14 ms·

Don't take on China alone, says ex-Australia PM Kevin Rudd

123 points by deepmistry 5y ago

fit2rule 5y ago
How about don't "take on China" at all, Australians. You've got your own mess to clean up, and serving the US' military junta should be the last thing on your list of concerns.
croes 5y ago
Human rights were not an issue as long as China provided cheap labour and lax environmental laws. Now China is outgrowing its status as a cheap manufacturing and copying country and then they are an issue again. As with oil-producing countries, as long as they supply oil, it doesn't matter if they are dictatorships, as soon as they don't supply any, they need democracy.
- moksly 5y ago
  The real issue isn’t the size of China or its financial power housing, it’s that it’s market isn’t open. If it was you’d see all the western oligarchs abandoning us in favour for better markets in a heartbeat.
  - oblio 5y ago
    That wasn't a problem until China started moving up the economic food chain.
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      Of course it was. It is a completely different issue now after it became clear that China will not open its markets, and went openly adversarial
      - oblio 5y ago
        It was a minor issue at the time and the second part should have been obvious to any half decent intelligence agency. Greed.
      - FooBarWidget 5y ago
        China "will not open its markets", yet foreign direct investments in 2020 were at an all time high. There are serious problems with the narrative that "China will not open its markets".
        moksly 5y ago
        The money people still think they can change China. Maybe it’ll turn out they were right, maybe not. I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30 years of western investments into China with the expectancy of it opening up more. The money men are just rustling their swords because it’s not happening fast enough, maybe some are even beginning to worry a little about the past year of not being capable of exploiting their insanely long supply lines, but it’s probably mostly just impatience still. Either way it’s not like they won’t do anything to keep making what money they can at the same time.
        FooBarWidget 5y ago
        How does that make sense? How do you surge foreign direct investments to record highs when markets are not open? Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do. Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane. China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets. This comment here is on point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want. Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.
- chii 5y ago
  The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass - their capitalism under authoritarianism is working (not to mention that CCP is trying hard to prove that their style of gov't is "better", and the trump administration, and the west's handling of covid aren't helping). There's no real way to contain china. The only way is to let the future play out - the biggest problem china has is the demographics. Provided there is no war between the west and china, their inevitable rise cannot be denied. This, of course, is known to CCP, and hence, why they are able to take hong kong, and increase their activities in the south china sea.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western And what is the plan/assumption for Saudi Arabia? Is there an assumption that they will soon start respecting human rights?
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      The assumption is that the world will move on to EVs soon enough and we can wash our hands of the KSA completely.
      - simion314 5y ago
        And what about human rights and who what if when oil runs out some extremists ideas will popup ? When things go bad the people will try to find someone to blame and there might be a risk that extremist ideas will grow.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
- aritmo 5y ago
  That is the sad truth. All the talk about democracy, open markets, are just a ruse. There is a real economic war against China and we play dirty against them.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    Because China has played so cleanly with the West? Please. The West is only returning the favor.
    - croes 5y ago
      You mean China just returned the favor. China is very resentful about what happened to them especially in the Opium wars.
      - ceilingcorner 5y ago
        That was nearly two hundred years ago. It’s resented because the government finds it useful for building internal unity. Periodically stirring hate against foreigners is a tactic as old as time. It’s a bit like America being mad at Britain for burning down the White House in 1812. At some point you need to get over it.
        beaunative 5y ago
        Only that the Opium Wars was just the beginning, the whole series of events lasted until the end of WWII before people can have any sort of peace, not the case for Britains burning White House
        ceilingcorner 5y ago
        And the US caused the Chinese Civil War? I don’t think so. The US also supported China against Japan during WW2. Apparently that doesn’t matter. https://www.britannica.com/place/China/U-S-aid-to-China https://www.britannica.com/place/China/U-S-aid-to-China
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  I think you've summed up geopolitics of the last few decades quite aptly. The whole "they need democracy" and suddenly farmers have an absurd amount of AK47s - and talks of a coup - should not fool anyone really. But it does fool most people. Especially folks in "western industrial countries" whom one would think would see such a ruse. But alas, who cares as long as we have netflix and iphones. Such is life. Such is dignity.
- ChemSpider 5y ago
  This is only half correct. Until Mr. Xi came to power, China was getting wealthier and (somewhat) more open. Since ~2010 China is becoming more closed and more aggressive. See for example Xinjiang, Hongkong and Taiwan. 1938's Germany was also much worse than 1934's Germany. So it is no point of saying, well, you did not complain about Hitler in 1934, so no right to complain about him in 1938. Another geek datapoint: I travel to China often, and every year it gets harder and harder to access outside websites (yes, even with proxies).
