10 ms·

Trade is really a matter for the government, and the US (sadly) adheres to the One China Policy. This just reflects the official policy, and having the companie

Trade is really a matter for the government, and the US (sadly) adheres to the One China Policy. This just reflects the official policy, and having the companies pick this fight instead of the country is hypocritical.

chmod600 4y ago
There's some nuance here. We have free speech in the US. Freedom means choice, so there's still an obligation to act morally. China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that. For instance, see how China manipulated the NBA and Activision Blizzard during the Hong Kong protests.
- kshacker 4y ago
  As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in south send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the box? We make decisions to curtail free speech everyday so how's this different?
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    I’m sure they could and I bet some do. How that maps into sales is a different story.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    I'm not American, so I may be missing some details, but is that actually not allowed? Or is it rather the case that some people may not like that, so companies try to avoid upsetting some customers?
    - garettmd 4y ago
      Yes, that is totally allowed. It is trivial to find products with the confederate flag printed on them.
    - kshacker 4y ago
      As others said, it may be allowed, and I did not know either ways but it was a rhetorical point. Now even if it is allowed, suppose this was a Federal government procurement. Will Feds buy something with such flags? Nope. Once that happens, it can be easily demagogued.
      - reaperducer 4y ago
        suppose this was a Federal government procurement. Will Feds buy something with such flags? Nope. Actually, probably. If the item meets the specs and the price, that's what matters. Just as there is no shortage of federal buildings, and even military installations named after Confederate things. This HN discussion illustrates how bringing up Confederate themes, you can really tell when someone isn't an American.
        mwint 4y ago
        I’m an American, but not involved in any kind of federal purchasing. I would have assumed that a federal purchaser would make up a reason not to buy my otherwise-perfect product if it had some unpopular statement on it, like a Confederate flag. Do you know of any counter examples where a company was able to make a successful bid with a product that had good fit, but an inconvenient non-functional addon like that?
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      Yes, we can put whatever odious symbols on our products. The Confederate flag is a bit weird because there's enough of the population that apparently doesn't see it that way, so some stores will even display products that have it. (Personally I find it to be an awful symbol and wouldn't stick around if I saw it displayed). An example that is more like what you've described is something like a Nazi swastika -- technically you can sell something with a swastika on it (I'm 99.9% sure) but almost no stores would be willing to put it on the shelves, certainly no major chains or whatever.
      - ChoGGi 4y ago
        At least on eBay there's a lot of Nazi memorabilia for sale.
    - Ancapistani 4y ago
      It is allowed, and some companies have based their business around it. For that matter, I've received written correspondence from people while doing genealogical research with the return address listed as "Mobile, Alabama, Occupied CSA". There are definitely cultural norms that come into play here, but in that particular case - it was from an officer of a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and contained photocopies of Confederate military records - I was amused by it. I kept the envelope and included it in my own archives.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    > As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in south send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the box? Yes. Yes they can.
- Aunche 4y ago
  > China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that. No we don't. China may act peeved that foreign companies are virtue signalling, but they'd secretly relish at the opportunity of finding an excuse to boycott or ban these foreign products, so that their wealth stays circulating in their domestic economy. Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. The CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies, but happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to them. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so. The NBA and Blizzard made the correct decision to kowtow to China, economically as well as morally. Getting them kicked out of China does not help Hong Kong, but would threaten to free world as the balance of trade would make us even more beholden to China. In a complicated, globalized world, marginal thinking is the only option.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    > Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. A global company that wastes resources engaging in hysterically overblown State Department propaganda is a company that compromises the credibility of its leadership to make intelligent strategic decisions. We're out of the unipolar era, and companies that are stuck it in it will get outpaced.
    - cromwellian 4y ago
      I think Google proved you can live and thrive without the China domestic market.
