Hacker News Reader

Comment by pxc | Hacker News Reader

I am so tired of China being used to stoke American jingoism, of politicians making a contest of who is really 'tough on China' and, most horrifyingly, of seeing other USians online practically salivate as they fantasize about a war with China.

It's some cold war boogieman horseshit. And it's depressing to watch here on Hacker News, too, any comments that question the beating of those war drums go dead.

Yesterday I heard someone bemoan the supposed lack of patriotism today, and wish we could be 'united' like we were after 9/11. You know, that time we rushed headlong into two useless forever wars that ended hundreds of thousands of human lives and brutally disrupted millions more. The time we saw Sikhs assaulted in the streets for daring to sort of look like Muslims in the eyes of uncultured hicks. And when the entire media apparatus, 'left' and 'right' rallied to pump out war propaganda for years and years.

Disgusting and depressing. And it's where I fear we're headed every time I see China in US headlines anymore.

View on HN

Can you please make your substantive points without going into fulmination or flamewar? Of course these are provocative topics and strong feelings are both natural and inevitable, but that makes it more important, not less, to stick to the rules. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

As a taiwanese who lurks on hacker news for many years but when I saw this post I had to make an account.

You are dead wrong, China is an enemy of the free world, pure and simple. South Koreans and Ukrainians would agree with me here. Especially since China has declared no limit friendship with russia

From your point of view, I can see how China is bad and the USA is good. But ask someone whose country got invaded by the USA or whose bloody dictator got supported by the USA. Over here in Latinamerica we still remember the horrible things that the USA did. It seems to me (but I could have a false perception) that China is a horrible bully in their corner of the world (nine dash line and, of course their will to invade Taiwan), but their foreign policy is order of magnitude less intrusive (i.e. they don't invade or topple countries on the other side of the world).

Every major country has their faults, but the US definitely has a larger surface area for these faults as the only superpower left. On the other hand, as the only superpower left, we're fortunate the US exists as a stabilizing factor for world peace, rather than colonizing the rest of the world like every superpower before it.

> rather than colonizing the rest of the world like every superpower before it.

I guess the colonialism has eased up in the last half-century or so. But the US definitely did our fair share.

EDIT maybe my fellow USians don't see them that way but they definitely were colonized - Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii.

I'm given to understand that the Marshall Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico are all free to choose to end their association with the USA anytime they like. What "colonies" does the USA have exactly?

The Compact of Free Association[1] in a nutshell mandates US financial, military, and geopolitical assistance and protections upon the sovereign countries of Palau, Micronesia, and Marshall Islands. These countries are independent of the USA and can end their association with the USA as they deem fit.

Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are an unincorporated territory[2] of the USA and are sovereign American territory.

Simply put: Puerto Rico, et al. cannot unilaterally end their association with the USA because they are part of the USA.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_Stat...

Colonialism still exists in a sense, but explicit force became unnecessary with the creation of the IMF and loan terms that allow for American and European firms to both extract resources and keep all the profits.

No one is forcing any country to take an IMF loan.

And if you think the IMF loans are so onerous, consider why Pakistan, which has allies in both China and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have lent it money in recent years, is going begging to the IMF instead.

And if the IMF is a tool of colonialism, why it is refusing to give money to Pakistan unless it agrees to measures such as the current administration not immediately using that money to fund a subsidy in oil prices right before an election. As opposed to the Saudis and Chinese who impose interest rates in the low 30%s, and acquire ownership of land and infrastructure when those payments are inevitably not made.

Countries usually take these loans in times of crisis. Not sure I'd blame them.

Where did you get 30% interest from?

Countries like the one I come from are developing at a rapid pace thanks to the IMF, World Bank, and American/European financial influence. There’s fair criticisms of the system, but asserting that america and Europe “extract resources and keep all the profits” is just lazy and ignorant rhetoric.

Lol, yeah, those aren't just faults. Destabilizing the entire middle east isn't just an oopsie you can write off, it's what you call "stabilizing" usually looks like. Your discourse is basically what everyone thinks of their own superpower, as long as they aren't on the receiving end of those "faults".

I'm not sure the Middle East would ever be stable on its own, unless you're saying the US was responsible for most of the conflicts on this list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_th...

That's what they did to Tibet for example and they absolutely are an extreme ongoing threat to Taiwan

What did they do to Tibet? The CIA tried to establish an independent Tibet so the US could have bases there, and later engaged in “Free Tibet” rhetoric meaning US weapons in Tibet, and China went to great expense to build a railroad to Lhasa to keep American weapons out of Tibet.

China doesn’t want US military bases on their side of the Himalayas. It remained an autonomous region until a bunch of clowns proposed putting US military assets there.

Tibet was independent from 1913 to 1950 invasion. You are talking about stuff that happened after the invasion. Tibet was part of Qing dynasty, rebelled when it collapsed, and was never part of ROC. It wasn’t recognized as independent but was definitely invaded by China.

It has similarities to Taiwan which is de facto independent but claimed by PRC.

Unrecognized independence during a civil war and world war isn’t much of a claim. Chiang Kai Shek was adamant it was part of China.

Tibet has 3 million people, most of who are subsistence farmers or nomadic herders. Comparisons with Taiwan are a bit much.

I get that the Dali Lama is a really nice guy, but even he admits no one in Tibet gives a shit about him and becoming a feudal lord via picking objects as a child is a bit nuts.

so if China invaded Tibet (which they did) for "strategic reasons", somehow implying "they had no choice" and therefore "it's not really an invasion", then all of the invasions and interventions the US has done in Central / South America, Middle East etc. all fall under that same rationale. There's always a "reason"

Life isn't a marvel movie. There are no good guys and bad guys. The USA doesn't have to be "good" for China to be "bad".

You say that there are no "good" and "bad" guys, but then go on stating that there are "bad" guys. Careful, almost committed a thoughtcrime here.

You people are impossible.

> their foreign policy is order of magnitude less intrusive

that's because they can't do it, not because they don't want to do it.

Let's see what happens when the investments made with the belt and road initiative gets nationalized.

The US has been around as a modern country longer than China - we have more than a century on them; China started the 20th century divided with several parts of itself colonized. China fought a civil war between the dominant Republic abd the communists, and might have been able to win if not for the Japanese invasion; post war, they didn't have the ability anymore to fight off Mao's revolution.

In other words the current Chinese government can trace it's power back about 70 years. For the US it's about 240. So it shouldn't be a surprise the US has done more bad things since it's in general had more time, especially as a major power in the world.

And US Cold war policy definitely had some serious missteps due to extreme paranoia about communism... US intervention in Iran (overthrew a democracy, paving the way for the revolution) and various Latin American countries definitely worked out poorly in hindsight, in addition to unethical methods (eg supporting the Contras). Honestly I'm shaky on most of the details, and I want to acknowledge these things happened. Most Americans have very limited knowledge of these past misdeeds - it's not something that's emphasized in schools, and happened before most of our lifetimes, and we don't see most of the consequences day to day... so the average American is content to be ignorant of it, and of course doesn't want to apologize or pay for it in any way.

I unfortunately don't see this changing. But I also don't trust China given their terrible human rights record; they just haven't had as much ability to operate around the world as the US has, in the past.

Also note that China's killed way more people in it's short history than the US did through it's entire 240 year history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine Tens of millions of dead in a short few years.

This is interesting, but my quick read: that was not the intent, but rather a combination of agricultural mismanagement and poor food distribution.

What about the great depression in the US? The dust bowl? Various bank runs in the 19th century? Hell, African-American deaths due to slavery? Civil war deaths? Deaths of native Americans in our various undeclared wars against them?

Probably China still has a higher number either way, but if we're going to do a fair comparison, we probably should compare percentages of the population. The US civil war killed a single digit percentage of US population at the time, so perhaps not as extreme as the great Chinese famine but still huge (it was the bloodiest war for US lives ever, by a huge margin)

I think you're making an unfair argument. It was rarely (if ever) the intent of the US to kill civilians in it's various wars it's done. You're making the "collateral damage" argument that is often used as a point to attack the US on. Be consistent.

As to all your examples, we could have a large discussion about each, but most are from the independent actions of the populace rather than government policy forcing deaths upon the populace at effective gun point. And none of them killed anywhere near the number that the great famine did. Most of them in fact killed zero people and just caused economic hardship. (Also while the American civil war killed 1%, the Chinese great famine killed over 10% in many areas.)

When farmers are dying of starvation and aren't allowed to eat the food that they're growing, you've gone seriously off the rails.

>rather a combination of agricultural mismanagement and poor food distribution.