  - truth_ 5y ago
    Yes. Deng was more concerned about growing silently. He cared about his people, and did not want to draw too much attention to China. I knew Xi was a textbook dictator when I heard about him banning Winnie The Pooh in Chinese internet [0]. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-winnie-the-pooh-film-to-stop-comparisons-to-president-xi https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-win...
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      That didn’t happen though. Even today you can find Winnie the Pooh memes on Chinese social media. Most Chinese people think they’re racist and uninteresting, but that’s a different matter.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      I don’t think the Pooh censorship was Xi’s doing, and the apparatus would have done some similar proactive censoring for the previous president as well. Xi crossed into dictator territory when he was able to declare himself president for life. Otherwise, we’d be talking about his successor by now.
      - xtian 5y ago
        Xi never declared himself president for life, the National People's Congress simply passed a law removing term limits. Angela Merkel has been chancellor of Germany for twice as long as Xi has been president of China.
- dominotw 5y ago
  Thats a super cynical take. I would say what you said is def is a part of it but society now is more aware of these issues and more willing to take these on. Intially i think the expectation was that china would westernize and adopt our rulesets gradually but thats hasn't come to fruition.
  - lordgroff 5y ago
    Why is Chinese repression so much more interesting than Saudi repression? We focus on the sins, both real and perceived, of our enemies; the United States and more generally the Democratic West has zero issue with allying itself with all manner of brutal dictatorships, as long as they do our bidding. I don't think this is a cynical take, but frankly a matter of public record, and ignoring it is to fall for our own propaganda.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Saudi repression is super interesting, and I think we should talk more about it. MBS got off way too easily on his assignation of a journalist, and that the USA continues to ally themselves with him is despicable. Incidentally, we should be talking more about Turkey now, they aren’t going in a good direction, or even some of the crazy things happening in India right now. And of course, Myanmar has gone to heck recently. China is a country on the cusp of development, they have the chance to go in the liberal society direction and it’s so sad to see them backsliding. That and their size is why they get the most attention, but because they are by any means the worst.
    - zaphirplane 5y ago
      I’ll take your what about and raise you. Why didn’t the EU sanction the US for Guantanamo bay and Extraordinary rendition aka kidnapping Or the fabricated WMD story make Blair and bush war criminals FWIW I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right but also to take the moral high ground a group must have the moral high ground consistently
    - alisonatwork 5y ago
      China is interesting because over 15% of the entire world's population lives there. China is interesting because it has the second largest GDP in the world. China is interesting because it has the largest military in the world. The government that runs China may not be especially worse than any other authoritarian government in the world. But because China is a world leader, they rightfully attract the attention of the rest of the world, just like America has for decades and other great powers did before it. I get the sense that the Chinese government wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants to run the most powerful country in the world, but it does not want to accept the criticism that comes with that position.
quickthrowman 5y ago
Yes Kevin, challenging China alone when your entire country has as many people as the Shanghai metropolitan area is probably going to end badly.
- Proven 5y ago
  You forgot to mention: all but maybe 200-300 don't give a flying fxxx about the CCP and would prefer to GTFO and immigrate to Australia, Canada or the US if they got a chance.
- anshumankmr 5y ago
  To be fair, Austrailia is just a few cities on one side of the country and the other part is just a desert.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    You could almost say the same thing about china!
    - anshumankmr 5y ago
      However, probably one or two cities in China would have more population than all of Austrailia
jp0d 5y ago
Yeah, they're worse than countries that fund terrorism. And the worst thing is their own population is oblivious to all that. It's consumerism in us that led them to power. If we all need/want a little bit less or make a conscious effort not to buy things made in countries with a track record of human rights abuse, it's gonna make a difference.
- stanislavb 5y ago
  This. I’ve been avoiding “made in China” products for the last ~4 years.
  - xtian 5y ago
    What phone do you use?
    - kyrra 5y ago
      Apple manufacturers in India and maybe Taiwan soon it looks like. Samsung makes its phones in Vietnam and India. Looks fairly possible to by non china made phones
      - jp0d 5y ago
        It's important to point out that Taiwan is not part of China, unlike John Cena, who stuttered.
      - freddie_mercury 5y ago
        Samsung doesn't "make" its phones in Vietnam. It assembles its phones in Vietnam using parts imported from China. 5G, battery protection circuits, microphones and speakers... Those are all Chinese in every phone regardless of where it is assembled AFAIK.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Likewise the displays are made in Japan or Korea no matter where the phone is assembled, the RAM is made in Korea or Taiwan or Japan, etc...the same proximity boost that China got when they started with assembly.
Daho0n 5y ago
