This is not normal decoupling, we're in a full on economic war.
In the short term that's terrible. In the long term, pain now will help minimize pain later when China invade Taiwan and US-China trade drops to zero overnight. It's coming sooner or later and the longer you leave your investments in China the more you risk the door slamming shut on your hand.
> It's coming sooner or later and the longer you leave your investments in China the more you risk the door slamming shut on your hand.
Half the US population is asleep. During my undergrad years, I told my professor—then racing to get a foothold in China—that I thought war with China was inevitable.
15 to 25 years was my projection. He probably thought I was batshit crazy, but here we are.
China’s now using shows of military force as well as soft-power projection like CGTN.
Meanwhile we’re still struggling to bring back manufacturing capabilities.
If I had the means, I would be lobbying hard for a 30 year plan 5/10/20/30 to revamp our capabilities.
This has been a popular opinion for a very long time. It even supports a plot point in the movie The Departed (2006):
Oliver Queenan : Microprocessors.
Billy Costigan : Micro what?
Oliver Queenan : Microprocessors. We'll probably be at war with the Chinese in 20-odd years and Costello is selling them military technology. Microprocessors, chips, computer parts. Anybody says anything about anything like that you let us know
I believe this was also a plot point of the (newer) Outer Limits, with drugged up soldiers believing each other to be hostile aliens.
Without the USSR, the US didn’t have any other power to serve as a credible enemy.
I’m certainly not some insightful prophet: I can’t discount SF playing its part in influencing me; but it also makes sense in the long term (Carthage and Rome; Greece Polis’ and Persia…).
Headbutting is inevitable and China clearly was getting stronger even in the 1990s.
It was also a plot point in Ghost Fleet by P.W. Singer, which is kind of a think-tanked hypothetical "what-if" look at WW3 between China and the US, and has been adopted as reading material by the US military. The US military is full of guys who care about nothing in life except the defense of the country. Any dependency we have on China, you can be sure they're well aware of it.
Black Ops 2 video game campaign literally built on microprocessors all coming from China
In Black Ops 2 the campaign is about stopping a latin american drug lord/terrorist who is trying to start war between the US and China to wipe them both out. He is developing some magic chip quantum tech to hack into both the US and China to trigger a war. Activision has taken the Hollywood approach and carefully avoided making China a bad guy.
I disagree about the Russia Ukraine prediction statements in this discussion.
Nobody wanted to admit a "full blown invasion would happen" is better wording.
Russia invaded and was meddling with Ukraine back in 2014. It invaded Georgia in an actual war back then over the same act.
EU vetoed related action and was preaching that everything is going to be fine because Germany was using all their power to not ruin their profitable trade with Russia.
We have to call things with their own name.
Related to the average Joe's beliefs: they would believe their leaders telling them everything is fine and nothing bad will happen because they want to believe it. No thinking or prediction was involved in any of this.
Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one?
Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?”
> Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one?
That’s quite a leap of logic there. I think it’s enough to recognize that many believed a full invasion wasn’t in the cards.
> Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?”
The main issue here is that we let down our guard against hostile leaders and nations. And there still seems to be a a large portion of Western civilization in denial.
But a deadman-switch NATO membership? Prop up their defensive capabilities? Put pressure on Germany with regards to gas and overly cozy relationships with Russia?
Hindsight is easy and I’m sure others have better ideas; that’s besides the point.
Or the discussion about how because we expect Russia to do something, we actually are not sure about NATO anymore because we don't want to be obligated to enter in a war?
No but your point is that it is a weakness of the democratic process when clearly the democratic process created both outcomes.
You also made the point that a weakness of democracy is that it follows the general sentiment, but clearly the US govt didn't give a damn that a lot of people didn't care about Russia or weren't even aware of the things the US govt was doing -- like trying to put US missile installations in other sovereign nations. We tried and tried... for a very long time.
If Germany had an authoritarian leader, it doesn't mean that they would have taken Russia any more seriously. I've heard that Angela Merkel supported the shutdown of nuclear reactors after Fukishima because she wanted to shore up her popularity. An authoritarian leader could have done exactly the same thing -- who doesn't want to look good?
There is a limit to the amount of pressure that the US can put on a country. Crimea already happened and if that wasn't good enough, what was?
Even after Russia did invade Ukraine, the US had to pressure Europe to really look into alternative energy sources (especially after the shutdown of those nuclear reactors) even through winter was coming up and the writing was on the wall. In the end, the US ended up becoming the world's biggest (or 2nd biggest -- don't recall) natural gas exporter this winter just to shore up Europe's heating supplies (which also meant my natural gas bill went up like 3x!).
Ultimately, I don't think democracy can be blamed. We can blame bad leadership in some cases, but that is a problem endemic to every political system.
> You also made the point that a weakness of democracy is that it follows the general sentiment,
I never implied this is a weakness.
Instead…
> but clearly the US govt didn't give a damn that a lot of people didn't care about Russia or weren't even aware of the things the US govt was doing -- like trying to put US missile installations in other sovereign nations. We tried and tried... for a very long time.
I’m saying this is a clear failure of leadership.
> I've heard that Angela Merkel supported the shutdown of nuclear reactors after Fukishima because she wanted to shore up her popularity. An authoritarian leader could have done exactly the same thing -- who doesn't want to look good?
Then that’s a clear failure of leadership. In this instance, instead of persuading the public she let the public persuade her.
Still, if Merkel genuinely believed that Russia was a threat, I doubt she would have done this. Of course, we now believe German intelligence was compromised by Russia.
> Ultimately, I don't think democracy can be blamed. We can blame bad leadership in some cases, but that is a problem endemic to every political system.
