Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is the PRC playing high-speed high-stakes catch-up to the rest of the world. China was nothing of any geopolitical significance prior to the cultural revolution. The colonial powers were clearly in charge of the world, with Portugal owning Macau from 1557, the British owning Hong Kong from 1841 and the French, German, American, British, Danish and Italians each owning sections of Shanghai in the 1800s. The French Concession being the best known.

At the time of the HK handover in 1997, HK represented a whopping 18% of all of China's GDP. Today, HK represents only 3% of China's GDP. This happened in only 20 years.

China is doing what I can imagine any other country in their position would do: take advantage of foreign companies using their discount labor pool to obtain the technologies necessary to first become self-sufficient and eventually to lead.

We're at a juncture now, where for better or worse, the US is no longer willing to put up with the status quo because the myopic policies of the past, focused on self-enrichment, are coming home to roost. It's probably too late honestly, whether American companies withheld the last few years of advancements or not, the Chinese have developed sufficient domain expertise to catch up and lead on their own in short order. They do have 3X the US population after all, and appear much more motivated in their pursuit of science and technology than the US is.

This point in history represents a number of long-term story arcs coming together at once. I'm not condoning it, there's lots of history here.

Hong Kong was created from scratch under British rule -- it was a sleepy village that the British identified as a terrific potential deep water port. This is important in understanding the current crisis there-- there's a degree of historical and cultural separation from "mainland" China in Hong Kong's roots.

While true (and historically a place where people fled the mainland in general, AFAIK), it doesn't change the fact that allowing this settlement in the first place is indicative of a power imbalance at the time. For instance, if the Chinese wanted to set up a colony in the Channel Islands today (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Isle of White), I'm pretty sure that wouldn't go over well. Nor would the UK attempting to set up shop today, say, in the South China Sea (in the Spratleys for instance). The balance of power has definitely tipped.

China is doing exactly what you say with islands in the Pacific that they promised not to militarize and then moved in military bases. There balance of military power hasn't tipped at all, the western countries just stopped thinking it was okay to establish permanent settlements in other people's countries and then use that to claim we owned it. We still create best permanent military bases when we want to. If Britain or the US wanted we could destroy the Chinese Navy and Air Force without blinking. It's only when you get to ground forces that you see any kind of advantage in the Chinese military, because like the USSR in WW2 there are always more bodies.

> There balance of military power hasn't tipped at all, the western countries just stopped thinking it was okay to establish permanent settlements in other people's countries and then use that to claim we owned it.

Isn't that power? Power doesn't necessarily mean carrying out actual warfare, it means being able to do whatever you want without anyone stopping you. "We could stop them if we wanted to we just ... don't want to, yeah that's right..." rings pretty hollow. The fact that zero enforcement action has been taken means China is more powerful in the region.

All the UK can do to enforce the handover agreement is write strongly worded memos that get sent right into the shredder in Beijing. Similarly with the islands in the South China Sea. The response is basically "what are you going to do about it?" Not what could you do about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com