3 ms·

What would CCP gain (compared to the status quo) in doing this move? To test US loyalty to other Asian allies? Seems... Convoluted, reckless, and not at all so

by 627467 5y ago

What would CCP gain (compared to the status quo) in doing this move? To test US loyalty to other Asian allies? Seems... Convoluted, reckless, and not at all something China has done in the past. China and Taiwan are already co dependent.

chrchang523 5y ago
Well, Hong Kong had plenty of co-dependence with the rest of China, and everyone already expected greater integration in 2047; yet the CCP still chose to accelerate the schedule in defiance of the expectations of both a majority of HK citizens and the West. With that said, Taiwan is both more valuable and easier to take if more Taiwanese people don't think it's much better to be associated with the US than China. I think that, if the CCP does gain control of Taiwan in the future, it's >50% likely to be no more violent than Crimea; that's not possible today because too many Taiwanese are opposed.
rsj_hn 5y ago
More importantly, China is co-dependent on the rest of the world, including the US, to continue allowing large Chinese trade surpluses. And virtually all of China's foreign assets are held in US and European custodial accounts that could be instantly seized or at least frozen. This is not the position from which one would want to upset the current world order, especially if domestic tranquility (read, employment) is dependent on the good graces of your trading partners. On the other hand completely isolated nations like North Korea -- which are not tightly integrated into the international economy and feel they have nothing left to lose -- these are the ones that are more likely to do crazy things. Thus China will continue to sabre-rattle and focus on largely symbolic issues in order to stoke nationalism but they will not actually act as that would immediately make a large chunk of their population unemployed and destitute. And questions of money and employment are much more important to Chinese citizens than nationalism.
- angelzen 5y ago
  The economic interdependency argument is fragile. It has been refuted at least once in history. In the 1909 book 'The Great Illusion', British lecturer, journalist, author and Member of Parliament and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Norman Angell argued along the same lines. Coming at the tail end of an unusually long and prosperous European Golden Age, the Belle Époque, it was very well received in its time. 5 years later, the trenches of WWI would put the lofty ideals to rest. > According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another",[6] as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive [of the local population] to produce would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I wasn't making an argument about interdepence. I was making an argument about one-way dependence. E.g. China being dependent on the rest of the world in very asymmetric way than the rest of the world is dependent on China. That is a different situation from just observing that there is trade between nations. China has trillions of assets held in custodial accounts in the US and other European nations. The situation is not reversed. We do not have trillions held in custodial accounts by China. It's a one way street. Prior to WW1, trade was roughly balanced within the world. You cannot even compare the situation then and now. Hell, prior to 2000, trade was roughly balanced. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in recorded history.
    - rdsubhas 5y ago
      This looks like a very narrow definition of "assets". Just because US & other nations outsourced everything to China – doesn't mean they now get to keep only the assets. Factories, raw materials, technology, manufacturing – all those are as much core assets as USD accounts or real estate too.
abrowne 5y ago
Xi would look strong if they win.
hollerith 5y ago
>What would CCP gain (compared to the status quo) in doing this move? Same reason they are creating islands in the South China Sea: becoming less vulnerable to blockade. (They can use ships and planes based on Taiwan to attack any ships trying to enforce a blockade.) Also, as long as the Taiwanese government exists, groups inside China seeking the overthrow of the CCP can hope to ask it to become the new government of mainland China. Of course, that would start to make sense only if the CCP weakens drastically because of severe civil disorder, but severe civil disorder has been common in Chinese history.

by 627467 5y ago

chrchang523 5y ago

Well, Hong Kong had plenty of co-dependence with the rest of China, and everyone already expected greater integration in 2047; yet the CCP still chose to accelerate the schedule in defiance of the expectations of both a majority of HK citizens and the West. With that said, Taiwan is both more valuable and easier to take if more Taiwanese people don't think it's much better to be associated with the US than China. I think that, if the CCP does gain control of Taiwan in the future, it's >50% likely to be no more violent than Crimea; that's not possible today because too many Taiwanese are opposed.

rsj_hn 5y ago

More importantly, China is co-dependent on the rest of the world, including the US, to continue allowing large Chinese trade surpluses. And virtually all of China's foreign assets are held in US and European custodial accounts that could be instantly seized or at least frozen. This is not the position from which one would want to upset the current world order, especially if domestic tranquility (read, employment) is dependent on the good graces of your trading partners. On the other hand completely isolated nations like North Korea -- which are not tightly integrated into the international economy and feel they have nothing left to lose -- these are the ones that are more likely to do crazy things. Thus China will continue to sabre-rattle and focus on largely symbolic issues in order to stoke nationalism but they will not actually act as that would immediately make a large chunk of their population unemployed and destitute. And questions of money and employment are much more important to Chinese citizens than nationalism.

angelzen 5y ago
The economic interdependency argument is fragile. It has been refuted at least once in history. In the 1909 book 'The Great Illusion', British lecturer, journalist, author and Member of Parliament and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Norman Angell argued along the same lines. Coming at the tail end of an unusually long and prosperous European Golden Age, the Belle Époque, it was very well received in its time. 5 years later, the trenches of WWI would put the lofty ideals to rest. > According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another",[6] as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive [of the local population] to produce would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  I wasn't making an argument about interdepence. I was making an argument about one-way dependence. E.g. China being dependent on the rest of the world in very asymmetric way than the rest of the world is dependent on China. That is a different situation from just observing that there is trade between nations. China has trillions of assets held in custodial accounts in the US and other European nations. The situation is not reversed. We do not have trillions held in custodial accounts by China. It's a one way street. Prior to WW1, trade was roughly balanced within the world. You cannot even compare the situation then and now. Hell, prior to 2000, trade was roughly balanced. What we are seeing now is unprecedented in recorded history.
  - rdsubhas 5y ago
    This looks like a very narrow definition of "assets". Just because US & other nations outsourced everything to China – doesn't mean they now get to keep only the assets. Factories, raw materials, technology, manufacturing – all those are as much core assets as USD accounts or real estate too.

abrowne 5y ago

Xi would look strong if they win.

hollerith 5y ago

>What would CCP gain (compared to the status quo) in doing this move? Same reason they are creating islands in the South China Sea: becoming less vulnerable to blockade. (They can use ships and planes based on Taiwan to attack any ships trying to enforce a blockade.) Also, as long as the Taiwanese government exists, groups inside China seeking the overthrow of the CCP can hope to ask it to become the new government of mainland China. Of course, that would start to make sense only if the CCP weakens drastically because of severe civil disorder, but severe civil disorder has been common in Chinese history.