We enabled our enemies because leadership believed that the market would liberalize our enemies. We let our guard down.
While late, it’s now leaderships’ job to persuade the public of the threats at hand.
>Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine
Who is 'Nobody' in this context? Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. Even the U.S defense establishment knew this and were preparing the Ukrainians for since 2015.
> Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time.
> It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles.
It reflects public sentiment.
Analysts aren’t the ones in power. Public sentiment and leadership’s will to bend the public sentiment are what matters.
on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation.
Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time.
The analyst groups supporting that decision just sped the steamroller.
> on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation.
I remember the UN inspectors unable to convince the US leaders that evidence was lacking.
> Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time.
> Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory.
That’s very much untrue.
It was hard for experts to form a solid opinion after the Crimean invasion. It had some characteristics which the current one doesn’t have which made it rational from a realpolitik point of view.
The invasion had a clear strategic benefit: keeping access to Sevastopol, came at a time when the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was quickly shifting and was made easier by the complicated relationship between Crimea and Ukraine.
Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine? They've been at war since 2014. A full blown invasion was a legitimate possibility for anyone paying attention since Russia invaded Georgia in 2008
This is not true. Many people predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine. You can look back at books like The Next 100 Years (2009) or The Accidental Superpower (2014) which predicted the war almost to the T.
> Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine
Plenty of people believed that Russia would launch a major invasion as part of their war with Ukraine launched in 2014. As a general concern it was raised many times by many people during the period after 2014, and that went into overdrive in the months before the actual invasion.
Warfare with China is pretty inevitable while the US and its allies aims for containment and control over china's access to the Pacific ocean and shipping lanes.
China has a strategic need for ocean access, regardless of who is in charge, and everyone else is looking for a military confrontation on that.
If china controlled the whole US east coast's access to the Atlantic ocean, and the US needed Chinese permission to go to sea, the US would have attacked already
When were Chinese shipping lanes threatened by the west last time?
A potential threat does not count. China potentially threatens the destruction of the west coast by nukes, so by your argument the US should have gone to war long ago if potential threats count.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union settled, it has been the most peaceful time in human history (at least for semi-developed nations). A moderate amount of hostility is to be expected as China has approached superpower status. This is still no where near Cold War levels.
>Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine
This was always a possibility after Crimea. People just assumed that Putin wasn't stupid enough to through with it.
>nor that Xi would be foolish enough to scare away Taiwan by muscling in on Hong Kong.
Ever since the British gave up Hong Kong, China has agreed that they will allow it to be autonomous until 2047. We're already at the half way point, so China is slowly tightening it's grip on them.
One big difference between Taiwan and Ukraine is that Russia shares a large land border with it. Traditional wisdom dictates that you need at least 1 troop for every 40 inhabitants, which is over half a million for Taiwan. China simply does not have the navy to move that number of personale. If they ever hope to invade Taiwan, they would have to prepare for a D-Day level of operation, which would be immediately obvious to intelligence.
If China wants the semiconductor factories producing magic 5nm chips they can't bomb much of the country or fuck with the middle class that much by making the country shitty. Of course if they just want to destroy Apple and NVIDIA and make consumer electronics unaffordable for a generation they can just get the fucking island by raining rockets on it for a week but that would be insanity.
I wouldn't say any actions are idncidcating we're closer. There have been numerous conflicts across the strait in the last half century. If the KMT takes control of the presidency in the next election it'll calm down a lot.
about 20 years ago i asked an old commie (proper commie, with portraits of marx engels lenin proudly hung on the wall and a library to show) what he thinks of china. his response stuck with me to this day
in china you don't have socialism. what you have in china is a market for head-nooses and western capitalists are the main customer. it's absolutely genius!
where i curently live the marxist economy, despite numerous short commings, promoted a healthy work life balance, unrivaled job security, and some rather high quality public housing that even today sells at a premium
Ironically though, the reason why the West gone to China for manufacturing is that people in the West wanted employment rights, minimum wage and all sort of socialist protections, but they didn't want to pay for it.
haha yep and pretended for good 30+ years that the working class no longer exists. people seem to forget that the uk was on a brink of revolution prior to thatcher outsourcing work to china. and now apparently they want to magically go back
What does China actually stand to gain by invading Taiwan? Any kind of real analysis based in anything other than nationalistic fervor or fear mongering seems to indicate that they're better served by the status quo.
From what I understand, it is an affront to their regime. It’s an island of free, prosperous and democratic Chinese people. It’s a repudiation of everything the CCP stands for. In a very real sense, Taiwan is not a separate country, but a unconquered territory from the Civil War, the last bastion of the pre-1949 Republic of China, and a symbol of what could have been for all of China.
Sure there are geopolitical reasons as well, but The CCP very much does not want the living proof that they are not necessary to be sitting 100 miles off their coast.
If there were ever a real democratic movement in China it would draw huge cultural inspiration from Taiwan.
I think ideology plays less of a role than is assumed. I would posture “resources” or access to resources as the definitive driver no matter if the rhetoric is ideological or religious, etc. Taiwan manufactures a lot of electronics that China does not. It has know-how and capital (means of production) of things that are important to China, China cannot manufacture, and USA, Chinas rival, has access to —- and also relies on. It is the queen on the geopolitical chessboard. But it is that because of its “resources”.
> It has know-how and capital (means of production) of things that are important to China
It has the capital. Not the Know-how or expertise. If it did, it wouldn't be stuck manufacturing lower end semi-conductors. In a hypothetical scenario - where China does manage to successfully invade the island, they won't be able to keep the foundries running for long. Because most of the design, IP, machinery and chemicals used in the process are supplied by the U.S and it's allies.
