8 ms·

From TFA: Hedging against a potential trade war if Trump became president. "Now Mr Trump, who makes no secret of his desire to hobble China, has a decent chanc

From TFA: Hedging against a potential trade war if Trump became president. "Now Mr Trump, who makes no secret of his desire to hobble China, has a decent chance of returning to power. In a confrontation, America could restrict its own food exports to China, which have rebounded since a truce of sorts was reached, and lean on other big suppliers such as Argentina and Brazil to do likewise. It could try to influence countries that sell metals to China, including Australia and Chile. And most of China’s commodity imports are shipped through a few straits and canals that America could seek to block for Chinese vessels by, say, posting military ships nearby. ... For now, the evidence suggests that hoarding is more likely to be a defensive measure, since it is not yet on a scale to be secure in a hot conflict" ---- Also, lots of people forget that Chinese who grew up in the 1990s tend to be fairly anti-American due to the Tiannamen Sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade along with the Collapse of the USSR and the Gulf War (the Iraqi Army used the same doctrine and weaponry as the PLA in the 1990s). There is a massive culture gap between Chinese and American leadership, and it has the potential of spiraling into conflict if diplomacy and openness in the relationship isn't managed. Both sides think the other is out to get them.

tivert 2y ago
> Also, lots of people forget that Chinese who grew up in the 1990s tend to be fairly anti-American due to the Tiannamen Sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade... Don't forget the propaganda around those things, which is an important factor. I was talking to a Chinese person about the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and they were certain the US never apologized for it. However, they had to concede they had been mislead when I found a old C-SPAN clip of Clinton apologizing for it during a press conference. I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology.
- throw310822 2y ago
  Given what the gp is talking about- colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China, and even blocking sea passages to prevent shipments from reaching them (an act of war)- I don't see why Chinese people need any propaganda to hate the US. Reality is more than enough.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    > colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China > Reality is more than enough Except it's all hypothetical?
    - throw310822 2y ago
      True, but how would the US feel about a country throwing around the possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes? Do you think US citizens would feel good towards such a country? Not to mention that of course the US have been waging a commercial war with China already for several years.
      - qwytw 2y ago
        > but how would the US feel about a country You mean about anonymous individuals (who might or might not be citizens of that given country) throwing around that idea on an online forum? But I'll try not being facetious. I do of course understand your point, even if I do think you overdramatizing it. Yes US has been waging a commercial war with China, just like China was waging a war with the US. I don't really see how is the US the clear aggressor here (of course it mainly has itself to blame for entering into this unsustainable relationship with China to begin with; however I still strongly believe that in relative terms China benefited significantly more from US/rest of the developed outsourcing much of their industrial/etc. production to China than the other way around, though). And obviously China is a clear aggressor in certain aspects (e.g. how would as British citizen if Germany/France/etc. started threatening to invade your island over Brexit?). If that's not a good analogy we could use Ireland and Britain instead. > possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes Anyway, this is sounds extremely far fetched. Orthogonal to what the US was and is still doing; I don't think any country did more to keep global shipping routes open for the 50+ years or so. Blockading China would be the equivalent of purposefully shutting yourself in the gut (even if we ignore any potential military reaction)
