisons and used a cheap source of labor?
- treeman79 6y agoWow, comparing punishing people that Commit crimes to wholesale genocide and organ harvesting.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ramshorns 6y agoYes.
- seanmcdirmid 6y agoSounds good to me.
- TheOperator 6y agoSure
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
- fc373745 6y agoplaying the devil's advocate The article prefaces by saying this "One way to cement a claim to a disputed territory — and to anger others who think it belongs to them — is to build on it." Then goes onto describe the disputes almost being exclusive between China and the US Navy, and further reinforces that point by saying, "The U.S., the longtime guarantor of freedom of navigation in Asia’s waters..." I'm sorry, but isn't it sort of ironic that Bloomberg accuses of territorial disputes mainly with China as being the aggressor, when most of their maritime incidents are almost exclusively against the US Navy?
- hnarn 6y agoIt's not ironic, because the United States is not claiming the area as territorial waters belonging to the U.S. China is clearly the "aggressor" in this situation because they are building military installations in an area that was previously not a militarized zone.
- 8note 6y agoThe American navy has been going around there for a long time; that's hardly non-militarized. I'm not sure there's a big difference between claiming they're territorial US waters vs claiming that the US gets to decide who's waters they are. In both cases the US has sovereignty over those waters
- AlotOfReading 6y agoI'm not aware of the US ever claiming it gets to decide whose waters they are. Can you provide some links for that? I've only seen the US appeal to the convention and various arbitrations on the issue.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoNo, this is all off the mark. Freedom of navigation cruises are not somehow asserting sovereignty.
- dirtyid 6y ago
- hnarn 6y agoThe best predictor for future behavior is past behavior: China is testing the waters, in some cases in a quite literal sense (South China Sea), and you're correct that how the world reacts to Hong Kong and the Xinjiang "re-education camps" will be seen as a vital piece of information in the future when deciding on how to proceed with other "problematic" regions: for example Taiwan, which in the case where strong-arming the island into obedience, most probably would require military intervention. Before you claim that this is unlikely or extreme, remember that thanks to the PRC, almost no countries in the world even recognize Taiwan as a country -- so how are you supposed to question the "invasion"? These actions can all be traced back to China's increased tendency towards authoritarianism, for example the elimination of the term limit for Xi Jinping in 2018,[1] which stands in contrast to China's economic liberalization in the early 1990s.[2] It's important to understand that this liberalization is more or less the sole reason China is the "young superpower" we see today (just look up the GDP numbers from 1990 onwards), so the question is how a reversal of this attitude will serve future Chinese interests. Although unconfirmed, there are claims that Xi's grip on power may be decreasing somewhat, and that there is "widespread opposition" from within the party, but for obvious reasons few are willing to speak out.[3] [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/world/asia/china-xi-jinping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/world/asia/china-xi-jinpi... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/china-xi-jinping-facing-widespread-opposition-in-his-own-party-claims-insider https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/china-xi-jinpi...
- spectramax 6y agoYou forgot that Chinese invasion on Indian borders left some 50+ people killed just 3 months ago. You can't give a pass by saying "They're just testing waters". Everything in war is testing waters.
- hnarn 6y agoI'm not "giving them a pass" for anything, that's your interpretation of what I wrote.
- ntsplnkv2 6y agoWe can no longer say "the west" and expect a unified response - brexit, the constant attacks on member nations of NATO by Trump, The Iran deal that Europe still backs but the US doesn't. There's a reason Russia and China are bold right now. EDIT: I get it, it's politically charged, but I remind everyone to discuss, rather than downvote, based on your own political opinion.
- bassman9000 6y agoMost of the West wants to appease China. What response are you talking about. It's not standing in front, that's for sure. EU silence is deafening, except for some weak, mild comments here or there. China's diplomacy barks back, and EU commissioners become silent.
- ntsplnkv2 6y agoExactly - the west is not unified on China. Which is what I said.
- toyg 6y agoSadly, EU institutions in the area of direct foreign policy have been continuously undermined - mostly by French and UK governments who wanted "their hands free", but also by tactical US moves to ensure NATO would stay relevant. There are real contrasts in outlook among member states when it comes to larger geopolitical issues (even extremely close to home, like Lybia and Turkey), coupled with a general unwillingness, among most member states, to engage in dangerous (and expensive) geopolitical games. That makes it hard to formulate robust action plans beyond the usual platitudes. There is no EU military force yet for that same reason, in practice. The hope is that long-term economic integration will progressively reduce these problems, by turning "national spheres of influence" into "European spheres of influence". But at the moment, EU foreign-policy mechanisms (and appointees...) are fairly weak. We'll see what happens after we digest the loss of Britain, which was an extremely vocal (and followed / respected) member on these topics. Maybe we'll finally grow up a bit.
- dang 6y agoIt looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. That's against the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do it because, as the guidelines explain, it spoils the curiosity that this site exists for. So would you please stop doing this? If you want more explanation there are plenty of past explanations at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- blhack 6y ago> I can't help but imagine how different it would be if the US and EU/Britain (as leads) would have strongly denounced their approach. What? What could the US have done beyond what we did other than all out war? The US response to this was very harsh. We undid 50 years of diplomacy with China, and have started building a sortof SEA equivalent to NATO. Chinese/American relations have probably never been as unfriendly as they are right now, and Hong Kong is a major part of that. Seriously I don’t know what the next step would be that wasn’t a de facto, weapons-hot war.
- magicsmoke 6y agoI think the dissonance over the US not doing enough is that if the US pulled these moves a decade or two ago, China would have blinked. China not blinking doesn't mean the US isn't doing enough. It means we're living in a world where China doesn't blink anymore. America's absolute influence might still be the same, but its relative influence has fallen.
- ianai 6y agoRight or wrong, I suggest you and others go back to interviews of Kissinger about why he pushed to open the world to China the way the US did. It was essentially do it on our terms now or theirs for ever after. Not that it was right, but it is informative.
- thewarrior 6y agoCouldn’t find it can you share a link ?
- ianai 6y agoPersonally I watched an old episode of “Firing Line” on amazon prime with him and Ariana Huffington on it. Ariana was arguing against trade with China. Edit-might be this one: https://youtu.be/U4bBftiRo2Q https://youtu.be/U4bBftiRo2Q
- 6y ago
- yibg 6y agoWhile I agree with you on principle I think we (the general we) need to be clearer on classification. Hong Kong isn’t really a territorial dispute as there is no real dispute on the territory. Legally HK is a part of China, I don’t think that’s in question. The issue here is with human rights and complying with the terms and timelines of the handover back to China. True territorial disputes can invoke different measures. Grouping HK and other human rights topics like Xinjiang with territorial disputes I think muddies the waters.
- throw5543235 6y agoHong Kong is not a territorial dispute. It’s like Macau, both were already meant to be integrated. As for actual territorial disputes, > ...China, which has displayed a willingness to negotiate in many such situations. In just over 60 years, China has gone from 23 land disputes down to just six. In the majority of its settlements, China accepted less than one-half of the territory it originally claimed. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/territorial-disputes-how-much-of-the-earth-is-claimed-by-multiple-countries.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/territorial-disp...
- stjohnswarts 6y agoIt also shows how they negotiate with those who don't share the same governmental ideals that they have. In particular those who might be opposing their attempt to take over the entire south china sea.