Yeah, it's entirely possible the U.S and Taiwan have plans in place to initiate a process to cripple the foundries if an invasion is imminent or underway.
> It’s an island of free, prosperous and democratic Chinese people. It’s a repudiation of everything the CCP stands for.
This is really irrelevant to the conflict, which goes back long before Taiwan democratized (which was only in the late 1990s).
The conflict is relatively simple. Taiwan was a province of China, and still is a part of the Republic of China. The People's Republic of China sees itself as the successor state of the ROC, and is also seen as such by the rest of the world. That means that the PRC considers Taiwan to be part of its rightful, legal territory.
The issue of the territorial integrity of China is especially important in modern China because of the history of colonialism and invasion in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Both the Nationalists and Communists dreamed of expelling the colonial powers and warlords, reuniting China, and finally establishing a fully sovereign, independent state. The separation of Taiwan from the mainland, as a result of the Chinese civil war, is seen as the last vestige of the era in which China was weak and not unified.
> and is also seen as such by the rest of the world
Is this actually true? It seems that most governments accept the formal definition in a diplomatic sense because they want to avoid conflict with China. However, it seems clear that at least most western countries see Taiwan as its own country in practice. From my experience the population of western countries is either surprised to hear that Taiwan isn't supposed to be its own country or see this as some bizarre concession to the power-hungry CCP we make to keep them peaceful.
Yes. The governments of the world switched recognition from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China, and transferred "China's" UN Security Council seat to the PRC.
> However, it seems clear that at least most western countries see Taiwan as its own country in practice.
They maintain informal ties, but not formal diplomatic ties. Even the PRC has informal ties with the ROC.
> surprised to hear that Taiwan isn't supposed to be its own country
It's perhaps surprising, given Taiwan's de facto independence, but legally, it's not that surprising. Taiwan was a part of China, and it's difficult to define a point in time at which it ceased to be so. Both the ROC and PRC agreed that Taiwan was part of China for decades after the end of the civil war. The Taiwanese independence movement, which has become much stronger over the last 20 years, has changed sentiment in Taiwan itself. However, it would be a major step for other countries to decide that Taiwan no longer legally belongs to China.
> However, it would be a major step for other countries to decide that Taiwan no longer legally belongs to China.
What one means by belongs to China is another matter. Not saying you have, but people will conflate the government of China with China. Taiwan does not belong the current ruling government of China and you will not find many governments which say so.
In terms of international law, the distinction you're drawing between China and the PRC is irrelevant. Legally speaking, Taiwan was recognized as part of China. The fact that there was a revolution in China does not change that, legally speaking.
If such a principle were to be accepted, that a country's territory is called into question every time there's a revolution, it would open a Pandora's box.
Recognizing Taiwan as a formally independent state would be a major step, and it would open up all sorts of previously settled questions about what national sovereignty means.
> you will not find many governments which say so
You will find almost no governments that dispute it. Again, recognizing the formal independence of a territory that has been internationally recognized as part of China would be a major break with previous conceptions of national sovereignty.
There is no legal distinction between the PRC and China. The PRC is China on the international stage.
As far as I know, no country makes a distinction between China and the state that runs it. There is a handful of countries in the world that consider the ROC (i.e., Taiwan) to be the true government of China - countries such as the Vatican City and the Marshall Islands. As I understand it, the Vatican still recognizes the ROC because that's a negotiating chip it can play in its dispute with the PRC over how bishops are named in China.
There are a handful of countries which do still recognize the ROC as the legal government of China. It has gotten smaller as China has bought many out over the last few decade. So, yes, there is a legal distinction depending on who you ask.
Given it has been so long and they are now so different, why is reunification even necessary at this point? (Other than the CCP wants to control Taiwan based on historical lines)
Why is the CCP so intent on controlling the land of another country? Most people practically consider Taiwan independent, even if the "agreements" around it say something else. They have their own government, flag, military, trade agreements, and more
> Why is the CCP so intent on controlling the land of another country?
The way you frame the question already suggests that you're not interested in why China (not just the CCP - this is a broad sentiment inside China) sees things the way it does.
Taiwan is not seen as "another country" in China. It's seen as a Chinese province that is temporarily separated from China due to the civil war. This was also the view of successive Taiwanese governments for decades after the civil war ended, and it shouldn't be surprising that people on the mainland still see it this way.
Russia does not see Ukraine as a separate country, yet everyone else does. North & South Korea are still at war, yet they are separate countries. Why should Mainland and Taiwan be any different in the long run?
While Taiwan may have historically claimed that it should control the mainland, I don't hear this from them now. I'm sure they would be more than happy to sign an agreement with mainland that recognized them as an officially separate country with no claims to mainland.
Why can the CCP not just let Taiwan be? Why can they not be an officially separate country? What would be so bad about that?
Why can't Spain let the Basques be? Why couldn't the Northern US let the Southern US be? Lots of states don't like the idea of part of them breaking off.
> So if both China and Taiwan wanted and want to be united why don't they?
I was gonna ask that but researched a little bit of history first.
So the CCP won the civil war against the government at the time, the PRC, which retreated to Taiwan.
What I didn't get is that both governments consider China to include the Taiwan territory, they just don't agree on which is the legitimate government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On my foreigner opinion though is too late for uniting china like that because when you split the population for a long enough time the culture will evolve in a different way between those parts.
> What I didn't get is that both governments consider China to include the Taiwan territory, they just don't agree on which is the legitimate government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
(I live and grew up in the US, but my family is Taiwanese.)