      - pphysch 4y ago
        Google doesn't have any full-spectrum peer competitors, much less any that are operating in both PRC and USA.
        cromwellian 4y ago
        Apple didn't either (for premium smartphones) until, arguably, basing their manufacturing there helped standup a large infrastructure that could easily be turned around to make Huawei, Xiaomi, and other devices. If Apple had somehow managed to make iPhones in Vietnam instead of Shenzhen, would they really be facing the premium tier competition from Huawei they face in the EU?
- trasz 4y ago
  >China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money Compared to a country where companies literally buy congressman, and freely manipulate public opinion for the highest bidder?
  - cromwellian 4y ago
    But competing messages are allowed so while the rich manipulate public opinion, they are not unitary and other voices are still heard, wealthy battling wealthy and large social movements too. These false equivalence’s are really tiring. China’s control of public speech and media is on a wholly different plane. It’s not even remotely comparable to manipulation in the West.
    - trasz 4y ago
      So how’s China different here? Or do you really believe there are no conflicting opinions there? I mean, some people believe there are no public elections in China, so…
      - cromwellian 4y ago
        Are we really doing this? Are you really serious? Besides the fact that most of the country is firewalled off from foreign media, and besides the fact that only one political party is allowed, and besides the fact that political prisoners are routinely jailed for nothing more than denying a government narrative, holding mock polls, publishing or assembling (and I don't mean held for a day or two like in the West, but jailed for years) Can a US citizen go on media, or organize a public protest, in which they call Joe Biden or Donald Trump, bad people, with bad policies? Yes, US citizens can publicly call for the highest level politicians in the land to lose their jobs, and with no real repercussions. People on social media can scream "Let's Go Brandon" or meme like crazy about Biden. But Weibo, Wechat, Bilibili, Douyin, frequently censor even the most milquetoast sarcastic remarks about the CCP or Xi, including the infamous Baozi and Panda blocks. Can a famous Chinese public individual/celebrity/intellectual, in China, tell a huge crowd and media, that I think the CCP are horrible and that Xi Jinping needs to be booted from power? Stop trying to draw false equivalencies. > I mean, some people believe there are no public elections in China, so… Sure, where the CCP select and approve the candidates, control the election progress, and there is no free media coverage or transparency free of state control. Practically no real international election monitors. And no direct nationwide elections. Rather, a many levels of indirection process, effectively controlled by a President for life. Let's see what happens at Beidaihe and the 20th national congress in November. Think anything will change? I don't. There's practical no competing, transparent system in these so called 'democratic elections' making them in effort, a Potemkin village with the veneer of popular will, but in fact, nothing of the sort. There are about 50 individuals in the US congress worth more than $10 million, and not a single one who is a billionaire. Trump was the only billionaire to have office. Meanwhile, there are 100+ CCP members in the Congress who are billionaires. Does this look like a system chosen by public debate, awareness, and discussion? For all of the flaws in the Western systems, and there are a vast number, it is really tiring seeing tankies try to say "everything's the same" with zero nuance, as if none of it matters.
sneak 4y ago
I disagree. The largest company in the country is not a passive participant in the government's policies.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  True. But as a tech company it is much better they fight tech battles like privacy policy, acceptable law enforcement behavior, acceptable tracker use, etc. Let some other company fight the battle over what to put on the label.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    They aren't just a tech company though are they? They are one of the largest companies in the world with an annual turnover comparable with small countries like Denmark or Norway.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      That is true but they aren’t a country. They don’t set international policy. They have little to gain and a lot to lose picking this battle. For one thing they have close business relationships with people in both china and Taiwan. They have employees in both countries. Vendors. Human relationships. Those might get kinda awkward if they picked this battle. And what do they gain picking this battle? A few internet points? It’s just not worth it.
trasz 4y ago
>US (sadly) adheres to the One China Policy How terrible of them to adhere to the policy Taiwanese themselves prefer! EDIT: To clarify, from what I remember the public opinion on Taiwan independence has been steadily shifting and now it’s the majority’s preference compared to becoming another province of China. At the same time the vast majority of Taiwanese prefer the option “let’s keep things as they are now”, if that option is available in the poll. Taiwan does have some special ties with continental China, particularly in economy and travel; it’s more like EU than two entirely unrelated countries.