And western countries embargoing/blockading Chinese food imports during an emerging food crisis.

American educators tend to gloss over inconvenient truths like America's role in that famine.

The U.S. hasn’t done anything to any country even close to being the equivalent of what China did in Tibet. Or is doing to the Uighurs in its own country.

And that’s a China that has had economic and military power at an international level for less than 2 decades.

All that being said, there’s no real point in comparing which one has been historically worse to determine who is destabilizing the world more in any given situation.

And while the political rhetoric in the US could be better, Chinese actions worldwide, are far more destabilizing than anything the US has been doing, especially since it got out of Iraq.

Interestingly, what’s happening in Pakistan (and Afghanistan) since the U.S. left Afghanistan shows that even what one could reasonably saw were clear negative actions by the U.S., such as its occupation of Afghanistan, may not have been as clear in hindsight.

Well arguably what America / Europe did to the native Americans was worse. And it's a shame in these current times when America could do with being the stand up ethical superpower there hasn't been a nationwide recognition of that.

This is a partial and partly formed view of mine. I don't have great knowledge of the history.

Native American Indians today enjoy sovereignty within their tribal lands as a consequence of the US doing horrible acts upon them, they are countries unto themselves in modern terms with the US representing them internationally in their stead for brevity's sake. Culturally they are revered as courageous natives of the land who deserve our respect (see: AH-64 Apache, et al.).

So please, educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.

> So please, educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.

As I finished my comment, it was a partly formed view and I don't have good knowledge of history. I was hoping for some more informed replies. I was hoping they'd come without insults too, so cheers for the disappointment.

Making a bold and uninformed claim and following it with an admission of ignorance doesn't absolve you of having made a bold and uninformed claim.

> I was hoping for some more informed replies.

You didn't ask for any.

It's not a bold claim to point to the treatment of indeginous people as bad and similar to what is happening in China. Nor is it ignorant to say it's something America or the rest of the new world is absolved of. Do I think that makes it ok for China or they shouldn't be called out and more about it? No, I don't think that at all. But it makes it a harder argument.

Another way to consider this is that America admits that Native American Indians were once wronged, made amends, and now pays respects to their storied histories and cultures and helps them find and secure their own places within the country and the world.

China, on the other hand, gives precisely zero fucks what wrongs happen to the peoples within its borders. All must serve the state and only the state, at the point of a gun.

I once again ask that you educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself. Basic knowledge and understanding are prerequisites to participating in worthwhile discussions. If you took that request as an insult, then that is your loss and certainly not my problem.

Native American Communities themselves do not seem to recognise the benefits of the US naming a helicopter after them as recompense for taking lands and breaking treaties.

https://www.powwows.com/issues-and-problems-facing-native-am...

They're not seeing the benefits of having "their lands" when those lands are still being exploited for resources by outsiders.

https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/culture-war-looms-for-r...

I'm not seeing much education or awreness in your comment.

US states actively ban history surrounding these topics to avoid hurting the feelings of the dominant society's offspring. You have to forgive some of the ignorance of centuries long domestic issues.

The world should also be very concerned about the current leader in China, who is currently re-writing the democratic traditions of China to remain in power indefinitely, which echoes the moves certain other leaders have made. This is, time and time again, a precursor to using military adventurism to justify and consolidate their grip on power.

If anything, people aren't worried enough. Being overly sensitive about a egregious spy balloon is not the problem that should be called out right now.

Uh, what democratic traditions of China?

They have some, possibly with Deng Xiaoping and that sort of era. Obviously Taiwan is democratic, but I'm not sure how much of that goes back to when the ROC controlled more of mainland China.

> I'm not sure how much of that goes back to when the ROC controlled more of mainland China.

Basically not at all. There was initially gonna be democracy, but then it was just warlords/generals controlling everything.

I mean ffs chiang kai shek stayed as president until 1975 when he died.

Taiwan didn't really become democratic until maybe 25-ish years ago.

Such as, term limits for those in power:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/11/592694991...

Not sure how democratic that is. It’s not like there were elections.

I agree, it's more akin to saying a King is elected by nobles...

Power sharing agreements between the powerful who are not accountable to the people isn't something I'd classify as "democratic".

I'd consider term limits to be anti-democratic anyway. A functioning democracy has the ability to boot politicians out, and the people within the democracy, not the law should be trusted to make that decision.

>> King is elected by nobles

As how the US president is selected by the electoral college. The system used today is a far cry from the original scheme. Look closely and the original doesn't look very democratic, even by the standards of the time. Democracy is an idea, a collection of principals. How it is actually implemented varies considerably.

The Electoral College is ultimately rooted in the American people. The number of electors is a direct copy of the number of Representatives and Senators in Congress, and the electors individually are determined by each state's government who are in turn elected directly by the people in those states.

The Electoral College itself exists as a way to help keep the Executive Branch separated from the Legislative Branch. Congress (aka the Legislative Branch) can step in in place of the Electoral College if the electors deadlock to a point of no recovery, but this is considered highly unusual and an undemocratic act because it violates the Separation of Powers safeguard.

I was thinking about various Kings during the War of the Roses when I wrote that.

But a better comparison would be the "election" of a Pope. It's only among Cardinals, who tend to vote for a Cardinal to become Pope. Even though a vote is taking place, we are not talking about a democracy.

As to which is closest to an ideal democracy in practice: America, Vatican City, or China, the contest in my mind is who is in second and third place, not first.

There are varying degrees of democratic systems possible within the context of a government. In the United States for example, Federal Senators used to be appointed by State legislators instead of being directly voted on by the people - in this case, a political body (State legislators) operated within a democratic framework to appoint Federal leaders.

There is a body of representation in China which votes on the next leader, which has rules to limit power within that system.

In the usage of the term "democracy" meaning "a group of people voting on outcomes" - China has democratic traditions within it's political system involving voting and consensus and limits of power. Part of these traditions included term limits on leadership which has been removed by the current leader (again, not unlike the way Putin removed term limits in the precursor to military adventurism).

The National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party has a history of just over 100 years and resembles other modern democratic structures like the Democratic/Republican National Conventions in the US. Voting is used to various degrees by party members and committee members. Many of the recent anti-democratic trends have limited who votes, and what information voters have access to. It is a shame that China is trending less democratic. It appears that one party systems is more susceptible to consolidation of power and cult of personality than western political systems.

You can have bits and pieces of democracy without actually fully having it, I think is the intent of the above post.

Like having armed forces with an allegiance to the ruling political party in a one party system instead of the country.

Well, at least the term limits in the top spot. It's not much, but in terms of a limit on the power of one person, it was about all they had. And now it's gone.

>re-writing the democratic traditions of China

Ha! "Democracy" (only approved ideologies need apply).

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yohanshi,

Thank you for leaving your comment here. You have many friends in the U.S. We are more resolved than ever to ensure your freedom.

I hope we have more who are resolved to not treat an entire country as an enemy based on no evidence at all

You have to be blind to modern geopolitics to say there’s no evidence at all

Evidence:

1. One balloon with something attached to it

2. In American airspace

3. The US government, that has a long, rich history of lying, said some things

We have nothing else to go off of. We have no reason to trust statements by the US government of these situations.

Look what we have here. US admitted it has zero link to Chinese espionage at all:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-14/us-says-m...

Thank god we had two weeks of deranged, rabid reporting about China being evil

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

https://youtu.be/xN0vUlljX0I?t=133

As a South Korean, well, I don't like the Chinese government either, but these aggressive rhetorics don't help. My own country was under decades of pro-American dictators, all the while conveniently enjoying the membership of the Free World(TM): at that point, what does "free" even mean?

I'm not saying America is the force of evil; it has done some nice things, and some other pretty horrible things. What I'm trying to say is: if you have a sitting superpower and a rising wannabe, and you view it as a fight between good and evil, then you are practically inviting horrible things to happen, "because otherwise the bad guys will win."

Think of all the horrible things that happened during the cold war.

It’s ironic to see a South Korean say this when all you need to do is look across the border to see what a Chinese supported alternative looks like.

The United States carpet bombed North Korea, destroying 90% of all structures in the country, killing 300,000 in the immediate bombing run, then sanctioned them into the stone age. The relative poverty of North Korea is not a consequence of Chinese support.

The relative poverty of North Korea is far from the only problem with North Korea, though.

The US did worse to Japan. Also South Korea was similarly carpet bombed in the process of re-taking it from the north as almost all territory was lost and the north almost won.

It's a consequence of the political system in North Korea and Chinese support. The industry of the north grew faster and was larger than the south after the war. Eventually the economy of South Korea overtook and then greatly surpassed the north. China support = not wanting the Americans to win but wanting to keep North Korea a poor subservient state. Is America as bad? Sometimes, but I think plurality of leadership thought in the West always tempers the worst instincts of their nation states.

