5 ms·

China generally feels as though it was 'left out' of the modernization of politics that occurred in the mid-20th Century (and they have a point). For example,

by RC_ITR 3y ago

China generally feels as though it was 'left out' of the modernization of politics that occurred in the mid-20th Century (and they have a point). For example, [0] The 1958 Convention on the High Seas set the rules around Maritime borders that most countries follow to this day. At the time, the PRC was not a member of the UN, the ROC (i.e. Taiwan) was [1]. As a result, a current controversy is China's claim to large parts of the South China Sea [2] Lots of issues like this emerge, since China sees itself as a ascendent world power who was unfairly excluded from decision making during the most critical parts of recent history. The problem China is facing in pushing this narrative, to be frank, is that they don't exactly play nice with neighbors and potential allies, so the US happily comes in and allies itself with countries skeptical of China. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line

astrange 3y ago
> The problem China is facing in pushing this narrative, to be frank, is that they don't exactly play nice with neighbors and potential allies China is remarkably bad at diplomacy and external PR (whether it's overt or propaganda); their diplomats are mostly concerned with showing off to their bosses at home, which is why react to nearly everything with straight up insults. (i.e. "wolf warrior diplomacy")
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  presumably thats why they pulled one of their top diplomats recently -- a lot of questionable signals sent
godelski 3y ago
> China generally feels as though it was 'left out' of the modernization of politics that occurred in the mid-20th Century (and they have a point) I'm not sure they have a point. They were not nearly as powerful of a country back then. Here's the GDPs of several countries from 1960 to 1980[0]. I also literally have to remove the US because adding it makes it impossible to differentiate the others. 1960-1962 they were also declining. I mean we would laugh at Canada if they made a complaint about being "left out" (read: were able to participate but no one really cared) because Canada has no leverage. To make matters worse, the analogy is more akin to being upset that your rich neighbor is not taking your financial advice while you are standing in front of all your savings that you have lit on fire and are actively searching for more cash to add. See the Korean War (1950-1953), First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Hundred Flowers Campaign (1956-1957), Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961), Sino-Soviet split (1961–1989), Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Red August, and so on. China was not a stable country at the time. It sided against the interests of the most powerful groups at the time (choosing Communism over Capitalism/Democracy), and to make matters worse didn't even align itself with the other major power that was opposing "the West" (USSR). OF COURSE China was "left out." It would have been insane to "include" them just the same way it would be insane to "include" Liechtenstein. It is also insane to be upset about no one taking you seriously when you were a nobody, even if you now became a somebody. It's frustrating, I get it, but it is a silly notion to think that your status today warrants others taking you seriously in the past. Those are two different people just as those are two different Chinas. [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1981&locations=CN-GB-FR-DE-CA&start=1960 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1981...
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  The 'winners' of WWII were given priority in the UN, and the exiled government of Taiwan represented the whole of China. The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Many more people fought for the Allies in China than those that left for Taiwan.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Both matter, but more importantly, both are highly correlated. But you're right that GDP is being used as a proxy for a much larger picture that is much more difficult to quantify. My point is really that at the time China was in a downturn and deeply unstable as it was remaking itself. That at that time they had no business being a major player and would be at least as silly were Canada to make a similar complaint.
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      Again, Taiwan, a much smaller entity was given that power on behalf of China. Everyone agreed China should be a major player, the West just chose a government in exile to represent them. In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? I encourage you to study WWII a bit deeper if you think China was merely a peripheral player. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
      - godelski 3y ago
        > In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? Yes, because 1) Taiwan sided with the major powers (democracy/West) and 2) one could make compelling arguments that Taiwan was more stable. Obviously there is more to this. And my take is far from being centered around GDP. I specifically mentioned that I was using it as a proxy for a larger evaluation that was happening. I do not feel compelled to make this explicit a third time. You're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of my first comment to make a meaningful response, especially when your reference to the Second Sino-Japanese War adds to my comment, not detracts. I was just focusing on a different period. It is not a productive conversation is you ignore 80% of my claim.

by RC_ITR 3y ago

astrange 3y ago

> The problem China is facing in pushing this narrative, to be frank, is that they don't exactly play nice with neighbors and potential allies China is remarkably bad at diplomacy and external PR (whether it's overt or propaganda); their diplomats are mostly concerned with showing off to their bosses at home, which is why react to nearly everything with straight up insults. (i.e. "wolf warrior diplomacy")

red-iron-pine 3y ago
presumably thats why they pulled one of their top diplomats recently -- a lot of questionable signals sent

godelski 3y ago

> China generally feels as though it was 'left out' of the modernization of politics that occurred in the mid-20th Century (and they have a point) I'm not sure they have a point. They were not nearly as powerful of a country back then. Here's the GDPs of several countries from 1960 to 1980[0]. I also literally have to remove the US because adding it makes it impossible to differentiate the others. 1960-1962 they were also declining. I mean we would laugh at Canada if they made a complaint about being "left out" (read: were able to participate but no one really cared) because Canada has no leverage. To make matters worse, the analogy is more akin to being upset that your rich neighbor is not taking your financial advice while you are standing in front of all your savings that you have lit on fire and are actively searching for more cash to add. See the Korean War (1950-1953), First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Hundred Flowers Campaign (1956-1957), Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961), Sino-Soviet split (1961–1989), Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Red August, and so on. China was not a stable country at the time. It sided against the interests of the most powerful groups at the time (choosing Communism over Capitalism/Democracy), and to make matters worse didn't even align itself with the other major power that was opposing "the West" (USSR). OF COURSE China was "left out." It would have been insane to "include" them just the same way it would be insane to "include" Liechtenstein. It is also insane to be upset about no one taking you seriously when you were a nobody, even if you now became a somebody. It's frustrating, I get it, but it is a silly notion to think that your status today warrants others taking you seriously in the past. Those are two different people just as those are two different Chinas. [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1981&locations=CN-GB-FR-DE-CA&start=1960 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1981...

RC_ITR 3y ago
The 'winners' of WWII were given priority in the UN, and the exiled government of Taiwan represented the whole of China. The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Many more people fought for the Allies in China than those that left for Taiwan.
- godelski 3y ago
  > The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Both matter, but more importantly, both are highly correlated. But you're right that GDP is being used as a proxy for a much larger picture that is much more difficult to quantify. My point is really that at the time China was in a downturn and deeply unstable as it was remaking itself. That at that time they had no business being a major player and would be at least as silly were Canada to make a similar complaint.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    Again, Taiwan, a much smaller entity was given that power on behalf of China. Everyone agreed China should be a major player, the West just chose a government in exile to represent them. In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? I encourage you to study WWII a bit deeper if you think China was merely a peripheral player. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
    - godelski 3y ago
      > In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? Yes, because 1) Taiwan sided with the major powers (democracy/West) and 2) one could make compelling arguments that Taiwan was more stable. Obviously there is more to this. And my take is far from being centered around GDP. I specifically mentioned that I was using it as a proxy for a larger evaluation that was happening. I do not feel compelled to make this explicit a third time. You're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of my first comment to make a meaningful response, especially when your reference to the Second Sino-Japanese War adds to my comment, not detracts. I was just focusing on a different period. It is not a productive conversation is you ignore 80% of my claim.