Hacker News Reader

“China is very misaligned with the US in a huge number of areas”

Can you talk more about this?

Human rights comes to mind

China generally feels as though it was 'left out' of the modernization of politics that occurred in the mid-20th Century (and they have a point).

For example, [0] The 1958 Convention on the High Seas set the rules around Maritime borders that most countries follow to this day.

At the time, the PRC was not a member of the UN, the ROC (i.e. Taiwan) was [1].

As a result, a current controversy is China's claim to large parts of the South China Sea [2]

Lots of issues like this emerge, since China sees itself as a ascendent world power who was unfairly excluded from decision making during the most critical parts of recent history.

The problem China is facing in pushing this narrative, to be frank, is that they don't exactly play nice with neighbors and potential allies, so the US happily comes in and allies itself with countries skeptical of China.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line

> The problem China is facing in pushing this narrative, to be frank, is that they don't exactly play nice with neighbors and potential allies

China is remarkably bad at diplomacy and external PR (whether it's overt or propaganda); their diplomats are mostly concerned with showing off to their bosses at home, which is why react to nearly everything with straight up insults. (i.e. "wolf warrior diplomacy")

presumably thats why they pulled one of their top diplomats recently -- a lot of questionable signals sent

> China generally feels as though it was 'left out' of the modernization of politics that occurred in the mid-20th Century (and they have a point)

I'm not sure they have a point. They were not nearly as powerful of a country back then. Here's the GDPs of several countries from 1960 to 1980[0]. I also literally have to remove the US because adding it makes it impossible to differentiate the others. 1960-1962 they were also declining. I mean we would laugh at Canada if they made a complaint about being "left out" (read: were able to participate but no one really cared) because Canada has no leverage.

To make matters worse, the analogy is more akin to being upset that your rich neighbor is not taking your financial advice while you are standing in front of all your savings that you have lit on fire and are actively searching for more cash to add. See the Korean War (1950-1953), First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Hundred Flowers Campaign (1956-1957), Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961), Sino-Soviet split (1961–1989), Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Red August, and so on. China was not a stable country at the time. It sided against the interests of the most powerful groups at the time (choosing Communism over Capitalism/Democracy), and to make matters worse didn't even align itself with the other major power that was opposing "the West" (USSR). OF COURSE China was "left out." It would have been insane to "include" them just the same way it would be insane to "include" Liechtenstein. It is also insane to be upset about no one taking you seriously when you were a nobody, even if you now became a somebody. It's frustrating, I get it, but it is a silly notion to think that your status today warrants others taking you seriously in the past. Those are two different people just as those are two different Chinas.

[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1981...

The 'winners' of WWII were given priority in the UN, and the exiled government of Taiwan represented the whole of China.

The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.'

Many more people fought for the Allies in China than those that left for Taiwan.

> The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.'

Both matter, but more importantly, both are highly correlated. But you're right that GDP is being used as a proxy for a much larger picture that is much more difficult to quantify. My point is really that at the time China was in a downturn and deeply unstable as it was remaking itself. That at that time they had no business being a major player and would be at least as silly were Canada to make a similar complaint.

Again, Taiwan, a much smaller entity was given that power on behalf of China.

Everyone agreed China should be a major player, the West just chose a government in exile to represent them.

In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't?

I encourage you to study WWII a bit deeper if you think China was merely a peripheral player.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

> In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't?

Yes, because 1) Taiwan sided with the major powers (democracy/West) and 2) one could make compelling arguments that Taiwan was more stable.

Obviously there is more to this. And my take is far from being centered around GDP. I specifically mentioned that I was using it as a proxy for a larger evaluation that was happening. I do not feel compelled to make this explicit a third time. You're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of my first comment to make a meaningful response, especially when your reference to the Second Sino-Japanese War adds to my comment, not detracts. I was just focusing on a different period. It is not a productive conversation is you ignore 80% of my claim.

I think my trouble is a lack of consistency.

1) The major powers were not all Western and Democratic (as you admit).

2) Stability is not a sufficient condition. Being a representative of the country that won WWII is. You brought in GDP, I'm just telling you that's completely irrelevant. China (as one entity) won WWII and the majority of Chinese people and GDP still existing in Mainland China after the PRC/ROC split.

3) I understand the logic as to why people in the 50's chose ROC over PRC, but I am just trying to tell you that the PRC does not agree with that logic as is their right as a sovereign nation.

Maybe where we disagree is that you assume all people who fought for the ROC in WWII fled to Taiwan (and therefore the people living in the PRC had nothing to do with winning WWII?). FWIW that is not true.

Don't follow WTO rules.

The EU is only attacked by the right in the US -- and it is not because they are a rival -- but because they have shown the success of investing in people and communities (healthcare, education, etc. etc.) over "tax cuts for billionaires".

In practical policy we are very aligned - see Ukraine etc. etc.

Then why does the NYT and WaPo swing a punch at the EU every other week? The left may be culturally more aligned, but both parties agree they hate EU trade policy.

Surely the countries in the EU do the healthcare and education investing rather than the EU itself?

The EU actually causes problems for the poorer countries because they have to be in a fiscal union with Germany.

> having a credible economic rival, even if they are extremely aligned with your political values and culture, is still a threat.

I want to push back. A threat to your status, but not necessarily a threat to the world. Best friends can also be fierce rivals. That rivalry can make them grow to be better (when they try to out do one another) just as much as it can destroy them (when they try to dismantle the other's gains). The difference is in the style of competition. If you naively think things are zero sum (for some reason this is rather popular), then you can only gain by another's loss. If you recognize that the systems are positive sum, then you can both rise and grow.

As an example, it is like how it is good for everyone that AMD is now able to compete with Nvidia. It is even good for Nvidia! Total GPU sales are going up and the advancements mean we can place them in more devices and do more with them (these make it positive sum. Sales and share price of __both__ stocks go up!). But it wouldn't be good if Nvidia or AMD were sabotaging each others hardware. That would be a net loss for everyone, including Nvidia.

The problems here are that 1) our interests are not aligned, 2) we treat the global market as zero sum (when it isn't), 3) we are jealous and would rather our neighbor be miserable with us than see them grow or work to improve ourselves to compete.