5 ms·

> The reason why the US doesn't like China is because the US dislikes the idea of being the #2 economy and losing control. This comment gets thrown around a lo

> The reason why the US doesn't like China is because the US dislikes the idea of being the #2 economy and losing control. This comment gets thrown around a lot but oversimplifies things. First, in the 90s, 2000s, and some of the 2010s ‘the US’ was China’s biggest cheerleader, investor, and supporter. Most US elites knew China would eventually become a bigger economy due to their 4x larger population, and were ok with it as long as they got to share in the wealth creation. To the extent those folks were the decision makers and thus ‘the US’, they didn’t dislike the idea of being the #2 economy. Second, sure the US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century. And rightly so. There is zero chance that a cult of personality totalitarian dictator like Xi Jinping is ever going to make anything broadly better for the entire world than what the US created, despite its mistakes and flaws along the way. None. It’s completely legitimate for the US to not want to lose control of that, which would mean losing some or all of it to something worse. I don’t agree with everything the US govt does - Iraq was a travesty, and I have no idea what went on with Libya, or what is going on with Syria, for example. But there’s a 0% chance that a world dominated by Xi Jinping and the CCP would be better.

senttoschool 4y ago
[flagged]
- concordDance 4y ago
  > The first instinct for the Chinese is to negotiate The difference in behaviour seems more like an "is all you have is a hammer" thing. The fact that China can't decide to randomly bomb Nigeria is a big factor in it not randomly bombing Nigeria and the fact that France could easily bomb Lybia is a big factor in it actually bombing Lybia.
- rl3 4y ago
  >The first instinct for the Chinese is to negotiate. Perhaps you should ask the Uyghurs how their negotiations are going.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  This 1/3 (roughly 2.3B people) seems like about the most unlikely statistic I’ve ever seen. 2/3 of the world live in the top 10 counties, which include the US, and none of which had the US had any military activity in. The rest of the 200 countries make up the 1/3 you claim. Surely you don’t mean the US is carpet bombing everywhere? I suspect you might have been fed a bit of propaganda somewhere, or you’re over quantifying your emotional stance.
- hepinhei 4y ago
  They negotiated a lot in Tiananmen Square, Hong Kong more recently and Taiwan in the near future. Imagine the Capitol attack in China, it would be a massacre
  - kelipso 4y ago
    China has nuclear weapons, so obviously direct attacks on China are inadvisable. Same rules don't apply to countries without nukes.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "The first instinct for the Chinese is to negotiate." Not within China itself, no. I think it is useful to judge a country, regime etc. by the ways it treats its own citizens when there is any disagreement between them and the government. The power imbalance between an individual citizen and the government lends itself towards abuse quite naturally. By this standard, the US is not doing exactly great, especially towards certain ethnicities, and many European countries are better off; but China is much, much worse. If someone wantonly isolates entire cities to stop the spread of Omicron and throws dissenters into prison or "reeducates" Muslims in camps, I don't want them to have any more power on the international scene than they already do. If only because that could inspire other countries and their politicians to behave more like Mr. Xi and his party.
Emma_Goldman 4y ago
>"Second, sure the US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century. And rightly so." Which has been the justification every hegemonic power has offered when working to undermine a rising power. Whose rules are they, and who do they benefit? Who has most egregiously exempted themselves from the rules without consequence? I agree that 'a world dominated by Xi Xinping' would be worse - though it's not clear they have any aspiration to global primacy, like the US did post-WW2 - but that's no reason to peddle myths about American exceptionalism.
- mlindner 4y ago
  The world has benefited far more than the US ever did. The "rules based order" was never created to benefit the US, if anywhere, it was created by the US to benefit Europe and East Asia to highly encourage a World War 2 to never occur again. China has benefited from this order more than the US ever has. It brought them out of poverty. Now they want to discard it now they've achieved some measure of regional power.
- whinenot 4y ago
  They benefit the world. - Have you ever considered how much of your stuff comes via shipping lanes protected by the US Navy? Somali pirates got to FAFO what the USN thinks of pirates and we all see how that money making scheme has resonated around the globe. - No US support = no Ukraine today (full stop) - Is Taiwan still an independent country?
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  > Whose rules are they, and who do they benefit? Ask what’s left of the US middle class that, then ask the new Chinese middle class the same question. In terms of pure quantity of people benefiting, China wins - beneficiaries were hundreds of millions of Chinese who rose out of poverty, the capital owners in both China and US, and the CCP. Losers were the US middle class, which was one of the main reasons for the rise of Trump, and the US political system as a result of that.
_pjx9 4y ago