- outworlder 4y ago
  Citation needed. Either that or... are you talking about Taiwan and West Taiwan?
- przemub 4y ago
  Do they? Pan-Greens have a majority now. Mind that Taiwanese politics is not something I know a lot about, so I'm happy to be corrected.
- tuxoko 4y ago
  First, US's One China policy is US's policy. It makes no sense for Taiwanese to adheres to a US's policy. Second, US's One China policy is only a word play. It acknowledges China's position regarding Taiwan but doesn't actually agree or disagree to it. That's why it still provide defense for Taiwan. Third, your comment about public opinion is a complete nonsense. Taiwan is a democratic nation. If the majority prefers being a province of China, it would have already voted to do so. And the only reason people choose to "keep things as they are now" is to avoid provoking a war with China.
  - trasz 4y ago
    First, it’s China’s policy that US claims to adhere to. Second - yeah, your point being? Third - yes, it is a democratic nation, and the prevalent majority of that democratic nation wants to keep things as they are, as evidenced by polls[1]. This nation doesn’t want war. Compare this with the standard modus operandi of US. Sometimes they are the good guys, sometime they kill a million people in Middle East, but it’s always about a war somewhere far away from US. 1. Notice how different this is from Ukraine. Ever wondered why there are so many… persons equating China and Russia?
birdyrooster 4y ago
I don't see how it is sad. The One China Policy is simultaneously amicable with the PRC and ROC constitutions. They both claim One China and the United States acknowledges that there is One China, but the United States makes no claims no preference for either government in resolving the Taiwanese straight conflict as it is a civil war.
- YPPH 4y ago
  What you're missing is that "One China" is now a mere diplomatic fiction. The only reason the US and Taiwan insist on it is to avoid unnecessary escalation with China. But, as a matter of fact, Taiwan is a completely independent, sovereign and autonomous state, over which China has absolutely no legal or practical control.
  - birdyrooster 4y ago
    And that is fiction which has held the peace for 70 years
  - sofixa 4y ago
    That's true, but as far as the world is concerned, Taiwan is de jure part of the One and only China, which is the PRC as of now. And of course the PRC has zero desire to recognise the fact that Taiwan is an independent country. So the status quo here, same as the one between the Koreas, is basically the only way things can remain peaceful until some drastic change happens (e.g. the PRC falling).
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  US, sadly, have always supported the right wingers against "the commies", no matter the consequences. When they started to support Taiwan in 1945, Chiang Kai-shek was a nationalist who imposed the martial law on Taiwan for 40 years (until the end of the 1980s!), waiting to strike back and regain "full control of China" (that's how One China principle was born, RPC has nothing to do with it! it was even in the ROC Constitution until 1992!) Nixon changed everything when he visited mainland China and talked to Mao in 1972, that lead to the US-China trade agreement of 1979. Until 1972 US had an agreement with Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan "temporary" government was the only recognized China, they were bound to protect it in case of attack, they supported his claims of reunification under his ruling and the UN seat for China was that of Taiwan, even though 99% of the people of China lived on mainland. USA has been very ambiguous since then, on one side they acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China and does not challenge that position, on the other they are formally Taiwan allied, but there's no more an US embassy in Taipei and no Taiwanese embassy in Washington. They even moved their "One China" capital from Taipei to Beijing. Reminder: indigenous people of Taiwan are only 2% of the original population, the rest is 97% Han Chinese, so one China is quite an accurate description. They only differ about the alliances they made, but the mythological example of freedom for Asian countries that Taiwan should be, is just a myth https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/nanjing/622671/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/na... (2016, long before the actual crisis) Also, 2021 referendum on pork ban from USA shows that to keep having the support of USA, the ruling political party in Taiwan has to to satisfy their demands, even when it (potentially) poses a risk for the entire Taiwanese population. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-16/pork-referendum-poses-test-for-strengthening-u-s-taiwan-ties https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-16/pork-refe... USA are not there as mere observers, but as strongly interested party, with deep economical interests. And to exploit cheap labor, that made the fortune of Apple with their iPhone. The truth is that until not long ago, Taiwan had access to better weapons thanks to the USA that compensated for the smaller army. Their technological superiority combined with the threat of US navy showing up at the border kept China at bay and forced them to think twice before trying to retake Taiwan. Now that's not true anymore.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chmod600 4y ago