The way The West "takes on" a country will not work with China and I'll take a bet any day that the west cannot change its way and take on China in new functioning ways. Using the old tried and true ways we have used against everything from African rebel leaders to South American democratically elected presidents is helping CCP internally in PRC, not hurting it. It's as clear as day and reminds me of the old "Do you know the definition of insanity" quote. Either we work with China and try to influence in positive ways or we won't make any (positive) difference. Don't take on China, work with China, period. Its way too late now unless we go for full scale war or treat China as we do North Korea. The road we are on now only leads to China becoming the new top dog above the US. Change or become irrelevant.
vnchr 5y ago
This kind of reaction to calls for coronavirus origin investigation does not seem like the choice made by the innocent.
- cdolan 5y ago
  I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but it still boggles my mind that it was a cancellable offense to suggest an investigation occur for a lab-leak origin from March 2020 through roughly January 2021. I do not know what to make of it, but something about that feels terribly, horribly awry.
  - cm2187 5y ago
    And I don’t think it was about covid. If Trump said the sky is blue, the NYT and CNN would spend the next week trying to demonstrate it isn’t, and twitter, facebook and youtube would block you if you ever suggested it was. This was such a puerile way to oppose Trump, and certainly a reliable way to sink these institutions credibility for a long time.
  - FooBarWidget 5y ago
    The problem was that that wasn't a suggestion made in good faith, with the primary goal of finding out what happened or how to prevent future mistakes. The goal from the beginning was to put the blame on someone, to scapegoat. It wasn't a call for investigation: it was a demand for an investigation — a demand to grant international investigators with the equivalent of weapons inspection powers. It's treating China as a dog rather than an equal. Also consider the greater context: hostilities against China had been building up for a number of years. The call for an investigation was just the last drop for China in a long list of grievances which China previously communicated, but nobody acknowledged. I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now. Sources: We targeted China before they targeted us: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-before-they-targeted-us-20210202-p56ynr https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-... Australia’s exporters should be furious at the foreign agents destroying their best market: https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-exporters-should-be-furious-foreign-agents-destroying-their-best-market https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-expor... Lessons on how not to do it: Australia and China (in Dutch): http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet-Australie-en-China http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet...
tartoran 5y ago
The problem was started by our own disfunctional system of crooks who convinced us all a few decades ago what a good idea shipping all the factories to China was. It will take half a decade more for this lesson to sink in Second we need to take a close look at ourselves, examine ourselves in a mirror. If we don’t accept and attempt to repair our flaws in thinking and human virtues and actions we’re not going to get better anytime soon. All our western countries that are now threatened by China are guilty of the same abuses that China is inflicting right now.
- schuke 5y ago
  I think most mainlander Chinese like me would appreciate the vision of the politicians who chose to engage with the Communist Party—-We’re glad we don’t live in a West Korea as a result. The real problem came when the Beijing model began to free-ride on the openness of the West: internet companies can go West but not East; same with some cultural exchanges, media and information. Trade rules failing to address unique tricks the Leninist party-state is able to pull. Failing to see the risk of the system generating mini-Mao-style dictators. To be fair before Xi we were on a somewhat benign track with regular transitions of power.
  - jahnu 5y ago
    Could you expand on what you mean by "West Korea"? Thanks!
    - ComodoHacker 5y ago
      GP probably meant North Korea.
    - Jabbles 5y ago
      A country as bad as North Korea.
      - jahnu 5y ago
        Ok that would make sense. Thanks! I was wondering if there was in some sense a hybrid of North and South envisioned that would be not desirable for Chinese citizens but my limited experience with China kinda makes me feel like it actually is somewhere between the two in some sense.
fqye 5y ago
The obsession of 'China bad' now is absurdly similar to the ’US bad' during China's darkest period before opening up.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
I find it amusing Australia had a decades long mining boom because of China's appetite for resources but now they hate them... It's really simple every year the West has a trade deficit and China uses those billions to strategically invest becoming the new superpower. Sound familiar? It's what America did after WW2.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  There's no in-the-moment advantage to having a trade surplus. The benefits are in the future, and they are only hypothetical until the trade imbalance is canceled. America's trade deficit means we get real stuff from China -- both consumer goods and capital ("investments") like robots for factories. China gets nothing but promises from the US. They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. Implicitly, those loans are China acknowledging that investment in the US works better than investment in China.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. China doesn’t invest in high rate treasuries with their dollar surplus, they are getting below inflation rates in their treasury purchases. They do it because (a) their export driven economy demands that they send more things out than get things coming in and (b) putting excess dollars in treasuries is better than simply investing them back in their economy would heat things up and stoke inflation. China currently has plenty of money for its own investment needs, so US treasuries are just convenient and not a statement on the natures of investments in the USA.