As I understand the history, the US started supporting China around the time of the Carter administration when Deng Xiaoping was in power. That's when China reformed to incorporate much more capitalist aspects in their economy. The Americans thought this was "their guy" who would bring capitalist democracy to China. Unfortunately they were mistaken, the CCP never had any intention of losing grasp of its authoritarian rule. > US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century. > despite its mistakes and flaws along the way "Mistakes and flaws" is one hell of an understatement. The global suppression of any leftist or communist leaning/related movements (operation CONDOR et al. ). The funding of guerilla and other violent groups in order to install US-friendly governments, or simply exterminate leftists (Contras, Indonesia in 1965). The installation or support of many dictators who massacred and sacked their own people (Noriega, Pinochet, throughout South America). The outright invasion of a few countries who didn't play ball. The modern US is relatively harmless, and yes, a world dominated by the CCP would probably be worse. But let's please not forget what the US did to achieve its current world order.
vasac 4y ago
> Iraq was a travesty, and I have no idea what went on with Libya, or what is going on with Syria, for example. Beautifully spoken. Yet you still speak of peaceful, free and rules-based order.
- VulgarExigency 4y ago
  Exactly. "I have no idea of what I am talking about, but I will repeat American State Department propaganda regardless."
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  I believe it would be worse under the CCP. Power corrupts inevitably, and our best option usually comes down to choosing who/what is the lesser evil, the more constrained in their use of that power. As many mistakes as the US has made, give the CCP the power and reach of the US’s military and little or no opposition or constraints and we’ll be begging for the bad old days of US hegemony.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    This is stockholm syndrome. You have a proven evil (USA) and a hypothetical evil (China, based on USA propaganda and not your personal experience), yet you believe the hypothetical would be worse. By the way, it's CPC, not CCP.
    - SkyMarshal 4y ago
      CCP isn’t a hypothetical evil, it’s proven too. The only thing up for interpretation is which is the lesser of two evils.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        *CPC. UAS?
data-abuse 4y ago
This is close, but the specific verbiage that US leaders hoped for is that China would liberalize and transition to a democracy. In the 2010s, it became clear it wouldn't happen when Xi stepped into the position that he is in today. The US likes dealing with democracies because the US has so much know how in how to influence elections. The government and CIA has a long history of meddling in elections to get the outcome that is most beneficial for the US. Ultimately, this has built up many dictatorships around the world that violently suppress political opinions that are detrimental to the US national security. If you don't know what was going on the middle east with iraq, libya, and syria, read this[1]. After 9/11, before the dust settled, the US wanted to force a regime change in 7 countries that they had no proof was related to 9/11. The US decimated an entire region and sent them back to the stone age for unstated reasons. Please note, all of those countries were not democracies, so they couldn't meddle in elections for more favorable leaders. China and Xi have been smart enough to avoid a revolution/coup to become an American colony. https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/ https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >The US likes dealing with democracies because the US has so much know how in how to influence elections. The government and CIA has a long history of meddling in elections to get the outcome that is most beneficial for the US. Foreign elections only though. They would never steer or nudge the people here that would end up being their supervisors. We know that doesn't happen.
  - vjulian 4y ago
    Your comment is sarcasm, right?
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      Don’t you remember the last election was the “safest and most secure in history”?
fspeech 4y ago
"First, in the 90s, 2000s, and some of the 2010s ‘the US’ was China’s biggest cheerleader, investor, and supporter." Sounds a bit revisionist. Maybe you don't remember what Clinton called Bush Sr during his campaign. Back then the normal trade tariff was called "Most Favored Nation" status, a concept developed by the US in the 19th century and brought to Japan and China with gunboat diplomacy. China's status was reviewed annually by Congress and some members perennially threatened to take it away. So there was an annual wave of lobby effort on show to keep the status coupled with sweeteners from China like deals to buy Boeings etc. So they renamed MFN to PNTR to make it sound more innocuous, which it was. Only with Chinese accession to the WTO did the practice end. When Bush Jr. got into office, everyone was expecting him to get tougher on China, when Chinese GDP was one tenth of US. But then 9/11 happened.
t-3 4y ago
> rules-based order What rules are those?
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  The USA rules, obviously. And they can change them unilaterally whenever they like. Lawmaker cop and judge at the same time.
thewileyone 4y ago
> a world dominated by Xi Jinping and the CCP China has made no move to dominate the world as the West has continued to do throughout history. Even the Belt and Road Initiative is a trade initiative to benefit all participating nations. China isn't going to build military bases around the world, or force countries to adopt their political proclivities, unlike the US. As a communist country, China inherently believes that if all grow rich, all will benefit. This is completely unlike capitalism in which "there can be only one."