Are you being serious right now? The sorry looks of North Korea has nothing to do with China's support and everything to do with the fact that America has been beating and sanctioning the shit out of it since the day of it's inception.

This kind of behavior followed by this kind of rhetorics is exactly why half-the-world hates you so much. Disgusting, I can't believe you aren't trolling right now.

North Korea's communist dictatorship would have been overthrown decades ago if not for China's support of it.

Your talk of China in relation to North Korea betrays your lack of historic and political knowledge. While China is it's only ally now, it wasn't always the case.

North Korea would relatively peacefully evolve from dictatorship if it wasn't for America's pressure. This is purely Newton's third law of geopolitics. Do you really think people would go like "yeah, please fuck us harder so we can topple our government" instead of consolidating around it against a much larger evil, that fucks with their livelihood much harder (you)?

Look at Afghanistan for example. Why do you think it reverted back to its baseline and why Taliban was able to assume control over the country so fast with almost no resistance just as soon as the US had withdrawn its troops?

Or take a look at practically the whole history of young Russian Federation, from supporting ISIS-like radical islamists during the second Chechen war, to most-recent achievement of turning so many hardcore anti-war people into pro-war just by letting them have a good look at your actions.

Cuba has little to none practical international support, and yet it is still "a communist dictatorship".

Or even a better example, that would probably be easier for you to process: take a look at WWII-period Great Britain. It was a total strict dictatorship shithole. And people were FINE with that, as long as it was an effective protection against Nazis.

To North Koreans (and so many other nations around the world) the US (and by extent, its allies) are the Nazis. Simply because you can't possibly dial your chauvinism down and ask yourselves some hard questions, like how come you feel like you have the right to fuck around on the other side of the globe.

Sadly, I don't even see a realistic scenario how things could change without triggering a WWIII: America + allies (15-20% world population) vs the rest of the world.

It's 100% fair to question the geopolitical morality of any nation, especially the US, that's fine - but - as a South Korean, maybe you should consider for half a second the 50 000 Americans that died so that you would not be living as a slave under Kim Jong-un at this very moment.

Aside from that more 'humanist' element, there is the geopolitical reality that your sovereignty is still depends on the US.

After a war - nations usually have autocratic leaders who oversee a couple of decades of reconstruction, that is normal, and for them to be 'pro American' in the contex that America literally saved your entire nation from being slaves, is understandable.

It's a bit hard to read what you have written, imagine what would happen if the US/West dropped support for literally you, either now or decades ago? Where would you be? Happy unification under democracy? My gosh.

If you can't see that Xi is operating on a different moral level than most of the free world including S. Korea, then I have bad news for you.

Putin invaded Ukraine because he thought it wold be a cake walk.

The best thing we can do to 'avoid war' is to project strength, not ambiguity. Xi is not irrational, and if Taiwan is extremely well defended he won't invade.

In fact, it's relatively easy to deter China if other nations just have some basic political courage and a basic coherent strategy, then we can mostly live happily together.

(FYI I'm not American)

> so that you would not be living as a slave under Kim Jong-un at this very moment.

Leaving politics aside, that's some very flawed alternative history thinking there.

The alternative world in which (say) Korean War era "Domino Theory" wasn't so aggresively pursued with military action and so many former Western colonies in Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, etc) weren't defended from finding their own path post WWII is a world where factors that created an extreme North Korea, and Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. are absent.

Who's to say where the world would be had Kissinger and friends not been so hawkish.

In Korea at least:

   Nearly 5 million people died. More than half of these–about 10 percent of Korea's prewar population–were civilians. (This rate of civilian casualties was higher than World War II's and the Vietnam War's.) Almost 40,000 Americans died in action in Korea, and more than 100,000 were wounded.

Five million would still be alive, fewer families would have been torn asunder, and the < %1 of the deceased that were US service personal would not have died.

Not being in the Freeworld might look something like North Korea and not having a forum like this ?

To my knowledge, Taiwan had a similar situation before the end of White Terror in early 90s. The US apparently had no problem with pro-American dictators.

The cold war against the Soviet Union was an attempt to manage a communist power insistent on expanding its borders through coups, annexations, and puppet states. The whole point of a cold war is to stop a country from committing territorial aggression, while preventing an escalation to a hot war. It's a deeply moral thing to do.

In this sense, the cold war against the Soviet Union was profoundly successful. Let's hope this will be the same for the ongoing cold war with China to contain its territorial ambitions in east asia, like for Taiwan (which it is actively threatening with force[1]) and all of the other countries which China is expanding its territory into (illegally, through the use of artificial islands)[2].

1. https://www.voanews.com/a/china-reaffirms-threat-of-military... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/china-has-full...

Has anyone noticed that the three dictators are named Putin Kim Xi? The dark overlord behind them all loves spicy food.

Poutine isn't spicy.

This is what Israelis were saying about Iraq. It may be true, but also not a compelling reason for war or escalating tension.

Taiwanese is Nazi

It is possible to believe both "China bad" and "we should not go to war with them". That's the key part I think OP has noticed with (mostly US) western media coverage of China lately: It's not just "China bad" but it this preparatory drumbeat of war that is written between the lines.

There are a lot of countries Americans might consider bad. But the news media isn't subtly and constantly hinting that we might want to go to war with them. The China rhetoric is starting to sound like the WMD justification and prep drumbeat that they used to hype up the American public about the inevitability of war with Iraq.

Please point out some American media claiming we should go to war with China. That's just a ridiculous statement. There is no amping up for offensive war with China. There is plenty of amping up of concern that China will invade Taiwan and that we'll likely need to defend them. However the US is actively trying to prevent that from happening by being loud on the global stage and actively trying to show that the US doesn't respect China's territorial claims to prevent that type of thinking from rooting in China's psyche.

Ironically I think the Ukraine war has shown the best demonstration for China on why they shouldn't attempt a Taiwan invasion. Their rhetoric about Taiwan I feel has gone down since that war started.

The US is trying to avoid war, not start one.

That's why I said "subtly" and "written between the lines". War propaganda doesn't work by overtly saying "Hey, guess what, we should go to war". It builds up little by little, starting with plausibly innocent imagery (for example, picture of Country X's leader, then picture of Country X's military, then picture of Our Country's military--just that silent video montage gets into people's subconscious and starts doing its nasty work). Then it works its way up to insinuation and innuendo, then little "facts" come out here and there, then the hypotheticals. This is exactly how the US public was slowly marinated in preparation for the Iraq war.

War propaganda is in fact generally overt. It's some of the most overt propaganda there is usually.

And no, informing the populace that a country is a potential aggressor is not "war propaganda".

No, it really isn't overt usually. Not at first at least. You don't start by beating the war drums openly, it just doesn't work. It's a more subtle, gradual work of normalization before the more overt stuff.

Moreover it's not like China is going around overturning democracies and freedom in Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Bangladesh etc. How much worse can China be than "the leader of the free world".

"No limit friendship" was declared before the current full-fledged war in Ukraine. Since then Chinese rethoric became much more cautious.

Making a new account just to post about politics tells me you are lurking HN for entirely wrong reasons.

Have you considered perhaps there is a valid stance to oppose both PRC aggression on Taiwan & other neighbouring countries, while also opposing direct escalation between the PRC and the US?

How is urging caution against U.S. domestic jingoism contradictory to not allowing the PRC to start wars?

Taiwan, South Korea, and Ukraine are all de facto western tributary states. I think you should investigate the actual reasons why China was founded, and maybe read up on the 100 years of humiliation. Why do you think western nations are functionally different as they were 100 years ago? Ultimately capitalism will serve to exploit and destroy Taiwanese people, save a few rich business owners

From the first part of your comment it's clear that you have a special perspective on this topic, but please don't post nationalistic flamewar comments to HN. We're trying for something different here. I know it's difficult when the topics are provocative, but that makes it more important to stick to the rules.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

I think you're only examining one side of the story. Live in China for some time and see how they look at the rest of the world and people. And look at how we treat other current threats on the world stage at the moment. We do not make a special case for China --if anything the US has wishfully thought that if we treat them like a democracy they'll become a democracy and that has proven incorrect.

US foreign policy is not about spreading democracy. That's a bedtime story told to young Americans who don't know any better. The US is fine working with dictators; it's when those dictators stop playing ball or are ousted that we suddenly want to spread democracy. Noriega, Hussein and the Shah are easy examples.