There's some nuance here. We have free speech in the US. Freedom means choice, so there's still an obligation to act morally. China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that. For instance, see how China manipulated the NBA and Activision Blizzard during the Hong Kong protests.

kshacker 4y ago
As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in south send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the box? We make decisions to curtail free speech everyday so how's this different?
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  I’m sure they could and I bet some do. How that maps into sales is a different story.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  I'm not American, so I may be missing some details, but is that actually not allowed? Or is it rather the case that some people may not like that, so companies try to avoid upsetting some customers?
  - garettmd 4y ago
    Yes, that is totally allowed. It is trivial to find products with the confederate flag printed on them.
  - kshacker 4y ago
    As others said, it may be allowed, and I did not know either ways but it was a rhetorical point. Now even if it is allowed, suppose this was a Federal government procurement. Will Feds buy something with such flags? Nope. Once that happens, it can be easily demagogued.
    - reaperducer 4y ago
      suppose this was a Federal government procurement. Will Feds buy something with such flags? Nope. Actually, probably. If the item meets the specs and the price, that's what matters. Just as there is no shortage of federal buildings, and even military installations named after Confederate things. This HN discussion illustrates how bringing up Confederate themes, you can really tell when someone isn't an American.
      - mwint 4y ago
        I’m an American, but not involved in any kind of federal purchasing. I would have assumed that a federal purchaser would make up a reason not to buy my otherwise-perfect product if it had some unpopular statement on it, like a Confederate flag. Do you know of any counter examples where a company was able to make a successful bid with a product that had good fit, but an inconvenient non-functional addon like that?
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Yes, we can put whatever odious symbols on our products. The Confederate flag is a bit weird because there's enough of the population that apparently doesn't see it that way, so some stores will even display products that have it. (Personally I find it to be an awful symbol and wouldn't stick around if I saw it displayed). An example that is more like what you've described is something like a Nazi swastika -- technically you can sell something with a swastika on it (I'm 99.9% sure) but almost no stores would be willing to put it on the shelves, certainly no major chains or whatever.
    - ChoGGi 4y ago
      At least on eBay there's a lot of Nazi memorabilia for sale.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    It is allowed, and some companies have based their business around it. For that matter, I've received written correspondence from people while doing genealogical research with the return address listed as "Mobile, Alabama, Occupied CSA". There are definitely cultural norms that come into play here, but in that particular case - it was from an officer of a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and contained photocopies of Confederate military records - I was amused by it. I kept the envelope and included it in my own archives.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  > As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in south send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the box? Yes. Yes they can.
Aunche 4y ago
> China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that. No we don't. China may act peeved that foreign companies are virtue signalling, but they'd secretly relish at the opportunity of finding an excuse to boycott or ban these foreign products, so that their wealth stays circulating in their domestic economy. Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. The CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies, but happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to them. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so. The NBA and Blizzard made the correct decision to kowtow to China, economically as well as morally. Getting them kicked out of China does not help Hong Kong, but would threaten to free world as the balance of trade would make us even more beholden to China. In a complicated, globalized world, marginal thinking is the only option.
