We already have dozens of military bases surrounding China.
There's not much more to do since China is not currently attacking foreign soil.
There's not much more to do since China is not currently attacking foreign soil.
Peace in our time.
It's easy to say things like this about your geopolitical enemies, but allies get away with it all the time.
BTW war in Afghanistan wasn't illegal.
Aginst Russia they backfired spectacularly because Putin had prepared better for the sanctions contingency than Europe did.
I'm struggling to think of an example where they actually led to the desired outcome.
Let's see if Russia is a problem in 50 years :)
Russian growth is now 5.5%, higher than all Western economies. It's difficult to see what sanctions would do that they haven't recovered from already.
BTW look up North Korean economy growth after the war :) North Korea was always the rich part. It was developing so fast after the war. And somehow now the South Korea has Samsung and Kia and Subaru, and North Korea has starvation.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keun-Lee/publication/22...
The only economic bloc which cut Russia off was American allies and there's nothing Russia gets from them which can't be supplied elsewhere.
Russia switched from buying German cars to buying Chinese cars and changed the logo on their McDonalds and Starbucks branches. They now have access to inferior imitation brie and french wine is 2x the cost now but they'll probably cope.
If military spending were the only thing pushing GDP up, the deficit would be showing up in throttled consumer spending. It isnt. Indeed, if the sanctions were working as intended the military wouldnt be able to produce either, but they obviously are.
And for specialized items such as aircraft parts and chips, it forces them to do without or invent an equivalent local supply chain at enormous cost.
All that wasted money is diverted from making Russia stronger.
Russia is such a poor country compared to its neighbours that it’s very easy for them to have a lot of catch-up growth.
Both of these things worked as intended, causing USSR and China to work against each other and ultimately causing USSR to collapse. USSR was growing faster than the west early on. By 80s its economy was barely working.
It just takes time. Russia is in much worse starting condition already than USSR was in 70s, it is more isolated, it has less allies, it's further behind in tech.
If you want to believe Russia is doing fine, go ahead, it's just a very weird take.
and why do you say that?
Intervention in Afghanistan was a response to 9/11.
But US the the 'aggressor' for rolling this back?
And the US gets many allies and works through the UN to do this, but it is somehow 'illegal'?
It sounds like in your perfect world, Saddam keeps Kuwait, also gets Saudi Arabia, and the US just sits on its hands after terrorists kill thousands in NYC because being 'aggressive' is always bad no matter what.
Who is the aggressor in your mind here? Note: China don’t have any military assets off the US west coast… meanwhile then US has multi thousands of soldiers within staging distance of Chinese coast line from the very bottom to the very top.
Allowing China to prevent US or other aircraft to operate in such international waters or airspace would amount to giving them control over it, which is why it’s important to have regular freedom of navigation sailings and flights.
Chinese ships and aircraft are violating the territorial waters and airspace of other countries in the region, especially in the South China Sea. It’s annexing territory that belongs to other countries. It’s not at all the same thing.
Anyone familiar with history, recall that Mexico was bigger? Did the Chinese get involved in that conflict? I guess what we are saying is they should have to stop an aggressor annexing territory? Oh wait, but that was actual land, where as the annexing you are talking about is ocean… ocean that the US has filled with military bases. Do you think the conflict between China Vietnam and Philippines is unrelated to US activity? Maybe you should lookup a map if US military bases and perhaps you’ll change your mind in who the aggressor is.
China, except for Tibet and Korea (Both neighbouring countries) has never invaded another country. Should we look at the US? Just in that region It’s invaded Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, China directly. Philippines indirectly.
It’s quite telling that the examples you have to bring up of the US annexing territory are from over a century ago, before we had developed modern concepts of international law. We’re supposed to be past the era of annexation by force.
The area that China is annexing is not empty ocean, it’s a set of islands that belong to other nations, like the Philippines. Those are not theirs to take, and it’s a breach of international law, but their military power and UNSC veto means they can get away with it.
And, no, the conflict is not because of US activity. It’s because China, as it quite openly states in various forms including its doctrines, believes it has the right to regional hegemony over neighbouring countries. They, in turn, obviously don’t want that, so they’ve invited the US in as an ally. None of those are ‘aggressor’ moves toward China, because even the largest US military facilities in the area only have sufficient forces for defensive actions, not for an attack on mainland China.
