Unfortunately that hasn't really worked with China, which is why the world is starting to decouple from China; the CPP still prioritizes its institutional needs over "The People", which is ironic since they're supposed to be working for "The People."
That's probably why the CPP is scared of the people and tries to control them.
Stability is the foundation of every working relationship. Everyone wants to latch onto you when you are stable. You can even work with an adversary as long as they are stable. China had it for a while before Xi.
Most countries have yet to achieve long-term stability. Stability is super difficult to achieve.
China is actually quite predictable and with a stable (forever) leader it's even more predictable.
US poking China creates instability.
Even though any organization led by a large committee is absolutely terrible at making long-term, coherent decisions, it also means that everything moves at a snail's place and any outsider can react faster than the committee can, and decisions also never stray too far from a certain point because there are too many cooks in the kitchen. America in a nutshell.
Plus the forever leader thing only happened ~10 years ago. That's too recent. I would only ever call a country politically stable if it hasn't changed in like 100 years. The US, for better and worse, politically has barely changed in 250 years. Sucks for Americans (but not entirely) but great for the world. When Xi declared himself forever leader, that basically reset the clock back to 0 years. Plus once Xi goes out of power, that basically resets the clock again because new leader, new policy.
At the end of the day, when you have a lot of something you want to keep safe (like your business), you want to put it with the person whose situation hasn't changed in the longest time. You don't even care necessarily whether that person is good. You just want that stability.
The coefficient of trade and belligerence is about 0.2, i.e. "a doubling of trade on average leads to a 20% diminution of belligerence" [1]. And trade with China continues to grow [2]. I wouldn't read the semiconductor re-shoring as materially changing the odds of a war per se.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Solomon-Polachek/public...
And it's kind of stupid because Microchip is still having 52+ week delivery issues. ST has gained three customers that I know of becuase of this.
Fun fact: ST management panicked at the start of the pandemic, started immediately downsizing, afaik they still haven't been able to catch up to demand.
Not only is Apple not obligated to do so, they literally double down their investment as recently as 2021. In 2022 their total Chinese Suppliers were still rising. And that is excluding some suppliers slotted into other countries via different HQ strategy.
To see how many people believe Apple is doing the right thing just shows another master piece of Apple's PR.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/decoupling-is-just-going-to-ha...
All this energy could be invested in cooperating and building together. Instead, it's being wasted in preparing for yet another pointless armed conflict. It's not like we don't have enough problems already.
What stayed their hand?
But a foreign country having internal issues isn't an excuse for the US to suddenly decide it's a good time to invade it (or to threaten to invade it and destroy its factories).
Perhaps this impression is wrong, I would be happy to read any statistics that demonstrate that this is not actually true.
FTFY. China is the actively belligerent party when it comes to Taiwan. The US doesn't want to invade either one. Don't forget the ongoing Uighur genocide in Xinjiang.
Do you have anything to back this up, preferably not cherry-picking pandemic data?
Last I checked Apple had 90% of their manufacturing done in China and lost an Indian supplier this week.
Bing apparently just became the #1 search engine in China among desktop users (whatever that means).
China just came out of nowhere as the #1 car exporter.
The idea that the world will isolate China on behalf of Washington is a unipolar pipe dream.
Countries are doing it because of economic coercion.
China has banned Australian products from import (in violation of WTO rules) because of its position on Taiwan, Quad, Chinese foreign investment etc. Similarly for Sweden.
Which is one reason why EU has not been keen on a comprehensive FTA with China.
The bottom line is China wants to do business, but Washington wants China to be contained.
[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/12/1/australia-china-...
China expelling diplomats and cutting economic ties because an Australian college student said something mean or Baltic nation didn't agree with the party line on Taiwan is not wanting to do business.
Zig versus zag. The point is economic repercussions for diplomatic faux pas means you aren’t just looking to do business, you’re leveraging business as a political tool. That’s a novel risk environment compared to before Xi.
Banning Huawei over national security concerns or asking for an independent inquiry into the source of COVID is hardly offensive. And they are not excuses for refusing to abide by WTO rules and inventing reasons to prevent free and fair trade.
What is offensive is China providing a list of 14 grievances that Australia must address (e.g. supporting China's take over of Taiwan) in order to maintain a normal economic relationship.
I cited it, you just didn't bother to read it.
From a Korea perspective, the proprietorial attitude of many Chinese ("Korea used be part of China" Xi Jinping told Donald Trump), and the penumbra of nationalism in the PRC have resulted in a major shift in public opinion from 2000. Now some 80% of South Korean youth view China unfavorably, and that seems unlikely to improve in the near future.