8 ms·

Well said. This is the classic, “You can’t negotiate with terrorists” situation. It might seem like a local maxima in one instance to give in to fear and conseq

by koolba 5y ago

Well said. This is the classic, “You can’t negotiate with terrorists” situation. It might seem like a local maxima in one instance to give in to fear and consequence, but it only feeds repeated instances. China is betting on the reverse and honestly I think they’ll win. The sheer force of will needed to cut them off from the global economy is just not there.

tehjoker 5y ago
Isn't this what the US and UK did to Julian Assuage?
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  Perhaps, but that's off-topic what aboutism. What does that have to do with the story?
  - chc 5y ago
    I think it is relevant here because it provides evidence on whether other countries are likely to put their foot down against China over things like this.
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      The Assange situation is very different than this one on many levels. I can't see much similarity. It came across as a poor attempt to defend the CCP with the old "America is no better" trope
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    whataboutism usually refers to irrelevant things. Given Assange is recent (and ongoing) why is it not relevant?
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      And relevant usually refers to something that relates to the topic. Again, I ask, what does it have to do with the story?
      - Chris2048 5y ago
        Its a comparison to us/uk relations, that relates to the topic. It literally refers to the story as "this".
        dbsmith83 5y ago
        "But what about the US/UK!? They do it too!" Combined with the fact that the Assange situation is not at all similar, I don't see it as relevant.
        Chris2048 5y ago
        Different situation, same behaviour - the trampling of individuals for political gain. BTW, even the historical example of Russian "and you lynch blacks" to the US in response to human-right criticism is relevant, as exemplified by the export of BLM as a general civil rights movement. The US/UK should still be able to criticise China, but without pretending to be a laudable moral example.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        dbsmith83 5y ago
        Ah then this is where our difference of opinion is. I can see now why you think it's relevant. For me, I always viewed the Russian responses to criticism as diversionary in nature, meant to just essentially say "Well you're not perfect either!". To me, that is just a diversionary tactic to disregard the subject at hand
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  You mean the US and UK disappeared one of Julian Assange's closest relatives, kept them detained for four years, and trotted them out as blackmail to keep him silent? It doesn't seem the same to me.
dnautics 5y ago
> The sheer force of will needed to cut them off from the global economy It's already happening. China is no longer the us' #1 trading partner. Europe is deleveraging off of china. Canada is on the verge of boycotting the chinese olympics. Even if there weren't geopolitical conflict involved, it's going to happen out of sheer economics; labor costs in china are no longer competitive with those in neighboring countries e.g. thailand, vietnam, bangladesh, and, for the US, mexico, and there is going to be a rough demographic transition as due to decades of one child, there are fewer entry-level people to take on entry-level low-skilled jobs in china (and basically no one wants to immigrate to china because the government has stoked chauvinistic nationalism way worse than trump ever did).
- dnautics 5y ago
  I should add that there is a way out for china -- high skilled production, but they are really shooting themeselves in the foot on that one. High skilled production requires input of low-skilled labor, and after several decades of what looked like it could be a rapprochement, since the ascendancy of Xi Jinping, china has increasingly alienated its closest neighbors (phillipines, vietnam, taiwan, japan, south korea, india), some of whom would be ideal sources of low-skill inputs. And a LOT of their tech comes from copying the west. That will get you only so far; to be truly innovative and successful in the high-skill arena you need to have a source of creativity and critical thought which after a short period of flourishing, I hear is being repressed by the state again these days (I don't know for certain, I'm not in china).
  - SamReidHughes 5y ago
    China has a vast hinterland of rural Chinese, much larger than the Phillipines or Vietnam could supply, and there's less of a language barrier, where not none. Personally I think they'll do better than many are expecting, the biggest threat to their success being their own governance.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      > and there's less of a language barrier, where not none. They are working hard on eliminating the language barrier.
anovikov 5y ago
Why do you need to cut them off? I mean, isn't the fact that most countries in the world are dictatorship (or failed states, and these are a much bigger problem) a surprise? China is different from other dictatorships only in size. If anything, maximising interoperation with non-free countries only benefits free countries, making their position more exclusive. Say: Chinese rich are likely to settle in US and Europe once they made it, just because it's too scary to stay in China, but they spend and pay taxes there. The world will never be "free" in the Western sense of it, because even the very concept of "society" is foreign to the vast majority of people, the concept of "public good" is foreign too, damn it, in the most countries people can't even queue: they fight for their turn to be served and everyone accepts it as fair. Not just democracy, but even freedom or "rights" in the very basic sense are not understood, or actively rejected by people from all walks of life in most of the world. Just a thought experiment: if you could "fix" those countries, why not start with Saudi Arabia, instead of China or Russia? Extent of human right abuses in the former is bigger than in either of the latter; it's a no-brainer to invade and occupy it - it's a plain desert great for tanks and they have no nukes; and they have oil. Yet this isn't done for the simple reason - no one is going to benefit from it.
- jeswin 5y ago
  > Just a thought experiment: if you could "fix" those countries, why not start with Saudi Arabia, instead of China or Russia? On account of them being tiny, they aren't a threat to freedoms outside of their own country. China on the other hand, is busy forging alliances with North Korea and Taliban. And threatening democratic Taiwan almost every other week with invasion.
  - pell 5y ago
    >On account of them being tiny, they aren't a threat to freedoms outside of their own country. SA has been directly involved in funding terrorism(1), they're fighting a war in Yemen for their own national interest(2), they are pressuring countries in very concrete ways (e.g. Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri's resignation in 2017 was basically forced by SA)(3), they've been trying to isolate Qatar since 2017(4), they have no qualms about murdering a critic in an embassy overseas(5), they're increasing their influence in places like Bosnia(6). ________________ (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Lebanon%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Lebanon%E2%80%93Saudi_Ara... (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis (5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog... (6) https://www.france24.com/en/20181113-focus-bosnia-herzegovina-saudi-arabia-gulf-tourists-influence-business-investments-islam https://www.france24.com/en/20181113-focus-bosnia-herzegovin...
webmaven 5y ago
> This is the classic, “You can’t negotiate with terrorists” situation. Even older, it is the classic "don't pay the danegeld" situation: https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.htm...