  - shadowfaxpku 5y ago
    This is a super simplified and somewhat wrong interpretation of trade dynamics. Surpluses are important because 1) sustained surpluses imply structural reasons, and in this case, China's consistent upgrade in industrial production chains as it uses the funds it has acquired to invest in improving technology and human resources. 2) sustained deficits are often correlated with domestic employment moving away from manufacturing and into services, as well as a bigger share of income by corporations who are able to offshore their production, leading to greater inequality. 3) The dollar will not maintain its purchasing power forever, if its manufacturing, R&D and military dominance are perceived to be eroded. Many countries are moving away from sole reliance on dollars as the only reserve as we speak, including China. The amount of US dollar assets China has divested over the years is staggering.
refurb 5y ago
For those not aware, China has considerable economic leverage over Australia. Much of Australia’s boom has been due to the massive exports of natural resources to China. Recently China had been doing things like delaying seafood inspections until shipments spoil. Refusing iron ore and coal imports from Australia. It’s clear that China is trying to pick off Australia from the Western alliance. Since Australia is uniquely at risk from Chinese economic actions (Highly dependent on China, but China won’t be hurt that much) it makes a great test case for China. And all China is looking for from Australia is “neutrality”. Don’t align with the US on territorial disputes, don’t back Taiwan as an independent country, don’t condemn China for its treatment of Uighurs. Australia is right that as long as the Western countries stick together they have the power to check China in the region. But if they get picked off one by one, China will win.
- gadf 5y ago
  Paranoia. Born of an impractical attitude.
  - testific8 5y ago
    care to enlighten us?
    - gadf 5y ago
      Are you open to being "enlightened" tho? Or was the enlightened your mockery of how you perceive my view as arrogant, indicating you've already prejudged it and in effect you will be resistant to hear it. Asking because I want to know if I should spend my time responding. Can't make people see something they don't want to see.
- morpheos137 5y ago
  China wins regardless. Seriously who else does Australia have to sell its natural resources to? India? Not anytime soon.
  - 5y ago
dalbasal 5y ago
This is not apologetics for China.... There is a fundamental dishonesty in the US' (and Australia's) recent turn in sentiment re: Chinese trade relations. There was a deal, partly unstated and largely codified in trade agreements between the two parties. Mainstream notions about economics and trade shifted, and they're no longer happy with the deal. You can pursue new policies, new trade agreements, change your mind or whatnot... but it wasn't China that decided on American priorities. The US wanted to invest in China. It wanted US companies to be governed (largely) by US/washington consensus laws. It wanted US/Western patent law to apply in China, which mean is an even bigger deal now. Can you imagine the US or Australia adapting their legal systems to accommodate trade with China? China wanted trade surpluses, and employment promotion policies. Western economics of that era considered this a freebie. They actually valued Chinese imports more highly than US exports. Deng Xiaoping also wanted to moderate cultural-political influences, and keep about democratic urges. US political scientists thought this was futile, economic liberalisation would end totalitarianism on its own. Older economists/politicians still maintain the economic ideas, but have moved to denying they ever believed in the political ones. Geopolitically, both compromised on Taiwan. China got to keep its "One China" policy. The US maintains its "No Invasions" policy. Both got what they bargained for. The US chose not to bargain for pro labour trade conditions. They didn't want them. Now they do. So bargain again. Random aggression isn't going to get you what you want, if you can't define what you want. Belligerence is just politically easier than addressing the topic directly, admitting that ideas have changed, etc. ^Piracy in China does not invalidate this fact. Incidentally, I spoke to Kevin Rudd at length once (I was an intern), before he was PM. He seemed very pro chinese att.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  As a whole, the HN crowd has jumped the shark when it comes to takes on China. But once in a while, we get gems like your comment, which really understand the issue, and address the issue without being partial and biased. Bravo.
deadite 5y ago
Have no concerns, Mr. Rudd. We won't take China on.
jeswin 5y ago
Democracies have inherent inefficiencies, which need to be compensated. Everything else being equal, dictatorships can ramp up infrastructure faster than any democracy. Tariffs should have favoured manufacturing in free countries, to encourage openness and freedom. That did not happen between 1990-2020.
theodorewiles 5y ago
Just a friendly reminder that the current communist regime in mainland China is not legitimate - the republic of China (currently in Taiwan) is the original member of both the League of Nations and the UN, and has actually transitioned to a stable, transparent, and prosperous democracy, and should be in charge of all of China.
morpheos137 5y ago
If Australia was smart, it wouldn't "take on" China period. Seems to be a losing proposition for Australia anyway you look at it seeing as Australia has somewhat less than 2% of China's population.
MarkMc 5y ago
This is why Trump's threat to withdraw from NATO was so short-sighted. In the 20th century NATO was basically America supporting Europe against Russia. But in the 21st century it will be Europe supporting the US against China.