And the idea that america props up dictators or topples regimes because “it wants their oil” is a bedtime story for jaded American teenagers who don’t know any better. If that was true American foreign policy would look a lot different (and wouldn’t be such a money sink). Where’s all that Iraqi oil money again?

U.S. foreign policy is aimed at maintaining stability and facilitating liberal capitalist democracy. We don’t regard popular movements that are communist or theocratic as “democracy” so we’re willing to support dictators to forestall that. But at the same time our foreign policy is fundamentally ideological in nature.

>And the idea that america props up dictators or topples regimes because “it wants their oil”

It would be more productive if you addressed my comment, and not some comment you just made up.

As for this:

>U.S. foreign policy is aimed at maintaining stability and facilitating liberal capitalist democracy

I believe that you believe this. But I'm not treating it as an axiom, so you'll have to give evidence for it.

Stability is a euphemism for a government supporting economic arrangements favoring western corporations.

https://chomsky.info/fateful02/

"Liberal capitalist democracy" - this is obvious nonsense when you list out all of the regime changes forced on the countries by the United States.

Like the economic arrangements that allowed Japan, then Korea and China to displace entire American industries?

Like the coups that USA conducts to remove democracy to install dictatorships.

Most Americans have absurd views of American foreign policy because of ignorance. But, given your Bangladeshi origin, in your case it is not ignorance. You are just volunteering as an unpaid American propagandist or random social media forums, even though you are well aware of all the CIA coups all over the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

> And the idea that america props up dictators or topples regimes because “it wants their oil” is a bedtime story

This is true, sometimes all they want to do is shore up some bananas. Or just help out West Pakistan to impress China.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

Ok, to use American parlance, we expected them to play ball on an even field. Of course pols/biz were blinded by the big $$ in their eyes and could not see beyond that, but the expectation with was that the legacy of Deng and Hu would continue to soften the CCP and eventually become (economic) "partners" of some sort. Maybe not completely an open democracy but also definitely not the more authoritarian swerve it's taken over the last 10 years or so.

> eventually become (economic) "partners" of some sort

Is China not an economic partner of the USA? I thought the huge amount of trade between the two countries made it a foregone conclusion.

How long did you live in China for?

Since China is the major rival as a global superpower in the medium to long term, it has to be taken seriously as a threat.

Of course jingoistic idiots will do what they do. But there is a kernel of unavoidable truth there.

It is unavoidable in that we have a world order where 5% of the world population maintains a dominance which can only wither away if the rest of the world is allowed to develop.

You think the rest of the world has not developed? Have you been out in the world?

My point is the world will develop whether or not that is in the interest of those in power.

I'm just going to assume you're not trying to say the world is evenly developed.

If the world was ever evenly developed, it was when it was completely developed.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're both trying to make.

Sorry, I meant un-developed the second time.

> My point is the world will develop whether or not that is in the interest of those in power.

I didn’t get that from “if the rest of the world is allowed to develop.” But yes, parts of the world have been developing much faster than the U.S., for instance, and in many cases now surpass the U.S. by many metrics.

I don’t believe the U.S. has actually done much to prevent this. In the case of China, actually just the opposite: the U.S. government and U.S. industry have repeatedly traded away its long-term advantages for short-term political and financial wins in a series of unforced errors over the last 30+ years. But who knows, maybe this is a good thing for the world.

As an American who has worked in tech for the last two decades, including interacting with Chinese subcontractors numerous times I say you are 100% wrong.

#1. THEY'RE STEALING FROM US. Constantly.

#2. Look at how they treat their own people.

#3. Look at how they treat their neighbors.

On the flipside, I’m tired that we can’t get two comments into these threads without someone implying that anyone concerned about the threat of China under Xi is a simpleton under the influence of US politicians and media.

You can both be sceptical of the bullshit and also concerned about what’s happened to China under Xi. These aren’t mutually exclusive beliefs.

If you’ve spent any time watching China over the past two decades you’ve seen a hugely troubling transformation. Ask any resident of a state with an interest in the South China Sea.

China is not simply rolled out as a boogeyman. Apart from any of their ambitions, at minimum the worlds reliance on them for various resources and manufacturing capacity almost exclusively has, in the last 2.5 years, been revealed as an extreme flaw and risk to global economic stability when that resource and manufacturing pipeline is disrupted.

That is, at a bare minimum, a serious problem that will take years to solve.

Now, bringing geopolitics back into things, China as a government does not have geopolitical goals that aligne with those of the western world. Without even placing value judgements on those goals, this fact alone is serious enough to warrant extreme caution in dealing with the Chinese government. Whether Western powers do bad things or China does bad things or both do or who is worse— those things are irrelevant on this point. The goals of each are incompatible and this will unavoidably cause each side(s) to come into conflict with each other.

These all leave aside any value judgements on government styles, human rights, etc. The issues above are all basic and fundamental problems and differences that should cause the west to be extremely cautious and skeptical of the surface appearance of any actions taken by the Chinese government. They are similarly wise to be cautious and skeptical on their side. This is simply the basic state of geopolitics, and acting in accordance with this state of affairs is not jingoism.

What we should hope for is to continue to work toward finding common ground at least in so far as the conflicts remain political, economic, etc. and not violent or militaristic. But you can’t engage in that sort of relationship if you keep your eyes closed to the true nature of, and differences between, the goals and values of the various players involved here.

It would be very interesting to see the Ukraine situation replicate in Xinjiang in a few decades.

History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Which exactly China geopolitical goals not aligned with the West do you mean? Where are they declared?

Are you asking for more information out of curiousity or are you also trying to imply that my assessment is incorrect? It is difficult to approach an answer to your question without knowing more about your expectations and intentions in asking it.

I am asking for more information and, preferably, sources. I am not an Asia politics expert, so the only thing came to my mind is the Chinese take on Taiwan.

People spend their entire careers understanding this topic and so I necessarily cannot answer it here except in it’s most fundamental form. Toward that end:

At its most basic level, China’s geopolitical goals are to increase its influence, status, and power in the world. This is not a controversial claim. As one small piece of support for this I’ll offer up this quote from one of the Chinese ambassadors during their negotiations to enter the WTO: "We know we have to play the game your way now, but in ten years we will set the rules"

If you google that quote verbatim you will find many sources that deal with China’s short and long term goals in much more detail.

This basic goal is not, necessarily, completely zero sum, but neither can it be accomplished to any significant degree without displacing some of the power & influence that the Western powers have in the world. This unavoidably brings the various sides & interests powers into conflict.

It is all much, much more complicated than this but this is a significant pillar in the foundations of China’s goals that put it at odds with the West. This alone is a strong influence on the economic conflicts and spats that arise.

That’s about the best I can do in a forum like HN without simplifying the details more than I think may be useful for this conversation. For further sources, that quote really is the key to a lot of foreign policy analysis and well-sourced research on the topic. You may also want to do a few quick searches on China’s 2049 plan along with the 100 Years of Humiliation and its social/cultural influence on Chinas view towards the western world and its economical and technological goals to enable greater self sufficiency.

I’d link to more direct sources but it’s late and I’m tired, and honestly searching on the specific terms and topics I mentioned will give you more and better information than is easily conveyed here.

Why are you worried about the world relying on China? The global economy was actually stabilized by China's zero-covid policy for the past few years because although lockdowns were disruptive, the death and disability of workers is an even greater threat. We now live in an even more unstable time now that China has abandoned this policy since the international community has decided to embrace living with covid.

And God forbid a country outside the west hasn't been completely subjugated by it. Why exactly do you think China's goals aren't aligned with the West? Have you read anything about what imperialism was doing to China (and literally everywhere else on Earth not being settled by Europeans with few exceptions) during the 100 years of humiliation? Do you honestly expect a nation to take that in stride without retribution? I think a lot of younger folks like myself forget that colonialism was alive and well until around 50 years ago, which is the blink of an eye in the long-run.

Sure, you can point to Tibet and Xinjiang as signs of hypocrisy, but I counter: where did all the native americans go in the USA and canada? What was done by the Belgians in the Congo? What was done by the French in Indochina? At least the Uyghurs and Tibetans are actually still alive in large numbers of healthy individuals. Even in China, minorities get special treatment. For example, they were exempt from the One-Child Policy. I don't think there's any example of that in western nations. In the US, black people get the privilege of seeing their children murdered at the hands of the police for minor offenses and disobedience! :)

The war drums are beating and it's fascinating to see otherwise brilliant people fall victim to what is very clearly the propaganda being turned up to manufacture popular support for the genocide of billions under the name of "freedom", "democracy" and a "rules-based system". Let's do an exercise: which nuclear states have the weakest policies preventing the use of nuclear weapons? It's the United States, France, the UK, and Pakistan. Even Putin has stated multiple times on the record (even in late 2022) that Russia will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. India and China are strictly under a policy of no first-use.