senttoschool 4y ago

[flagged]

concordDance 4y ago
> The first instinct for the Chinese is to negotiate The difference in behaviour seems more like an "is all you have is a hammer" thing. The fact that China can't decide to randomly bomb Nigeria is a big factor in it not randomly bombing Nigeria and the fact that France could easily bomb Lybia is a big factor in it actually bombing Lybia.
rl3 4y ago
>The first instinct for the Chinese is to negotiate. Perhaps you should ask the Uyghurs how their negotiations are going.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
This 1/3 (roughly 2.3B people) seems like about the most unlikely statistic I’ve ever seen. 2/3 of the world live in the top 10 counties, which include the US, and none of which had the US had any military activity in. The rest of the 200 countries make up the 1/3 you claim. Surely you don’t mean the US is carpet bombing everywhere? I suspect you might have been fed a bit of propaganda somewhere, or you’re over quantifying your emotional stance.
hepinhei 4y ago
They negotiated a lot in Tiananmen Square, Hong Kong more recently and Taiwan in the near future. Imagine the Capitol attack in China, it would be a massacre
- kelipso 4y ago
  China has nuclear weapons, so obviously direct attacks on China are inadvisable. Same rules don't apply to countries without nukes.
inglor_cz 4y ago
"The first instinct for the Chinese is to negotiate." Not within China itself, no. I think it is useful to judge a country, regime etc. by the ways it treats its own citizens when there is any disagreement between them and the government. The power imbalance between an individual citizen and the government lends itself towards abuse quite naturally. By this standard, the US is not doing exactly great, especially towards certain ethnicities, and many European countries are better off; but China is much, much worse. If someone wantonly isolates entire cities to stop the spread of Omicron and throws dissenters into prison or "reeducates" Muslims in camps, I don't want them to have any more power on the international scene than they already do. If only because that could inspire other countries and their politicians to behave more like Mr. Xi and his party.

Emma_Goldman 4y ago

>"Second, sure the US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century. And rightly so." Which has been the justification every hegemonic power has offered when working to undermine a rising power. Whose rules are they, and who do they benefit? Who has most egregiously exempted themselves from the rules without consequence? I agree that 'a world dominated by Xi Xinping' would be worse - though it's not clear they have any aspiration to global primacy, like the US did post-WW2 - but that's no reason to peddle myths about American exceptionalism.

mlindner 4y ago
The world has benefited far more than the US ever did. The "rules based order" was never created to benefit the US, if anywhere, it was created by the US to benefit Europe and East Asia to highly encourage a World War 2 to never occur again. China has benefited from this order more than the US ever has. It brought them out of poverty. Now they want to discard it now they've achieved some measure of regional power.
whinenot 4y ago
They benefit the world. - Have you ever considered how much of your stuff comes via shipping lanes protected by the US Navy? Somali pirates got to FAFO what the USN thinks of pirates and we all see how that money making scheme has resonated around the globe. - No US support = no Ukraine today (full stop) - Is Taiwan still an independent country?
SkyMarshal 4y ago
> Whose rules are they, and who do they benefit? Ask what’s left of the US middle class that, then ask the new Chinese middle class the same question. In terms of pure quantity of people benefiting, China wins - beneficiaries were hundreds of millions of Chinese who rose out of poverty, the capital owners in both China and US, and the CCP. Losers were the US middle class, which was one of the main reasons for the rise of Trump, and the US political system as a result of that.

