5 ms·

I think the unsaid part is that the US by and large upheld navigable seas for everyone up until recently but we can't expect this from China. (And regrettably f

I think the unsaid part is that the US by and large upheld navigable seas for everyone up until recently but we can't expect this from China. (And regrettably from recent events, maybe not from the US either.)

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
csomar 5mo ago
They didn’t upheld navigable seas for everyone. Sanctions are a thing. They upheld the seas for anyone that wanted to join and play by its rules.
- nixon_why69 5mo ago
  Slightly separate issues. We didn't interdict Iranian tankers at sea until very recently, despite the sanctions. But we are doing it now, of course. That said, China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan. They did business with Pinochet's Argentina in the 80s, while Argentina was throwing socialists out of helicopters and China was still fully communist. Unless you're a pure American forpol shill, there's no reason to suspect they'd restrict free passage in their area.
  - actionfromafar 5mo ago
    I expect China to do sanctions on anyone doing business with Taiwan.
    - nixon_why69 5mo ago
      They've had 75 years to prove you right, and so far they haven't.
      - big_youth 5mo ago
        They didn't really become a global power until recently. Even during my youth in the 2000's it was 'China is rising', 75 years ago they were extremely poor, mostly agrarian and recovering from decades of war and revolution. 2026 China is a completely different beast.
  - zbentley 5mo ago
    > China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan ...and Tibet, North Korea, Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Aksai Chin/Arunachal Pradesh, and others.
yogthos 5mo ago
Why cant' we expect this from China which is the main trading partner for the vast majority of the world and relies on navigable seas exactly?
- jlaternman 5mo ago
  Main trading partner for the vast majority of the world is not a trust signal. It is an effect of strategy. Relies on navigable seas means nothing in the context of seas becoming dominated by China. Then, they would have that, simply not in a cooperative way. We could expect China to be extremely aggressive in asserting control over waters they dominate, because that is what they have done for decades. As aggressive as they can be.
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    Aggressive as they can be? Can you list the wars they started over the last few decades? They have a particular thing with Taiwan and they also insist on having a clear path to Singapore, which is a reasonable ask if you look at a map. Other than that, their record for decades has been non-interventionism. They are way less aggressive than every other security council member.
    - jlaternman 5mo ago
      A more accurate formulation would be their strategy for decades has been asserting commercial influence on their political opponents. Going back further, this chimes with their overall strategy. From the center, expand out. Hard when safest, but soft and covert when more effective. Always a form of aggression. South China Sea aggression lists (I didn't say anything about a list of wars with names): - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sought-in-south-china-sea-standoff.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-res... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-navy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-se... - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/south-china-sea-philippines.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/so... Starting conventional wars in the style of Putin isn't necessarily the sign of good will or peace you appear to accept it as. And aggression can be defined in different ways. Aggression to hold their own order inside their current territories is another aspect of this. Suppression of their own populace is an aggression that exists around the clock, and has notably expanded in Hong Kong to disgusting levels in the last few years. Threats to world powers who dare to speak up are another one, such as the one during Covid that threatened bluntly to pluck out one of the five eyes if they're not careful with their words to protect freedoms in HK. – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 Aggression within their own ranks is also visible, such as removing major military leaders recently under suspicion of not being "all in" in terms of loyalty to the CCP's wider project (whatever that is). Chinese companies thrive in an entrepreneurial framework, then their leaders are routinely kidnapped if they speak out against the party's aims. Minority communities are sent to camps and sterilised. Tibet is under intense surveillance and constant dictates to move ancient towns somewhere else if it's in the way of say a new dam they want to build. This deeply internal and covertly outwards aggression cannot stand. It's evil incarnate. Sneaky and covered over just-enough, but visible enough to see the nature clearly.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

csomar 5mo ago

They didn’t upheld navigable seas for everyone. Sanctions are a thing. They upheld the seas for anyone that wanted to join and play by its rules.

nixon_why69 5mo ago
Slightly separate issues. We didn't interdict Iranian tankers at sea until very recently, despite the sanctions. But we are doing it now, of course. That said, China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan. They did business with Pinochet's Argentina in the 80s, while Argentina was throwing socialists out of helicopters and China was still fully communist. Unless you're a pure American forpol shill, there's no reason to suspect they'd restrict free passage in their area.
- actionfromafar 5mo ago
  I expect China to do sanctions on anyone doing business with Taiwan.
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    They've had 75 years to prove you right, and so far they haven't.
    - big_youth 5mo ago
      They didn't really become a global power until recently. Even during my youth in the 2000's it was 'China is rising', 75 years ago they were extremely poor, mostly agrarian and recovering from decades of war and revolution. 2026 China is a completely different beast.
- zbentley 5mo ago
  > China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan ...and Tibet, North Korea, Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Aksai Chin/Arunachal Pradesh, and others.

yogthos 5mo ago

Why cant' we expect this from China which is the main trading partner for the vast majority of the world and relies on navigable seas exactly?

jlaternman 5mo ago
Main trading partner for the vast majority of the world is not a trust signal. It is an effect of strategy. Relies on navigable seas means nothing in the context of seas becoming dominated by China. Then, they would have that, simply not in a cooperative way. We could expect China to be extremely aggressive in asserting control over waters they dominate, because that is what they have done for decades. As aggressive as they can be.
- nixon_why69 5mo ago
  Aggressive as they can be? Can you list the wars they started over the last few decades? They have a particular thing with Taiwan and they also insist on having a clear path to Singapore, which is a reasonable ask if you look at a map. Other than that, their record for decades has been non-interventionism. They are way less aggressive than every other security council member.
  - jlaternman 5mo ago
    A more accurate formulation would be their strategy for decades has been asserting commercial influence on their political opponents. Going back further, this chimes with their overall strategy. From the center, expand out. Hard when safest, but soft and covert when more effective. Always a form of aggression. South China Sea aggression lists (I didn't say anything about a list of wars with names): - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sought-in-south-china-sea-standoff.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-res... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-navy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-se... - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/south-china-sea-philippines.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/so... Starting conventional wars in the style of Putin isn't necessarily the sign of good will or peace you appear to accept it as. And aggression can be defined in different ways. Aggression to hold their own order inside their current territories is another aspect of this. Suppression of their own populace is an aggression that exists around the clock, and has notably expanded in Hong Kong to disgusting levels in the last few years. Threats to world powers who dare to speak up are another one, such as the one during Covid that threatened bluntly to pluck out one of the five eyes if they're not careful with their words to protect freedoms in HK. – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 Aggression within their own ranks is also visible, such as removing major military leaders recently under suspicion of not being "all in" in terms of loyalty to the CCP's wider project (whatever that is). Chinese companies thrive in an entrepreneurial framework, then their leaders are routinely kidnapped if they speak out against the party's aims. Minority communities are sent to camps and sterilised. Tibet is under intense surveillance and constant dictates to move ancient towns somewhere else if it's in the way of say a new dam they want to build. This deeply internal and covertly outwards aggression cannot stand. It's evil incarnate. Sneaky and covered over just-enough, but visible enough to see the nature clearly.