Let's remember history: the United States is the only state to ever have used nuclear weapons to deliberately kill people. And remember doubly: those bombs were dropped for demonstration purposes, not out of necessity, even a USA general said so.

Clearly, greed and arrogance will be the downfall of Western imperialism. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, etc. are all de facto USA asian tributary states under USA hegemony, but nobody wants to acknowledge that.

I hope that in the coming 5 - 10 years once you have the luxury to bear witness to western militaries indiscriminately genociding billions of civilians in the name of "maintaining a rules based order" that you realize you cannot wash the blood from your hands.

It sounds like you are falling victim to propaganda from the other side.

Profiling and racism by police in America is obviously a problem. Unfortunately, we don't have a nuanced view of policing in China because any criticism of laws and policing by Chinese press is illegal because no freedom of press. The stories we do hear don't paint a rosy picture. A couple of examples are death sentences for drug crimes and organ harvesting.

To your point about "USA asian tributary states under USA hegemony". First, this sounds like Chinese propaganda. Let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. All of those countries you list have free or low-cost healthcare while American society pours money into weapons and military research. They don't pay the USA any kind of tax tribute that I'm aware of. Their economies have flourished and they have kept their own culture. They set their own laws and manage their own governments. It's not clear to me what we get out of the arrangement.

From my point of view, we are gearing up to defend Taiwan if necessary. That is all. I haven't heard anyone mention anything else in the press. Can you explain to me why defending a sovereign country that has existed as long as China would make us guilty of genocide?

I am, without complicating things with moral judgements of the different powers involved, simply making the claim that China’s goals are at odds with the West.

You seem to question this claim and yet go on to provide significant support for why China has historical reasons for this. If you are interested, Read further down in the thread of another comment to my post that I responded to and you’ll see that I cover this a little more, but to reiterate a bit of it:

The Opium Wars and Ensuing 100 Years of Humiliation, despite any change to the governmental structure post-revolution, is still very much in the zeitgeist of China’s perception of the West. And China has taken that lesson to heart, in particular the lesson that: just a little technological superiority by an adversary can nonetheless allow a massive nation with significantly more resources but a lower industrial/technological base to be decisively subjugated to the will of a much smaller opponent.

This very much informs Chinas desire to increase it’s power and sphere of influence, along with advancing to the point that it is, at minimum, significantly more self sufficient at a similar level of technological advancement to the west, and preferably more so.

This unavoidably puts its geopolitical goals at odds with the West because this cannot be accomplished to a significant degree without disrupting at least a little bit the power and influence that the west (particularly USA) has in the world.

I am deliberately not bringing anything like forms of government, realpolitik games, moral judgements and human rights issues etc into my claim because those are all extremely complicated topics and muddy the water in addressing the very narrow and simple claim that China’s goals are not the same as the goals of western powers, and this necessarily results in conflicts and disagreements between these powers.

You and I probably disagree and other aspects of these issues, but from what you wrote I don’t thing we disagree on the claim that goals differ, and that is the source of many conflicts, and that this is true before bringing in any value judgements of which side is right/wrong/has the moral high ground/etc, which are separate (thought certainly intertwined) claims.

Finally, to address the dependency issue: a significant reason that countries are worried about over reliance on China is for the same reason people should be worried about having a single point of failure in any critical system.

I think a group of people kind of ruins the outward image of every country. Is there validity to the Chinese gov doing nefarious things? Are they running concentration camps, infiltrating American companies, and expanding their sea borders to expand their territory? Yes. There's absolutely something to be feared and apply steady opposition to. However, it's all far and away from our shores, and to the public at large it feels very disconnected from our day-to-day reality. Dismissing it is a way to relieve the stress that a persistent threat exists, but it will still be there.

I think the best thing the gov could do is give us awareness of these things, in an objective way, so we can stay informed. I do not see the fearmongering you see, but I'm sure I could find it on Facebook and Twitter if I looked.

And then.. the things our gov does to other countries to spy and maintain intelligence is a bogeyman for others. We are a threat, as China is a threat. I wonder if we have any stray weather balloons floating over China that we don't hear about in our media.

Accusations of jingoism on HN are detached from reality.

While you're correct that 9/11 caused issues I think you're conflating things incorrectly here.

I don't see anti-China policies being used to justify crack downs on freedoms like was done after 9/11. Perhaps that's coming, but we should be concerned about that when it happens. We absolutely however need to be careful about what China is trying to do by basically bifricating the world into authoritarian and democratic world orders. It's absolutely their stated goal to create a bi-polar world and thus re-create cold war conditions.

jeez, all they did was blow up a balloon near myrtle beach. is that really comparable to invading iraq and afghanistan?

Based on how many replies are directly attacking you or repeating propagandic lines, the jingoism mind virus is already here and the infection is deep. I salute you for the courage to speak out against the overwhelming pro-conflict campaign, but I am afraid we are past the point to reverse course.

While I agree that using China as our 21st century boogieman is very tiresome, the fact of the matter is China is not a friend of the west.

So? The west is not a friend of China as well. And US has downright militant rethoric agains China.

> US has downright militant rethoric in defense of the independent nation of Taiwan*

Fixed that for you.

Remind me which independent nations US unilaterally defended with militant rhetoric and to what effect?

> Remind me which independent nations US unilaterally defended with militant rhetoric and to what effect?

Sure. Taiwan, anyone in NATO, South Korea, etc.

The effect thus far has been that none of these nations have been invaded.

---

Scotty79, I'm already checked out of this conversation; it's unlikely to be productive for anyone.

Yeah. Me too. It never was productive.

The US and Europe brought China into the WTO, gave it most favored nations trading status, transferred trillions in technology, and financed the modernization of the country. Pretty good friends, IMO. But it is not been reciprocated, and is now going bad. The crushing of the democracy movement in Hong Kong was a wake up call as to the intentions of China going forward.

> But it is not been reciprocated,

How was it not reciprocated? Whole western world benefited from the cheap Chinese labor for more than a decade.

I'd say we helped them economically and they helped us economically. When it comes to politics we don't see eye to eye. As for Hong-Kong they are introducing their politics there. Nothing we can do about it. And we are doing exactly nothing about it.

US openly calls China an enemy in their politics. US sees China like North Korea sees US. China just wants to have their own politics without western interference. It's nasty and bad politics but it's theirs.

Agree 100%. It’s amazing people actually believe this. They’ve built unlimited shit for us for next to nothing whine innovating ways to make it cheaper and we knowingly buy more while complaining they aren’t liberal enough. Meanwhile a far greater percentage of their citizens are happy with the country compared to anywhere in the West.

I know this is a couple days ago, but they haven't reciprocated by opening their markets to our products. If they are going to take over manufacturing, and largely block US software, tech, and services, then all we get is a depleted manufacturing base and temporary cheap goods stimulus.

You said as if it was out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they wanted to access the cheap labor market of China. The west would not have their living standard as high as today if it wasn't for China.

If it hadn't gone to China it would have gone elsewhere. China wasn't the only country with poor people at the time.

The reason China got picked was because we wanted to reduce the power of the Soviet Union. The US policy during that time was all about stopping Soviet/Communist expansion and the thought was that we could bring China into the western world through monetary means. It was never about cheap labor. The US actively traded away it's own monetary assets for national security in that era. It wasn't about making money.

China didn't get into WTO until 2001 while USSR ended a decade before that.

The American geopolitical plan for China in the 20th century was not unlike what happened with Japan, South Korea, Germany and most of SEA post-WW2: Invest in their economies and bring them to modernity based upon free and democratic western societies, therefore creating friends and allies.

And to America's credit, it mostly worked. Japan, South Korea, and Germany are now friends of the US and the west and are irreplacable economical powerhouses. SEA didn't get quite as advanced, but they at least aren't hostile to western ideals.

China, on the other hand, saw the game being played and outplayed us. They took all the resources we "invested" in them to further their own ambitions, and cared not for cooperation or mutual friendships. They saw free real estate and fucking took the entire bank and stole the rest.

It's long past due we, the west, reassessed our approach because China is not going to become our friend no matter how much we invest in their prosperity (and consequently due to their nature our demise).

> Japan, South Korea, Germany

You listed countries that were dominated by US military what in at least two cases led to destruction of pre-existing setup there.

If anyone thought they'll be able to repeat it in China without invading it first was silly. So noone thought that.