123 points by deepmistry 5y ago

How about don't "take on China" at all, Australians. You've got your own mess to clean up, and serving the US' military junta should be the last thing on your list of concerns.

croes 5y ago

Human rights were not an issue as long as China provided cheap labour and lax environmental laws. Now China is outgrowing its status as a cheap manufacturing and copying country and then they are an issue again. As with oil-producing countries, as long as they supply oil, it doesn't matter if they are dictatorships, as soon as they don't supply any, they need democracy.

moksly 5y ago
The real issue isn’t the size of China or its financial power housing, it’s that it’s market isn’t open. If it was you’d see all the western oligarchs abandoning us in favour for better markets in a heartbeat.
- oblio 5y ago
  That wasn't a problem until China started moving up the economic food chain.
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    Of course it was. It is a completely different issue now after it became clear that China will not open its markets, and went openly adversarial
    - oblio 5y ago
      It was a minor issue at the time and the second part should have been obvious to any half decent intelligence agency. Greed.
    - FooBarWidget 5y ago
      China "will not open its markets", yet foreign direct investments in 2020 were at an all time high. There are serious problems with the narrative that "China will not open its markets".
      - moksly 5y ago
        The money people still think they can change China. Maybe it’ll turn out they were right, maybe not. I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30 years of western investments into China with the expectancy of it opening up more. The money men are just rustling their swords because it’s not happening fast enough, maybe some are even beginning to worry a little about the past year of not being capable of exploiting their insanely long supply lines, but it’s probably mostly just impatience still. Either way it’s not like they won’t do anything to keep making what money they can at the same time.
        FooBarWidget 5y ago
        How does that make sense? How do you surge foreign direct investments to record highs when markets are not open? Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do. Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane. China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets. This comment here is on point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want. Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.
chii 5y ago
The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass - their capitalism under authoritarianism is working (not to mention that CCP is trying hard to prove that their style of gov't is "better", and the trump administration, and the west's handling of covid aren't helping). There's no real way to contain china. The only way is to let the future play out - the biggest problem china has is the demographics. Provided there is no war between the west and china, their inevitable rise cannot be denied. This, of course, is known to CCP, and hence, why they are able to take hong kong, and increase their activities in the south china sea.
- simion314 5y ago
  >The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western And what is the plan/assumption for Saudi Arabia? Is there an assumption that they will soon start respecting human rights?
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The assumption is that the world will move on to EVs soon enough and we can wash our hands of the KSA completely.
    - simion314 5y ago
      And what about human rights and who what if when oil runs out some extremists ideas will popup ? When things go bad the people will try to find someone to blame and there might be a risk that extremist ideas will grow.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
aritmo 5y ago
That is the sad truth. All the talk about democracy, open markets, are just a ruse. There is a real economic war against China and we play dirty against them.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  Because China has played so cleanly with the West? Please. The West is only returning the favor.
  - croes 5y ago
    You mean China just returned the favor. China is very resentful about what happened to them especially in the Opium wars.
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      That was nearly two hundred years ago. It’s resented because the government finds it useful for building internal unity. Periodically stirring hate against foreigners is a tactic as old as time. It’s a bit like America being mad at Britain for burning down the White House in 1812. At some point you need to get over it.
      - beaunative 5y ago
        Only that the Opium Wars was just the beginning, the whole series of events lasted until the end of WWII before people can have any sort of peace, not the case for Britains burning White House
        ceilingcorner 5y ago
        And the US caused the Chinese Civil War? I don’t think so. The US also supported China against Japan during WW2. Apparently that doesn’t matter. https://www.britannica.com/place/China/U-S-aid-to-China https://www.britannica.com/place/China/U-S-aid-to-China
vagrantJin 5y ago
I think you've summed up geopolitics of the last few decades quite aptly. The whole "they need democracy" and suddenly farmers have an absurd amount of AK47s - and talks of a coup - should not fool anyone really. But it does fool most people. Especially folks in "western industrial countries" whom one would think would see such a ruse. But alas, who cares as long as we have netflix and iphones. Such is life. Such is dignity.
ChemSpider 5y ago
This is only half correct. Until Mr. Xi came to power, China was getting wealthier and (somewhat) more open. Since ~2010 China is becoming more closed and more aggressive. See for example Xinjiang, Hongkong and Taiwan. 1938's Germany was also much worse than 1934's Germany. So it is no point of saying, well, you did not complain about Hitler in 1934, so no right to complain about him in 1938. Another geek datapoint: I travel to China often, and every year it gets harder and harder to access outside websites (yes, even with proxies).
- truth_ 5y ago
  Yes. Deng was more concerned about growing silently. He cared about his people, and did not want to draw too much attention to China. I knew Xi was a textbook dictator when I heard about him banning Winnie The Pooh in Chinese internet [0]. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-winnie-the-pooh-film-to-stop-comparisons-to-president-xi https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-win...
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    That didn’t happen though. Even today you can find Winnie the Pooh memes on Chinese social media. Most Chinese people think they’re racist and uninteresting, but that’s a different matter.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    I don’t think the Pooh censorship was Xi’s doing, and the apparatus would have done some similar proactive censoring for the previous president as well. Xi crossed into dictator territory when he was able to declare himself president for life. Otherwise, we’d be talking about his successor by now.
    - xtian 5y ago
      Xi never declared himself president for life, the National People's Congress simply passed a law removing term limits. Angela Merkel has been chancellor of Germany for twice as long as Xi has been president of China.
dominotw 5y ago
Thats a super cynical take. I would say what you said is def is a part of it but society now is more aware of these issues and more willing to take these on. Intially i think the expectation was that china would westernize and adopt our rulesets gradually but thats hasn't come to fruition.
- lordgroff 5y ago
  Why is Chinese repression so much more interesting than Saudi repression? We focus on the sins, both real and perceived, of our enemies; the United States and more generally the Democratic West has zero issue with allying itself with all manner of brutal dictatorships, as long as they do our bidding. I don't think this is a cynical take, but frankly a matter of public record, and ignoring it is to fall for our own propaganda.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Saudi repression is super interesting, and I think we should talk more about it. MBS got off way too easily on his assignation of a journalist, and that the USA continues to ally themselves with him is despicable. Incidentally, we should be talking more about Turkey now, they aren’t going in a good direction, or even some of the crazy things happening in India right now. And of course, Myanmar has gone to heck recently. China is a country on the cusp of development, they have the chance to go in the liberal society direction and it’s so sad to see them backsliding. That and their size is why they get the most attention, but because they are by any means the worst.
  - zaphirplane 5y ago
    I’ll take your what about and raise you. Why didn’t the EU sanction the US for Guantanamo bay and Extraordinary rendition aka kidnapping Or the fabricated WMD story make Blair and bush war criminals FWIW I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right but also to take the moral high ground a group must have the moral high ground consistently
  - alisonatwork 5y ago
    China is interesting because over 15% of the entire world's population lives there. China is interesting because it has the second largest GDP in the world. China is interesting because it has the largest military in the world. The government that runs China may not be especially worse than any other authoritarian government in the world. But because China is a world leader, they rightfully attract the attention of the rest of the world, just like America has for decades and other great powers did before it. I get the sense that the Chinese government wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants to run the most powerful country in the world, but it does not want to accept the criticism that comes with that position.