That description is a generation or two out of date. It is still technically the official position, but only because China continuously threatens total war if Taiwan ever backs down from that position. Since the end of the civil war there was never, ever any plausible way in which the nationalist forces in Taiwan could have retaken the lost mainland territory. After Mao's debacles, I don't think they even wanted to. It was only General Chiang Kai-shek's stubbornness that kept the policy in place until his death in 1975. By then the idea would have been laughable.
You may have heard about "Taiwanese independence" being an issue in the news every now and then over the last few decades. Taiwan is an independent country and always has been; its territory has never, ever been controlled by the PRC. What "Taiwanese independence" is about is the idea of a national referendum (which would involve changing the Taiwan constitution) to renounce all claims to the mainland, rename the country to be just Taiwan instead of the Republic of China, and drop the whole "One China" schtick.
In polling, the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese are "for independence" in the literal sense of being against reunification. Reunification might have once been a considered option, but the fate of Hong Kong showed what would result from going down that path. Other than a small percentage of the population who are nutjob far-right Chinese nationalist extremists (every country has its wackos), nobody wants reunification anymore.
So no political movement in Taiwan expects to reclaim the mainland. No political movement in Taiwan expects to peaceably unify with the mainland either (not since 2014 at least). The current ruling party, the DDP, keeps pledging to have a referendum on independence, but never follows through because China says it's a red line for war. The opposition party, the KMT, doesn't want reconquest or reunification anymore, but advocates for maintaining the status quo for merely pragmatic reasons.
> What I didn't get is that both governments consider China to include the Taiwan territory, they just don't agree on which is the legitimate government.
No sane Taiwanese actually believes that (1992 Consensus), it's just stating otherwise would be seen as provocation by China. CCP wants Taiwan to stay a civil war faction rather than an independent country.
Ugh... I read the same about Ukraine being a beacon of freedom, democracy, and prosperity and Putin being extremely mad because Russia has none of that, and Russians would be pointing fingers and asking questions... Which is utter rubbish.
Russian Federation tries to roll back rename of (Kievan) Russia to Ukraine. Actual history of Russian Federation/USSR/Russian Empire/Moscow Tsardom is well guarded secret, so lot of heads are bumping against the wall trying to understand how Russia (now Ukraine) turned into Russian Federation (contains no Russia).
Chinese people from mainland cares much less about democracy than citizens from western countries. The primary motivation for Chinese people to want reunification is that it's one of the last remaining symbols of colonialism.
Chinese people in Taiwan care A LOT about democracy, however. Despite the CCP's protestations to the contrary, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about Chinese culture, as Taiwan clearly demonstrates. The possibility that those ideas and that culture might spread to the mainland is a very real threat to the PRC's leadership.
Just so you know, I have friends and family from Taiwan. Some left Taiwan, and some stayed their whole lives. Some are KMT and some are DPP.
None of them want to reunite with China. Even the KMT ones just believe the KMT has a better plan for avoiding reunification. Some left Taiwan because they're afraid of a forced reunification. They care about democracy in Taiwan.
Of course Taiwanese people care about their way of lives, and they have full right to expect and defend that.
The problem is sadly much more complicated than "dictatorship wants to subjugate democracy". Simplified thinking is what the elites from China, Taiwan and the US wants you to think, so powers can be held onto and wars be justified.
The Pacific, for one, meaning control of shipping lanes—and with these, economic/political leverage over Japan (which, as internal PLA documents for senior staff have already revealed, they intend to put to full use). Right now, China is boxed in from all sides by mostly U.S. allied countries, so breaking the "First Island Chain" encirclement is in reality a much bigger deal than the semiconductor industry, especially in the long term.
> They will find that the rest of the civilized world can say "No" to China, just as it has to Russia.
Umm...except for US+EU, no one is saying No to Russian oil and other exports. Of-course, you are free to consider that the "rest of the civilized world" in your mind.
Comparing oil prices like this doesn't exactly work - oil is less of a commodity than we like to think. $80-85 per barrel is the price for WTI or Brent, which is a grade of crude oil called "light sweet crude." As oil goes, this is the highest purity grade. Middle Eastern oil, in general, is not anywhere near that pure, and can go for as little as $20-30/barrel. I assume Russian oil is also not quite as light and sweet as $80/barrel oil would be.
The whole point is that $52/barrel isn't (only) geopolitics, it's also about oil purity.
Other authoritarian regimes. Autocrats gotta stick together. Besides, international sanctions don't last forever. Give it a decade and maybe everyone forgets. China is a gigantic market and that's a lot of political pressure. It's not a tiny island nation like Cuba.
Face is used to rile the public, but it's rarely the motivation of those calling the shots. If face were at play Xi wouldn't have suddenly opened up with covid, backed down after threats when Pelosi visited, or let the Diaoyu Island situation go.
In China tens of millions watched the live stream Pelosi's plane flying to Taiwan, expectantly waiting for it to be shot out of the air like their leadership insinuated. Those people believe in face saving efforts, while those in charge buy homes in Japan and send their children to American universities.
You could call it a combination of pride and appearances. Ego. It's not completely foreign to American society, but it is more pronounced in Asian societies. In these cultures, some perceive it as a sign of weakness to admit fault.
China the nation stands to gain nothing. Chairman Xi stands to gain, or rather keep, a tremendous amount of power. Taiwan as an independent country flies in the face of party propaganda and official PRC policy.
This. Xi has made annexing Taiwan, essentially, a test of the CCP's legitimacy as ruler of China. If he fails, it's a huge loss of face, for him personally and for the CCP as a whole. Whether their power would survive that loss of face is not something they want to experimentally determine.