US "helped" China to get access to their cheap labor. While maintaining a fasade of being hopeful it will bring in democratic peaceful transformation. I think Germany was more honestly hopeful that trading with Russia will democratize it than US was with China. US needs an enemy to excuse its military spending. Smart people in US knew that US basically grooms China so it becomes one. After all "terrorists" can only be made into a boogymen for a very limited time given their inaptitude.

Do you think China would have hesitated to shoot down an American "weather" balloon, the size of three school buses, if it entered China's airspace? I doubt it would have been allowed to float for thousands of miles before being downed.

That's because China does not value human life as much as the US. The reasons for not engaging it sooner were stated publicly.

We were aware of it when it was over Montana, which is a very sparsely-populated state. Is it really that hard to shoot something like this down over such a territory? I have no way of knowing, but I'd think they could bring it down without risk to human life. The main thing I'd worry about is that it might have some sort of unannounced payload that would be spread widely if it were exploded mid-air. But I didn't hear anyone talking about the risk of biological/chemical weapon possibilities as the reason to not bring it down sooner.

It’s not only the balloon you have to worry about, it’s the missles you shoot at it.

Look at it this way:

The US launches rockets primarily from Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg AFB so they spend minimal time flying overland as they fly out to sea. This is so failures or aborts pose as little risk as possible to people on the ground.

China launches rockets from inland and have dropped failed and aborted rockets on its citizens on the ground numerous times.

So yes, it is "really that hard" to shoot something down without causing collateral harm on the ground. And yes, China gives less fucks about human life than the US does.

How would you know what’s on the balloon before you shot it down.

You're wasting your time trying to explain this to somebody who uses the derogatory "USian" to describe his supposed fellow countrymen.

What? It's not derogatory. It's just shorter and in some ways better specified than 'American'. I also used the word 'American' in the same post! Just didn't feel like writing the whole thing out the second time. -_-

I assume 'USian' is not a commonly use term and could be interpreted as "American of Asian decent" or similar.

But from your clarification it seem you simply meant American without any further qualifications.

It is derogatory. Virtually no Americans call themselves "USians". It's nigh unpronounceable (it sounds like "US Asians") and only seen on the internet in the context of somebody with an axe to grind against America (as above.)

The last time people tried to use a derogatory term for Americans - Yankees - the Americans adopted it as their own.

Some people you just can't insult.

That's our... superpower.

Yup. Oddly enough, it's anyone's superpower should they choose to wield it. The next time someone calls you a bad name, give it a try.

It's impossible to insult someone who refuses to be insulted.

The American spirit burns awful bright.

USAmerican is what I use to make it clear I don’t mean Canada or Mexico or Latin America. Some people don’t like it, because they think it’s unnecessary as most people assume you mean the USA, others don’t like it because they think the US is the center of everything so how dare you attempt to be inclusive of other non US American countries.

pleeeeease don’t do this. i was born here, i’ve lived here my whole life: i’m an American, or a USian, or any other label you want to use that marks me as a US subject/citizen. i really don’t want to be burdened in keeping up with which identifiers people use for me are supposed to be offensive v.s. neutral, especially when it doesn’t impact the meaning of the post. online communication is hard enough as is — don’t make it even more complicated.

And then you have people who suddenly must say Ukraine instead of The Ukraine, or must say Turkiye instead of Turkey and definitely don't even try to use any of the blue demonyms for any other country, but for Americans, yeah call "them" whatever... such hypocrites.

> or must say Turkiye instead of Turkey

That's not going to make anyone happy. It's Türkiye.

Because the country is called Ukraine not The Ukraine. You wouldn’t say The Germany, would you?

I don't care either way, but generally the term is used in specific context where the writer feels "American" would be too imperialistic as it excludes all others that live in the Americas. It devolves into debates about whether the US "stole" the demonym. Right or wrong, it's going to trigger some people.

Seems short sighted given Mexico is officially the United States of Mexico.

So we need the A in there.

USAian.

Sounds cooler too because https://dragonball.fandom.com/wiki/Saiyan

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

China isn't even a friend to the east. At least that's the impression I get from my Korean, Thai, Viet, and Japanese friends.

As a Japanese (specifically Japanese-American, but details), I will affirm that China is not a friend to the east.

So do you have any hard evidence one way or another about what happened in this incident? FWIW, I personally haven't noticed any jingoism at all. Also your use of a racial slur here with unrelated reference is probably not appropriate.

I cringe at the thought of war with anyone as well. How else though would you deal with an authoritarian non democratic country who wants nothing more than world domination? It started with Hong Kong and next in their sights is Taiwan. People like Xi Jinping only understand strength and view diplomacy as a tool to bide time until the are militarily strong enough to ensure victory. I feel for the citizens that pay the price of war. My non expert opinion only.

> politicians making a contest of who is really 'tough on China'

I know you're deliberately wording this to avoid a partisan angle, but I genuinely think that it's hurting your point here. There is no "contest" at play here. There are no "both sides". All this rhetoric is coming from one side of the aisle.

And I agree it's bad, and hurtful, and quite frankly probably doing more to help the Chinese position on the world stage than hurt it. But it's also not something that's going to be fixed by stopping a "contest". Either the republicans decide to be grownups or they don't. The democrats can't fix that.

Edit, because two responses have misunderstood this. This isn't about "being" tough on China, or about reasonably considering China as a threat to be countered. That is bipartisan, and despite the rhetoric something close to a default position among US elites. It's the partisan nonsense that ignores this clear consensus and tries to claim the Biden response is "soft" or whatever that's harmful. Again, if I were Xi and wanted to throw a bomb into US politics for my own benefit, I might very well provoke something like this.

On the contrary, Biden has been very tough on China, and what about Pelosi's Taiwan visit, maybe the most significant provocation in the bilateral relationship in the past decade

I know a few died in the wool democrats who absolutely think China is a threat to be taken seriously. This is a bipartisan issue. Republicans are more boisterous in their approach, but if a Democrat is in power when China moves on Taiwan, the US response will be nearly identical to that of a Republican administration. I’d put a heavy bet on that.

Assuming this is all due to America is, with apologies, typical American jingoism, that assumes the world revolves around Washington. Read some material from the Chinese side. The CPC sees itself in a life and death struggle with liberal capitalism as (allegedly) championed by the EU and USA. One or the other will triumph. The two orders are fundamentally incompatible. A new cold war is here, whether the Americans want it or not.

> Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU—as great a Party as it was—scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union—as great a country as it was—shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past!

This excerpt is from a speech by Xi Jinping given at his inauguration as General Secretary in 2013. What would you say it implies about how he sees the USA?

Except that china and Russia are now the capitalism champions. Money can buy anything there, specifically military and political power. America's constant fallback to elections and the will of the people in a way makes it the more socialist society. The masses still matter in America. The will of the masses means nothing in china and russia.

> The CPC sees itself in a life and death struggle with liberal capitalism as (allegedly) championed by the EU and USA. One or the other will triumph. The two orders are fundamentally incompatible. A new cold war is here, whether the Americans want it or not.

I'm pretty sure the CPC has one enemy: losing control of China. That is the ultimate bogeyman, and when you view China (or Russia) from that point of view, you can understand them much better.

> What would you say it implies about how he sees the USA?

A potential cause of losing control.

It is only boogieman talk, until that boogieman is real. Sending balloons i to the airspace of other countries makes china's intention undeniable: they do not care for any rules-based international system. They believe simply that might makes right. They are a bully. The US just made its counterpoint very clear in the only manner that a bully understands. That balloon will no doubt be cut up and put on display, airing any secrets it might contain, to expose the lie that this was anything other than a surveillance device.

Are you saying that the US does believe in a rules-based international system? Let's count the number of countries the USA has invaded vs China...and the government topples with the help of the USA vs China

Yes. Most every one of those invasions was preceded by international diplomacy and coalition building. China/Russia dont care for the UN or building consensus with allies. They are willing to just go on the word of a supreme leader. We might not like the outcomes, but the US does accept that the international stage is governed by rules. That is why a country like canada feels no threat from the US wheras every country bordering China/Russia lives under threat.

I don’t think people in central and South America, Vietnam, the Middle East, and so on were happy when diplomacy and coalitions were built against them to instate dictatorships and/or kill millions.

America satisfies its allies. Those Allies are happy to be the enemies of China and Russia for financial benefits and some border protection . Who, despite your comment, do build consensus with their allies and they’re content with being enemies of the US also in exchange for financial benefits and border protection. All 3 countries have their own spheres of influence and all 3 project themselves to be heroes while one of the others is a villain at all times.

The OP is right here—jingoism on HN because of a balloon is something beyond what is normal here.