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      China can see the West imposing sanctions on Russia and pressuring other countries to join with secondary sanctions.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  I’d venture a guess that there are some folks that are more mad about the bombing itself than the perceived lack of apology for the bombing.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    Moving goalposts. The claim was they never apologized, and they did.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? How does that work in linear time considering the bombing itself happened before a window for apology?
      - tivert 2y ago
        > They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? I think the GP was saying you moved the goalposts. And the perceived lack of apology was an important factor in this person's (long past) anger. I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter, and I wouldn't be so mad about the harm itself, but rather the disrespect of not apologizing.
        jrflowers 2y ago
        > I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter… If somebody bombed my embassy I would be mad at them. If they didn’t apologize, I would probably be more mad at them. If they did apologize, I could reasonably be less mad at them for bombing my embassy but I could be reasonably forgiven for still being somewhat mad. Because my embassy got bombed.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology Yep! The government even turned a blind eye to anti-American protests at the time - barely a couple years after Tiannamen.
- maxglute 2y ago
  >ignoring the apology US apology was plastered all over local news. They did delay broadcast for a a few days, by which time protests against US embassy already began. Delay got protestors to get rage out of system. I was in BJ at the time, very few locals believed apology - this was few years after clinton sent 2 CVGs through TW strait. Also important to note, PRC gov also unlikely to have believed in apology if background that PRC using belgrade embassy to move downed F117 material. In which case US apology insincere, attack was purposeful (reports mission coordinated by CIA not NATO), but PRC weak at the time, not much can be done, same with 95 TW strait drama. Saying US gov apologized to Belgrade is like saying JP gov apologized for WWII, but kept going to Yasukuni shrine. Flip side of PRC weaponizing propaganda to ferment anti-US sentiment is US propaganda / selective reporting / decontextualizing pretending PRC didn't have good reason to. Everyone uses media to direct influence propaganda on foreign policy. Ultimately, Belgrade just another US intervention effort against PRC interest, queue Hainan EP3 drama a year later.
linearrust 2y ago
[flagged]
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > I'd imagine those who grew up before 1990s and after aren't fans either. What India became for the US in the 2010s is what China was for the US in the 70s and 80s - a regional power to help blunt a major competitor. Nixon's detente with China was done in order to blunt the USSR - with whom China had a border conflict that almost turned into a war in 1968 (sound familiar?) American soldiers were even posted in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia manning signals collection stations aimed at the USSR, and the US and China began technology transfers and shared research in the 1980s with the signing of the US-China Science and Technology Pact in 1979. The US-China relationship collapsed with the fall of the USSR, as that was the primary impetus for relations.
  - linearrust 2y ago
    [flagged]
- blackhawkC17 2y ago
  Who are these invisible elites you speak of? I won’t be surprised if you mention the fictional “deep state.”
- mint2 2y ago
  > Imagine people being dumb enough to believe that matters of geopolitical importance is determined by elected officials. Especially a 'reality star' like trump. Thanks for calling me dumb for thinking the POTUS has influence. Anyway, Speak for yourself, I can’t imagine being so far down the deep state rabbit hole to think the president and commander in chief is purely a vapid figurehead. Question: did you try to correct people when you saw them criticizing Biden or Trump for the Afghanistan pull out, since according to your comment they had nothing to do with it.
  - linearrust 2y ago