The US didn’t invade Korea, it was part of a United Nations force protecting South Korea from attack by the north. It invaded Japan after being attacked first at Pearl Harbor. It was invited into South Vietnam, at the time under attack from North Vietnam. Laos I’ll give you, that was illegal and unacceptable. The US has never invaded China, it had a post-war force at the request of the then-government to disarm and repatriate the remainder of the Imperial Japanese Army from Manchuria. Similarly, it liberated the Philippines from the Japanese and immediately restored its pre-war democratic government. That’s not an ‘invasion’ as you cast it.
Of course of this is to say the US has always done good or is perfect. Far from it. But your whataboutism and insistence that China has done no wrong is ridiculous.
In the past two decades alone China has been in border disputes and land grabs with nearly all its neighbours, encroaching on territory in India, Bhutan, and the South China Sea. This should not be considered acceptable either.
Guess you need to look at the nations that took part in the various battles during the annexation of Hong Kong, Opium Wars etc. The US was not involved?
Didn’t say China has done nothing wrong, just if we are looking at nations that need to be reigned in. The US has done more to damage other countries sovereignty than basically the rest of the world combined. So it seems weird to focus on China…
So the US is just protecting Phillipines sovereignty… randomly? Interesting take on it. I wonder why they don’t care about Myanmar… same region… very clear cut destruction of a democracy (which was the reason they went to Vietnam…)
Or even Australia, that time they assisted in the sacking of a prime minister to protect their mining interests. Or the fact they passed laws to try to undermine nations (specifically its allies)to purchase drugs as a whole to prop up the pharmaceutical industry.
It’s not whataboutism. It’s the US is shit to everyone, and the fact that people even talk about China (unless you’re a Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino) is just falling for US propaganda.
I was referring specifically to the example you provided of US annexation of formerly Mexican territory. As far as I know the US hasn't annexed territory since 1945. Which is also when the world collectively changed its approach in an attempt to avoid great powers creating another World War, and shifted to a model where annexation by force is a bad thing. Rather have stable borders shifted by appeals to the ICJ than by rolling tanks over the borders. It has never been a perfect system, of course, but by and large it held as a set of norms until recently.
> Didn’t say China has done nothing wrong, just if we are looking at nations that need to be reigned in. The US has done more to damage other countries sovereignty than basically the rest of the world combined. So it seems weird to focus on China…
That's a very myopic US-centric view, and I think one that can only be held because there's much more accessible
> So the US is just protecting Phillipines sovereignty… randomly? Interesting take on it. I wonder why they don’t care about Myanmar… same region… very clear cut destruction of a democracy (which was the reason they went to Vietnam…)
I never said it was random. Clearly, it's also of strategic value to the US. I said it's because they were invited in by those countries, and remain only because the democratically-elected governments that host them continue to renew those agreements and alliances because it's in their interests too. Myanmar is run by a military junta that doesn't want to be an ally of the US. In contrast, South Vietnam invited the US in.
> It’s not whataboutism. It’s the US is shit to everyone, and the fact that people even talk about China (unless you’re a Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino) is just falling for US propaganda.
That's exactly whataboutism, and the fact that you think that nobody should even talk about China unless they're Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino just proves the point. Everyone has an interest in a peaceful, stable, and fair global order, and that means opposing the actions of any country that threatens it whether it's the US, China, Russia, or any other power. China's clearly stated ambitions to take over Taiwan by force, for instance, would massively and negatively impact the rest of us through the knock on effects to the global economy and the shortage of key electronic parts like chips.
But the US actually did it: Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s not nobody should talk about China, it’s that it literally hasnt done anything worth talking about compared with a whole host of countries…
If you think the view is myopic… how about you challenge it? Who’s disturbed more foreign nations than the US? Like in the history of civilisation.
Myanmar was not run by a junta, it was a democracy and they did invite the US and are desperately asking for help right now… just like Vietnam did. So what is different?
I would say because the US only wants to fuck with China and couldn’t care less about these other nations. Which you also admit is the case. What is “strategic” about protecting the Philippines? The answer is China, most specifically “containing China” - but why “contain” a country that has never expressed ill will towards you?
Is the US also containing India?
It is like people purposely pretend the US are the “Good guys” and ignore any other possibility.
