I really wish the US and Europe would get *lls and punish China for breaking the treaty with Hong Kong and the UK
This is maybe the most highly educated and productive population in the world. Any country would be lucky to get them.
Yes. And no longer trade with China.
Economically HK isn't that big of a deal compared to the rest of China at this point.
In CN there are largely three types of listings A shares, B shares and H shares. A & B are listed on SZ and SH exchange and are not freely traded like you know it from the west. H shares are listed on HK exchange and are freely traded using the Hong Kong Dollar.
This is why companies like Tencent are dual listed on Shanghai and Hong Kong exchange, to facilitate foreign investment that wouldnt be possible in the same way if Tencent was only listed as B class on Shanghai exchange.
> But the Hong Kong government can only welcome the stock listing opportunity to reinforce Hong Kong as the world’s premier IPO destination, especially at a time when the introduction of the national security law has raised concerns about maintaining the city as a global financial hub.
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3145952/why-chi...
The US’s capital markets support international trade in a somewhat similar way, and are thus innately valuable even without accounting for the productivity of American workers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-finance...
We should also note that with the growth of Shenzhen and other mega cities, HK isn't that important to China anymore. That's part of why they've become more aggressive in the situation.
Personally, I think they'd go for it. They've been itching to take over Taiwan by force anyway.
I don't believe this is true. IIRC they've implied they would invade if Taiwan declared itself independent.
If there were sizable numbers of US troops on Taiwan, I don't think they'd attack. They don't want a major confrontation, at least not yet.
There's a decent chance at this point that all those troops would do is hold the airport for a rushed evacuation mission.
The US does care about Taiwan, because of real economic interests.
US sails ship through South China Sea days after China institutes new maritime ID rules [1]
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/08/politics/us-south-china-sea-m...
Eh. I think there are plenty of American decision-makers who are motivated to figure out a rationale for swallowing a loss like that.
China would strike as soon as US troops officially settle in China in a military and not police/security/training/sales capacity.
until what point?
inaction is generally one of the biggest causes of death and suffering in historical warfare.
Beyond just Taiwan, the last cold war kept the third world in a constant state of proxy war between the major powers, costing millions of lives in the short-term and delaying development in the long term.
Worth considering if you're in favor of more of that in the name of human rights.
And the alternative might have been "let the Soviets win." That choice would have definitely been a way to avoid war and achieve a kind of "peace."
We had to support one-way helicopter rides under Pinochet and contras gunning down nuns? Or else the soviets win?
If it's about national pride and staying on top, fine, but don't tell me it's human rights with that record. The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.
Hundreds of thousands were massacred by the Viet Cong after the US left, and hundreds of thousands more died in the ensuing refugee crisis.
The world is a messy place and at many times it may be impossible to pursue that goal in an entirely consistent manner.
There's also the other factor of self-preservation. It's not a good strategy to cede advantages to your opponent and hope a deus ex machina saves you in the end.
> The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.
Who's advocating for a bunch of killing? I think the main (perhaps only) thing I'm seeing advocated for here is diplomatic recognition.
Xi has been pushing the limits internally and maybe one day that turns external but people here are talking about pre-emptive cold war.
EDIT: diplomatic recognition is a purely symbolic move, and in this case the symbol is a middle finger to China. I'd argue the upsides are limited, but I was more objecting to the general theme of china hawkishness that points towards a new cold war.
What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.
That's not a great look, and will probably eventually end with our allies either defeated or heading for the exits.
Being a reliable ally seems like it'd be pretty important to self-defense. China has a pretty big population, it's unified, and may have the patience to chip away at things and outlast us.
> What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.
I suppose it's always an option to withdraw and leave our allies become tributaries of the new empire. Maybe we can eventually become one ourselves and our grandkids can gave peace under the emperor.
It would be a global political shitstorm, but even mainland China would not be stupid enough to invade after that.
Nuclear proliferation may be bad for all sorts of reasons, but MAD really does appear to work.
Also Taiwan already has nuclear power plants, so it's not that crazy. They are capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own if they really wanted to.
US would never do that, it would violate Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Some non-nuclear NATO countries do host US nuclear weapons, but they are legally and physically under US control. In an actual nuclear war, the US would release these nuclear weapons to their allies – at which point the US would have indeed violated the treaty, but in a nuclear war who cares?
So in principle the US could station US-controlled nuclear weapons in Taiwan, and publicly announce they have done so. But it would be an extremely risky move – basically the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again, but this time with the US playing the role of the Soviet Union.
Given the extreme risk of such a move, I doubt the US is going to make it.
The US unlikely to be enormously bothered about violating treaties if it finds doing so in its interest.
