8 ms·
I can't speak for the author or to popular anti-China narratives in the U.S., but from a traditional geopolitical perspective China poses a threat because of te
by wahern 5y ago
I can't speak for the author or to popular anti-China narratives in the U.S., but from a traditional geopolitical perspective China poses a threat because of territorial claims independent of Taiwan, most importantly its claims over the South China Sea. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... Those claims pose a grave threat directly to global shipping and to regional fishing and mining rights, and indirectly to the largely peaceful maritime waters status quo globally.
Over the past decade China has also been making increasingly brazen land grabs along and near the Indian border. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute and, most recently, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/07/china-bhutan-border-villages-security-forces/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/07/china-bhutan-border-vil... Relative to the South China Sea that's slightly less of a concern geopolitically (ignoring the potential for another full blown war between India and China), but does evidence China's actual (not simply rhetorical) aggression.
Finally, North Korea is a protected state of China. The only reason North Korea has nuclear weapons is because China prevents military and, to a lesser degree, economic retaliation. China permitting North Korea to develop and possess nuclear weapons is a violation of China's role as a nuclear super power, especially in light of the proliferation risk North Korea poses. By contrast, the U.S. killed Taiwan's nuclear program the moment it was discovered, and strongly opposed both the Israeli and Pakistani programs up until they were already an accomplished fact. (Note that the U.S. had far more leverage with Taiwan--it could threaten to retract its defense umbrella, which would have passively permitted immediate Chinese invasion--whereas with Israel and Pakistan the only viable options would have required direct retaliation.)
Foreign policy and military analysts in the U.S. and, I would assume, China understand that the global economic tussle between the U.S. and China are distinct from the geopolitical security issues. (Strongly related, of course, but the calculus nonetheless significantly different.) The masses and certain political factions in each country don't tend to draw such distinctions, though.
- publicola1990 5y agoBut is China really threating the US directly in anyway through military confrontation? Taiwan, China sea matters are localised to the close neighborhood of China. Does the US desire peaceful coexistence with China or not? Reading some of the hawkish, cold war style jingoism coming out of US media makes one wonder?
- mannykannot 5y agoAnyone who cares about democracy in their own part of the world should be paying attention to what happens in China. Unlike the 20th century fascist and communist dictatorships (including Chinese communism of that era), China today is neither self-destructive nor economically unsound.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoChina is a state that seems to be more or less incompatible with liberal democracies and has a lot of power. That is the main struggle
- TFYS 5y agoThe US supports all kinds of non-democratic groups when it benefits them, though. Most likely the reason is just that they don't want to lose any power to China.
- nelsondev 5y agoHow is China incompatible with liberal democracies? internally of course, the authoritarian politics are incompatible. But in international relations, they’ve traded been trading with liberal democracies for decades. So what’s the incompatibility?
- eloisius 5y agoAn increasing desire and capability to export their illiberal practices abroad. For example, using their weight to prevent the Dalai Lama from speaking at foreign universities. It’s naive to think that an even more powerful China wouldn’t continue to suppress free speech abroad as much as it does at home.
- vkou 5y ago> China permitting North Korea to develop and possess nuclear weapons is a violation of China's role as a nuclear super power, The same could be said about the US vis-a-vis Israel.
- throwaway210222 5y agoOr France. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/us-secret-assistance-to-the-french-nuclear-program-1969-1975-fourth-country-to-strategic https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/us-secret-assistanc...
- at-fates-hands 5y ago> China permitting North Korea to develop and possess nuclear weapons is a violation of China's role as a nuclear super power, While this is true, the US had a hand in helping the DPRK obtain the necessary tools to do so way back in 1994: In 1994, President Bill Clinton agreed to a deal with North Korea aimed at curbing their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, an agreement which the networks at the time hailed as a sign that “the Cold War is really over.” Under the 1994 framework, which North Korea eventually violated, the U.S. helped the rogue regime build a new nuclear reactor that would not be capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium in exchange for international access to its nuclear facilities, although the United States caved and the inspections would not start for several years. Crucial inspections are being delayed five years while the rest of the deal is implemented. American officials say the delay is a small price to pay for getting North Korea to shut down its entire nuclear program But Kim Jung Il’s regime gets to keep what intelligence experts believe it already has, at least one bomb. And it does not have to permit inspection to nuclear waste sites for 5 years. The very framework designed to prevent the DPRK from obtaining a nuclear weapon actually laid the groundwork for them to not only obtain nuclear technology, but to fast track their program to produce even more nukes.
- bildung 5y ago> Those claims pose a grave threat directly to global shipping and to regional fishing and mining rights, and indirectly to the largely peaceful maritime waters status quo globally. European here, so this may be caused by selective reporting in different regions of the world, but here news is equally often about US military presence in the South China Sea. Looking at a globe and seeing the distance between US homeland and the South China Sea, I wonder who gave the US a mandate for military manoeuvers near the coast of another country? And how this makes China the aggressor?
- lugu 5y agoAnother European here, but with a different perspective: never seen any mainstream news suggesting US Navy is posing a threat to the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan or Taiwan (or even China). It seems the narative is mostly the same as in the US. Do you have examples of news reporting otherwise ?
- bildung 5y agoYes the bias is obviously also pro US, anti China, but that has been true since forever. It was the same at the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions of the US, for example. Nevertheless the facts themselves also tend to get reported, e.g.: https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/welt/2066831-US-Militaer-demonstriert-Macht-im-Suedchinesischen-Meer.html https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/welt/206683... https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Deutsche-Fregatte-wird-auf-illegaler-US-Basis-im-Indopazifik-betankt-6187496.html?seite=all https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Deutsche-Fregatte-wird-auf-...
- Bayart 5y agoDespite the name and what the CCP wants, the South China Sea is not Chinese. The US maneuvers to keep it international waters, so do we Europeans. The US has every tight to sail however it wants in international waters, so do the Chinese.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
- thefr0g 5y ago> By contrast, the U.S. killed Taiwan's nuclear program the moment it was discovered Why don't they start with their own?
- yardie 5y agoThey signed a treaty stating they would not develop nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure it was a very awkward conversation.