If you point this out, it’s whataboutism (a made up term pretending to be a fallacy used generally to justify American exceptionalism)
The USSR (and now Russia) and China have ‘disturbed’ just as many foreign nations as the US. Both have long pursued interventionist foreign policies, covertly and overtly supporting sub-national groups that worked in their interests. Even in the most recent years we have Russian intelligence causing a string of coups throughout Africa and funding and supporting disruptive extremist groups, and China has been caught spying on the African Union’s governance structures in order to influence continental policy and coerce leaders.
It’s less publicised and less visible because, unlike the US, neither Russia nor China have a free and unfettered press and civil society who can obtain and report on leaks and other embarrassing information.
It’s not enough that Myanmar was a democracy, because soon after winning elections that administration launched a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. There’s also no strategic interest for the US there. As I said earlier, alliances happen when the two align.
The US’s strategic interest in that area is not to ‘fuck’ with China, but to preserve a rules-based order that’s open for international trade. If China is allowed to take over the entire South China Sea and other surrounding areas they can close it to any traffic whenever they want, they’ll be more easily able to take over Taiwan and maybe even countries like the Philippines, and there’ll be nothing stopping them from annexing more and more territory. We saw in the 1930s what allowing this sort of thing can lead to. I’d say it’s in all our interests, not just the US’s, that China not be allowed to simply annex more territory. I’d similarly be opposed to the US or any other country trying to annex territory by force.
China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce?
Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...?
I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity).
"Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking?
Like when the US signed the treaty that said space would not be militarised, then it created the "space force", and banned china for the ISS. Or that it wouldn't imprison people unfairly (according to both its own constitution AND its international treaties), so it created prisons on foreign soil to imprison them unfairly. Or that it helped establish the United Nations but then lied to them, and ignored them when it invaded Iraq... well and Pakistan... which no one even mentions. When it established the five-eyes then used that infrastructure to spy on its own allies.
Did you mean domestically? Like how it impeached its last president twice, has since convicted him as a felon... so he can't vote? But can still run as president? That rule based system?
Has it been? Where are the peace campaigns arguing against an invasion? The urges to use diplomatic methods and to win over the Taiwanese public for a peaceful 'reunification' if that's what they want?
> China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce?
Through both espionage[0][1][2] and economic and political coercion.[3][4][5]
>Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...?
Do you think Chinese officials or whistleblowers involved in those programmes are going to speak to American or Taiwanese media? Seriously? These leak in democratic countries because there is a domestic free press that people can speak to. Russian and Chinese officials are not going to pick up the phone to the New York Times or the Washington Post...
>I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity).
The US and other Western countries condemned the coup and instituted sanctions against the military officers involved. What more do you want them to have done, invade?
>"Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking?
This is not an American concept, it's a global one created in the aftermath of WW2's immense destruction, aiming to encourage countries to resolve disputes peacefully though diplomacy and the use of international institutions like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. And that violent interventions should follow international law and be channeled through the United Nations Security Council where the immediate principle of self defence doesn't apply. The United Nations Secretary-General often refers to the term and concept.[6][7]
The US broadly follows it, though as I've said before I regard the invasion of Iraq as being contrary to it and a black mark on the US's history and credibility. I'd say that secret CIA 'black sites' and extraordinary rendition fall in the same category and are rightly condemned. China is not following it in many cases, including Tibet, its encroachment on Bhutan, its threats and promises to invade Taiwan, and its takeover of the South China Sea. It's following a traditional 19th century view of 'might makes right' and annexation by force.
Once again, this is not a 'US good, China bad' debate as you seem so eager to turn it into. We can and should condemn any country that acts this way, whoever it might be.
[0]https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28Q1EA/
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_China–African_Union_espio...
[2]https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ajicl.2022.03...
[3]https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coer...
[4]https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-myths-and-realities-of-c...
[5]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-significanc...
[6]https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/world-needs-commitment-...
I also showed us that stopping genocide matters more than anything - more than national borders, but we still support Israel's genocide.
If NATO escalated a little more in 2008 - hundreds of thousands of people in Ukraine AND in Russia would still live.
Instead we made Putin think he can get away with it.
Also, according to Wikipedia page [1]:
> The Republic of China (ROC), which ruled Mainland China before 1949 and has been confined to Taiwan since 1949, also claims all of the Spratly Islands.
and under "Military occupations":
> Occupied by Taiwan (ROC)
> Centre Cay, Zhongzhou Reef
> Itu Aba Island, Taiping Island