quickthrowman 5y ago

Yes Kevin, challenging China alone when your entire country has as many people as the Shanghai metropolitan area is probably going to end badly.

Proven 5y ago
You forgot to mention: all but maybe 200-300 don't give a flying fxxx about the CCP and would prefer to GTFO and immigrate to Australia, Canada or the US if they got a chance.
anshumankmr 5y ago
To be fair, Austrailia is just a few cities on one side of the country and the other part is just a desert.
- xxpor 5y ago
  You could almost say the same thing about china!
  - anshumankmr 5y ago
    However, probably one or two cities in China would have more population than all of Austrailia

jp0d 5y ago

Yeah, they're worse than countries that fund terrorism. And the worst thing is their own population is oblivious to all that. It's consumerism in us that led them to power. If we all need/want a little bit less or make a conscious effort not to buy things made in countries with a track record of human rights abuse, it's gonna make a difference.

stanislavb 5y ago
This. I’ve been avoiding “made in China” products for the last ~4 years.
- xtian 5y ago
  What phone do you use?
  - kyrra 5y ago
    Apple manufacturers in India and maybe Taiwan soon it looks like. Samsung makes its phones in Vietnam and India. Looks fairly possible to by non china made phones
    - jp0d 5y ago
      It's important to point out that Taiwan is not part of China, unlike John Cena, who stuttered.
    - freddie_mercury 5y ago
      Samsung doesn't "make" its phones in Vietnam. It assembles its phones in Vietnam using parts imported from China. 5G, battery protection circuits, microphones and speakers... Those are all Chinese in every phone regardless of where it is assembled AFAIK.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Likewise the displays are made in Japan or Korea no matter where the phone is assembled, the RAM is made in Korea or Taiwan or Japan, etc...the same proximity boost that China got when they started with assembly.