This is why is a long while before anything happens, they need to plan for every sanction, unlike russia, they seem to weather it ok, but it’s not very ok
Big difference between Russia and China at the moment. Russia can weather it because they have the energy resources. China does not and has to rely on imports for its energy needs.
This framing is incorrect. The official position of the PRC since its inception has been that Taiwan and the mainland are the same country. Reunification was always the plan of the CCP. Reuinification remains popular in the mainland. While few Taiwanese desire full reuinfication, a similarly small percent want to formally declare independence, indicating that both sides still see themselves as part of an abstract Chinese cultural nation.
> While few Taiwanese desire full reuinfication, a similarly small percent want to formally declare independence
That relatively small number is only due to China's promise of automatic and immediate invasion if they were to declare independence. Remove the threat to their life and their families, the vast majority of them would want to be Taiwan rather than be governed by a dictatorship.
You're right in the large. Realistically, though my question still applies because of a one considerations.
Timeframe. Realistically china has only about 10-15 years to do this before demographics and horrifying rates of infertility stemming from their massive pollution and urbanization catch up to them. The idea of reunification could just be an abstract concept in perpetuity (and will be if PRC makes no moves). What takes it to being real is a question of when and that has everything to do with what's in it for the current leader in the here and now.
As an aside. If PRC were really big brained and had this as the #1 agenda they would realize that the taiwanese drive for independence is really contingent. If PRC were chill and democratic free, and not scary, Taiwan would come running back. Probably also china would actually contend to be #1 country in the world. The CPC only shoots itself in the foot.
If I were him, I'd prefer the status quo. Invading Taiwan is not a 100% success guarantee and surely Xi doesn't want to end up like Putin in Ukraine. Even a (military) success would threaten his rule, simply by the economical consequences. That's a lot of risks for very little rewards. But who knows ... we can just hope for the sake of all of us, that the Chinese have better intelligence and better risk assessment than the Russians had.
The Chinese government does, at present, strongly favor the status quo.
However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the US is shifting away from the One China policy. That shift is deeply alarming the Chinese government. There doesn't seem to be anyone in American politics who is capable of pressing the breaks, slowing down the drive towards confrontation, and reengaging in real diplomacy with China.
In the end, the belief in the US that there will be a show-down over Taiwan is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Chinese government does, at present, strongly favor the status quo.
There is only one external event - an event that takes place outside of China - that can seriously disrupt the CCP's rule over China and that is Taiwan successfully declaring independence and international recognition.
It would be a humiliating loss of face for the CCP and would probably be followed by a desperate reshuffling within the party and perhaps even a civil war. The CCP is strong and rigid, but like ceramic, not like steel. Their only mandate rests on China's continued economic and diplomatic success. Taiwanese independence would be the nucleating particle for an explosion of domestic unrest and chaos.
> Taiwanese independence would be the nucleating particle for an explosion of domestic unrest and chaos
Honest question: does it have to be? Couldn't they sneer it off and keep doing what they're doing: claim it's a rebellious province they're too busy to deal with?
Every dictatorship is seething with discontent among the elites. Dictators are rarely overthrown by revolutionaries - it's more common that they're deposed by their own generals. A public failure like Taiwanese independence isn't a problem for everyone in the Chinese government - for some, it could be an opportunity. If you're at the very top, you don't want that.
If the US deliberately takes steps intended to back China into a corner, with the only options being humiliation or war, then yes, it will be the US' fault.
The US has to come to grips with the fact that its power is limited, and that it must seek accommodation with other powers. If it doesn't come to this realization, we're all in for a very bad time.
> Hitting someone else to avoid humiliation is behaviour that belongs on the elementary school playground.
John F. Kennedy didn't think so: "Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world."[0]
> Making "accommodations" over territory is what started World War 2.
First, not everything is Munich 1938, and it is very dangerous to think that it is, because it prevents rational diplomacy. It's the sort of thinking that was used to justify the American military intervention in Vietnam. It's the sort of thinking that might cause a war over Taiwan.
Second, Taiwan was legally a part of China, and it has never officially ceased to be so. The PRC is recognized as the legitimate government of China. The large majority of people in Taiwan no longer want to be part of China, but people on the mainland believe very strongly in the territorial integrity of China and are not willing to see a part of China permanently, officially severed from the country. This is an extremely delicate issue, and simply telling the Chinese to go stuff it would be very ill-advised.
While I don’t think America would be to blame for a war started by China, as an outsider, I think it has to be noted that America under Biden has been diplomatically rather aggressive and variably trustworthy. It’s fairly obvious than the whole alliance of democracies against authoritarianism is a paper thin cover for "countries which serve the US interests" and both include countries which don’t promote liberal values and exclude countries which do.
This is stupid. NATO was falling apart until last year. Suddenly it's resurgent. Do you think the US was behind this? No. Europe is scared shitless by its neighbor to the east and it's pulling American interest to it. Honestly after all of its stupid adventures in the middle east the US has lost its appetite for this shit, and "the alliance of democracies against authoritarianism" for once is not drawn by american interests (it was never really an alliance against authoritarianism, jugoslavia and Angola were on our side of during the cold war).
> However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the US is shifting away from the One China policy. That shift is deeply alarming the Chinese government. There doesn't seem to be anyone in American politics who is capable of pressing the breaks, slowing down the drive towards confrontation, and reengaging in real diplomacy with China.
Funny, from this side it looks like the opposite: the US is shifting towards greater recognition of Taiwan because China amped up its rhetoric about reunification.