- pphysch 4y ago
  > Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. A global company that wastes resources engaging in hysterically overblown State Department propaganda is a company that compromises the credibility of its leadership to make intelligent strategic decisions. We're out of the unipolar era, and companies that are stuck it in it will get outpaced.
  - cromwellian 4y ago
    I think Google proved you can live and thrive without the China domestic market.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      Google doesn't have any full-spectrum peer competitors, much less any that are operating in both PRC and USA.
      - cromwellian 4y ago
        Apple didn't either (for premium smartphones) until, arguably, basing their manufacturing there helped standup a large infrastructure that could easily be turned around to make Huawei, Xiaomi, and other devices. If Apple had somehow managed to make iPhones in Vietnam instead of Shenzhen, would they really be facing the premium tier competition from Huawei they face in the EU?
trasz 4y ago
>China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money Compared to a country where companies literally buy congressman, and freely manipulate public opinion for the highest bidder?
- cromwellian 4y ago
  But competing messages are allowed so while the rich manipulate public opinion, they are not unitary and other voices are still heard, wealthy battling wealthy and large social movements too. These false equivalence’s are really tiring. China’s control of public speech and media is on a wholly different plane. It’s not even remotely comparable to manipulation in the West.
  - trasz 4y ago
    So how’s China different here? Or do you really believe there are no conflicting opinions there? I mean, some people believe there are no public elections in China, so…
    - cromwellian 4y ago
      Are we really doing this? Are you really serious? Besides the fact that most of the country is firewalled off from foreign media, and besides the fact that only one political party is allowed, and besides the fact that political prisoners are routinely jailed for nothing more than denying a government narrative, holding mock polls, publishing or assembling (and I don't mean held for a day or two like in the West, but jailed for years) Can a US citizen go on media, or organize a public protest, in which they call Joe Biden or Donald Trump, bad people, with bad policies? Yes, US citizens can publicly call for the highest level politicians in the land to lose their jobs, and with no real repercussions. People on social media can scream "Let's Go Brandon" or meme like crazy about Biden. But Weibo, Wechat, Bilibili, Douyin, frequently censor even the most milquetoast sarcastic remarks about the CCP or Xi, including the infamous Baozi and Panda blocks. Can a famous Chinese public individual/celebrity/intellectual, in China, tell a huge crowd and media, that I think the CCP are horrible and that Xi Jinping needs to be booted from power? Stop trying to draw false equivalencies. > I mean, some people believe there are no public elections in China, so… Sure, where the CCP select and approve the candidates, control the election progress, and there is no free media coverage or transparency free of state control. Practically no real international election monitors. And no direct nationwide elections. Rather, a many levels of indirection process, effectively controlled by a President for life. Let's see what happens at Beidaihe and the 20th national congress in November. Think anything will change? I don't. There's practical no competing, transparent system in these so called 'democratic elections' making them in effort, a Potemkin village with the veneer of popular will, but in fact, nothing of the sort. There are about 50 individuals in the US congress worth more than $10 million, and not a single one who is a billionaire. Trump was the only billionaire to have office. Meanwhile, there are 100+ CCP members in the Congress who are billionaires. Does this look like a system chosen by public debate, awareness, and discussion? For all of the flaws in the Western systems, and there are a vast number, it is really tiring seeing tankies try to say "everything's the same" with zero nuance, as if none of it matters.