Daho0n 5y ago

The way The West "takes on" a country will not work with China and I'll take a bet any day that the west cannot change its way and take on China in new functioning ways. Using the old tried and true ways we have used against everything from African rebel leaders to South American democratically elected presidents is helping CCP internally in PRC, not hurting it. It's as clear as day and reminds me of the old "Do you know the definition of insanity" quote. Either we work with China and try to influence in positive ways or we won't make any (positive) difference. Don't take on China, work with China, period. Its way too late now unless we go for full scale war or treat China as we do North Korea. The road we are on now only leads to China becoming the new top dog above the US. Change or become irrelevant.

vnchr 5y ago

This kind of reaction to calls for coronavirus origin investigation does not seem like the choice made by the innocent.

cdolan 5y ago
I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but it still boggles my mind that it was a cancellable offense to suggest an investigation occur for a lab-leak origin from March 2020 through roughly January 2021. I do not know what to make of it, but something about that feels terribly, horribly awry.
- cm2187 5y ago
  And I don’t think it was about covid. If Trump said the sky is blue, the NYT and CNN would spend the next week trying to demonstrate it isn’t, and twitter, facebook and youtube would block you if you ever suggested it was. This was such a puerile way to oppose Trump, and certainly a reliable way to sink these institutions credibility for a long time.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  The problem was that that wasn't a suggestion made in good faith, with the primary goal of finding out what happened or how to prevent future mistakes. The goal from the beginning was to put the blame on someone, to scapegoat. It wasn't a call for investigation: it was a demand for an investigation — a demand to grant international investigators with the equivalent of weapons inspection powers. It's treating China as a dog rather than an equal. Also consider the greater context: hostilities against China had been building up for a number of years. The call for an investigation was just the last drop for China in a long list of grievances which China previously communicated, but nobody acknowledged. I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now. Sources: We targeted China before they targeted us: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-before-they-targeted-us-20210202-p56ynr https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-... Australia’s exporters should be furious at the foreign agents destroying their best market: https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-exporters-should-be-furious-foreign-agents-destroying-their-best-market https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-expor... Lessons on how not to do it: Australia and China (in Dutch): http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet-Australie-en-China http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet...

tartoran 5y ago

The problem was started by our own disfunctional system of crooks who convinced us all a few decades ago what a good idea shipping all the factories to China was. It will take half a decade more for this lesson to sink in Second we need to take a close look at ourselves, examine ourselves in a mirror. If we don’t accept and attempt to repair our flaws in thinking and human virtues and actions we’re not going to get better anytime soon. All our western countries that are now threatened by China are guilty of the same abuses that China is inflicting right now.

schuke 5y ago
I think most mainlander Chinese like me would appreciate the vision of the politicians who chose to engage with the Communist Party—-We’re glad we don’t live in a West Korea as a result. The real problem came when the Beijing model began to free-ride on the openness of the West: internet companies can go West but not East; same with some cultural exchanges, media and information. Trade rules failing to address unique tricks the Leninist party-state is able to pull. Failing to see the risk of the system generating mini-Mao-style dictators. To be fair before Xi we were on a somewhat benign track with regular transitions of power.
- jahnu 5y ago
  Could you expand on what you mean by "West Korea"? Thanks!
  - ComodoHacker 5y ago
    GP probably meant North Korea.
  - Jabbles 5y ago
    A country as bad as North Korea.
    - jahnu 5y ago
      Ok that would make sense. Thanks! I was wondering if there was in some sense a hybrid of North and South envisioned that would be not desirable for Chinese citizens but my limited experience with China kinda makes me feel like it actually is somewhere between the two in some sense.

fqye 5y ago

The obsession of 'China bad' now is absurdly similar to the ’US bad' during China's darkest period before opening up.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

I find it amusing Australia had a decades long mining boom because of China's appetite for resources but now they hate them... It's really simple every year the West has a trade deficit and China uses those billions to strategically invest becoming the new superpower. Sound familiar? It's what America did after WW2.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
There's no in-the-moment advantage to having a trade surplus. The benefits are in the future, and they are only hypothetical until the trade imbalance is canceled. America's trade deficit means we get real stuff from China -- both consumer goods and capital ("investments") like robots for factories. China gets nothing but promises from the US. They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. Implicitly, those loans are China acknowledging that investment in the US works better than investment in China.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. China doesn’t invest in high rate treasuries with their dollar surplus, they are getting below inflation rates in their treasury purchases. They do it because (a) their export driven economy demands that they send more things out than get things coming in and (b) putting excess dollars in treasuries is better than simply investing them back in their economy would heat things up and stoke inflation. China currently has plenty of money for its own investment needs, so US treasuries are just convenient and not a statement on the natures of investments in the USA.
- shadowfaxpku 5y ago
  This is a super simplified and somewhat wrong interpretation of trade dynamics. Surpluses are important because 1) sustained surpluses imply structural reasons, and in this case, China's consistent upgrade in industrial production chains as it uses the funds it has acquired to invest in improving technology and human resources. 2) sustained deficits are often correlated with domestic employment moving away from manufacturing and into services, as well as a bigger share of income by corporations who are able to offshore their production, leading to greater inequality. 3) The dollar will not maintain its purchasing power forever, if its manufacturing, R&D and military dominance are perceived to be eroded. Many countries are moving away from sole reliance on dollars as the only reserve as we speak, including China. The amount of US dollar assets China has divested over the years is staggering.