by koolba 5y ago

tehjoker 5y ago

Isn't this what the US and UK did to Julian Assuage?

dbsmith83 5y ago
Perhaps, but that's off-topic what aboutism. What does that have to do with the story?
- chc 5y ago
  I think it is relevant here because it provides evidence on whether other countries are likely to put their foot down against China over things like this.
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    The Assange situation is very different than this one on many levels. I can't see much similarity. It came across as a poor attempt to defend the CCP with the old "America is no better" trope
- Chris2048 5y ago
  whataboutism usually refers to irrelevant things. Given Assange is recent (and ongoing) why is it not relevant?
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    And relevant usually refers to something that relates to the topic. Again, I ask, what does it have to do with the story?
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      Its a comparison to us/uk relations, that relates to the topic. It literally refers to the story as "this".
      - dbsmith83 5y ago
        "But what about the US/UK!? They do it too!" Combined with the fact that the Assange situation is not at all similar, I don't see it as relevant.
        Chris2048 5y ago
        Different situation, same behaviour - the trampling of individuals for political gain. BTW, even the historical example of Russian "and you lynch blacks" to the US in response to human-right criticism is relevant, as exemplified by the export of BLM as a general civil rights movement. The US/UK should still be able to criticise China, but without pretending to be a laudable moral example.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        dbsmith83 5y ago
        Ah then this is where our difference of opinion is. I can see now why you think it's relevant. For me, I always viewed the Russian responses to criticism as diversionary in nature, meant to just essentially say "Well you're not perfect either!". To me, that is just a diversionary tactic to disregard the subject at hand
mrtranscendence 5y ago
You mean the US and UK disappeared one of Julian Assange's closest relatives, kept them detained for four years, and trotted them out as blackmail to keep him silent? It doesn't seem the same to me.

