Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Divide and conquer, this has been China's approach for a long time.

When Australia started to get closer to the US, China put blocks on imports, delayed customs clearance for food (so it spoiled), hoping to break Australia away from the Western Alliance.

When Macron wanted to visit China, he was welcomed with open arms.

China knows they can't go up against the entire Western world, but if they can peel off each country - one by one - they can go up against the US alone (or think they can), whether it be economic or military warfare.

View on HN

Why do you believe China has a desire to break the Western world?

So it can do what it wants. Like control the South China Sea. Invade Taiwan. Reroute all rivers flowing into India for itself. Steal natural resources from countries. Control foreign governments. Basically everything it does now but without having to worry about everyone rallying against them.

China won't invade Taiwan. Xi isn't going to oversee the massacre of fellow Han people. There is very little appetite within the CCP for openly invading Taiwan.

Looking at the diplomatic wins China has racked up recently, it's entirely possible Taiwan willingly folds itself into China within a decade.

Doubtful. People in Taiwan don’t consider themselves Chinese. They don’t want anything to do with China. A lot of Taiwanese believe they have more in common with japan than they do with China.

After what happened with HK they do not believe China can be trusted at any capacity.

China is banking on KMT winning next year so they can try and invade from the inside. But Taiwan won’t go peacefully.

Exactly. You know which country is most willing to see a war around China's border? The US. That's the most effective way it can form an anti-China aliance and hit its biggest rival.

China absolutely will take Taiwan by force. Xi recently stated it as an objective at the start of his 3rd term.

Taiwan absolutely wont go willingly.

What do you think all the military exercises (by both sides) are for if China and Taiwan think it’s going to be resolved peacefully?

South China Sea, Taiwan, India. Which of them is located in "Western"?

> Basically everything it does now but without having to worry about everyone rallying against them.

Which part do you not understand?

Ask the Roman Catholic Pope? Wasn't a decision made centuries ago?

So, imperialism. Which is what Western powers also did openly until the 1960s TBH, and less openly until today. Let's hope that Xi is less deluded than Putin and realizes that cooperation is better than confrontation. And the West has to try to remove some of the eggs from the Chinese basket and put them somewhere else...

> Which is what Western powers also did openly until the 1960s TBH

Sure. I wasn’t born then. But I would like to think society and governments have grown up since then and we can agree that invasion is wrong. Abuse of power is wrong.

Britain has given up a lot of what it took. It has no control or say in australia or New Zealand. It gave HK back. Left Singapore, Myanmar, India. Etc.

Obviously we can’t change what happened. None of us on HN or our families etc had any say in what happened for generations before we were born.

But in 2023 we should be at a point where we can acknowledge it’s wrong and stop it from happening.

Russia and China haven’t got that memo yet.

> Britain has given up a lot of what it took. It has no control or say in australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/14/australian-governor-who-...

In 1999 australia also voted to maintain its ties with Britain. But because of 1975 Britain has less powers in australia. When was the last time Britain interfered with Australia to a large extent?

I must admit to largely preferring the less open version.

"break" has many meanings, but assuming you meant "break up" instead of "destroy":

- China has openly supported Macron's "strategic autonomy" principle which aims to distance EU from USA.

- Ever since Xi got his regime extended, they've been inviting nation leaders to increase their influence. In last 5 months, they've invited Germany, Iran, Spain, France and Brazil.

- They've brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi. Which is another loss for US influencer in middle east, threatening the current petrodollar hegemony.

Note that I'm not condemning China. It's just an observation. And honestly, they would be dumb if they didn't do this while US is pissing off their key allies with rate hikes and the IRA Act.

> China has openly supported Macron's "strategic autonomy" principle which aims to distance EU from USA.

I find this completely normal, but also shortsighted in a way. A more strategically autonomous and assertive EU wouldn't blindly follow US' follies (cf. Iraq), but that doesn't mean it won't side with the US for a just cause (cf. Ukraine). The democratic values in the US, Canada, UK and EU are too similar for a complete strategic divergence in policies. Therefore we'd get a more strong, integrated and assertive EU leading the way in many areas trade, manufacturing and regulations-wise, that still collaborates with US and friends when it makes sense and the cause is just (so not in invading Iran on imaginary pretenses, but if China invades Taiwan brutally à la Russia invading Ukraine, probably).

In short term, China loves "strategic autonomy" because Macron has also suggested that China invading Taiwan should not be EU's business under the principle(apparently he used much stronger words but was censored by his own communications team)

In longer term, (pure speculation) I think China may believe that after a while, China would have so much global influence that even strategically autonomous EU would be reluctant to side with US even for blatantly "unjust" cause.