refurb 5y ago

For those not aware, China has considerable economic leverage over Australia. Much of Australia’s boom has been due to the massive exports of natural resources to China. Recently China had been doing things like delaying seafood inspections until shipments spoil. Refusing iron ore and coal imports from Australia. It’s clear that China is trying to pick off Australia from the Western alliance. Since Australia is uniquely at risk from Chinese economic actions (Highly dependent on China, but China won’t be hurt that much) it makes a great test case for China. And all China is looking for from Australia is “neutrality”. Don’t align with the US on territorial disputes, don’t back Taiwan as an independent country, don’t condemn China for its treatment of Uighurs. Australia is right that as long as the Western countries stick together they have the power to check China in the region. But if they get picked off one by one, China will win.

gadf 5y ago
Paranoia. Born of an impractical attitude.
- testific8 5y ago
  care to enlighten us?
  - gadf 5y ago
    Are you open to being "enlightened" tho? Or was the enlightened your mockery of how you perceive my view as arrogant, indicating you've already prejudged it and in effect you will be resistant to hear it. Asking because I want to know if I should spend my time responding. Can't make people see something they don't want to see.
morpheos137 5y ago
China wins regardless. Seriously who else does Australia have to sell its natural resources to? India? Not anytime soon.
- 5y ago

dalbasal 5y ago

This is not apologetics for China.... There is a fundamental dishonesty in the US' (and Australia's) recent turn in sentiment re: Chinese trade relations. There was a deal, partly unstated and largely codified in trade agreements between the two parties. Mainstream notions about economics and trade shifted, and they're no longer happy with the deal. You can pursue new policies, new trade agreements, change your mind or whatnot... but it wasn't China that decided on American priorities. The US wanted to invest in China. It wanted US companies to be governed (largely) by US/washington consensus laws. It wanted US/Western patent law to apply in China, which mean is an even bigger deal now. Can you imagine the US or Australia adapting their legal systems to accommodate trade with China? China wanted trade surpluses, and employment promotion policies. Western economics of that era considered this a freebie. They actually valued Chinese imports more highly than US exports. Deng Xiaoping also wanted to moderate cultural-political influences, and keep about democratic urges. US political scientists thought this was futile, economic liberalisation would end totalitarianism on its own. Older economists/politicians still maintain the economic ideas, but have moved to denying they ever believed in the political ones. Geopolitically, both compromised on Taiwan. China got to keep its "One China" policy. The US maintains its "No Invasions" policy. Both got what they bargained for. The US chose not to bargain for pro labour trade conditions. They didn't want them. Now they do. So bargain again. Random aggression isn't going to get you what you want, if you can't define what you want. Belligerence is just politically easier than addressing the topic directly, admitting that ideas have changed, etc. ^Piracy in China does not invalidate this fact. Incidentally, I spoke to Kevin Rudd at length once (I was an intern), before he was PM. He seemed very pro chinese att.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
As a whole, the HN crowd has jumped the shark when it comes to takes on China. But once in a while, we get gems like your comment, which really understand the issue, and address the issue without being partial and biased. Bravo.

deadite 5y ago

Have no concerns, Mr. Rudd. We won't take China on.

jeswin 5y ago

Democracies have inherent inefficiencies, which need to be compensated. Everything else being equal, dictatorships can ramp up infrastructure faster than any democracy. Tariffs should have favoured manufacturing in free countries, to encourage openness and freedom. That did not happen between 1990-2020.

theodorewiles 5y ago

Just a friendly reminder that the current communist regime in mainland China is not legitimate - the republic of China (currently in Taiwan) is the original member of both the League of Nations and the UN, and has actually transitioned to a stable, transparent, and prosperous democracy, and should be in charge of all of China.

morpheos137 5y ago

If Australia was smart, it wouldn't "take on" China period. Seems to be a losing proposition for Australia anyway you look at it seeing as Australia has somewhat less than 2% of China's population.

MarkMc 5y ago

This is why Trump's threat to withdraw from NATO was so short-sighted. In the 20th century NATO was basically America supporting Europe against Russia. But in the 21st century it will be Europe supporting the US against China.