Hacker News Reader

Comment by droopyEyelids | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting how long a nearby territory/country can 'Stand up to China'

When you look at _countries_ (not even territories!) that have tried to 'stand up' to the USA, you only see a trail of immiseration and coup d'état. They don't even have to be _that_ close to us geographically, like Nicaragua or Chile. Cuba is the closest to a success story, and look at their economic indicators. https://tradingeconomics.com/cuba/gdp-per-capita-ppp

I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, but it's just wild to me that China is a superpower, and not only has Taiwan failed to have a revolution, but they're a financial success. https://statisticstimes.com/economy/country/taiwan-gdp-per-c...

View on HN

Taiwan (ROC) has been a separate country on the doorstep of China (PRC) for more than 70 years. This status quo could certainly continue another 70 years. This status quo could even outlast the PRC government.

I think the conclusion you should draw from this is the obvious one: China is not all powerful.

by "separate country", Taiwan is governed by a group that believes it is the true government of China in exile. It might be helpful to be clear about this.

> by "separate country", Taiwan is governed by a group that believes it is the true government of China in exile. It might be helpful to be clear about this.

The overlapping (though not equal) border claims by the ROC and the PRC don't change the fact that they are two separate countries. No clarity is required because it really isn't relevant. Border disputes between countries is entirely normal.

you're muddying the waters and it's absolutely relevant (History and historical context is always relevant). In 1949, the Republic of China retreated to the island of Taiwan and continues to this day to claim to be the government (in exile) of China.

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

This isn't a simple border dispute between separate countries. It's a governance dispute between two competing claims to a single country.

This is pretty funny though, if I've understood this correctly. People in the West always seem to think that a properly democratic government made by the chinese people (be it those in Taiwan or those in China) would be "peaceful", but to me if I look at a map and observe the lands Taiwan claims for herself, it seems quite a lot (if they do actually claim the rights to governing the China-China too, and not just Taiwan the Island)

> This is pretty funny though, if I've understood this correctly. People in the West always seem to think that a properly democratic government made by the chinese people (be it those in Taiwan or those in China) would be "peaceful", but to me if I look at a map and observe the lands Taiwan claims for herself, it seems quite a lot (if they do actually claim the rights to governing the China-China too, and not just Taiwan the Island)

Are you making the claim that Taiwan's official historical claims somehow make the current country not peaceful? How exactly? Exactly what belligerent actions has Taiwan engaged in recently?

> This isn't a simple border dispute between separate countries. It's a governance dispute between two competing claims to a single country.

Actually it's not even theoretically a single country. The "China" officially claimed officially by the ROC is quite different than the "China" officially claimed by the PRC. The difference between the claims it at least Mongolia.

But you are correct it's not a simple border dispute. It is a complicated border dispute that has gone on a couple generations now. But it's also complicated dispute between two separate countries. It is quite clearly you who are trying to muddy the waters here.

Taiwan has had the protection of and deep economic cooperation with the USA.

Superpower (from Google): A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.

> I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, but it's just wild to me that China is a superpower, and not only has Taiwan failed to have a revolution, but they're a financial success.

It would seem that China doesn’t meet the definition of a superpower, but I think we should all be very wary of any nation or individual who seeks power over others. Those who seek power are those we don’t want to have it.

>territory/country

How telling.

Isolating yourself from the world's largest economy isn't a winning economic policy.

> Isolating yourself from the world's largest economy isn't a winning economic policy.

If you're saying that Taiwan is isolating itself from China, then you are very wrong. Taiwan and China's economies are very intertwined. Taiwanese companies have had a large hand in the economic growth of China during the past generation.

It's a good reminder that countries can do quite well working with one another even if they're rivals. Hopefully this reality keeps hostilities in check.

I'm not saying that -- I'm responding to:

>_countries_ (not even territories!) that have tried to 'stand up' to the USA, you only see a trail of immiseration and coup d'état.

I think the situation demonstrates that China needs Taiwan more than the US needs Cuba.

This is pure, distilled whataboutism.

I’m not sure it’s a valid comparison, because no other country is even remotely comparable in aggressiveness with USA. What if you compared with eg India instead?

If you look at Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, they are at least "remotely comparable".

Couple of thousands dead (Ukraine) vs one million dead (Middle East); I’d say that’s quite a difference.

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

What about the 7-14 million Ukrainians Russia starved to death, do they count? Sure it happened a while ago but it happened and it was Russian aggressiveness that still reverberates today. Your attitude dismisses you from any and all future discussions on this matter. You have demonstrated that your are unfit to comment.

What about all the natives slain by Americans, and then the slavery? How about racist laws designed to get the black population into prisons (largely successfully)? What about people dying, because money that would normally be used to fund healthcare are being wasted on invading other counties instead?

So, I’d say it makes sense to focus on the current state of affairs, including recent history. War in Georgia is recent history, as is the Middle East. Holodomor, American concentration camps for Japanese, or apartheid - not so much.

Not to mention that people responsible for Holodomor are all dead. People responsible for killing million random civilians in the Middle East are living very comfortable lives, and their fellow citizens don’t even consider them criminals.

You don’t decide what is relevant. Ukraine has not forgotten and it is clear which side they have chosen now. No country in the world has such bad relations with it’s neighbours than Russia.

Oh, American natives didn’t forget either, same way the Chinese never forgot about Japan and Russians about Nazis, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s all ancient history.

Also, don’t get me wrong, but Ukraine doesn’t exactly have good relations with USA either. Remember how twenty years ago they promised you protection if you give up your nuclear weapons? They screwed your over. Now they are denying you NATO membership, for the same reason. They are really good at propaganda though.

Ukraine needs protection against whom?

Is that a trick question? Who invaded it last time?

Russia. 2014.

Maybe you should follow your own advice - your numbers are wildly inflated (can easily be checked at Wikipedia), Ukrainians weren't the only ones in USSR who were starving to death and they were part of USSR leadership as any other nation there (with Stalin being Georgian). And frankly, idea that you're going to judge who is fit to comment is highly delusional.

The USSR was pretty much Russian imperialism. Russia is still very unpopular in eastern Europe.

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

If we are talking about China-India equations, they are troubled too. China claims vast swathes of land all along the Himalayas, including two Indian states (as being part of ancient Southern Tibet). It is interesting that China recognizes claims only unilaterally, as any territory in dispute on Chinese side is immediately shut off from the discussion.

India & China are in middle of a military standoff, which began in 2020 summer, about border lines [1]. It has seen one of the most massive buildups since 1962 Sino-Indian war

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...

So, how many people died in that conflict?

Because, frankly, I don’t give a damn about oil or territorial claims. That’s just politics. People’s lives - that’s what matters.

About 40 Chinese soldiers from unofficial sources, CIA reports etc, & ~20 soldiers on the Indian side. India seems to be more transparent on casualties here as the list of dead soldiers has been published in their newspapers/gazettes after the skirmishes in 2020. This information is better explained on Wikipedia.

Even small skirmishes have downstream impact indirectly. In India’s case, they often decide the poll results as tensions run high.

Similar to how small-terrorist attacks (with small number of deaths) can result in huge policy changes that change countries forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com