The timeline of how tensions have risen is very clear. The Trump administration began taking steps to undermine the One China policy, such as Trump holding an official call with the Taiwanese president, and calling for Taiwan to be included in international organizations that normally only accept sovereign states. Pelosi's trip was another major milestone, because it breaks the US' promise not to maintain official diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Biden's repeated statements that the US definitely will defend Taiwan are another milestone, because they jettison a decades-long American policy of strategic ambiguity. Things appear to be accelerating, with the Taiwanese president's visit to the US and meeting with Kevin McCarthy, and with increasing talk in the US about potentially backing formal Taiwanese independence.
China's reaction to this has been to reiterate its long-standing position, that it favors peaceful reunification but does not rule out military force as a last resort, and to increase military drills near Taiwan. China has been reactive here. For example, it held large military drills after Pelosi visited.
A lot of these developments are driven by American domestic politics, with the two parties competing to brandish their anti-China credentials. That drives then towards increasingly provocative actions, with little thought about the larger consequences of heading down this path.
The other element driving the shift in American policy is the fact that the naval balance of power in China's immediate periphery is shifting. The US Navy is still much stronger overall, but it may no longer be able to defeat China 100 km off of China's coast. In a decade, the balance will be even less advantageous for the US. This is a major motive for jettisoning strategic ambiguity, to force a change in Taiwan's status before the balance of power tilts further.
> The timeline of how tensions have risen is very clear. The Trump administration began...
Disagree, tensions were already rising well before that. In particular Xi Jinping made a big call for reunification in 2014, which likely lead to a more vigorously pro-independence party being elected in Taiwan in 2016. Closer cooperation with the US followed from that.
Most of the answers to this question seem to assume some type of material or geopolitical calculus. The issue is far more cultural.
Begin with the simple observations that reuinfication is popular with mainland Chinese people and party members and that the official position of the PRC since its inception has been that the PRC and ROC are one country. Taiwan's independence is an affront to the perceived authority of the mainland government. Reunifying China after its fracturing under imperialism is a deep cultural ethos. Material concerns are secondary to this.
Possible access to, and control of, most of the world's top chip manufacturing node fabs.
> other than nationalistic fervor
And as you said, this. Jingoism can be used to bolster those in power. I don't know that Xi could use this boost at this point in his career, but as he seems to want to be Chairman-for-life, he may need it eventually.
Possible access to, and control of, most of the world's top chip manufacturing node fabs.
They don't know how to run them, maintain them, use them. If they did, they'd have built their own.
Only people help them here. And yet, they still don't have them.
If China invaded tomorrow, just the power loss alone would render those fabs into useless tech, taking months to clean and repair. And they'd still gain nothing, for you can be sure China's tech spies have taken notes, pictures, stolen data, know all they would know, if they seized them in war.
They could temporarily deny access to these nodes to other states.
> Only people help them here.
How many Hong Kongers aligned with the party after the preemptive takeover of the Hong Kong government? How many people simply cared more about making a living than fighting for their old political and legal system?
Not really. The U.S. really has its blinkers fully on if folks think that controlling the node fabs is a reason for the Chinese invasion. They are not dumbos - they know the foundries will be destroyed immediately.
The reason is simple - China has always considered Taiwan part of China and the U.S. agreed to that position, before it first became "strategic ambiguity" and then it became "Taiwanese Independence" under President Biden.
Judge this honestly: Do you really think a super-power is going to accept a non-friendly island next door to it militarised by an opponent super-power allowing it to project power just on its border ? Do you think the U.S. would accept Chinese military aid to Cuba with the Cubans armed with Chinese weapons and the presence of Chinese troops in Cuba ? If you know an American military officer, ask this question to him and watch him laugh at you. The Chinese would be bombed within 48 hours - hell the ships would be taken out before military supplies even reached Cuba.
The U.S. could afford to play the game of asymmetric dominance because they were the sole super-power after the Cold War. That is no longer true.
Yes, but the US never agreed which government would be the sole government of a united China.
> Do you really think a super-power is going to accept a non-friendly island next door to it militarised by an opponent super-power allowing it to project power just on its border ?
This was happening through the entire Cold War between Russia and the US in the Aleutian islands. It's the status quo change of nuclear missiles in Cuba that prompted the Cuban missile crisis, prior to that Russian troops and arms were present in Cuba without any deepening of the conflict.
>Do you think the U.S. would accept Chinese military aid to Cuba with the Cubans armed with Chinese weapons and the presence of Chinese troops in Cuba ?
We accepted this exact scenario during the Cold War with Soviet troops. We wouldn't start a nuclear war to kick them out.
China is worried about being blockaded, which is a large threat due to their reliance on middle eastern oil. The status quo makes it relatively easy for the American navy to completely encircle their shores, but without Taiwan that strategy breaks down.
"Blockade Taiwan" where? The Chinese fleet currently have to pass close to land to go anywhere outside their own seas, but from Taiwan it's clear blue water all the way to Hawaii.
It's nationalistic political ideology. I'm sure the famous Taiwan semiconductor foundries would be destroyed in any invasion. China wants to finally wipe out that resistance to them.
Wiping out resistance in Taiwan… by building a swath of new uber-enemies among all of the other surrounding countries.
There’s really no positive outcome for taking Taiwan unless in 10-20yrs+ China gets out of their recent economic rut, starts rapidly growing again, and actually starts threatening not only the US but the western hegemony as a whole. Beyond just talking tough and isolating their economy, but by going to the next level of being an economic superpower that could sustain such a blow and build strong partnership with other powerful countries.
Or if other partner countries in SEA, mid east, South America, Africa, India also grow rapidly and become far stronger power players and realign towards China.