You didn't respond to their post in any way. The comment was about rules-based international orders.

Rules being what their allies agree on. Each of those countries get a bunch of allies who readily say what they’re doing is just while their opposing country isn’t following any sort of international protocol.

>China/Russia dont care for the UN or building consensus with allies.

The US has made the same unilateral invasions that Russia has, and without approval of the UN. Almost everything you've said here is false.

In the last 100 years, Which US invasions were unilateral? Even panama is a stretch given the diplomatic history prior re the cannal. There has been nothing like crimea/ukraine.

100 years ago the Philippines was an American colony.

So? Three hundred years ago the US was a British colony. Canada was technically a UK colony until the 1980s. The history of colonies and empires is interesting but not particularly relevant to international relations today. Countries don't buy and sell other counties anymore. Hong Kong was perhaps the last.

> Three hundred years ago the US was a British colony.

Strictly, parts of the modern US were separate British colonies (colonies of the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the UK, which is newer.)

> Canada was technically a UK colony until the 1980s

Largely, it should be noted, because the Canadian provinces couldn’t agree on a method for amending the Constitution domestically to replace British Parliamentary authority.

> Countries don't buy and sell other counties anymore

I mean, Trump wanted to buy Greenland, but generally overt sale of inhabited territory is somewhat passé. Less direct means of buyingn coubtries are still, at least, actively pursued, if not always successful.

Isn't this what you asked rhetorically a little while ago: "In the last 100 years, Which US invasions were unilateral?"

The US went ahead with the Iraq War after failing to gain approval with the UN. That was when they made up their "Coalition of the willing" as a weak justification. You might say, "At least they sought approval in the first place, unlike Russia," but the fact that they ignored the UN decision shows that they weren't actually seeking international approval, or any sort of coalition.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

And which flag now flies over Iraq? Like or hate the war, but it is clear that the US never intended on taking Iraq as a colony or US territory. Russia wants to literally own bits of Ukraine forever. China intends to literally own Taiwan. And I wouldn't describe the UK involvement lightly. 40k+ troops, roughly one-in-four, and a greater percentage of front line troops, was a solid partnership.

Why would one spend resources on providing someone with benefits of citizenship, when a neocolonial practice of establishing a puppet government is enough for one's goals?

>the US never intended on taking Iraq as a colony or US territory.

That's not how it works. And we can discuss this, but it's a change of subject. The topic was whether "the US does accept that the international stage is governed by rules", which is false. If you want to acknowledge that, then we can move on to the topic of puppet states and sovereignty.

Whatever flag now flies over Iraq, or whether the US and UK had a "solid partnership" (whatever that means), has no bearing on whether or not the US invasion of Iraq violated international rules. It was still an illegal invasion. Moving the goalposts won't work here.

>Sending balloons i to the airspace of other countries makes china's intention undeniable: they do not care for any rules-based international system

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/american-u-2-spy...

60+ years ago, almost beyond living memory. Comparing the military/intelligence realities of the early cold war to now is tenuous at best. If anything, such historical incidents made everyone realize then the need for rules-based international order.

I think it's very idealistic to assume that the us has moved to accept rule of law or limitations when it comes ones to foreign policy and spying. We've had a sufficient examples (prism, renditionS, etc)

Weeeeellll, US recon flights are basically continuously skirting the edge of China's airspace. Though there doesn't appear to be evidence of them straight up flying over Chinese airspace (at least by international definitions), this is also only what we know of publicly. U2s were flying over Soviet and Israeli airspace for something like four of five years until they were publicly revealed by the 1960 shootdown of one (read the history of the plane on the wikipedia page[0]).

2018: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/politics/south-china-sea-flyo...

2020: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/asia/china-us-u-2-spy-plane-i...

2021: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39890/did-an-rc-135-sp...

2022: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/air-force-rc-135u-elec...

2022: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/29/politics/chinese-fighter-jet-...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

Who else feels the lonely anguish of being simultaneously anti-Chinese dictatorship AND very sympathetic of the parent post and thus saddened and alienated by posters of either extreme?

I recall very similar comments a year ago talking about how there was no way that Putin would attempt to invade Ukraine and it was just American jingoism.

While that's true, i think crimea and the associated warm water port (sevastopol) is of strategic value. After the crimean invasion, the mainland of ukraine has cut off the water canal, which meant that the peninsular needs to be constantly supported by the russian mainland. It's not quite sustainable in the long term for russia to do that.

The land bridge is their "solution".

I don't see taiwan as similarly strategic to china. It's more politically motivated - that taiwan has turned into a democracy that is pro-west, right on their door step, instead of "returning".

On the other hand, an invasion of taiwan is something that can be used to quell domestic problems...

The Russians could have (and indeed should have) just taken Donetsk and Luhansk and protected the waterway if that was their goal.

Their goal was (and is) not that. Their goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a country, and it's forced reunification with Russia as a foundational step in the re-emergence of a Russian empire.

If you read Chinese defense arguments about Taiwan, they basically make the same hypothesis. Control of Taiwan forces the strategic sublimation of Japan and Korea, and re-establishes a Chinese empire.

Dictators don't come up with new ideas.

The "solution" was to not invade Crimea in the first place, forcing Ukraine's hand followed by a second invasion of Ukrainian territory in the west. You're conveniently forgetting that Crimea was not the only territory invaded by Russia.

> While that's true, i think crimea and the associated warm water port (sevastopol) is of strategic value.

Russia already had naval basing rights is Sevastopol, before the invasion of Crimea. I don’t think the strategic explanations hold up.

They had it on a lease from Ukraine until 2017. Renegotiation of the lease barely passed Ukraine's parliament back in 2010.

they prolonged it for another 30 years I think thanks to pro-Russian president.

Yes, and then 2014 happened and Russia withdrew from the agreement entirely, since they didn’t really need it anymore.

russia wants permanent, irrevocable access, not just rights granted by an uncontrollable gov't.

The writing was on the wall at the time - ukraine was leaning towards the west.

Not saying this was the only reason for the invasion, but it is a factor.

Did you come to this view after watching a lot of TikTok?

(for the literal net = a joke!)

Americans is the plural term for citizens of the USA. not USians

The world has enjoyed a Pax Americana, and if the continuance of that means being 'tough on China', then that is a price that must be paid.

What is this American Jingoism you are talking about? America has thrown open its doors to international trade with China, welcomes their students, visitors, businesspeople and immigrants in the hundreds of thousands, even millions, every year, and places very few restrictions on Chinese ownership of American firms. No nation has extended such favorable terms to another, particularly one with a diametrically opposed political system, for so long. All this while China brazenly steals intellectual property, builds and militarizes the South China Sea in open defiance of the UNCLOS, indulges in chicanery and deception to hide its handling of a deadly pandemic that has killed more Americans than all wars that America has fought in combined, rapidly builds up its navy and its fishing fleet to intimidate and coerce American allies and openly collaborates with America's geopolitical rivals, including dangerous megalomaniacs threatening the annihilation of America, such as Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, even to the extent of practically funding and otherwise propping them up.

It's a miracle Americans have shown such forbearance for so long, really. Jingoism indeed!

China just very successfully overflew the continental us with a military payload, and now knows, unequivocally that F-22's can operate at 60k feet. Both have significant propaganda and military value. There is a reason we learned in the cold war that overflights have to be governed by treaty. It led to the near destruction of the world. China, apparently, just deliberately American Airspace.

In the above post, you could substitute the word China with Germany and Cold War with World War I, and this quote could have been written verbatim by the American First coalition - who had good points going into World War II, but missed the big picture. At some point you have to defend independent countries, stand up for human rights, etc.

China's actions show no respect for any of its neighbors. Their government persecutes people based on ethnic and religious beliefs. They feel that the entire world is out to get them, but they refuse to respect democratic norms that they agreed to with the United Nations. They refuse the most basic levels of transparency. Leaving critics to fill in the gaps on questions such as genocide and the pandemic. Anyone who points out that fact is immediately branded a sinophile.

Meanwhile China is propping up Russia by buying it's exports at a time the Russians are committing genocide in Ukraine.

Even what few democratic norms that existed have been wiped away and is being replaced by a cult of personality.

May I humbly submit that you are concerned about tensions coming from the wrong country?

If china agrees to respect its neighbors, follow human rights standards, and respect toleration of people who do not worship at the church of the Party, the friction will disappear. Ironically, America was strongly pro-china going into World War II shortly after that. It's not a stretch to see that resume.

However, their literate makes it very clear that they view China as the one true civilized state and that Europe and America must be humiliated and destroyed for china to regain its rightful place at the center of the world.