dnautics 5y ago

> The sheer force of will needed to cut them off from the global economy It's already happening. China is no longer the us' #1 trading partner. Europe is deleveraging off of china. Canada is on the verge of boycotting the chinese olympics. Even if there weren't geopolitical conflict involved, it's going to happen out of sheer economics; labor costs in china are no longer competitive with those in neighboring countries e.g. thailand, vietnam, bangladesh, and, for the US, mexico, and there is going to be a rough demographic transition as due to decades of one child, there are fewer entry-level people to take on entry-level low-skilled jobs in china (and basically no one wants to immigrate to china because the government has stoked chauvinistic nationalism way worse than trump ever did).

dnautics 5y ago
I should add that there is a way out for china -- high skilled production, but they are really shooting themeselves in the foot on that one. High skilled production requires input of low-skilled labor, and after several decades of what looked like it could be a rapprochement, since the ascendancy of Xi Jinping, china has increasingly alienated its closest neighbors (phillipines, vietnam, taiwan, japan, south korea, india), some of whom would be ideal sources of low-skill inputs. And a LOT of their tech comes from copying the west. That will get you only so far; to be truly innovative and successful in the high-skill arena you need to have a source of creativity and critical thought which after a short period of flourishing, I hear is being repressed by the state again these days (I don't know for certain, I'm not in china).
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  China has a vast hinterland of rural Chinese, much larger than the Phillipines or Vietnam could supply, and there's less of a language barrier, where not none. Personally I think they'll do better than many are expecting, the biggest threat to their success being their own governance.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > and there's less of a language barrier, where not none. They are working hard on eliminating the language barrier.

anovikov 5y ago

Why do you need to cut them off? I mean, isn't the fact that most countries in the world are dictatorship (or failed states, and these are a much bigger problem) a surprise? China is different from other dictatorships only in size. If anything, maximising interoperation with non-free countries only benefits free countries, making their position more exclusive. Say: Chinese rich are likely to settle in US and Europe once they made it, just because it's too scary to stay in China, but they spend and pay taxes there. The world will never be "free" in the Western sense of it, because even the very concept of "society" is foreign to the vast majority of people, the concept of "public good" is foreign too, damn it, in the most countries people can't even queue: they fight for their turn to be served and everyone accepts it as fair. Not just democracy, but even freedom or "rights" in the very basic sense are not understood, or actively rejected by people from all walks of life in most of the world. Just a thought experiment: if you could "fix" those countries, why not start with Saudi Arabia, instead of China or Russia? Extent of human right abuses in the former is bigger than in either of the latter; it's a no-brainer to invade and occupy it - it's a plain desert great for tanks and they have no nukes; and they have oil. Yet this isn't done for the simple reason - no one is going to benefit from it.

jeswin 5y ago
> Just a thought experiment: if you could "fix" those countries, why not start with Saudi Arabia, instead of China or Russia? On account of them being tiny, they aren't a threat to freedoms outside of their own country. China on the other hand, is busy forging alliances with North Korea and Taliban. And threatening democratic Taiwan almost every other week with invasion.
- pell 5y ago
  >On account of them being tiny, they aren't a threat to freedoms outside of their own country. SA has been directly involved in funding terrorism(1), they're fighting a war in Yemen for their own national interest(2), they are pressuring countries in very concrete ways (e.g. Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri's resignation in 2017 was basically forced by SA)(3), they've been trying to isolate Qatar since 2017(4), they have no qualms about murdering a critic in an embassy overseas(5), they're increasing their influence in places like Bosnia(6). ________________ (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Lebanon%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Lebanon%E2%80%93Saudi_Ara... (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis (5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog... (6) https://www.france24.com/en/20181113-focus-bosnia-herzegovina-saudi-arabia-gulf-tourists-influence-business-investments-islam https://www.france24.com/en/20181113-focus-bosnia-herzegovin...

webmaven 5y ago

> This is the classic, “You can’t negotiate with terrorists” situation. Even older, it is the classic "don't pay the danegeld" situation: https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.htm...