The leadership of China are happy to answer that question for you. You may want to reject those reasons, but I think it's dangerous to substitute your own reasoning for theirs: you risk having the significant differences in your worldview causing massive blindspots about what "real analysis" would mean to them. People said the same stuff about whether or not they'd start to take more direct control of Hong Kong early.
Similarly, it feels like the "Trump is just saying that for PR, he would stop doing and saying crazy stuff if he wins the election" 2016 discourse. Sometimes you should believe people when they say what they're gonna do. (See also: overturning Roe v Wade, a core idea of Republican discourse for decades.) Or "what does the US gain from invading Afghanistan and Iraq in real terms, other than just satisfying some loud calls for arbitrary blood?"
Russia was better served by the status quo but they went ahead and invaded Ukraine.
Xi Jinping is feeling his age (just like Putin). Xi Jinping sees the mere existence of Taiwan as an independent state as an historical wrong (like Putin). Xi Jinping wants to be the one what got Taiwan, he wants it to be his legacy (again, just like Putin).
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan won't be a strategic choice or even a rational choice. It's an emotional choice.
Im having a hard time approaching this question because it’s seems so obvious but it has caused me to think more carefully.
The obvious response is because they want to overthrow the government and govern it themselves. But to be more specific, they want the capacity to have a military presence on Taiwan, levy taxes, control trade, and legislate, police, people and businesses of Taiwan. All of these things help the CCP and in same ways China in general (although killing an ethnically Chinese Democracy isn’t actually doing any Chinese people favors).
Beyond this, more broadly they want to continue conquering and project power. Taiwan is their most important claim at the moment but it’s neither their first nor last. Next most obvious target is parts of Siberia and perhaps southeast Asian countries.
> It's one of several hard to defend routes into Russia. Russia needs Ukraine as a buffer.
No, Russia doesn't need it.
I'm sure you're correct that Russia believes this, but the reality is that no one actually wants to invade Russia, and no one has wanted to invade Russia for a very, very long time. All Russia's neighbors have only been worried about invasion and oppression from Russia, ever since the end of WWII.
Somehow, the Russian people seem to collectively have a weird paranoid victim mentality, thinking they're always under threat of invasion, when in reality everyone just hates them and wishes they'd keep to themselves. They think they're entitled to controlling other neighboring countries for their own defense, but they never give a thought to those countries' defense. Somehow, places like Poland and Sweden these days are able to not worry about being invaded by their (non-Russian) neighbors, so all the other borders within Europe are completely undefended. Maybe if Russia tried being friendly with other nations instead of constantly threatening them with military action, they could have a peaceful coexistence too.
Maybe they're still stuck in 1930s mentality. Back then, Hitler really did want to invade Russia (and did), along with Poland and a bunch of other countries.
However, the world has moved on in the last 80 years. Germany is part of NATO now, Poland and Germany are friends (and France, Netherlands, etc.), and no one is worried about invasion from Germany any more. Somehow, the people of Russia never got past the mindset they had back when Hitler tried to invade.
Maybe. Or maybe they’re assuming everyone else is itching to invade and subjugate Russia, because Russia would and continues to do so to all their neighbors at the slightest opportunity. They can’t conceive that the rest of the world really has moved beyond such idiotic imperialist behavior.
The CCP has (right or wrong) declared that Taiwan is an inviolable part of China and a rogue province. That means that if Taiwan were to declare independence and succeed, it would be a signal failure for the CCP - a gross loss of face. The party's legitimacy (always a complicated thing for an authoritarian state) would be threatened by the demonstration of weakness.
Taiwanese independence is the CCP's soft and fleshy underbelly. Bringing Taiwan under Beijing's control eliminates the uncertainty that comes from that political vulnerability.
from wikipedia:
Territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[2] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state
I would guess that there's oil or shipping lanes or aircraft bases that they would want.
Those are possibilities. The only guarantee world be that China now had Taiwan. The very fact those articles exist prove why China wants Taiwan, which was the question.
A week in, china says “ok who wants chips?” And the world world help get everything rolling again, because we need things Taiwan makes in aggregate more than Taiwan does. There are no other options. We also need things China makes.
One thing I learned recently was that when the Kuomintang fled to Taiwan, they took a vast trove of priceless Chinese antiquities with them. This has long been a sore spot for China, which makes the desire to annex Taiwan not simply a dollars and cents tactical goal but also a matter of national pride.
It's like if we had a right-wing revolution in the US, and the current national government fled to Nova Scotia with the contents of the Smithsonian, the National Archives, and every important museum and library.
How many priceless Chinese antiquities were destroyed by the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution? They should have taken even more! It's like if we had a radical extremist revolution in the US, and the contents of the Smithsonian, the National Archives, and nearly every important museum and library were all burned because they're too old, oppressive and counter-revolutionary.
Totally, and I'm not making any judgment about whether it was right or wrong to take all the antiquities. However, I think the current regime in China has different ideas about the value of these antiquities, and so they're eager to get them back for the sense of legitimacy and connection to China's history that they would bring.
Not sure your analogy works, since it’s the right that is so insistent on preserving cultural artifacts while the left is the side with people actively destroying them. It’s also no coincidence. The CCP did the same thing.
> the left is the side with people actively destroying them
I was just in Central Park in NYC and there was a huge golden Civil War statue that was completely unmolested, and it's sitting smack in the middle of a very liberal city. General Sherman is very safe from liberals. I'm sure John Brown statues would be as well. Maybe it's not all the cultural artifacts, but only certain ones and the very specific things they represent?