_pjx9 4y ago

As I understand the history, the US started supporting China around the time of the Carter administration when Deng Xiaoping was in power. That's when China reformed to incorporate much more capitalist aspects in their economy. The Americans thought this was "their guy" who would bring capitalist democracy to China. Unfortunately they were mistaken, the CCP never had any intention of losing grasp of its authoritarian rule. > US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century. > despite its mistakes and flaws along the way "Mistakes and flaws" is one hell of an understatement. The global suppression of any leftist or communist leaning/related movements (operation CONDOR et al. ). The funding of guerilla and other violent groups in order to install US-friendly governments, or simply exterminate leftists (Contras, Indonesia in 1965). The installation or support of many dictators who massacred and sacked their own people (Noriega, Pinochet, throughout South America). The outright invasion of a few countries who didn't play ball. The modern US is relatively harmless, and yes, a world dominated by the CCP would probably be worse. But let's please not forget what the US did to achieve its current world order.

vasac 4y ago

> Iraq was a travesty, and I have no idea what went on with Libya, or what is going on with Syria, for example. Beautifully spoken. Yet you still speak of peaceful, free and rules-based order.

VulgarExigency 4y ago
Exactly. "I have no idea of what I am talking about, but I will repeat American State Department propaganda regardless."
SkyMarshal 4y ago
I believe it would be worse under the CCP. Power corrupts inevitably, and our best option usually comes down to choosing who/what is the lesser evil, the more constrained in their use of that power. As many mistakes as the US has made, give the CCP the power and reach of the US’s military and little or no opposition or constraints and we’ll be begging for the bad old days of US hegemony.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  This is stockholm syndrome. You have a proven evil (USA) and a hypothetical evil (China, based on USA propaganda and not your personal experience), yet you believe the hypothetical would be worse. By the way, it's CPC, not CCP.
  - SkyMarshal 4y ago
    CCP isn’t a hypothetical evil, it’s proven too. The only thing up for interpretation is which is the lesser of two evils.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      *CPC. UAS?

data-abuse 4y ago

This is close, but the specific verbiage that US leaders hoped for is that China would liberalize and transition to a democracy. In the 2010s, it became clear it wouldn't happen when Xi stepped into the position that he is in today. The US likes dealing with democracies because the US has so much know how in how to influence elections. The government and CIA has a long history of meddling in elections to get the outcome that is most beneficial for the US. Ultimately, this has built up many dictatorships around the world that violently suppress political opinions that are detrimental to the US national security. If you don't know what was going on the middle east with iraq, libya, and syria, read this[1]. After 9/11, before the dust settled, the US wanted to force a regime change in 7 countries that they had no proof was related to 9/11. The US decimated an entire region and sent them back to the stone age for unstated reasons. Please note, all of those countries were not democracies, so they couldn't meddle in elections for more favorable leaders. China and Xi have been smart enough to avoid a revolution/coup to become an American colony. https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/ https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
>The US likes dealing with democracies because the US has so much know how in how to influence elections. The government and CIA has a long history of meddling in elections to get the outcome that is most beneficial for the US. Foreign elections only though. They would never steer or nudge the people here that would end up being their supervisors. We know that doesn't happen.
- vjulian 4y ago
  Your comment is sarcasm, right?
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    Don’t you remember the last election was the “safest and most secure in history”?

fspeech 4y ago

"First, in the 90s, 2000s, and some of the 2010s ‘the US’ was China’s biggest cheerleader, investor, and supporter." Sounds a bit revisionist. Maybe you don't remember what Clinton called Bush Sr during his campaign. Back then the normal trade tariff was called "Most Favored Nation" status, a concept developed by the US in the 19th century and brought to Japan and China with gunboat diplomacy. China's status was reviewed annually by Congress and some members perennially threatened to take it away. So there was an annual wave of lobby effort on show to keep the status coupled with sweeteners from China like deals to buy Boeings etc. So they renamed MFN to PNTR to make it sound more innocuous, which it was. Only with Chinese accession to the WTO did the practice end. When Bush Jr. got into office, everyone was expecting him to get tougher on China, when Chinese GDP was one tenth of US. But then 9/11 happened.

t-3 4y ago

> rules-based order What rules are those?

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
The USA rules, obviously. And they can change them unilaterally whenever they like. Lawmaker cop and judge at the same time.

thewileyone 4y ago

> a world dominated by Xi Jinping and the CCP China has made no move to dominate the world as the West has continued to do throughout history. Even the Belt and Road Initiative is a trade initiative to benefit all participating nations. China isn't going to build military bases around the world, or force countries to adopt their political proclivities, unlike the US. As a communist country, China inherently believes that if all grow rich, all will benefit. This is completely unlike capitalism in which "there can be only one."