> China just very successfully overflew the continental us with a military payload, and now knows, unequivocally that F-22's can operate at 60k feet.

This is something they already knew, even if their sole intelligence gathering exercise was opening Wikipedia, which lists the service ceiling at 65k feet. Since they reportedly got the plans for several advanced aircraft via espionage, I’m quite skeptical that this got them any significant new intelligence.

(I should note that I consider the Chinese government reprehensible from a civil rights perspective - perhaps this could be a PR stunt or trying to test U.S. response times, but I highly doubt it got them any useful technical data.)

The two Indian engineers who were murdered in Kansas in 2017, as Donald Trump's populist rhetoric began to climb after the election, was a damning proof that stoking jingoism harms innocent people first. Those gleefully cheering for extremely divisive rhetoric, based on misinfo and hyperbole, will be directly complicit in future tragedies caused by this.

I'm so tired of Chinese appologists defending their terrible abuses and downplaying the fact that the West is only just beginning to wake up to the ugly Orwellian system that Xi has created.

"It's some cold war boogieman horseshit. "

Xi is literally preparing his armies to invade Taiwan, he is literally putting 100's of thousand of Uyghurs into pyschological torture / re-eduacation camp and subjecting the Western Provices to Police State apparatus that is literally more onerous that anything we have seen in history.

The worst dictators in history didn't fuss about local idiots because said idiots didn't generally have the power to disrupt, but now that authoritarians have the technological means for 'Total Surveillance and Enforcement' - they do it.

In most Wastern cities there are police blocks every few hundred meters, hotels have police checks, there are minders, total surveillance aka 'total control'.

China has refused to allow the UN WHO to investigate the origins of pandemic that has thrown the entire world into chaos, wherein there is at least some possibility that they are culpable.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on.

The 'failure' of the West is not jingoism, it's the assumption that China would progress to have at least some semblance of basic human rights as they moved forward and therefore the West turned a blind eye to all the terrible actions of China for the last 25 years, which in the last 10 years have taken a horrible upturn.

There are problems everywhere, but there's a differenc between systemic failures among well meaning people, and totalitarian states.

The collective West should have dealt with this a long, long time ago:

1) Taiwan should have been recognized as an independent state 50 years ago.

2) Hong Kong should have been allowed to have a referendum in 1997 and their rights should have been defended by regional powers.

3) The rights of navigation in S. China Sea should have been strongly enforced by local parties (aka Vietnam, Singapore) and others the moment China declared it's policy and military installation should have been thwarted.

4) West should not allow 'forced tech transer' in return for access to Chinese market.

5) Economic penalties should be in place for blatant and obvious transgressinos.

6) Issues regarding Tibet and Uyghurs should be front and center in any discussions of anything. It's within China's right to have policy there obviously, but the situation does require focus.

7) Trade tarriffs in place to mitigate all of the 'externalizations' that take place in China, because we have to account for all of that indirect stuff somehow, and if we don't it will 'come home to roost' as it is now.

If China were to have retaliated with economic measures over the decades - so be it - we'd be in a better place.

Then - we could talk about 'jingoism' etc.

None of this justifies stupid fake patriotism of some people, inclding Americans, but if you want to do a comparison of deluded anti-foreigner preferenes, I double-dare you to consider what popular views in China are of anything that is not 'Han'. China is de facto a 'Han Supremacist' state, it is what it is and to some extent their choice obviously, but it'd be absurd to accost Americans too harshly in that context.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

> You know, that time we rushed headlong into two useless forever wars

Don't say it like that. Say it like as it is: "... rushed headlong into murdering 1 million people to rob their oil".

Because that's what it was. And until people start calling it as it is, this kind of thing will keep repeating.

...

And yeah, recently the US Congress arranged $500 million to anti-China propaganda, so you will see a LOT more of such smear/fear stories and a LOT of people going along with those even as they claim to have opposed the Iraq War back in the day...

https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-...

(I love how such criticism still gets downvoted merely 20 years after Iraq War - its almost as if the Americans !like! to get deceived into murdering people for their oil and stuff)

The US didn't get any of the Iraqi Oil. Ironically, it was Europe and China who benefitted in that regard.

Also notably, the US 5th fleet defends freedom of navigation in the Gulf, which is mostly about Oil, and China is the #1 recipient of Oil! Funny, that.

I'm sure those million dead people in iraq are glad the fifth fleet is protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil. The same goes for the countless lives and futures ruined for the people still living with the consequences of the Gulf War.

This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward. Hey, millions died, but think of how stable/prosperous everything was after that! Plus, our side had good intentions*. Two sides of the same coin.

(By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade. Oil doesn't have to be exported to the US for america to profit from trade in the area. It's a commodity, and stable trade means stable prices internationally, which is extremely important to american interests. China might profit, too, but it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides)

Yes, it's unfortute that Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Thankfully Iraq has some semblance of governance and has valuable Oil assets that it can export, courtesy of US taxpayers.

Iraq benefits far more from it's exports than the US gains from protecting them.

You should tell kuwait that they were invaded in 2003.

? Kuwaitis are absolutely the most grateful people of the American re-constitution of the war that started in 1993. They would have been the first to tell you that the 'war never ended' and that Saddam, then even nuttier than before, remained a threat, with ongoing military operations in the 'no fly zone' for years - were you willing to listen. The 'mistake' was less the invasion as much as it was the handling of the aftermath.

We are talking about two different wars. And no, being "a threat" isn't a reason to invade a country. Iraq in 2003 had no means, and no intentions to invade Kuwait.

The first gulf war was iraq's fault for sure, but that's obviously not the war I was talking about.

> protecting trade or that America didn't actually directly steal their oil

"Protecting the trade of Iraqi oil in dollars to prevent them from moving to euro and other currencies" - thats 'protecting' alright. And apparently its ok if the theft is not 'direct'. Just printing dollars like a banana republic by forcing Iraq to sell their oil for dollars is ok. Of course its ok - its much better than actually robbing it since it allows printing an unspecified amount of dollars in return.

> This is absurd and sounds exactly like a chinese nationalist rhetoric about what Mao did in the great leap forward

If there is nothing wrong with the American nationalism that you blatantly exhibit, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Chinese nationalism or the nationalism of every other country.

> By the way, the US profits immensly from a stable gulf trade...

...in dollars. Too bad that its not happening anymore, as countries move to trade in Yuan, Ruble and other currencies and the inflation skyrockets in the US as unused dollars flow back to the US. Which is precisely why the us attacked Iraq to prevent them from moving off of dollar...

> it's even more essential to American hegemony, which I agree can have its upsides

What an unrepentant display of jingoist imperialism. This is not even mere 'nationalism'. So, the US bashing the heads of small countries in and forcing them to trade their commodities for dollars so it can print unlimited dollars is 'having upsides'. Im sure 1 million dead iraqis will rest in peace, knowing that how they died to make that 'upside' happen.

...

Its amazing how the comments objecting to my original criticism just 'disappear' the 1 million people that have been murdered but talk about delirious things like 'upsides'. Amazing social study opportunity on the topic of how people avoid cognitive dissonance.

Because 1 million people were not 'murdered' it's a fabrication on your part.

Exxon got the most profitable oil deal in Iraq, with BP getting the second. And though China does get the most oil, it's also far closer to Iraq and presumably got even more oil from them before the war. I believe India also receives more oil from Iraq than the US, despite seemingly not having any oil companies there.

> The US didn't get any of the Iraqi Oil

This is the funniest escape from cognitive dissonance that is used in the US in this topic.

The US did rob Iraqi oil: Forcing Iraq to continue selling its oil for dollars is directly monetizing Iraqi oil. Its worse than robbing it, because in a robbery you get the actual quantity. By forcing it to be traded for dollars, the US was able to print an unspecified and unquantifiable amount of dollars, even over what the actual quantity of Iraqi oil that was sold for dollars would support - the uncontested dominance of dollar as foreign exchange currency forced everyone to stash more dollars than they needed 'just in case' they needed to buy oil and other commodities.

It was literally a money-printing operation. Over someone else's oil.

That's some QAnon Economics right there.

The suggestion that the US benefits more on a dollar basis than a nation selling a commodity in that currency is very false.

Iraq is the primary beneficiary of it's Oil exports irrespective of the currency it uses, and those exports are protected by the US.

If the US did not enable open commerce in the region, there would be no Iraq. Or Saudi Arabia for that matter.

If collectively those nations want to switch currencies, they can absolutely do it, but it means they are on their own in terms of security and they don't want that.

The US does gain a bit of an advantage from seigneurage, but it actually has benefits for everyone else as well. It's no some existential thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com