> it’s the right that is so insistent on preserving cultural artifacts while the left is the side with people actively destroying them
I dunno, right-wingers seemed just as happy, or more, with the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled as anyone else.
If you mean specifically monuments to slavery, slavers, and the Confederate States of America, sure, the Right is eager to protect those and the left opposed, but for neither side is that about “cultural artifacts” as a broad class.
- Shipping[0]: Between China and Taiwan is a very popular shipping lane. Anything that comes from anywhere except the North America likely comes through or near there. This is why they are also interested in Singapore and Indonesia. See the 9-dash line map[1], which shows where they claim control over the seas, and compare that to the shipping map on [0]. I should also reference the Kuril Islands[1.5] as an analogy and a more critical situation between Russian and Japan (Japanese control could lock Russia out, hence their deep concern).
- TSMC: I'm not sure I need to cite the chip wars as there's an article on the front page probably every week and has been so for the last 4 years.
- Territoriality control: It gives them a greater vantage over territories, especially into the ocean. Though reference first point.
- Political: Taiwan and Hong Kong (not so much Macau, considered "resolved") have represented the antithesis to the CCP's way of thinking and propaganda. Xi and the CCP have long been touting the line that democracy is not possible in Asia and specifically in China[2,3,4] noting that "the fruit looks the same but the taste is different." Taiwan specifically demonstrates a counter to their claim that the people can be free AND prosperous at the same time. But so do other surrounding countries, but there's a larger gap and these people see large gaps between cultures where us Westerns may not see any (tensions have long been high between China, Japan, and Korea and they've been warring for centuries. Particularly bad in WW2 btw). I should also note that which ever Chinese leader "passifies the dissenters" will go down in history as doing something that no previous leader could and be a great show of strength. So there's internal politics as well that may be far less important to those of us on the outside.
I'd say these are the major aspects but each one is far deeper than this comment would lead you to believe and there are of course other factors as well.
> The answer to this puzzle might lie in the confusion between two different Chinese expressions which are pronounced exactly the same: “concentration of power” (集权, or jiquan in pinyin) and “autocracy” (极权, also pronounced jiquan)... Therefore, “concentration of power”, not “autocracies”, should be what Xi referred to in his call with Biden.
I think many will even question if the distinction is meaningful here. There is also a link [5] that quotes Xi about how to describe a democracy:
> Whether a country is democratic or not should only be judged by the people of that country, and there is no place for a small number of outsiders to point fingers at this or that
Which again, feels off since his argument would conclude that the DPRK is Democratic and I think few would agree. We have a long history of watching autocracies and dictators refer to their systems as "democratic"
The same reason Russia invaded Ukraine even though it made no sense. The same reason Republicans put up Trump even though it made no sense. If you have 0 morals, you can gain a lot of power by riling up your base with empty promises of nationalist glory. But eventually your base expects you put up or shut up, even if it doesn't or never has made sense.
They have always considered Taiwan part of China. The US even agreed and signed a treaty regarding that.
The United States' One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.
Since then, the US devolved first to strategic ambiguity and then recently to supporting Taiwanese Independence in the Biden Era. The Chinese are not going to take it lying down. Nationalism matters a lot to Chinese - if you think this is simply a Xi endeavour, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Even if Xi died today, the vast majority of the high command will decide to carry forth.
Unfortunately, War is generally a snowballing, self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the U.S. has now gained access to four new Philippine bases, China will be forced to respond as well. The game of escalation will continue until the final pin drops.
Personally, I really don't think super-powers should be stubborn. There should be new negotiations and there should b e a revised Shanghai Communique. China is unlikely to accept an fully independent island so close to their border though and will want some control over Taiwanese governance. Its too much of a threat to them otherwise.
If you think the position un-reasonable, turn the situation around and judge the way the U.S. treats Cuba - strong-armed and watched over by the Guantanamo Bay military base and sanctioned to death and you might get an idea of what China's starting negotiation position will likely to be.
Taiwan's output of chips requires inputs from the rest of the world including Japan. At this time it doesn't make sense for china to cut out it's main source of high tech chips. It could make sense later if China had its own supply of chips and could cut out Taiwan altogether. China is pushing hard to make their own non-liberal order but China also depends on exports. Also China's political system is based upon absolute control over everything a person does. It will be messy implementing that onto people who already fought against it so there will be a lot of killings, disappearing people, and the usual China stuff broadcast all of time. Will be a bad look, not great to throw that in the face of people you need to export goods to.
We have no political control in Cuba even though we did take a portion of the island.
> We have no political control in Cuba even though we did take a portion of the island.
I think the Chinese will be extremely happy with a similar arrangement. Taiwanese government can continue, there will just be a nice, big military base right next door keeping an eye.
I am sure all those folks captured and tortured in Guantanamo Bay in "independent" Cuba were very happy with the level of control the U.S. applied there. Something that would have still been hidden and a state secret if not for Wikileaks. But the guy who leaked it has now been made to pay for it and is now imprisoned and in isolation.
China will never "invade" Taiwan, that would be a suicide..
I think the US wants everyone to say that China will invade Taiwan, but it's just geopolitics stuff, spreading some FUD to hinder BRICS development, probably..
> "Instead of going to Mars, we invaded the Middle East," he said. "Donald Trump is right. It's time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country."
China is looking at Russia very closely, they don't want to repeat the same mistake as Putin, they just want to make sure they don't end up being at the mercy of foreign's will and interests..
In the short term that's terrible. In the long term, pain now will help minimize pain later when China invade Taiwan and US-China trade drops to zero overnight. It's coming sooner or later and the longer you leave your investments in China the more you risk the door slamming shut on your hand.