tivert 2y ago

> Also, lots of people forget that Chinese who grew up in the 1990s tend to be fairly anti-American due to the Tiannamen Sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade... Don't forget the propaganda around those things, which is an important factor. I was talking to a Chinese person about the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and they were certain the US never apologized for it. However, they had to concede they had been mislead when I found a old C-SPAN clip of Clinton apologizing for it during a press conference. I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology.

throw310822 2y ago
Given what the gp is talking about- colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China, and even blocking sea passages to prevent shipments from reaching them (an act of war)- I don't see why Chinese people need any propaganda to hate the US. Reality is more than enough.
- qwytw 2y ago
  > colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China > Reality is more than enough Except it's all hypothetical?
  - throw310822 2y ago
    True, but how would the US feel about a country throwing around the possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes? Do you think US citizens would feel good towards such a country? Not to mention that of course the US have been waging a commercial war with China already for several years.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      > but how would the US feel about a country You mean about anonymous individuals (who might or might not be citizens of that given country) throwing around that idea on an online forum? But I'll try not being facetious. I do of course understand your point, even if I do think you overdramatizing it. Yes US has been waging a commercial war with China, just like China was waging a war with the US. I don't really see how is the US the clear aggressor here (of course it mainly has itself to blame for entering into this unsustainable relationship with China to begin with; however I still strongly believe that in relative terms China benefited significantly more from US/rest of the developed outsourcing much of their industrial/etc. production to China than the other way around, though). And obviously China is a clear aggressor in certain aspects (e.g. how would as British citizen if Germany/France/etc. started threatening to invade your island over Brexit?). If that's not a good analogy we could use Ireland and Britain instead. > possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes Anyway, this is sounds extremely far fetched. Orthogonal to what the US was and is still doing; I don't think any country did more to keep global shipping routes open for the 50+ years or so. Blockading China would be the equivalent of purposefully shutting yourself in the gut (even if we ignore any potential military reaction)
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    China can see the West imposing sanctions on Russia and pressuring other countries to join with secondary sanctions.
jrflowers 2y ago
I’d venture a guess that there are some folks that are more mad about the bombing itself than the perceived lack of apology for the bombing.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Moving goalposts. The claim was they never apologized, and they did.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? How does that work in linear time considering the bombing itself happened before a window for apology?
    - tivert 2y ago
      > They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? I think the GP was saying you moved the goalposts. And the perceived lack of apology was an important factor in this person's (long past) anger. I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter, and I wouldn't be so mad about the harm itself, but rather the disrespect of not apologizing.
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        > I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter… If somebody bombed my embassy I would be mad at them. If they didn’t apologize, I would probably be more mad at them. If they did apologize, I could reasonably be less mad at them for bombing my embassy but I could be reasonably forgiven for still being somewhat mad. Because my embassy got bombed.
alephnerd 2y ago
> I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology Yep! The government even turned a blind eye to anti-American protests at the time - barely a couple years after Tiannamen.
maxglute 2y ago
>ignoring the apology US apology was plastered all over local news. They did delay broadcast for a a few days, by which time protests against US embassy already began. Delay got protestors to get rage out of system. I was in BJ at the time, very few locals believed apology - this was few years after clinton sent 2 CVGs through TW strait. Also important to note, PRC gov also unlikely to have believed in apology if background that PRC using belgrade embassy to move downed F117 material. In which case US apology insincere, attack was purposeful (reports mission coordinated by CIA not NATO), but PRC weak at the time, not much can be done, same with 95 TW strait drama. Saying US gov apologized to Belgrade is like saying JP gov apologized for WWII, but kept going to Yasukuni shrine. Flip side of PRC weaponizing propaganda to ferment anti-US sentiment is US propaganda / selective reporting / decontextualizing pretending PRC didn't have good reason to. Everyone uses media to direct influence propaganda on foreign policy. Ultimately, Belgrade just another US intervention effort against PRC interest, queue Hainan EP3 drama a year later.

linearrust 2y ago

[flagged]

alephnerd 2y ago
> I'd imagine those who grew up before 1990s and after aren't fans either. What India became for the US in the 2010s is what China was for the US in the 70s and 80s - a regional power to help blunt a major competitor. Nixon's detente with China was done in order to blunt the USSR - with whom China had a border conflict that almost turned into a war in 1968 (sound familiar?) American soldiers were even posted in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia manning signals collection stations aimed at the USSR, and the US and China began technology transfers and shared research in the 1980s with the signing of the US-China Science and Technology Pact in 1979. The US-China relationship collapsed with the fall of the USSR, as that was the primary impetus for relations.
- linearrust 2y ago
  [flagged]
blackhawkC17 2y ago
Who are these invisible elites you speak of? I won’t be surprised if you mention the fictional “deep state.”
mint2 2y ago
> Imagine people being dumb enough to believe that matters of geopolitical importance is determined by elected officials. Especially a 'reality star' like trump. Thanks for calling me dumb for thinking the POTUS has influence. Anyway, Speak for yourself, I can’t imagine being so far down the deep state rabbit hole to think the president and commander in chief is purely a vapid figurehead. Question: did you try to correct people when you saw them criticizing Biden or Trump for the Afghanistan pull out, since according to your comment they had nothing to do with it.
- linearrust 2y ago