sneak 4y ago

I disagree. The largest company in the country is not a passive participant in the government's policies.

spookthesunset 4y ago
True. But as a tech company it is much better they fight tech battles like privacy policy, acceptable law enforcement behavior, acceptable tracker use, etc. Let some other company fight the battle over what to put on the label.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  They aren't just a tech company though are they? They are one of the largest companies in the world with an annual turnover comparable with small countries like Denmark or Norway.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    That is true but they aren’t a country. They don’t set international policy. They have little to gain and a lot to lose picking this battle. For one thing they have close business relationships with people in both china and Taiwan. They have employees in both countries. Vendors. Human relationships. Those might get kinda awkward if they picked this battle. And what do they gain picking this battle? A few internet points? It’s just not worth it.

trasz 4y ago

>US (sadly) adheres to the One China Policy How terrible of them to adhere to the policy Taiwanese themselves prefer! EDIT: To clarify, from what I remember the public opinion on Taiwan independence has been steadily shifting and now it’s the majority’s preference compared to becoming another province of China. At the same time the vast majority of Taiwanese prefer the option “let’s keep things as they are now”, if that option is available in the poll. Taiwan does have some special ties with continental China, particularly in economy and travel; it’s more like EU than two entirely unrelated countries.

outworlder 4y ago
Citation needed. Either that or... are you talking about Taiwan and West Taiwan?
przemub 4y ago
Do they? Pan-Greens have a majority now. Mind that Taiwanese politics is not something I know a lot about, so I'm happy to be corrected.
tuxoko 4y ago
First, US's One China policy is US's policy. It makes no sense for Taiwanese to adheres to a US's policy. Second, US's One China policy is only a word play. It acknowledges China's position regarding Taiwan but doesn't actually agree or disagree to it. That's why it still provide defense for Taiwan. Third, your comment about public opinion is a complete nonsense. Taiwan is a democratic nation. If the majority prefers being a province of China, it would have already voted to do so. And the only reason people choose to "keep things as they are now" is to avoid provoking a war with China.
- trasz 4y ago
  First, it’s China’s policy that US claims to adhere to. Second - yeah, your point being? Third - yes, it is a democratic nation, and the prevalent majority of that democratic nation wants to keep things as they are, as evidenced by polls[1]. This nation doesn’t want war. Compare this with the standard modus operandi of US. Sometimes they are the good guys, sometime they kill a million people in Middle East, but it’s always about a war somewhere far away from US. 1. Notice how different this is from Ukraine. Ever wondered why there are so many… persons equating China and Russia?

birdyrooster 4y ago

I don't see how it is sad. The One China Policy is simultaneously amicable with the PRC and ROC constitutions. They both claim One China and the United States acknowledges that there is One China, but the United States makes no claims no preference for either government in resolving the Taiwanese straight conflict as it is a civil war.

YPPH 4y ago
What you're missing is that "One China" is now a mere diplomatic fiction. The only reason the US and Taiwan insist on it is to avoid unnecessary escalation with China. But, as a matter of fact, Taiwan is a completely independent, sovereign and autonomous state, over which China has absolutely no legal or practical control.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  And that is fiction which has held the peace for 70 years
- sofixa 4y ago
  That's true, but as far as the world is concerned, Taiwan is de jure part of the One and only China, which is the PRC as of now. And of course the PRC has zero desire to recognise the fact that Taiwan is an independent country. So the status quo here, same as the one between the Koreas, is basically the only way things can remain peaceful until some drastic change happens (e.g. the PRC falling).
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
US, sadly, have always supported the right wingers against "the commies", no matter the consequences. When they started to support Taiwan in 1945, Chiang Kai-shek was a nationalist who imposed the martial law on Taiwan for 40 years (until the end of the 1980s!), waiting to strike back and regain "full control of China" (that's how One China principle was born, RPC has nothing to do with it! it was even in the ROC Constitution until 1992!) Nixon changed everything when he visited mainland China and talked to Mao in 1972, that lead to the US-China trade agreement of 1979. Until 1972 US had an agreement with Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan "temporary" government was the only recognized China, they were bound to protect it in case of attack, they supported his claims of reunification under his ruling and the UN seat for China was that of Taiwan, even though 99% of the people of China lived on mainland. USA has been very ambiguous since then, on one side they acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China and does not challenge that position, on the other they are formally Taiwan allied, but there's no more an US embassy in Taipei and no Taiwanese embassy in Washington. They even moved their "One China" capital from Taipei to Beijing. Reminder: indigenous people of Taiwan are only 2% of the original population, the rest is 97% Han Chinese, so one China is quite an accurate description. They only differ about the alliances they made, but the mythological example of freedom for Asian countries that Taiwan should be, is just a myth https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/nanjing/622671/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/na... (2016, long before the actual crisis) Also, 2021 referendum on pork ban from USA shows that to keep having the support of USA, the ruling political party in Taiwan has to to satisfy their demands, even when it (potentially) poses a risk for the entire Taiwanese population. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-16/pork-referendum-poses-test-for-strengthening-u-s-taiwan-ties https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-16/pork-refe... USA are not there as mere observers, but as strongly interested party, with deep economical interests. And to exploit cheap labor, that made the fortune of Apple with their iPhone. The truth is that until not long ago, Taiwan had access to better weapons thanks to the USA that compensated for the smaller army. Their technological superiority combined with the threat of US navy showing up at the border kept China at bay and forced them to think twice before trying to retake Taiwan. Now that's not true anymore.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]