Why should China setting foot in Taiwan be EU's business? It's literally half-way around the globe from us.

And don't forget, the situation is extremely messy from a legal perspective. Taiwan is an island, run by the Republic of China, the losers of the Chinese Civil War, and both them and the PRC (mainland China) say there's only one China, and it's them. That's what the world recognises too, only one of them is the real China, and there's nothing else.

For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a separate independent country nowadays thay doesn't actively claim to be China, but it's too late to change the situation (like by amending their constitution or status to say they're a separate country, Taiwan, and don't have anything to do with China anymore) because anything done today just might piss off China(PRC). Technically if China invades Taiwan, they'd be within their internationally recognised legal rights to retake a runaway province from the losers of a civil war. From a humanitarian perspective it would be a disaster of course, but on what grounds does anyone defend Taiwan when barely any country recognises Taiwan exists in the first place?

Legal perspective? The only way you can enforce legality is with force. And whose is going to do that? The UN?

Countries gain sovereignty either when the country they split off of allows it or they have the means to occupy and defend the land they claim is soverign.

> Legal perspective? The only way you can enforce legality is with force

Dubious. The current legality of the situation is that Taiwan is de jure part of China (PRC), and the ROC is nobody. Nobody is enforcing that with force, it's maintained by the unwillingness of the ROC to provoke the PRC, and the unwillingness of the PRC to risk their credentials and trade over this, or they're hopeful one day the ROC will peacefully join them if relations and trade are good enough.

> Countries gain sovereignty either when ... they have the means to occupy and defend the land they claim is soverign.

Haiti, or much more recently Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, North Cyprus, etc. prove this wrong. Even if you have full control of some land and claim to have full sovereignty over it, unless others recognise you, you're in a very bad situation. No international recognition -> no trade or international relations -> perpetually poor.

> ... they're hopeful one day the ROC will peacefully join them if relations and trade are good enough.

The stupid shit that China pulled in Hong Kong just a few years ago has pretty much put a nail into the coffin of that hope any time soon.

All China had to do was keep to the "one country, two systems" approach in Hong Kong that had been working so well.

But they couldn't even manage to do that, instead violating the agreement they themselves negotiated.

So, it's pretty easy to see why the majority of Taiwanese want them fuck right off. ;)

The same way it was the US’ business to free you from Nazis just 80 years ago.

It wasn't, they only joined because Japan and later Nazi Germany declared war on them. If it was about "freeing" anyone, they would have stepped in much earlier.

And just to be clear, the US had a massive part of the Allied war effort against the Axis, but they didn't singlehandedly win the war or free anyone, it was a joint effort with similarly massive Soviet and British (and Commonwealth) parts. As a reminder, Britain spent months fighting alone, and the vast vast majority of German troops were always on the Eastern Front while the Western Allies fought against subpar foreign "volunteers" or third-rate recovering German troops on the continent.

> It wasn't, they only joined because Japan and later Nazi Germany declared war on them. If it was about "freeing" anyone, they would have stepped in much earlier.

Only because of isolationist "not my problem"s like GP, the current fringe right in the US, and others on HN. That's what we're fighting to not be like.

Everything you said is pretty much true. It's also true that without the US, and especially US+UK, WW2 would've turned out very differently. Soviets could not beat the Nazis themselves. So you can still appreciate the US, UK, and the Soviets for freeing Europe. And the US and UK are telling Europe that you don't get to be saved by us and then shirk your responsibility to save someone else.

In here it was the Soviets, actually. And equating current-day China with the Nazis makes companies like Apple what? Collaborators?

And you’re glad it was the Soviets?? Didn’t turn out so well for East Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, etc.

No, China hasn’t set foot in Taiwan. If it does, by murdering thousands, then yes Apple would be rightfully seen as collaborators. As would you for supporting indifference to a murderous bloody invasion.

It doesn't; what is happening is the result of changed attitudes towards China particular in the US. It would have preferred to trade more with and have further cultural ties with the US.

Nah.

"Break" might not be the right word. China is clearly trying to supplant the US as the self-described "leader" of the world though.

How on earth did you get "desire to break the Western world" from the statement "hoping to break Australia away from the Western Alliance".

"Break away" as in "separate" or "remove from the group".

> China knows they can't go up against the entire Western world, but if they can peel off each country - one by one - they can go up against the US alone

That’s “breaking off”, not “breaking the West”.

Democratic governments with freedom of expression and free speech is not compatible with the Chinese governance system

That's just western fantasy and fearmongering.

With how the EU lets use itself it’d be a shame not to take advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com