> Given the extreme risk of such a move
What exactly is China going to do? Try to break the US-led world order? They're doing that already!
The US cares greatly about the NPT because it wants a world in which only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, not a world in which dozens of them do.
NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan. But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90
> What exactly is China going to do?
Attack Taiwan? China would likely try to call the US nuclear bluff with a massive conventional attack. The ensuing loss of human life and economic damage would be enormous.
The treaty doesn't ensure that in any way. It's an empty letter.
> NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan.
Exactly. The NPT does fuck-all against this, and it's going to be of equally fuck-all use against the next bunch of countries that really want to get nukes. (Also, BTW, fuck knows if your four shouldn't be a five: how certain are you, really, that South Africa doesn't have them?)
> But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90
Maybe. (Yeah: I'm not even all that sure about that, any more.) But that has fuck-all to do with the NPT, since that is of absolutely no use in ensuring the former in stead of the latter.
IIRC, that's one of the PRC's red lines to trigger an invasion.
Also, I'm not sure if Taiwan could get to the point of having a survivable nuclear arsenal that's large enough to guarantee MAD.
China's unfree speech would actually be a strong asset in such a conflict.
Makes you think
1. Would Americans be in favor of (relatively) short term destruction in favor of long term prosperity for their children and future generations?
2. Would the US be able to win a conventional war against China?
I believe the answer to #1 is no. I don't think anybody knows the answer to #2.
On 2, there is no conventional war with a nuclear power.
True. But maybe there can be a purely conventional war between two nuclear powers.
And China can hurt the city enough by just turning the water off. It will only hurt the people of Hong Kong more.
No, this change won't be driven by the military. It will have to come from within. Probably the most durable way anyway (see how this worked out for Afghanistan).
Taiwan would be a totally different thing though. They have been independent for so long and they have no wish to join communist China (which they've never been a part of). And it's much more defensible. I do hope we will stand by them when it comes to it.
Indeed. It's a complete non-starter.
If the West wants to beat China they must be more subtle and crafty than a direct military invasion: the 2nd Cold War will be mainly fought using diplomacy, trade, economics, technology and spying. Not direct military conflict, apart from maybe a few proxy wars.
US can walk out of the treaty but there are downsides to it. It will happen sooner or later.
1: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-01/jack-m...
UK have made it clear they aren’t part of the EU so why would the EU care?
Just recall the context China are operating from: Hong Kong was stolen from them at the height of the opium wars. There is no fairness in these geopolitical dealings.
Overall this sucks for HK… but it’s actually easy to understand all the parties involved actions/inaction… it’s just crap though. :(
It is not a UK/EU issue. At the end of the day CCP think itself as a rising power and will want to expand its power to anywhere on earth. The belt and road initiative is basically modern day colonisation, instead of taking over a whole country or city, Sri Lanka lost a port for 99 years. [1]
1: https://www.ft.com/content/e150ef0c-de37-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52...
Chinese exports are rapidly becoming too expensive relative to their neighbors and they seem to be unable to further cheapen the price of their labor.
Economically, China is actually in a real bind.
- Kosovo wants to be independent, people decided so, so we must support a new country
- Bosnia has to stay together, no matter what the people want, we won't change maps again
- Catalonia? What, what, sorry, can't hear you, the connection is unstable.. [disconnect]
They're lying, cheating, and stealing from every entity they deal with on the world stage, blatantly holding themselves above any law, even internally. This doesn't end well unless there's some sort of overwhelming grassroots revolution from the inside. Thanks to Western panopticon tech, that can't happen now, so China's merry band of pirates is headed for Taiwan and global conflict.
Thanks, boomers, ya done good.
We have done and continue to do more than our fair share of lying, cheating, and stealing. We metaphorically stacked the deck. You say "global conflict" - I'll remind you that it takes two to have a conflict. And America has the modern world beat in terms of starting and perpetuating conflicts.
Every country is lying/cheating/stealing... Is there an honest operator out there?
If China steals all the Arm Holdings IP and infrastructure in China, there is no recourse.
If I scam someone on EBay or Amazon almost anywhere in the Western world, they can take me to court given sufficient evidence and magnitude of the scam. If a Chinese seller on Alibaba or Amazon scams me, there is zero recourse.
The Western world has a surprising level of default trust and honesty in business. There are gross and obvious exceptions, but China is culturally and legally playing a vastly different and incompatible game.
“The western world” is the minority in the world… like 20 or so countries. And typically they benefited from colonialism. I know it’s fun to ignore history, but it’s dishonest.
I'm sure with a bit of reflection you can see the absolute irony of what you are asking for.